CNAS
Generated by GPT-5-miniExpansion Funnel Raw 100 → Dedup 0 → NER 0 → Enqueued 0
| CNAS | |
|---|---|
| Name | CNAS |
| Formation | 2007 |
| Type | Think tank |
| Headquarters | Washington, D.C. |
| Leader title | President |
| Leader name | Amy Zegart |
CNAS
The Center for a New American Security is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank focusing on national security and defense policy. It conducts research on international relations, defense strategy, technology, and global security challenges, and engages with policymakers, military leaders, diplomats, and scholars. CNAS produces reports, hosts events, and advises officials while interacting with institutions across the United States and allied capitals.
Overview
CNAS positions itself at the intersection of strategic studies, international affairs, and defense policy, engaging actors involved with the Pentagon, White House, United States Congress, Department of State, and allied ministries. Its work commonly addresses issues related to NATO, European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Publications and events often cite frameworks associated with scholars from institutions such as Harvard University, Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale University, Princeton University, Columbia University, Georgetown University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Chicago, and University of California, Berkeley. CNAS staff and fellows frequently engage with military commands such as United States Indo-Pacific Command, United States Central Command, United States European Command, and international bodies including the United Nations and the World Bank.
History
Founded in 2007 by a cohort of defense and foreign policy professionals, CNAS emerged amid debates following the Iraq War and shifts in strategic priorities after the 9/11 attacks. Early leadership included figures who served in the Clinton administration, Bush administration, and Obama administration, and the organization grew during periods of heightened interest in force posture and grand strategy vis-à-vis China–United States relations and the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021). CNAS expanded its remit to cover emerging technologies during the 2010s as attention to cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and space policy rose alongside developments involving Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and other defense contractors. Landmark publications influenced debates over force structure, alliance cohesion, and burden-sharing during discussions tied to the NATO summit, the Quad summit, and negotiations such as the Iran nuclear deal framework.
Organization and Leadership
The institute is structured with a board of directors, senior fellows, policy analysts, research staff, and an executive team, linking practitioners with academic researchers and former officials from institutions such as the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, Department of Defense, and foreign services including the British Foreign Office and Australian Department of Defence. Leadership has included presidents and senior fellows who previously served as deputies and advisers in administrations associated with figures like Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates, James Mattis, and Susan Rice. CNAS organizes task forces and working groups drawing on expertise from think tanks such as the Brookings Institution, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Heritage Foundation, RAND Corporation, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Research and Policy Work
Research spans regional security, defense strategy, technology and innovation, and force modernization. Work products address challenges in theaters linked to South China Sea, Persian Gulf, Eastern Europe, Korean Peninsula, and Indo-Pacific dynamics. CNAS has published on topics involving 5G, quantum computing, hypersonic weapons, autonomous systems, satellite constellations, and supply chain resilience referencing companies and programs such as Qualcomm, Huawei, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and initiatives like the Joint All-Domain Command and Control concept. The center convenes panels featuring officials from the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and allied parliamentary defense committees, and collaborates with institutions involved in security assistance such as NATO Allied Command Transformation and regional think tanks including the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada and the Tokyo Foundation.
Funding and Affiliations
CNAS receives funding from a mix of foundations, corporations, and individual donors, and maintains grant relationships with philanthropic organizations such as the Gates Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, and corporate supporters including major defense and technology firms. It establishes partnerships and memoranda of understanding with universities, military educational institutions like the National Defense University and U.S. Naval War College, and international research centers such as the Royal United Services Institute, Chatham House, and the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. Funding sources and partnerships have at times informed programs on defense acquisition, technology transfer, and allied interoperability tied to procurement by firms such as Raytheon Technologies and General Dynamics.
Criticism and Controversies
Critics have questioned the influence of corporate and defense-related funding on research agendas, citing concerns similar to debates involving the Revolving door (politics) between think tanks and government employment. Commentators have compared CNAS’s funding transparency and policy positions with those of American Enterprise Institute and Center for Strategic and International Studies, and watchdogs have raised issues about potential conflicts of interest when fellows with prior service in administrations engage in advocacy around procurement or policy decisions involving contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Specific controversies have included scrutiny in media outlets and oversight hearings when policy proposals intersected with procurements overseen by congressional committees such as the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee.