The battle of ideas is escalating 

For decades, think tanks and other knowledge institutions occupied a relatively well-defined niche 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 bridges between knowledge and power. 

That model no longer completely reflects reality. 

Much more than in the past, policy debates are shaped not only by evidence and expertise but also by narratives, identity politics, mis-/disinformation and ideological mobilisation. As a result, the functions of knowledge institutions – including think tanks – have expanded significantly. 

They now engage in fact-checking and debunking mis-/disinformation. They provide a challenge function to policy-making structures, speaking uncomfortable truths to and with power. They help build consensus and identify landing zones between polarised positions. Increasingly, they shape narratives, frame policy debates and contribute to political strategy and communication. In some cases, they represent or advocate for the political community or governance model with which they broadly identify. In highly contested environments, 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 comparatively technocratic and far less polarised than national politics. In that environment, Brussels-based think tanks often positioned themselves as relatively neutral providers of expertise within a wide tent of actors broadly committed to the European project. 

That environment is changing rapidly. European integration has become far more politicised, in part because the battle over the future of pluralist liberal democracy will to a great extent be 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 did. The European Commission, constrained by its mandate, by divisions among member states and by politicised attacks on any funding provided, is rarely able to defend this ecosystem politically. 

This leaves EU-focused liberal democratic think tanks operating in a far more adversarial landscape – but with constrained or even shrinking resources. 

Illiberal actors recognised this shift early. They have invested heavily in networks of think tanks, advocacy organisations and media platforms that combine research, communication and mobilisation. These ecosystems treat ideas as instruments of political power. 

Their impact has already been significant. Illiberal think tanks played an important role in shaping the intellectual climate that enabled Brexit. They helped shape the policy agenda, personnel pipelines and narrative framing behind both of Donald Trump’s presidencies, with Project 2025 of the Heritage Foundation driving much of the agenda of Trump 2.0. 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. Undermining the institutions, narratives and knowledge ecosystems that support European integration is therefore part of a broader political strategy. 

Pro-European liberal democratic actors/forces have been slower to adapt. Many still treat think tanks primarily as neutral providers of technocratic advice. Funding models and governance structures reflect an incomplete understanding of the role knowledge institutions now play. 

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 rigour and willingness to challenge power. 

A crucial service they provide to democratic systems, including the EU, is acting as critical friends. By challenging flawed policies, exposing weak assumptions, identifying the reasons and actors prohibiting 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 have to continuously invest, including in new technologies. They need to step up their activities to counter disinformation, shape narratives, and strengthen democratic debate – all while maintaining the credibility that distinguishes them from political advocacy organisations. 

Illiberal think tanks will continue to act as political actors and ramp up their activities regardless of what liberal democratic actors do. The real question is whether democratic societies will recognise the changing role of knowledge institutions – and ensure they have the capabilities and resources to compete in the escalating battle of ideas. 

If liberal democracies fail to support the institutions that underpin informed debate, democratic resilience, and the defence of pluralist systems, they will not only be outcompeted — they will risk undermining the foundations of democratic governance.

Dr. Fabian Zuleeg is Chief Executive of the European Policy Centre. He holds a PhD in the political economy of EU accession and has worked as an economic analyst in academia, the public and the private sector. His analysis focuses on the political economy of the future of European integration.