Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Lexington Institute

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Print Friendly

The Lexington Institute is a conservative policy institute seeking to “inform, educate, and shape the public debate of national priorities in those areas that are of surpassing importance to the future success of democracy, such as national security, education reform, tax reform, immigration, and federal policy concerning science and technology.”[1]

Lexington advocates limited government and strong libertarian principles, as laid out in its mission statement: “The Institute … actively opposes the unnecessary intrusion of the federal government into the commerce and culture of the nation, and strives to find nongovernmental, market-based solutions to public-policy challenges. We believe a dynamic private sector is the greatest engine for social progress and economic prosperity.”[2]

But unlike other libertarian-leaning outfits like the CATO Institute, the Lexington Institute takes a generally favorable view of military spending. Because of its general advocacy in favor of Pentagon spending (if not always specific programs), and because it receives substantial support from military contracting companies, Harper’s magazine has called the institute “the defense industry's pay-to-play ad agency.” The magazine quoted Loren Thompson, the Institute’s chief operating officer, as saying, “I'm not going to work on a project unless somebody, somewhere, is willing to pay. This is a business.”[3] A June 2008 report from the Mobile Press-Register noted that “almost all funding for … the Lexington Institute comes from the same defense contractors who frequently have a stake in the programs that [Thompson] writes about.”[4]

Thompson has written in opposition to defense cuts by sequestration, or the automatic cuts to both military and domestic programs triggered by Congress’ inability to reach an agreement on the balance of cuts to each in 2011. In a June 2012 entry on the Institute’s “Early Warning” blog, Thompson cited an industry report claiming that substantial job losses would occur in a handful of presidential swing states if sequestration were to go through. “[O]bscure issues like sequestration of the military budget could be decisive in a tight November race,” he wrote. “That argues for doing something now to avert sequestration, rather than waiting for action by a lame-duck session of Congress after the election.”[5]

In other recent publications, the institute has proposed ways to maintain an aggressive defense posture even if sequestration cuts go through. “Achieving market-level labor costs, engaging public-private competition, moderating red tape, using appropriate contracting approaches and sensible contract lengths can meet both currently planned costs cuts and sequestration-level cuts without impacting procurement, sustainment, readiness, manning, or strategy,” said an April 2012 Lexington report. Echoing several advisers to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, the report added, “First priority in defense must be keeping ships, aircraft, and tanks ready to support a long-term strategic posture and foreign policy driven by the global threat rather than by budget limitations.”[6]


Merrick Carey and Don Soifer founded the Lexington Institute in 1998 to concentrate on eight topics: defense, homeland security, alliance relations, education, Cuba, immigration, international economics, and postal reform.[7] The institute has eight core staff members. James Andrew Courter serves as Chairman, with Merrick Carey as CEO, Loren B. Thompson as Chief Operating Officer, Don Soifer as Executive Vice President, Philip Peters and Daniel Gouré as Vice Presidents, and Constance Baroudos and Monica Kern as Program Directors.[8]

Trained as a lawyer, Courter is a former Republican congressman from New Jersey and the CEO and vice chairman of the IDT Corporation. In the House, Courter was a member of the House Services and Iran-Contra committees. He co-edited a 1986 document entitled “Defending Democracy,” which his bio says is “a collection of speeches and essays on matters of national security.”

Merrick Carey served as press secretary for Courter and Jack Kemp, and as an intelligence officer for the Naval Reserve, which included involvement in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.[9]

Loren Thompson, a former military strategy professor at Georgetown University, is a frequent media commentator on national security and weapons issues, and the head of the Source Associates consulting firm. At Lexington he “oversees security studies, the institute’s largest project.”

Daniel Gouré has primary responsibility over the Institute’s national security program. A past member of the Pentagon transition team for the George W. Bush administration, he has had corporate affiliations with Science Applications International Corporation, SRS Technologies, R&D Associates, and System Planning Corporation. Gouré was previously deputy director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ International Security Program.[10]

Of Lexington’s eight members, Thompson and Gouré write most extensively on defense issues. Gouré complements his written treatises on weapons systems with his work as a senior analyst for Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a company that the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) has accused of war profiteering.[11]

Both Thompson and Gouré have also argued for dissolving NATO and relying solely on U.S. preemption, primarily because of “different values” between Americans and Europeans.[12]

Lexington’s Philip Peters defies conservative thinking with his views on Cuba.[13] On this issue, the Lexington Institute has established connections with more left-leaning groups like the Latin America Working Group, the Center for International Policy, and the Washington Office on Latin America.[14] Peters frequently advocates lifting the embargo on Cuba and allowing Americans to freely travel to the country.[15] He has praised the Obama administration’s reforms with respect to U.S. Cuba policy but noted that they are incomplete and limited. “It is clear that the Obama Administration is not seeking a major Cuba initiative, and is far more likely to act through incremental steps than bold strokes,” he wrote in March 2010.[16]

Peters has also been a prominent advocate for a more lenient immigration policy. He criticized the Bush administration for the drop in the number of refugees allowed in the country and argues that the fear that some of these refugees might be future terrorists is unfounded due to the amount of time and bureaucratic hurdles refugees face in order to gain entry.[17]


The Lexington Institute claims an annual revenue of approximately $2.5 million.[18] Media Transparency reports that between 1998 and 2010, the Lexington Institute received $646,000 from the Smith Richardson Foundation. ExxonMobil donated $10,000 in 2002.[19]

Share RightWeb

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.


[1] The Lexington Institute, “Mission Statement,” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/mission.asp

[2] The Lexington Institute, “Mission Statement,” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/mission.asp

[3] Ken Silverstein, “Mad men: Introducing the defense industry's pay-to-play ad agency,” Harper’s, April 2010, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/04/0082895.

[4] Sean Reilly, “Analyst's switch stirs tanker talk,” Mobile Press-Register, June 9, 2008, http://www.al.com/news/press-register/index.ssf?/base/news/121300295470260.xml&coll=3.

[5] Loren Thompson, “Report On Defense Sequestration Finds Big Jobs Impact In Swing States,” Lexington Institute “Early Warning” blog, June 26, 2012, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/-report-on-defense-sequestration-finds-big-jobs-impact-in-swing-states--?a=1&c=1171.

[6] Lexington Institute, “Meeting the DoD Sequestration Level Cost Cuts Without Cutting Strategy, Programs or Readiness,” April 2012, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/meeting-the-dod-sequestration-level-cost-cuts-without-cutting-strategy-programs-or-readiness?a=1&c=1129.

[7] The Lexington Institute, “Mission Statement,” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/mission.asp

[8] The Lexington Institute, “Biographical Information,” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/bio.asp

[9] The Lexington Institute, “Biographical Information,” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/bio.asp

[10] The Lexington Institute, “Biographical Information,” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/bio.asp

[11] Daniel Gouré, “The Military Helicopter Industrial Base,” White Paper, April 1, 2005, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/532.pdf; The Center for Public Integrity, “Windfalls of War,” Science Applications International Corporation, http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=51.

[12] Loren B. Thompson, “Twilight of the Atlantic Alliance?” Issue Brief, June 30, 2003, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/alliance.asp?aid=542; Loren B. Thompson, “NATO’s Decay and the Search for a Few Key Friends,” Remarks to the Heritage Foundation Conference on Global Alliances, June 26, 2003, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/alliance.asp?aid=543

[13] Philip Peters, “The Case Against Cuba Sanctions,” Latin Business Chronicle, August 2002, http://www.escapeartist.com/efam/39/lbc_cuba.html

[14] Latin America Working Group, “Explore the Issue: U.S.-Cuba relations,” http://www.lawg.org/countries/cuba/explore.htm; Washington Office on Latin America, “Economic Shifts in Cuba,” http://www.wola.org/cuba/economic_shifts.htm.

[15] Philip Peters, “Ban undercuts our influence on Cuba,” The Dallas Morning News, May 18, 2003, http://ciponline.org/cubaforum/lexington.htm

[16] Philip Peters, “President Obama and Cuba,” Palabra Neuva, March 2010, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/cuba/cuban-triangle/palabranuevamarch2010.pdf.

[17] The Lexington Institute, “Immigration Articles for 2003 and 2004,” http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/immigration.asp?yid=2004

[18] Lexington Institute, “2009 Form 990,” GuideStar, http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2009/541/880/2009-541880642-0660115e-9.pdf

[19] Media Matters Action Network, “Conservative Transparency: Lexington Institute,” Media Matters, http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Lexington_Institute/funders?year=-

Share RightWeb

Lexington Institute Résumé

Contact Information

Lexington Institute

1600 Wilson Boulevard

Suite 900

Arlington, VA 22209

Phone: (703) 522-5828



About (as of 2012)

“It is the goal of the Lexington Institute to inform, educate, and shape the public debate of national priorities in those areas that are of surpassing importance to the future success of democracy, such as national security, education reform, tax reform, immigration and federal policy concerning science and technology. By promoting America's ability to project power around the globe we not only defend the homeland of democracy, but also sustain the international stability in which other free-market democracies can thrive.”

Selected Principals

  • James Courter: Chairman

  • Merrick Carey: CEO

  • Loren Thompson: COO

  • Dan Soifer: Executive vice president

  • Philip Peters: Vice president

  • Daniel Goure: Vice president

  • Constance Baroudos: Program director

  • Monica Kern: Program director


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.

Print Friendly

President Trump and his advisers ought to ask themselves whether it is in the U.S. interest to run the risk of Iranian withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. Seen from the other side of the Atlantic, running that risk looks dumb.