This article tries to answer two interlinked questions regarding the Global Trends Report (GTR) series, a successful and well-known example of security policy government foresight: Where and what are the gaps in the transfer of its insight to the policy realm, and who has a good chance of being influenced by its insight and why.

The insight produced by the GTR reached its final consumers – the US president, the National Security Council (NSC) and Congress – via two important nodes, political appointees and policy planning units. Other pathways were via the military to Congress and via the media or foreign actors to all final consumers. There is also a good direct connection between GTR and the NSC.

History, political decision-making and the presidential term acted as powerful bridges, linking GTR to consumers under certain conditions. GTR had to be in the right historical era to get the attention of anyone beyond its producers. It had to have political relevance for decision makers to get to all final consumers, policy planning units and political appointees. Finally, it had to arrive at the right time, in this case the beginning of the presidential term, to get to all of the above and the media.

On an institutional level, the transfer of GTR foresight insight was impeded by prohibitions set down by intelligence agencies against policy advice and against any analysis of the US, and by the disinterest of the bulk of the State Department. GTR also suffered as a result of more conceptual problems: its low political relevance, the divide between academia and political decision-making, and different views on the relationship between foresight and policy.

The research also highlighted that common understandings of central concepts facilitated the transfer, the public as an actor in the security sector was weak, understanding the meaning of time in politics was crucial, and the higher the hierarchical position of the consumer, the less important the formal origin of the information became in relation to its political usefulness.

本文试图回答有关全球趋势报告（GTR）系列的两个相互关联的问题，这是安全政策政府远见的成功且广为人知的示例：将其见解转移到政策领域的地方和差距是什么？很可能会受到其洞察力和原因的影响。

GTR产生的见解通过两个重要的节点，政治任命者和政策计划部门到达了最终消费者-美国总统，国家安全委员会（NSC）和国会。其他途径包括通过军队进入国会，以及通过媒体或外国演员进入所有最终消费者。GTR和NSC之间也有良好的直接联系。

历史，政治决策和总统任期起到了强有力的桥梁作用，在某些条件下将GTR与消费者联系起来。GTR必须处于正确的历史时代，以吸引生产者以外的任何人的注意。决策者必须与政治相关，才能接触所有最终消费者，政策计划部门和政治任命者。最后，它必须在正确的时间到达，在这种情况下是总统任期的开始，以到达上述所有方面和媒体。

在机构层面上，情报机构对政策建议和对美国的任何分析的禁令，以及大多数国务院的不满，都阻碍了GTR前瞻见解的转移。GTR还受到更多概念性问题的影响：其政治相关性低，学术界与政治决策之间的分歧以及对远见与政策之间关系的不同看法。

该研究还强调，对中心概念的共同理解有助于转移，公众作为安全部门的参与者薄弱，理解政治中时间的含义至关重要，并且消费者的等级地位越高，消费者的重要性就越低。信息的正式来源与其政治实用性有关。