[2][3] ASPI was first established in 2001 under Prime Minister John Howard to provide "policy-relevant research and analysis to better inform Government decisions and public understanding of strategic and defence issues".

The Guardian later reported that documents obtained via a Freedom of Information request showed that Defence Minister Peter Dutton overturned ASPI's council's choice of candidate to appoint Bassi, who had been a long time advisor to Liberal politicians.

[12] In 2024 the former secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Peter Varghese completed a review of government funding for strategic policy work.

ASPI receives funding from defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, Thales Group and Raytheon Technologies.

The Strategist aims to "provide fresh ideas on Australia's critical defence and strategic policy choices as well as encourage and facilitate discussion and debate among the strategy community and Australian public".

[21] In 2020, ASPI issued an apology to a researcher after falsely connecting him to the Thousand Talents Plan and China's defense industry in a report tracking Chinese universities with ties to the People's Liberation Army.

[28] Amongst its key findings, at the time of reporting, were that China leads the world in 37 out of 44 critical technologies, with Western democracies falling behind in the race for scientific and research breakthroughs.

[29] ASPI has been described by ITNews, The Diplomat and Myriam Robin in the Australian Financial Review as being one of Australia's most influential national security policy think tanks.

The Agency stated that the report "was inaccurate and contained many factual errors", which "demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of how the digital identity system is intended to work".

[41] In response, ASPI executive director Peter Jennings said the ministry's comments were an attempt to distract attention from the think tank's research into the Chinese government.

According to Hardaker, the interconnections between the defence industry and think tanks such as the ASPI "gives weapons manufacturers huge scope to influence the nation's decision-making on how it deals with China".

[45] Hugh White and former senior Department of Defence official Allan Behm have argued that ASPI has diverged from its initial role of providing independent analysis.

[48] Former Prime Minister Paul Keating described the articles as "the most egregious and provocative news presentation of any newspaper I have witnessed in over 50 years of active public life";[50] professor of history James Curran noted that the series represent a "fairly full-frontal assault on Penny Wong's [defense] policy" by influential figures within the defense establishment,[47] while Allan Gyngell, professor of foreign policy, described the articles as "war propaganda" advocating for closer military relations with the US.

He found that ASPI had published "some ground breaking analysis", including reports that had significantly influenced government policies or improved awareness of important issues.

He judged that the office was not necessary and that it was inappropriate for an Australian Government-funded think tank to be seeking to influence policy debates in the United States, with this being the role of the Embassy of Australia.