For decades, think tanks and other knowledge institutions occupied a relatively well-defined place in liberal democracies. Their role was to translate academic research into policy-relevant analysis, provide recommendations to decision-makers and convene networks of experts, officials and stakeholders. They acted as a bridge between knowledge and power.
That model no longer fully reflects reality.
Much more than in the past, policy debates are shaped not only by evidence and expertise but also from narratives, identity politics, mis-/disinformation and ideological mobilization. As a result, the functions of knowledge institutions – including think tanks – have expanded significantly.
They are now involved in fact-checking and debunking mis-/disinformation. They provide a challenging function to policy-making structures, speaking uncomfortable truths to and from power. They help build consensus and identify areas of compromise between polarized positions. Increasingly, they shape narratives, frame policy debates, and contribute to political strategy and communication. In some casesthey represent or defend the political community or model of government with which they broadly identify. In highly contested settings, they have become actors in an ideological struggle over the future of liberal democracy.
This evolution is visible in the Brussels policy ecosystem. For decades, European integration benefited from a broad political consensus. EU debates were relatively technocratic and far less polarized than national politics. In that environment, Brussels-based think tanks often positioned themselves as relatively neutral providers of expertise within a broad tent of actors broadly engaged in the European project.
That environment is changing rapidly. European integration has become much more politicized, in part because the battle for the future of liberal pluralist democracy will be largely decided at the European level. At the same time, the ecosystem supporting EU-level knowledge has weakened. Member states increasingly take the EU system for granted, but at the same time have lost faith in the EU’s ability to deliver.
Consequently, they are less willing to engage and invest in EU-focused knowledge institutions than they once were. The European Commission, limited by its mandate, by divisions between member states and by politicized attacks on any given funding, is rarely able to defend this ecosystem politically.
This leaves EU-focused liberal democratic think tanks operating in a much more adversarial landscape – but with limited or even shrinking resources.
Illiberal actors recognized this change early. They have invested heavily in networks of think tanks, advocacy organizations and media platforms that combine research, communication and mobilization. These ecosystems treat ideas as instruments of political power.
Their impact has already been significant. The illiberal think tank played an important role in shaping the intellectual climate that made Brexit possible. They helped shape the policy agenda, personnel pipeline and narrative framework behind both of Donald Trump’s presidencies, with the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 driving much of the Trump 2.0 agenda. Similar networks increasingly target debates on migration, climate policy, economic and hard security, and the direction of European integration itself.
European structures are a particular focus. For illiberal actors, the EU represents a constraint on national power. Consequently, undermining the institutions, narratives and knowledge ecosystems that support European integration is part of a wider political strategy.
Pro-European liberal democratic actors/forces have adapted more slowly. Many still treat think tanks primarily as neutral providers of technocratic advice. Funding models and governance structures reflect an incomplete understanding of the role that knowledge institutions now play.
Disinformation beyond lies: Europe is fighting yesterday’s disinformation war
For more than a decade, efforts to combat disinformation have been led by a…
4 minutes
Liberal democratic think tanks have much to learn from their illiberal counterparts, but this does not imply that they should copy the methods of illiberal actors. The greatest strength of think tanks remains their credibility – their independence, analytical rigor and willingness to challenge authority.
An essential service they provide to democratic systems, including the EU, is by acting as critical friends. from challenging flawed policiesby exposing weak assumptions, identifying the reasons and actors that stop progress, and forcing difficult debates, they ultimately strengthen democratic governance and improve policy outcomes.
At the same time, think tanks must adapt to the changing environment. They must constantly invest, including new technologies. Tthey must increase their activities to counter disinformation, shape narratives, and strengthen democratic debate—all while maintaining the credibility that distinguishes them from political advocacy organizations.
Illiberal think tanks will continue to act as political actors and increase their activities regardless of what liberal democratic actors do. The real question is whether democratic societies will recognize the changing role of knowledge institutions – and ensure that they have the skills and resources to compete in the escalating battle of ideas.
If liberal democracies fail to support institutions that support informed debate, democratic sustainability, and the protection of pluralistic systems, they will not only be defeated – they will risk undermining the foundations of democratic governance.
Dr. Fabian Zuleeg is Chief Executive of the European Policy Centre. He has a PhD in the political economy of EU membership and has worked as an economic analyst in academia, the public and private sectors. His analysis focuses on the political economy of the future of European integration.
