I don't know about FDD in particular. They certainly have their own agenda. Wikipedia suggests neoconservative thought and proponents of hawkish US foreign policy [1]. So it's not surprising them supporting the publication.

FDD may be the landing page but the authors were the actual reason I thought this could be interesting to other people. I've read some of their publications before, skimmed through the report itself and realized that they aggregated a set of issues they have previously discussed in more than one paper. There are actually not many new facts if you read Sinocism [2], Axios China [3] or Sinoskop [4] from time to time.

Generally interested, what standards need to be fulfilled that you think a source provides 'trustworthy analysis'?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Demo... [2] https://sinocism.com/ [3] https://www.axios.com/world/china/ [4] https://www.sinoskop.de/blog/ [GERMAN]

Generally, in decreasing order of importance:

1. quality and quantity of false statements on the record (if any)

2. retractions (if any)

3. accuracy and reliability of their data

4. accuracy and reliability of relayed data from third parties

Repeat for their individual contributors, affiliates, etc.

Their Wikipedia page[1] has some of their sources of funding.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Defense_of_Demo...