On Thursday, The New York Times published an op-ed headlined, “Trump is crude. But he’s right about Saudi Arabia.” Written by Michael Doran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and Tony Badran, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the op-ed offered a full throttle defense not just of Saudi Arabia but also, specifically, of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whom the CIA believes ordered the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

In a crucial paragraph, Doran and Badran argue that bin Salman is the legitimate ruler of Saudi Arabia:

Let’s imagine Mr. Trump’s critics get their wish. A replacement crown prince who rose to power under pressure of sanctions would be severely weakened, if not entirely illegitimate.

It might seem curious that someone from “the Foundation for Defense of Democracies” would support a hereditary monarch ruling over one of the most authoritarian regimes on earth. But this paradox is perhaps explained by the fact that both Doran and Bardran work for think tanks that have deep ties to Arab autocracies.

As The New York Times reported in May, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have been using American think tanks as part of an extensive lobbying effort to shore up their support in America. Two key figures in this effort are George Nader, an advisor to the ruler of the UAE and Elliott Broidy, a major Republican donor and former deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Both the Hudson Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies claim they reject any foreign funding. But as the Times reporting makes clear, Nader was able to use Broidy as a front-man for helping to fund the two think tanks in projects supporting Saudi and UAE policies: