The Pentagon vs. the Think Tanks

Pentagon's New Policy Targets Think Tanks and Conferences

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has identified a new set of adversaries: think tanks. These organizations, which conduct policy research and advocate for various ideas in the United States and allied nations, are seen as dangerous by the Pentagon. According to a recent announcement, they promote "the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the president of the United States." This claim led the Defense Department to pull out of the Aspen Security Forum, an annual conference attended by business leaders, military officers, academics, policy analysts, foreign officials, and top government leaders from both parties.

The decision was justified by the Pentagon’s focus on increasing the lethality of war fighters, revitalizing the warrior ethos, and projecting peace through strength. However, the Aspen Security Forum is not known for being a hub of extremism. This year's speakers included former CIA Director Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, and representatives from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s office, among others. High-ranking officials like John Phelan, the current secretary of the Navy, and Admiral Samuel Paparo, head of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, were also scheduled to attend.

Hegseth’s actions extend beyond the Rockies. The Pentagon has suspended participation in all such activities, effectively banning interactions with think tanks and other civilian institutions that host conferences, panels, and invite speakers. The New York Times reported that the order to pull out of Aspen came directly from Hegseth. Additionally, the ban appears to include gatherings hosted by nonprofit military associations, such as Sea Air Space, led by the Navy League, and Modern Day Marine, a similar event for the Marine Corps. The Pentagon also banned attendance at the Halifax International Security Forum, a major winter event where the Pentagon chief is typically a top guest.

Currently, it is unclear how this new policy works. Hegseth has suspended all participation subject to review by the Pentagon’s public-affairs office and general counsel. While some defense officials might eventually be allowed to attend after their requests are vetted, the process seems daunting. It is likely that this prohibition will be lifted soon, but the question remains: why did Hegseth’s Pentagon impose it in the first place?

As a former Defense Department employee, I have attended dozens of conferences at think tanks and other organizations. Based on my experience, I believe the main reasons for the ban are resentment, insecurity, and fear. Resentment stems from the perks associated with these trips, which can create internal grievances about who gets to attend and where they stay. It is possible that someone who has never been invited to such events convinced Hegseth that these meetings are unnecessary boondoggles.

Bureaucratic pettiness alone does not fully explain the policy. Think tanks often bring together exceptionally smart people, and even experienced participants must be sharp and prepared when speaking or engaging in discussions. The chance of being outclassed or embarrassed can be high for unqualified individuals in senior government roles. Hegseth himself avoided the Munich Security Conference, instead opting to show videos of himself working out with troops. While his fitness routine is commendable, it would be more beneficial if he could engage in strategic discussions at such events.

The most obvious reason for the ban is fear. Officials in this administration face risks from public statements that could draw the ire of the president. The Trump administration is known for its intolerance of dissent, and officials are wary of saying anything that might upset the president. The White House operates as an authoritarian bubble, where policies can change rapidly based on the president's moods and interactions.

Public conferences play a crucial role in the American civil-military relationship. They provide platforms for senior officials to present policies, engage critics, and help citizens understand government actions. At academically oriented meetings, members of the defense community exchange ideas, debate, and establish contacts for future research. Retired Army Colonel Jeffrey McCausland highlighted the potential damage to these exchanges, questioning how far the prohibitions will go. For example, could a history professor at West Point be restricted from attending a history conference?

Despite decades of productive engagement with such events under administrations of both parties, Hegseth’s approach seems to prioritize safety over dialogue. His tenure has been marked by several controversies, and the new directive may be a way to avoid further missteps. However, the long-term impact on relationships between the military, defense officials, business leaders, and ordinary Americans remains uncertain.

When people come together and start thinking, unexpected things can happen. By isolating itself from these exchanges, the Pentagon risks missing valuable insights and fostering a culture of self-protection rather than open dialogue.