Washington's Asia Experts Trade Think Tanks for Private Power

When Mira Rapp-Hooper spoke at a panel discussion in Tokyo last October, she wasn't representing the White House anymore. The former National Security Council senior director for East Asia and Oceania had traded her government badge for a private sector consulting role—and she's not alone.

The Great Migration from Government to Private Power

Washington's Asia policy establishment is experiencing a quiet revolution. Biden administration veterans who once crafted America's China strategy and managed alliance relationships are bypassing traditional think tanks and heading straight to private strategic advisory firms.

This month, The Asia Group (TAG) announced that Japan trade expert David Boling would join their Tokyo team. Boling brings over two decades of Commerce Department experience, including deep knowledge of U.S.-Japan trade dynamics. His move reflects a broader trend: government Asia hands are choosing speed and influence over academic prestige.

The shift makes strategic sense. While think tanks offer intellectual credibility, private advisory firms promise something more valuable in today's fast-moving geopolitical environment: *direct impact* on corporate and policy decisions.

Why Private Beats Public Think Tanks

The appeal of firms like TAG isn't hard to understand. At traditional institutions like Brookings or CSIS, producing a single policy paper can take months of committee reviews and editorial processes. At private advisory firms, former officials can deliver actionable intelligence to clients within days.

The financial incentives are compelling too. While think tank salaries rarely exceed $200,000 annually, senior advisors at strategic consulting firms can command significantly higher compensation—sometimes doubling or tripling their government salaries.

But money isn't the only draw. These former officials crave the *immediacy* of influence they once wielded in government. When a Fortune 500 company needs to navigate new China export controls or understand the implications of AUKUS for their supply chain, they want answers from someone who helped write those policies—not academic analysis published six months later.

The New Revolving Door

This trend represents an evolution of Washington's famous "revolving door" culture. The traditional path—government to lobbying firm to think tank—is being replaced by a more direct route: government to strategic advisory to government again.

The implications are significant. Unlike registered lobbyists, strategic advisors operate in a regulatory gray area. They're not directly advocating for specific legislation, but they're using insider knowledge to help clients navigate—and sometimes shape—the policy landscape.

Consider the timing: as U.S.-China competition intensifies and supply chain vulnerabilities become national security concerns, corporations desperately need guidance from people who understand both policy mechanics and geopolitical strategy. Former government officials possess exactly this combination of technical knowledge and strategic insight.

The Influence Economy's New Players

This shift is creating a new category of power broker in Washington. These aren't traditional lobbyists pressing for specific bills, nor are they academic experts publishing peer-reviewed research. They're something in between: policy entrepreneurs who monetize their government experience while maintaining plausible distance from direct advocacy.

The model is proving lucrative for both sides. Clients get unfiltered access to former policymakers' insights and networks. The advisors get to remain relevant in policy debates while earning private sector compensation.

But critics worry about the broader implications. When former officials immediately monetize their government experience, does it create perverse incentives for current officials? And when policy expertise becomes a private commodity, what happens to the public discourse that democracy requires?