SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 27 Issue: 3

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS A TECHNO-STRATEGIC DOMAIN: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF THINK TANKS ON US AND EUROPEAN AI POLICIES

Yusuf Fidan(Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi)0000-0003-4975-5845
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-22
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These disparities reflect fundamental value systems governing AI policy and highlight both obstacles to and potential areas for transatlantic cooperation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines how structural, financial, and operational differences between American and European think tanks shape the artificial intelligence (AI) policies each ecosystem helps to produce.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The core argument is that the competitive, advocacy-focused American think tank ecosystem, funded by private sector and philanthropy, fosters AI policies centered on national security and technological leadership against China.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These disparities reflect fundamental value systems governing AI policy and highlight both obstacles to and potential areas for transatlantic cooperation.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Think Tank · Artificial Intelligence Policies · United States of America

Abstract

This study examines how structural, financial, and operational differences between American and European think tanks shape the artificial intelligence (AI) policies each ecosystem helps to produce. The core argument is that the competitive, advocacy-focused American think tank ecosystem, funded by private sector and philanthropy, fosters AI policies centered on national security and technological leadership against China. Conversely, European think-tank institutions, characterized by state funding and consensus-oriented structures, prioritize ethical frameworks, digital sovereignty, and trustworthy AI development. Drawing on Schmidt’s discursive institutionalism and Haas’s concept of epistemic communities, the study treats think-tank influence as a matter of discursive register and epistemic cohesion rather than mere visibility, and applies this lens through a systematic document and discourse analysis of prominent think tanks including RAND Corporation, Brookings Institution, CSIS, Heritage Foundation, Bruegel, Chatham House, SWP, and HIIG. This research reveals that US institutions frame AI as a zero-sum geopolitical competition and speak largely to public-political audiences across an ideationally divided field, while European counterparts, operating as a more cohesive expert community addressed to officials, view it as a domain for projecting normative power globally. These disparities reflect fundamental value systems governing AI policy and highlight both obstacles to and potential areas for transatlantic cooperation.

🔖

Cite This Article

Fidan, Y. (2026). ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS A TECHNO-STRATEGIC DOMAIN: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF THINK TANKS ON US AND EUROPEAN AI POLICIES. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 27 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.53443/anadoluibfd.1850103

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (100)

  1. Abelson, D. E. (2002). Think tanks and US foreign policy: An historical perspective. US Foreign Policy Agenda, 7(3), 9–12. Retrieved October 25, 2025, from https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/fpa/fpa_nov02_abelson.pdf
  2. Abelson, D. E. (2014). Old world, new world: The evolution and influence of foreign affairs think-tanks. International Affairs, 90(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12099
  3. Abelson, D. E. (2016). Think tanks American style. In D. E. Abelson, S. Brooks, & X. Hua (Eds.), Think tanks, foreign policy and geo-politics: Pathways to influence (pp. 83–100). Routledge
  4. Abelson, D. E. (2018). Any better ideas? Think tanks and policy analysis in Canada. In Policy analysis in Canada (pp. 275–296). Policy Press.
  5. Abelson, D. E. (2018). Any better ideas? Think tanks and policy analysis in Canada. In L. Dobuzinskis & M. Howlett (Eds.), Policy analysis in Canada (pp. 275–296). Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.56687/9781447334927-016
  6. Abelson, D. E. (2024). Rethinking the role and influence of U.S. defense and foreign policy think tanks. Retrieved October 5, 2025, from https://www.e-ir.info/2024/04/17/rethinking-the-role-and-influence-of-u-s-defense-and-foreign-policy-think-tanks/
  7. Abelson, D. E., & Brooks, S. (2016). Struggling to be heard: The crowded and complex world of foreign-policy-oriented think tanks. In D. E. Abelson, S. Brooks, & X. Hua (Eds.), Think tanks, foreign policy and geo-politics: Pathways to influence (pp. 1–19). Routledge.
  8. Ahmad, M. (2008). US think tanks and the politics of expertise: Role, value and impact. The Political Quarterly, 79(4), 529–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2008.00964.x
  9. Allen, G. C. (2022). Choking off China's access to the future of AI. Retrieved October 3, 2025, from https://www.csis.org/analysis/choking-chinas-access-future-ai
  10. Allen, G. C., & Goldston, D. (2025). Understanding U.S. Allies' current legal authority to implement AI and semiconductor export controls. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Retrieved October 7, 2025, from https://www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-us-allies-current-legal-authority-implement-ai-and-semiconductor-export
  11. Allen, G., & Chan, T. (2017). Artificial intelligence and national security (Report). Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School. https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/Artificial%20Intelligence%20and%20National%20Security.pdf
  12. Arnold, T. (2024). New technologies for the Bundeswehr: Need for action due to technical innovations (SWP Comment 11/2024). Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Retrieved October 2, 2025, from https://www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/comments/2024C11_Bundeswehr_NewTechnologies.pdf
  13. Asghari, H., Birner, N., Burchardt, A., Dicks, D., Fassbender, J., Feldhus, N., Hewett, F., Hofmann, V., Kettemann, M. C., Schulz, W., Simon, J., Stolberg-Larsen, J., & Züger, T. (2022). What to explain when explaining is difficult: An interdisciplinary primer on XAI and meaningful information in automated decision-making. Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society. Retrieved May 12, 2026, from https://www.hiig.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/What-to-explain-when-explaining-is-difficult.pdf
  14. Asmus, R. D. (2003). Having an impact: Think tanks and the NATO enlargement debate. Connections, 2(1), 91–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.11610/Connections.02.1.11
  15. Bajenova, T. (2023). European think tanks as a channel of EU public diplomacy towards transnational publics. Politics and Governance, 11(3), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i3.6837
  16. Barry, P., Ke, I., Spirtas, M., Ryseff, J., Sabbag, L., Smith, G., Scholl, K., & Lumpkin, D. (2023). AI and geopolitics: How might AI affect the rise and fall of nations? (PE-A3034-1). RAND Corporation. Retrieved September 15, 2025, from https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA3034-1.html
  17. Boucher, S. (2004). Europe and its think tanks: A promise to be fulfilled: An analysis of think tanks specialised in European policy issues in the enlarged European Union. Notre Europe.
  18. Braml, J. (2016). Germany: The think and the tank. In D. E. Abelson, S. Brooks, & X. Hua (Eds.), Think tanks, foreign policy and geo-politics: Pathways to influence (pp. 101–118). Routledge.
  19. Bughin, J., Seong, J., Manyika, J., Chui, M., & Joshi, R. (2018). Notes from the AI frontier: Modeling the impact of AI on the world economy (Discussion Paper). McKinsey Global Institute.
  20. Cantarini Guerra, P. (2026). Algorithms under scrutiny: AI observatories as democratic infrastructure. Digital Society Blog, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society. Retrieved May 12, 2026, from https://www.hiig.de/en/ai-observatories-as-democratic-infrastructure/
  21. Carafano, J. J. (2015). Think tanks aren't going extinct. But they have to evolve. The National Interest. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from https://nationalinterest.org/feature/think-tanks-arent-going-extinct-they-have-evolve-14137
  22. Comunale, M., & Manera, A. (2024). The economic impacts and the regulation of AI: A review of the academic literature and policy actions (IMF Working Paper No. WP/24/65). International Monetary Fund.
  23. Cooke, D., Edwards, A., Day, A., Nair, D., Barkoff, S., & Kelly, K. (2024). Crossing the deepfake Rubicon: The maturing synthetic media threat landscape. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved September 11, 2025, from https://www.csis.org/analysis/crossing-deepfake-rubicon
  24. Coyle, D. (2020). The tensions between explainable AI and good public policy. Retrieved October 1, 2025, from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-tensions-between-explainable-ai-and-good-public-policy/
  25. Cross, M. K. D. (2013). Rethinking epistemic communities twenty years later. Review of International Studies, 39(1), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210512000034
  26. Csernatoni, R. (2024). Charting the geopolitics and European governance of artificial intelligence. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved September 19, 2025, from https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/03/charting-the-geopolitics-and-european-governance-of-artificial-intelligence
  27. Davtyan, T. (2025). The US approach to AI regulation: Federal laws, policies, and strategies explained. Journal of Law, Technology, & the Internet, 16(2), 223. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1172&context=jolti
  28. Dickow, M., & Jacob, D. (2018). The global debate on the future of artificial intelligence: The need for international regulation and opportunities for German foreign policy (SWP Comment No. 23/2018). Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Retrieved August 25, 2025, from https://www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/comments/2018C23_dkw_job.pdf
  29. Ebers, M. (2024). Truly risk-based regulation of artificial intelligence: How to implement the EU's AI Act — Standalone summary [Preprint]. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4870402
  30. Engler, A. (2023). The EU and U.S. diverge on AI regulation: A transatlantic comparison and steps to alignment. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-eu-and-us-diverge-on-ai-regulation-a-transatlantic-comparison-and-steps-to-alignment/
  31. Engler, A. (2023). The EU and U.S. diverge on AI regulation: A transatlantic comparison and steps to alignment. Brookings Institution. Retrieved October 7, 2025, from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-eu-and-us-diverge-on-ai-regulation-a-transatlantic-comparison-and-steps-to-alignment/
  32. European Commission. (2025a). European approach to artificial intelligence. Retrieved October 7, 2025, from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/european-approach-artificial-intelligence
  33. European Commission. (2025b). The AI Continent Action Plan. Retrieved October 5, 2025, from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ai-continent-action-plan
  34. European Parliament. (2024). Artificial intelligence: What think tanks are thinking (PE 760.389). European Parliamentary Research Service. Retrieved September 20, 2025, from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2024)760389
  35. European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L, 2024/1689. Retrieved October 4, 2025, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1689
  36. Ferenstein, G. (2025). Efficient government and safe innovation: A collaborative approach to artificial intelligence policy. Brookings Institution. Retrieved October 7, 2025, from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/efficient-government-and-safe-innovation-a-collaborative-approach-to-artificial-intelligence-policy/
  37. Fraussen, B., & Pattyn, V. (2024). The niche of think tanks in a consensus-seeking and neo-corporatist policy advisory system. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 90(3), 686–700. http://10.1177/00208523231211541
  38. Friedler, S. (2025). Plans to interfere with AI-generated speech are not neutral. In What to make of the Trump administration's AI Action Plan. Brookings Institution. Retrieved May 12, 2026, from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-to-make-of-the-trump-administrations-ai-action-plan/
  39. Garnett, M., & Mabon, S. (2016). Think tanks and foreign policy in the United Kingdom. In D. E. Abelson, S. Brooks, & X. Hua (Eds.), Think tanks, foreign policy and geo-politics: Pathways to influence (pp. 119–131). Routledge.
  40. Grömping, M., & Halpin, D. R. (2021). Do think tanks generate media attention on issues they care about? Mediating internal expertise and prevailing governmental agendas. Policy Sciences, 54(4), 849–866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09434-2
  41. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442
  42. Haass, R. N. (2002). Think tanks and US foreign policy: A policy-maker's perspective. US Foreign Policy Agenda, 7(3), 5–8. Retrieved October 2, 2025, from https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/fpa/fpa_nov02_haass.pdf
  43. Heim, L. (2025a). Understanding the Artificial Intelligence Diffusion Framework (PE-A3776-1). RAND Corporation. Retrieved September 28, 2025, from https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA3776-1.html
  44. Heim, L. (2025b). China's AI models are closing the gap — but America's real advantage lies elsewhere. RAND Corporation. Retrieved October 2, 2025, from https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/05/chinas-ai-models-are-closing-the-gap-but-americas-real.html
  45. Hodges, W., & Cochrane, D. (2025). A federalist approach to AI policy. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved May 12, 2026, from https://www.heritage.org/big-tech/commentary/federalist-approach-ai-policy
  46. Horowitz, M. C. (2018). Artificial intelligence, international competition, and the balance of power. Artificial Intelligence, 1(3), 36–57. Retrieved May 22, 2026, from https://muse.jhu.edu/article/964758.
  47. Horowitz, M. C. (2018). Artificial intelligence, international competition, and the balance of power. Texas National Security Review, 1(3), 36–57. https://doi.org/10.15781/T2639KP49
  48. Horowitz, M., & Scharre, P. (2021). AI and international stability: Risks and confidence-building measures. Center for a New American Security. Retrieved September 17, 2025, from https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/ai-and-internationalstability-risks-and-confidence-building-measures
  49. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
  50. Jones, E. (2024). A "CERN for AI": What might an international AI research organization address? In A. Krasodomski (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the challenge for global governance: Nine essays on achieving responsible AI (pp. 10–17). Chatham House. Retrieved October 6, 2025, from https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024-06-07-ai-challenge-global-governance-krasodomski-et-al.pdf
  51. Kahl, C. H., & Mitre, J. (2025). The real AI race: America needs more than innovation to compete with China. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved September 23, 2025, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/china-real-artificial-intelligence-race-innovation
  52. Kerry, C. F. (2025). The action plan adds fuel to the sovereign AI fire. In What to make of the Trump administration's AI Action Plan. Brookings Institution. Retrieved May 12, 2026, from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-to-make-of-the-trump-administrations-ai-action-plan/
  53. Kleemann, A. (2023). Deepfakes — when we can no longer believe our eyes and ears: Media manipulation in conflict; Challenges and responses (SWP Comment No. 52/2023). Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Retrieved October 4, 2025, from https://www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/comments/2023C52_Deepfakes.pdf
  54. Krasodomski, A. (2024). Introduction: The need to future-proof AI governance. In A. Krasodomski (Ed.), Artificial intelligence and the challenge for global governance: Nine essays on achieving responsible AI (pp. 7–9). Chatham House. Retrieved October 1, 2025, from https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/2024-06-07-ai-challenge-global-governance-krasodomski-et-al.pdf
  55. Lee, N. T. (2025). The AI Action Plan's efforts to be ideologically free will be virtually impossible. In What to make of the Trump administration's AI Action Plan. Brookings Institution. Retrieved September 27, 2025, from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-to-make-of-the-trump-administrations-ai-action-plan/
  56. Lin, Q. (2024). Navigating the technological tug-of-war: European think tanks' perspectives on the China–US tech competition. China Report, 60(3), 250–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/000944552412880
  57. Lipton, E., & Williams, B. (2016). How think tanks amplify corporate America's influence. The New York Times. Retrieved April 1, 2026, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/think-tanks-research-and-corporate-lobbying.html
  58. Little, P.M. (2016). Think Tanks and Influence on US Foreign Policy: The People and the Ideas. School of Advanced Military Studies United States Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, pp. 1-58. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1039265.pdf
  59. Makridis, C. (2025). States’ pushback against ESG finance contains key lessons for powering AI. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved May 12, 2026, from https://www.heritage.org/big-tech/commentary/states-pushback-against-esg-finance-contains-key-lessons-powering-ai
  60. Marcus, J. S. (2023). Adapting the European Union AI Act to deal with generative artificial intelligence. Bruegel. Retrieved September 18, 2025, from https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/adapting-european-union-ai-act-deal-generative-artificial-intelligence
  61. Martens, B. (2024). The European Union AI Act: Premature or precocious regulation? Bruegel. Retrieved October 2, 2025, from https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/european-union-ai-act-premature-or-precocious-regulation
  62. McGann, J. G. (2003). Think tanks and the transnationalization of foreign policy. Connections, 2(1), 85–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.11610/Connections.02.1.10
  63. McGann, J. G. (2019). 2019 Global Go To Think Tank Index report (TTCSP Global Go To Think Tank Index Reports No. 17). Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved September 27, 2025, from https://repository.upenn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/01d64c08-bba1-4632-800b-a6db531755c6/content
  64. McGeady, C., Majkut, J., Harithas, B., & Smith, K. (2025). The electricity supply bottleneck on U.S. AI dominance. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved October 3, 2025, from https://www.csis.org/analysis/electricity-supply-bottleneck-us-ai-dominance
  65. McInerney, K. (2024). Yellow techno-peril: The "clash of civilizations" and anti-Chinese racial rhetoric in the US–China AI arms race. Big Data & Society, 11(2), https://doi.org/10.1177/ 20539517241227873.
  66. Medvetz, T. (2012). Think tanks in America. University of Chicago Press.
  67. Mok, C. (2025). Trump’s new AI Action Plan looks awfully familiar. The Diplomat. Retrieved May 12, 2026, from https://thediplomat.com/2025/07/trumps-new-ai-action-plan-looks-awfully-familiar/
  68. Mügge, D. (2024). EU AI sovereignty: For whom, to what end, and to whose benefit? Journal of European Public Policy, 31(8), 2200–2225. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2024.2318475
  69. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved October 8, 2025, from https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.100-1.pdf
  70. Paskov, P., Soder, L., & Smith, E. (2025). Toward best practices for AI evaluation and governance: Expert insights on a proposal for a European Union general-purpose AI model evaluation standards task force (PE-A3624-1). RAND Corporation. Retrieved October 1, 2025, from https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA3624-1.html
  71. Pavel, B., Ke, I., Smith, G., Brown-Heidenreich, S., Sabbag, L., Acharya, A., & Mahmood, Y. (2025). How artificial general intelligence could affect the rise and fall of nations (RR-A3034-2). RAND Corporation. Retrieved September 24, 2025, from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3034-2.html
  72. Perez, M. (2016). The governance turn in EU foreign policy: Are EU think tanks out of the picture? In D. E. Abelson, S. Brooks, & X. Hua (Eds.), Think tanks, foreign policy and geo-politics: Pathways to influence (pp. 63–82). Routledge.
  73. Pilz, K. F., Mahmood, Y., & Heim, L. (2025). AI's power requirements under exponential growth (RR-A3572-1). RAND Corporation. Retrieved October 6, 2025, from https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA3500/RRA3572-1/RAND_RRA3572-1.pdf
  74. Pirozzoli, A. (2024). The human-centric perspective in the regulation of artificial intelligence. European Papers – A Journal on Law and Integration, 9(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/ 10.15166/2499-8249/745
  75. Plehwe, D. (2014). Think tank networks and the knowledge–interest nexus: The case of climate change. Critical Policy Studies, 8(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2014.883859
  76. Rich, M. D. (2002). RAND: How think tanks interact with the military. US Foreign Policy Agenda, 7(3), 22–26. Retrieved September 20, 2025, from https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/fpa/fpa_nov02_rich.pdf
  77. Schmidt, V. A. (2006). Democracy in Europe: The EU and national polities. Oxford University Press.
  78. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342
  79. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326.
  80. Shamir, A., & Negele, M. (2025). RAND Europe's response to the EU Cloud and AI Development Act call for evidence (CT-A4156-1). RAND Corporation. Retrieved October 5, 2025, from https://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/CTA4156-1.html
  81. Sherman, J. (2019). Essay: Reframing the U.S.–China AI "arms race": Why this framing is not only wrong, but dangerous for American policymaking. New America. Retrieved August 15, 2025, from https://www.newamerica.org/cybersecurity-initiative/reports/essay-reframing-the-us-china-ai-arms-race/
  82. Shkurti Özdemir, G., & Üstün, K. (2024). ABD'nin yapay zekâ politikalarının geleceği ve Türkiye'ye etkileri [The future of US artificial intelligence policies and their implications for Türkiye] (Analiz No. 411). SETA. Retrieved October 8, 2025, from https://www.setav.org/assets/uploads/2024/09/p411.pdf
  83. Siegmann, C., & Anderljung, M. (2022). The Brussels effect and artificial intelligence: How EU regulation will impact the global AI market [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.12645
  84. Smith, J. M., & Burack, B. (2025). Trump must protect American AI from China. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved May 12, 2026, from https://www.heritage.org/china/commentary/trump-must-protect-american-ai-china
  85. Spitz, S., Züger, T., & Mosene, K. (2023). A gender perspective on artificial intelligence (AI) and the tech sector. Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society. Retrieved May 12, 2026, from https://www.hiig.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/HIIG-PP-en-Mexico-2023-Spitz-et-al.pdf
  86. Spring, B. (2002). The Heritage Foundation: Influencing the debate on missile defense. US Foreign Policy Agenda, 7(3), 32–34. Retrieved April 12, 2026, from https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/fpa/fpa_nov02_spring.pdf
  87. Stanzel, V., & Voelsen, D. (2022). Diplomacy and artificial intelligence: Reflections on practical assistance for diplomatic negotiations (SWP Research Paper No. 1/2022). Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Retrieved September 29, 2025, from https://www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/research_papers/2022RP01_Diplomacy_and_AI.pdf
  88. Stephenson, O., Langevin, C., Siegel Singh, C., & Gerhardt, K. (2025). What’s progress and what’s not in the Trump administration’s AI action plan. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved May 12, 2026, from https://fas.org/publication/trump-administrations-ai-action-plan/
  89. Stone D. (2013). Knowledge Actors and Transnational Governance: The Private-Public Policy Nexus in the Global Agora. London: Springer
  90. Swaminathan, N., & Danks, D. (2024). Application of the NIST AI risk management framework to surveillance technology [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.15646
  91. Talbott, S. (2002). The Brookings Institution: How a think tank works. US Foreign Policy Agenda, 7(3), 19–21. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/fpa/fpa_nov02_talbott.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
  92. The White House. (2022). Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. Executive Office of the President of the United States. Retrieved October 7, 2025, from https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/
  93. The White House. (2025a). Removing barriers to American leadership in artificial intelligence. Retrieved October 4, 2025, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/removing-barriers-to-american-leadership-in-artificial-intelligence/
  94. The White House. (2025b). America’s AI Action Plan. Retrieved May 12, 2026, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Americas-AI-Action-Plan.pdf
  95. Veale, M., & Borgesius, F. Z. (2021). Demystifying the draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Computer Law Review International, 22(4), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.9785/cri-2021-220402
  96. Villasenor, J. (2025). The problems with California's pending AI copyright legislation. Brookings Institution. Retrieved October 1, 2025, from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-problems-with-californias-pending-ai-copyright-legislation/
  97. Waters, E. (2025). Artificial knowing. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved May 12, 2026, from https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/artificial-knowing
  98. Wirtschafter, V. (2025). For AI to make government work better, reduce risk and increase transparency. Brookings Institution. Retrieved October 9, 2025, from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/for-ai-to-make-government-work-better-reduce-risk-and-increase-transparency/
  99. Zhang, W., Han, N., & Liu, Y. (2024). Research on the Cognitive Characteristics of U.S. Think Tanks Regarding China’s Artificial Intelligence and Its Implications. Electrical & Electronic Engineering Research, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.37420/j.eeer.2024.004
  100. Züger, T., & Pothmann, D. (2023). The AI transparency cycle. Digital Society Blog, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society. Retrieved May 12, 2026, from https://www.hiig.de/en/ai-transparency/