upgrade
upgrade

📵Technology and Policy

Influential Tech Policy Think Tanks

Study smarter with Fiveable

Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.

Get Started

Why This Matters

Understanding the landscape of tech policy think tanks is essential because these organizations fundamentally shape the rules governing how technology intersects with your daily life—from privacy protections and free speech online to AI regulation and cybersecurity policy. When you're tested on technology policy, you're not just being asked to name organizations; you're being evaluated on your understanding of how different ideological frameworks, research methodologies, and advocacy strategies influence the policy outcomes that govern the digital world.

These think tanks represent distinct approaches to the central tension in tech policy: balancing innovation with protection. Some prioritize civil liberties and individual rights, others emphasize economic competitiveness and growth, and still others focus on long-term existential risks or national security implications. Don't just memorize which organization does what—know what perspective each brings to policy debates and how their approach shapes their recommendations.


Civil Liberties and Digital Rights Advocates

These organizations approach tech policy primarily through the lens of protecting individual freedoms in the digital age. Their core assumption is that technology can threaten fundamental rights unless actively safeguarded through policy and legal action.

Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT)

  • Policy-focused advocacy—works directly with lawmakers, industry leaders, and civil society to craft legislation protecting digital rights
  • Open internet champion that emphasizes maintaining democratic values in technology governance
  • Bridge-builder between stakeholders, making it influential in bipartisan policy discussions on privacy and platform accountability

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

  • Legal advocacy powerhouse—provides direct legal support to individuals and organizations facing technology-related civil liberties challenges
  • Grassroots mobilization through public campaigns on issues like encryption, surveillance, and free expression online
  • Litigation strategy sets legal precedents that shape how courts interpret digital rights, giving it outsized influence on case law development

Compare: CDT vs. EFF—both defend digital civil liberties, but CDT emphasizes policy engagement and stakeholder collaboration while EFF focuses on litigation and public advocacy. If an exam question asks about organizations that directly shape legislation through insider engagement, CDT is your answer; for legal challenges and public campaigns, cite EFF.


Data-Driven Research Organizations

These institutions prioritize empirical research and nonpartisan analysis over advocacy. Their influence comes from providing the factual foundation that other actors—policymakers, advocates, and journalists—use to make arguments.

Pew Research Center

  • Public opinion authority—conducts rigorous polling on how Americans perceive technology, privacy, and social media
  • Nonpartisan positioning means its data is cited across the political spectrum, making it a trusted baseline for policy debates
  • Trend tracking reveals how attitudes toward technology shift over time, essential for understanding the political feasibility of policy proposals

Brookings Institution

  • Centrist policy heavyweight—one of the oldest and most influential think tanks, known for in-depth empirical research across policy domains
  • Convening power through events that bring together policymakers, scholars, and industry leaders to shape mainstream policy discourse
  • Technology and Innovation Program produces analysis on AI governance, platform regulation, and digital economy issues

RAND Corporation

  • Government-adjacent research—originally created to advise the U.S. military, maintains strong connections to federal policymakers
  • National security lens shapes its approach to emerging technologies, emphasizing strategic implications of AI, cyber capabilities, and critical infrastructure
  • Scenario planning methodology helps policymakers anticipate long-term consequences of technology decisions

Compare: Pew Research Center vs. Brookings Institution—both provide empirical research, but Pew focuses on measuring public attitudes while Brookings offers policy recommendations based on expert analysis. Use Pew when discussing what the public thinks; cite Brookings for what experts recommend.


Innovation and Economic Competitiveness Advocates

These organizations view technology policy primarily through an economic lens. They argue that smart policy should promote innovation, competitiveness, and growth rather than restrict technological development.

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF)

  • Pro-innovation advocacy—explicitly argues that technology advancement drives economic growth and should be policy's primary goal
  • Federal R&D investment is a core focus, pushing for increased government funding in research and development
  • Competitiveness framing positions U.S. tech policy in terms of global competition, particularly with China, making it influential in industrial policy debates

Compare: ITIF vs. EFF—both engage in tech policy advocacy but from opposite starting points. ITIF prioritizes innovation and economic growth, sometimes accepting trade-offs on privacy or regulation; EFF prioritizes civil liberties, sometimes accepting slower innovation. This contrast illustrates the fundamental tension between innovation-first and rights-first approaches in tech policy.


Ideologically Distinct Perspectives

These organizations bring explicit ideological frameworks to tech policy debates. Understanding their philosophical foundations helps predict their positions on emerging issues.

Cato Institute

  • Libertarian framework—consistently advocates for limited government intervention in technology markets and maximum individual freedom online
  • Anti-regulation stance challenges government overreach in areas like content moderation mandates, surveillance, and antitrust enforcement
  • Internet freedom focus aligns with free-market principles, arguing that market competition rather than regulation best protects consumers

New America Foundation

  • Progressive-leaning policy innovation—emphasizes equity, inclusion, and addressing power imbalances in the digital economy
  • Open Technology Institute within New America focuses on internet freedom, surveillance reform, and broadband access
  • Economic opportunity lens connects technology policy to broader concerns about inequality and democratic participation

Compare: Cato Institute vs. New America Foundation—both advocate for "internet freedom" but mean different things by it. Cato emphasizes freedom from government regulation; New America emphasizes freedom from corporate power and ensuring equitable access. This distinction reveals how the same terminology can mask fundamentally different policy priorities.


Long-Term and Global Security Focus

These organizations examine technology policy through the lens of existential risk, national security, and geopolitical strategy. Their time horizons extend beyond immediate policy debates to consider transformative and potentially catastrophic scenarios.

Future of Humanity Institute (FHI)

  • Existential risk research—focuses on how advanced technologies like AI and biotechnology could pose civilization-level threats
  • Long-termist philosophy prioritizes ensuring humanity's long-term survival and flourishing over near-term policy wins
  • AI safety pioneer that has shaped the emerging field of AI alignment research and influenced how policymakers think about advanced AI governance

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

  • Geopolitical technology analysis—examines how technology shapes international power dynamics and national security
  • Cybersecurity expertise makes it a go-to resource for policymakers addressing state-sponsored hacking, critical infrastructure protection, and cyber warfare
  • Global perspective distinguishes it from domestically focused think tanks, emphasizing international cooperation and competition in technology governance

Compare: FHI vs. CSIS—both address technology risks but at different scales. FHI focuses on long-term existential threats from transformative technologies; CSIS addresses near-term geopolitical and security challenges. FHI asks "Will AI end civilization?"; CSIS asks "How does AI change the U.S.-China relationship?"


Quick Reference Table

ConceptBest Examples
Civil liberties and digital rightsEFF, CDT, New America
Nonpartisan empirical researchPew Research Center, Brookings, RAND
Pro-innovation economic focusITIF
Libertarian/limited governmentCato Institute
Progressive/equity-focusedNew America Foundation
National security and geopoliticsCSIS, RAND
Existential risk and AI safetyFuture of Humanity Institute
Legal advocacy and litigationEFF

Self-Check Questions

  1. Which two organizations both focus on digital civil liberties but use fundamentally different strategies (policy engagement vs. litigation)?

  2. If a policy debate centers on whether the U.S. government should increase R&D funding to compete with China technologically, which think tank's research would most directly support that position, and why?

  3. Compare and contrast the Cato Institute and New America Foundation's approaches to "internet freedom"—how do their ideological frameworks lead them to different policy conclusions?

  4. An FRQ asks you to evaluate different perspectives on AI regulation. Which think tanks would you cite to represent (a) an innovation-first view, (b) a civil liberties view, and (c) an existential risk view?

  5. Why might a policymaker consult Pew Research Center data before consulting Brookings Institution analysis—what distinct function does each serve in the policy research ecosystem?