Truman National Security Project Faces Financial Strain and Leadership Upheaval

The Truman National Security Project, a Washington-based 501(c)(4) membership organization that recruits and trains progressive national security professionals, is confronting simultaneous financial shortfalls, staff reductions, and governance disputes that have prompted some members to consider building an entirely new organization, according to POLITICO [POLITICO]. The Truman Project is a national security and leadership development organization based in Washington, D.C., whose network includes roughly 2,000 veterans, frontline civilians, policy experts, and political professionals. It was founded in 2004 by international relations scholars Rachel Kleinfeld and Matthew Spence. As a 501(c)(4), the organization is not required to disclose its donors publicly, though it has historically received outside grants; past funders have included Herbert and Marion Sandler, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Ploughshares Fund.

The immediate trigger for member concern is a leadership transition executed this month by the Truman board. The board appointed Kelly Dietrich as CEO and Sam Scanlon as senior vice president, while simultaneously terminating the two remaining staff members who had survived prior rounds of downsizing, according to POLITICO [POLITICO]. The abrupt dismissals generated member backlash visible in internal listserv communications reviewed by POLITICO [POLITICO]. Dietrich acknowledged resource constraints and outlined a narrowed organizational focus in comments to POLITICO: "We can't be all things to all people. We have limited resources, and we need to focus on our mission," he said, describing that mission as building a network of national security and foreign policy experts ready to serve at the local, state, federal, and non-governmental levels [POLITICO]. The leadership shuffle is the latest in a series; Tony Johnson had been appointed President and CEO effective Aug. 1, 2024, reflecting what public records show is at least a second leadership change within roughly 12 months.

Dozens of members convened this week to assess options after the board's announcement, according to POLITICO [POLITICO]. The gathering, which included results from a membership survey, produced three proposals: create a new organization, merge with an existing group, or attempt to stabilize Truman in its current form. No decision was reached [POLITICO]. Member grievances center on what participants describe as inadequate governance, failure to incorporate member input into board decisions, and questions about financial management [POLITICO]. An additional fracture runs along policy lines, including disagreement over whether and how the United States should continue military assistance to Israel in the context of ongoing operations in Gaza [POLITICO]. The latter dispute reflects a broader tension in the progressive national security community between those who favor a more interventionist posture and those pressing for conditionality on security assistance, a debate that has no single statutory anchor but touches on the Arms Export Control Act, the Foreign Assistance Act, and Leahy Law provisions governing military aid.

The organizational distress carries implications beyond Truman's membership rolls. The network functions as a talent pipeline for Democratic administrations, congressional staffs, and executive branch agencies. Truman describes itself as the nation's only organization that recruits, trains, and positions a new generation of progressives to lead on national security, with alumni running for office, advising presidential and congressional campaigns, drafting legislation, and assuming leadership posts across government. Ivo Daalder, who served as U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO from May 2009 to July 2013 under President Barack Obama, framed the network's structural value in comments to POLITICO: such organizations are "good for attracting the next generation into the field" and "can help fill the hundreds and sometimes thousands of jobs in the Executive Branch and to identify people to work on Capitol Hill," describing it as part of a broader "feeding system" [POLITICO]. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks, and former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta hold emeritus membership in the organization.

The Truman Project's difficulties arrive at a structurally difficult moment for left-of-center national security organizing. The Democratic Party faces midterm elections this year and a 2028 presidential cycle with no incumbent to consolidate around, leaving national security networks without a clear electoral focal point or government patron. The persistence of internal disagreements over Israel policy and the continued prominence of figures associated with the Biden administration compound the organizational challenge. POLITICO first reported on Truman's struggles in October of last year [POLITICO]. The current situation, including dues-refund demands from some members, suggests the dispute has moved beyond internal debate into questions about the organization's basic viability. Whether the membership settles on reform, merger, or a new vehicle will determine whether the institutional knowledge embedded in Truman's 20-year network remains intact heading into the next period of Democratic opposition.