CnasEdit
CNAS, short for the Center for a New American Security, is a Washington, D.C.–based think tank that concentrates on national security, defense policy, and foreign policy strategy. Since its founding in the mid-2000s, CNAS has become a fixture in policy debates on deterrence, alliance management, and defense modernization, with a particular emphasis on how america can maintain military and technological advantages in a shifting global landscape. Its work is widely cited by policymakers, lawmakers, and practitioners who seek practical, capability-based approaches to national security challenges. To understand its role, it helps to view CNAS as part of a broader ecosystem of policy analysis, advocacy, and education that aims to translate complex security problems into actionable recommendations for government and industry.Center for a New American Security
CNAS operates within the traditional think-tank model: it hosts events, publishes research, and runs fellowship programs that bring together former government officials, military officers, and security experts. Its agenda has typically stressed the importance of credible deterrence, a robust defense budget, and resilient alliances as ways to deter rivals and reassure partners. In this sense, CNAS has contributed to the policy debate over how the United States should balance deterrence, capability development, and diplomacy in a world of accelerating competition with major powers.think tank defense budget NATO China
Origins and development
CNAS was established in 2007 by prominent figures in the defense policy community, notably Michèle Flournoy and Kurt Campbell, who sought to build a think tank focused on practical national security challenges facing the United States in the 21st century. The founders argued for a new generation of strategic thinking that emphasized ready forces, agile defense procurement, and strong alliances. Over time, CNAS expanded its footprint through a broader roster of senior fellows, policy experts, and rotating fellows who contribute to reports, briefings, and public dialogue about how the United States should adapt to changing threats and opportunities in areas such as Asia, cyberspace, and energy security.Michèle Flournoy Kurt Campbell Center for a New American Security policy fellow
Mission, focus, and methods
Policy focus: CNAS concentrates on deterrence, modernization, and alliance resilience. It analyzes how military modernization programs, innovative battle networks, and force readiness intersect with diplomatic strategy to protect national interests. Key areas include great power competition, alliance management, and defense innovation.deterrence great power competition defense modernization
Methods: The organization uses wargames, scenario planning, and policy analysis to explore plausible futures and to test how different policy choices might play out. Publications cover cross-cutting topics such as the defense industrial base, supply chains, space and cyber security, and regional security dynamics in Indo-Pacific theaters.wargaming cyber security space policy
Organization: CNAS runs a program-based structure with a mix of researchers, policy fellows, and events designed to inform both the public and decision-makers. Its work often emphasizes practical recommendations—things that can be implemented through budget decisions, alliance commitments, and modernization plans—rather than abstract theorizing. Fellows and associate scholars contribute to a steady stream of reports, op-eds, and testimony before legislative bodies.policy fellows fellow timeline of defense policy
Policy positions and influence
From a practical security perspective, CNAS advocates for:
Credible deterrence and alliance cohesion: Maintaining a capable military posture, interoperable allied forces, and steady commitment to key partners is viewed as essential to preventing conflict and preserving regional balance of power. deterrence NATO Indo-Pacific China
Defense modernization and resilience: Advocating for modernization of weapons systems, advanced training, and upgraded defense capabilities to ensure U.S. and allied forces can counter evolving threats, including in the cyber and space domains. defense modernization military procurement
A pragmatic approach to great-power competition: CNAS emphasizes preparing for long-term strategic competition with major powers while pursuing diplomacy where feasible and maintaining a secure and resilient industrial base. great power competition China Russia
Alliance management and burden sharing: The center argues for stronger allied funding for common defense responsibilities and clearer expectations for partner nations, so that the burden of deterrence does not fall disproportionately on the United States alone. NATO burden sharing
CNAS has influence through testimony, policy briefings, and reports that policymakers from both parties reference in shaping budgets, strategy documents, and congressional debates. It often positions itself as a bridge between the security establishment and lawmakers who want grounded, implementable options. Critics and supporters alike point to CNAS as part of a broader ecosystem that shapes the national security conversation in ways that align with mainstream, center-right viewpoints on defense and foreign policy. United States national security policy
Controversies and debates
Like many prominent policy institutes, CNAS sits at the center of debates over influence, funding, and framing:
Funding and independence: Critics contend that corporate or donor support can subtly shape research priorities or the framing of policy questions. CNAS and similar organizations respond by stressing editorial independence, transparent disclosure, and a mission focused on national security results rather than special interests. The question of influence is standard in the think-tank world and is part of ongoing debates about how research should inform policy without becoming captive to funders. think tank defense budget
Wariness of hawkish labeling: Some critics on the political left argue that CNAS’s emphasis on deterrence, readiness, and allied burden sharing can harden interventionist or aggressive postures, particularly toward rivals such as China or in regions like the Indo-Pacific. From a practical defense perspective, proponents argue that a robust, credible deterrent and a clear alliance framework reduce the likelihood of unnecessary conflict and protect national interests. The debate often centers on how to balance diplomacy and deterrence, and on how to manage the transition from conventional to innovative warfare capabilities. Critics who characterize CNAS as merely hawkish are sometimes accused of oversimplifying or caricaturing the center’s broader defense-focused agenda. From a right-of-center vantage, the emphasis on strong alliances and credible deterrence is presented as sensible realism in a dangerous world, even as some critics call it out as an overstatement of threat or cost. In some discussions, proponents also push back against what they view as reflexive dismissals of strong defense policy as “too aggressive” or “not civilian-friendly.” If critics invoke terms tied to broader cultural debates, CNAS proponents may note that strategic considerations about deterrence and security are distinct from domestic cultural debates, and that the edge of policy must be measured and responsible. deterrence China Indo-Pacific
Woke criticisms and why some readers find them misguided: Some commentators frame CNAS as representative of a particular segment of the security establishment, accusing it of prioritizing interventionist or elite consensus thinking over broader voices. Proponents counter that CNAS’s work reflects real-world security challenges and practical policy options, not ideological fashion. They argue that focusing on deterrence, alliances, and modernization addresses concrete threats rather than chasing abstract labels. In this view, criticisms that rely on broad ideological slogans may miss the nuance of concrete policy tradeoffs, the bipartisan history of many defense decisions, and the legitimate differences among scholars about how to deter aggression while avoiding unnecessary conflict. policy China NATO