Latest in National Security News
Get up-to-date national security news from our reporters
Pause in federal funding puts maritime industry at risk of falling further behind
Industry experts expressed concern after funding for maritime infrastructure is paused
read more
GOP bill attempts to gradually privatize VA care
Top Republican officials have proposed a bill that could accelerate their efforts to privatize VA care
read more
Chinese influence on American college campuses concerns lawmakers despite decreasing numbers of Chinese students
Chairman James Risch raised concerns about Chinese influence in academia at U.S. schools.
read more
Kash Patel disavowed some of Trump’s pardons and claimed FBI will be independent at confirmation hearing
Senators expressed concern over Patel’s loyalty to Trump and the potential political weaponization of the FBI.
read more
Watch: Senators examine China’s presence in the Panama Canal during Commerce Committee meeting
Outsized Chinese influence could violate a treaty between the U.S. and Panama.
read moreConcerns mount during hearing on China’s presence in the Panama Canal
WASHINGTON — Experts struggled to provide evidence of China’s operational control in the Panama Canal at a congressional hearing on Tuesday but acknowledged an increase in Chinese infrastructure around the waterway.
With Chinese companies currently operating ports on each side of the canal, Democrats and Republicans who sit on the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation shared similar desires to limit China’s economic power in the region. Overall concern for the issue, however, seemed to somewhat mirror party lines, with nearly double the number of Republicans attending the hearing as Democrats.
A professor and Executive Director of Antonin Scalia Law School, Eugene Kontorovich, stressed that the neutrality clause within the 1977 treaty between the U.S. and Panama requires Panama to maintain exclusive control over the canal. He said that Panama has “potentially” violated parts of the treaty, “but it’s impossible to say definitively without knowing more.”
Kontorovich said the U.S. maintains the preemptive authority to intervene on matters related to the canal, stating that each party has the right to use armed force to enforce the treaty, though such a decision “should not be arrived at sort of rashly.”
Federal Maritime Commissioner Daniel Maffei said the committee was “understating” the problem of China’s global influence over maritime commerce.
“You’re onto something, but if you’re just focusing on Panama, that’s only part of it,” he said. “I don’t believe China currently has control over the Panama Canal.”
The hearing came after President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions that the U.S. should reclaim the Panama Canal, a push to end Panama’s control over the essential waterway for the last 26 years.
“We have been treated very badly from this foolish gift that should have never been made,” Trump said in his inaugural address. “And Panama’s promise to us has been broken.”
Senators posed few questions about whether the U.S. should regain control of the canal, focusing instead on national security threats and curbing China’s economic power.
Kontorovich noted that if the U.S. determined Panama violated part of the treaty and decided to cancel the agreement, Panama would likely still retain control over the canal. “Cancellation of the treaty would not necessarily reverse that concession,” he said.
Trump has also said American ships are being severely overcharged, but witnesses repeatedly discredited this claim.
“I think the charges and the fees are less of an issue because they don’t discriminate across countries,” Kontorovich said. “We pay more because we use more.”
Since its completion in 1914, the Panama Canal has proven essential for U.S. commerce, currently accounting for about 40% of U.S. container shipping travels.
“There certainly wasn’t a definitive answer of whether they felt it was in violation or not,” Sen. Tim Sheehy (R–Mont.). “So that’ll really be up to the Senate to decide, and the President to decide, if Panama’s in violation or not.”
Witnesses, lawmakers stress cybersecurity threats from American adversaries in House hearing
WASHINGTON – Republicans and Democrats on the House Committee on Homeland Security on Wednesday warned that China has positioned itself to undermine U.S. infrastructure via cyber warfare should it decide to do so.
“Should we enter into a conflict with the P.R.C., the Chinese Communist Party is ready to shut down our essential services, our communications, our energy grid, our maritime ports and our water systems,” Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said in his opening statement.
His Republican colleague from Texas, Rep. Michael McCaul, said China can infiltrate America’s key infrastructure remotely.
“One of the most frightening things to think about is this ability to preposition malware on critical infrastructure to give them the capability to turn the switch off at any given time and bring darkness to the entire East Coast or to ports in New Orleans or Houston,” he said.
Over and over again, four cybersecurity experts emphasized the threat posed by foreign adversaries, especially China, but also Russia, North Korea and Iran.
“How crazy would we go if we found 20 satchels of explosive strapped to different electrical power grids or port cranes around our country and could attribute it to China or Russia?” Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, senior director of the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said in his testimony. “But somehow in cyberspace, they get a pass. That’s not right.”
Montgomery pointed out that the Chinese government devotes about 60,000 people to its cyber efforts, while, in contrast, the U.S. government employs only about 6,400 people in the offensive side of its Cyber Mission Force.
Lawmakers and witnesses also addressed the vulnerability of state and local entities to cyberattacks.
“State and local governments have struggled to adequately defend their networks, exposing them frequently to cyberattacks and putting critical public infrastructure at risk,” said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.).
She expressed her support for the reauthorization of the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program, which is set to expire in September.
Brendon Wales, vice president for Cybersecurity Strategy at SentinelOne, said that state and local entities are frequently targeted, especially by ransomware groups.
“State and local government agencies are the closest to the American citizens,” Wales said. “So disruptions at the state and local level are ones that people feel quickly.”
Those agencies must improve their outdated technology so that they can resist cyberattacks, said Kemba Walden, president of the Paladin Global Institute and former acting National Cyber Director.
Later in the hearing, lawmakers clashed over the mandate of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Congress created the agency primarily to combat cyberthreats. Its mission also includes combating misinformation and disinformation, a role which it fulfilled during the most recent election cycle. Republicans in Congress have recently criticized that role.
Secretary of homeland security nominee Kristi Noem, in her confirmation hearing last week, claimed the agency’s efforts to combat disinformation amounted to manipulation of the American public. She called for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to be downsized, an idea which Democratic lawmakers pushed back on at the hearing.
“Part of the problem here is that even though C.I.S.A.’s misinformation and disinformation activities represent less than one-tenth of 1% of its budget, Republicans have tried to cut 25% of the budget,” Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) said.
For Republicans’ part, Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) accused Wales, who previously served as acting director of C.I.S.A., of censorship.
But lawmakers were ultimately united in their concern over the scale of the cyberthreats posed by American adversaries.
“The United States faces an incredibly dangerous and growing threat landscape with regard to cybersecurity,“ said Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.).
Cabinet nominees’ support for surveillance law reignites privacy concerns, experts say
WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump’s cabinet hearings continue to crawl ahead, many of his nominees have noticeably aired their support for Section 702, a surveillance law allowing the government to monitor non-Americans outside the country without a warrant.
At last week’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Trump’s pick for CIA Director John Ratcliffe cited renewing Section 702 as one of his top priorities. Pam Bondi, the president’s nominee for Attorney General, called the law a “very important tool.”
The provision has also emerged as a lightning rod in Tulsi Gabbard’s bid for Director of National Intelligence after she reversed her hardline stance in support of the surveillance tool.
For close to two decades, Section 702 has played a consistent role in America’s playbook in collecting foreign intelligence and countering terrorist movements. As it comes up for reauthorization next year, the law’s overwhelming support seen in Trump’s impending cabinet, however, renews concerns over the provision’s penchant for surveilling Americans too, experts say.
The communications database of Section 702 is vast and ever-growing, amassing hundreds and thousands of emails, texts and phone calls from foreign nationals. In the process of its information collection, the system also gathers communication exchanges between U.S. residents and business entities with foreigners.
That has often raised questions for many Americans over how much of their digital privacy is fully under the government’s nose.
“You have a law that is not supposed to apply to Americans that is collecting information from Americans that otherwise you need a warrant to get, because it was collected incidentally through this program,” said Chip Gibbons, the policy director of Defending Rights & Dissent, a national civil liberties organization.
Only in rare cases can the FBI use the database to initiate investigations into U.S. residents and companies without first acquiring a warrant — including in cases when there are probable causes for evidence of a crime or untapped foreign intel.
Even so, FBI officials have been previously caught misusing the law, conducting warrantless backdoor searches on Americans.
In 2020 and 2021, the FBI enlisted the database in thousands of investigations into crime victims, Jan. 6 riot suspects and people arrested at the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, according to the Washington Post.
More recently, U.S. lawmakers have appeared to float the idea of spying on Pro-Palestinian protesters across college campuses for having potential ties with Hamas, which the U.S. government classifies as a terrorist organization, the Wired first reported.
“Its renewal was sold in part behind closed doors as being needed to spy on pro-ceasefire protesters,” Gibbons said, referring to when Section 702 was authorized for a renewal in 2024.
The U.S. District Court East District of New York ruled on Tuesday that backdoor searches under Section 702 ordinarily require a warrant, notching a major win for civil liberty advocates.
“I hope it will push the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to understand that the data that they are helping to accumulate can’t be used for domestic law enforcement purposes without a warrant,” said Matthew Guariglia, a senior policy analyst at the digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation. “I also hope that it will change the minds of a lot of people in Congress.”
Some lawmakers have familiarly advocated for additional security measures, ahead of their decision next year on whether to reauthorize the law.
“It’s an important capability that requires rigorous oversight,” Sen. Jon Ossof (D-Ga.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Medill News Service.
Ossoff has previously suggested the need for a warrant requirement to Section 702. His Republican colleagues on the committee have frequently brushed aside those discussions during the latest round of Senate confirmation hearings.
“It’s basically looking at things overseas, not in the United States,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said at Ratcliffe’s committee confirmation hearing.
While all of that has transpired, Trump — who first stoked debates over Section 702 when he claimed the tool was used to spy on his campaign during his first administration — has not commented recently on its reauthorization.
“KILL FISA, IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHERS. THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN!!!” Trump wrote about a year ago on X, urging House Republicans to spike a bill for the law’s reauthorization.
Trump’s return to office only spells more uncertainty at what his administration might bode for Section 702, experts predict.
“In an administration that is potentially hell-bent on punishing political opponents, that is an incredibly scary prospect,” Guariglia said. “But that’s also the fear, regardless of the administration, is that we know when given the reins to a tool of mass surveillance, you can use it any way you want.”
Guariglia also warned that some Democrats who helped reauthorize Section 702 can find the decision backfiring on them. As part of Trump’s crackdown on immigration, he noted that intelligence agencies can even harness information from the database to vet asylum seekers — a ploy to deny legal entries into the country.
“Democrats gave access to private communications of potential immigrants to the federal government, which we could easily see being misused to vet, you know, a person’s personal politics or their sexuality or their gender identity,” he said.
In his parting speech to mayors, Biden says his administration’s investment in cities will last
WASHINGTON – On his last business day in the White House, President Joe Biden told mayors that investments his administration made will continue to help cities thrive for years to come.
“When we act together there’s not a damn thing we can’t do. In America, anything is possible,” he told the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which represents 1,400 cities.
Despite Biden’s sanguine pitch to cities, some of the mayors were concerned that President Donald Trump, whose political base is rural areas, would stop federal funds from continuing to flow to cities.
In his final speech as president, Biden reflected on the last four years, which began during the pandemic, and his accomplishments with America’s mayors.
Biden began his presidency with the Build Back Better Act which provided a million affordable housing units. Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act aimed to spend $780 billion through 2031. helping to bolster America’s economy.
“Four years later our nation and our cities emerged stronger,” Biden told the mayors.
In 2021, President Biden also signed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, authorizing more than a trillion dollars for transportation and infrastructure spending. That same year, according to The Tax Policy Briefing Book, local governments received $133 billion directly from the federal government.
“One of the most important decisions that I made was to send money directly to you,” Biden said. “You, [mayors], control the outcome.”
Mayors agreed that the Biden administration had benefited cities.
“We saw such incredible commitment to cities across America from this administration,” said Salem, Mass. Mayor Dominick Pangallo. “As a mayor, to see him departing by reminding us about all that has been done…[and the] strong foundation that has been laid has been really powerful.”
There is “tremendous uncertainty” as the Trump administration enters the White House, said San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, second vice president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
“Mayors are the front line of holding our communities together,” said Tim Keller, mayor of Albuquerque, N.M., a Democrat. “[Biden’s] message was wonderfully positive but I think underneath it is some anxiety about what might be happening in our cities because of the transition [between presidents].”
In his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order pausing the disbursement of any federal funds and placing federally funded programs in cities at risk.
But some mayors were upbeat about Trump’s presidency.
Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt, vice president of the Conference of Mayors and a Republican, echoed those sentiments, adding he is “pretty excited” to work with Scott Turner, the nominee to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development. “We don’t care about parties,” he said.
In his parting address, Biden highlighted how investment in America during his presidency will have long lasting effects that will save Americans money, create new jobs, and grow communities.
Biden also touched on other important topics such as women’s rights and climate change.
“The equal rights amendment is the law of the land now!” he said. “The 28th amendment to the Constitution, now!”
“I think jobs when I hear climate,” the President said.
Biden concluded his speech with a message of encouragement. He described how the “magic of America” makes way for one thing: possibility. “Our cities are places for a second chance,” he told the mayors.
“Keep working together,” Biden said. “We need you, we need you, we need you.”
Ratcliffe breezes through nomination hearing for CIA director
WASHINGTON – John Ratcliffe’s nomination hearing for CIA director on Wednesday was largely amiable as Republicans and Democrats of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee primarily sought confirmation that Ratcliffe would uphold the basic duties of the job. Questions were cordial, except for some light pressure by Democrats.
In his opening remarks, Ratcliffe, a former Texas representative and director of national intelligence during the tail end of President-elect Donald Trump’s first term, highlighted the threats of China and Russia, and said that the U.S. must stay ahead of its adversaries, especially in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. He also emphasized his commitment to keeping the agency apolitical.
“We will produce insightful, objective, all-source analysis, never allowing political or personal biases to cloud our judgment or affect our products,” he vowed.
He faced pushback from Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), who questioned Ratcliffe’s motivations for the 2020 release of a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, while he was director of national intelligence. The decision to release the report was widely seen as aiding then-president Trump because it was released the same day as the first 2020 presidential debate.
“It strikes me that in releasing politically sensitive intelligence,” Ossoff said, “you might consider that doing so on the day of the presidential debate…might reasonably draw the question of whether or not there was some political impetus.”
Ratcliffe sidestepped the accusation, claiming not to recall releasing the report on the day of the debate.
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) continued Ossoff’s line of questioning.
“My understanding is (the report) was rejected by Democrats and Republicans on this committee as having no factual basis and putting Russian disinformation into the public sphere,” he said. He pressed Ratcliffe on whether he would have, in hindsight, handled the release of the report differently.
Ratcliffe was unsure, admitting that he didn’t think he did everything perfectly, but pointing out that many of his decisions had “aged well.”
Committee Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) frequently sought to move the hearing along, imploring members to stick to their allotted time as he fidgeted with his gavel.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) requested Ratcliffe’s support in continuing investigations into the phenomenon of “Havana Syndrome,” which has afflicted U.S. officials working abroad. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) sought his commitment to making the CIA a safe place to work in the face of “the scourge of sexual assault.”
Cotton promptly adjourned the open hearing after questions concluded; a classified hearing was scheduled for later that day. Ratcliffe is widely anticipated to pass the committee vote expected on Monday afternoon.
State Department says Hamas will not control Gaza after ceasefire
WASHINGTON — After Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire in Gaza Wednesday and the release of some hostages, the United States remained determined to prevent Hamas from governing Gaza again, according to State Department Spokesman Matthew Miller.
According to Miller, the US had made it clear from the start of negotiations that one of the main conditions is ensuring Hamas does not return to power in Gaza.
“We hear that from countries across the region that you cannot have a terrorist organization that is committed to the destruction of Israel that has launched this horrific conflict that has resulted in the death of more than 45,000 Palestinians,” Miller told journalists during his press briefing.
After 15 months of war, the ceasefire agreement brought some hope that the bloodshed could end. During the attack on Oct. 7, more than 1,200 people were killed in Israel by Hamas-led militants. In 15 months of war, over 46,000 Palestinians were killed as a result of Israel’s attacks.
Miller said it was crucial that neither Israel nor Hamas takes power in Gaza. The parties “who we have talked to about contributing financial support, about contributing security support to Gaza, are in any way going to be willing to step up and do that if they see either a future where Gaza is dominated by Israel or if it’s dominated by Hamas,” he said.
President Joe Biden first proposed the framework for the deal in late May last year and ultimately received unanimous approval by the UN Security Council. Miller said that Hamas had been the main obstacle in reaching an agreement, especially in July and August last year, when the US thought they were getting very close to a deal.
“We saw Hamas around that point, just decide that they weren’t going to negotiate off of their position anymore. They had a position, they weren’t going to budge. They weren’t going to move at all. And we were still at the table. Israel was still willing to be at the table. Hamas wasn’t,” said Miller.
There were also periods of times, Miller added, when Hamas was unable to negotiate because they lacked leadership.
Miller ended by wishing farewell to the reporters because it was expected to be his last briefing. Some reporters used their phones to take pictures with him.
Democrats press Hegseth during Secretary of Defense confirmation hearing Tuesday
WASHINGTON — In a tense confirmation hearing Tuesday, Democrats grilled Pete Hegseth on women’s roles in the military and questioned the veteran’s qualifications for the position of Secretary of Defense, sparking irritation from some Republican senators.
The tension between the senators on the U.S. Committee on Armed Services emulated the audience’s energy. Supporters for Hegseth, a former Fox News host, clapped and cheered, some wearing hats and t-shirts to show support. Protesters also attended and disrupted the hearing several times before being carried out by police.
Democratic senators cited reports about Hegseth that included accusations of alcohol abuse in the workplace, sexual assault and financial mismanagement at Vets For Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America. They also questioned his lack of experience running a large organization.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), probes Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth during his confirmation hearing before the Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 14, 2025. (Joshua Sukoff/Medill News Service)
Military veteran and Sen. Joni Ernst (R–Iowa), asked if Hegseth would support women continuing to have the opportunity to serve in combat roles.
“Women will have access to ground combat roles,” Hegseth said. “Given, the standards remain high, and we’ll have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded.”
Hegseth said that standards in the military had been lowered to meet quotas and promote inclusion.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.), said commanders do not have quotas for women in the infantry.
Hegseth’s answers on women in combat roles offer a drastic shift following his remarks in a Nov. 7 interview that included, “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), highlighted Hegseth’s “very, very big about-face.”
“This hearing now seems to be a hearing about whether or not women are qualified to serve in combat and not about whether or not you are qualified to be Secretary of Defense,” Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D–Ill.), said to Hegseth during her questioning.
Democrats on the committee repeatedly voiced their disappointment that Hegseth did not meet with them before the official hearing, a break from precedent.
“It should be clear to everybody that he avoided meeting with all of us,” Sen. Mark Kelly (D–Ariz.), said after the hearing. “If he would have met with us ahead of time, we could have maybe had better questions that would have worked better for him.”
Some Republican senators apologized to Hegseth for some of the questions their Democrat colleagues were asking, offering the nominee softball questions ranging from what he loves about his wife to how many push-ups he can do. Others focused their questions on implementing specific programs and policies.
The Committee is set to vote on Hegseth’s nomination Monday. If Hegseth receives a simple majority, the nomination will go to the Senate floor for a vote later this month.
“If he doesn’t get those votes, it’s going to be due to the nasty smear campaign they’ve been launching on him since he accepted the nomination,” said Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R–Fla.), “I would also caution every single senator that’s not going to play ball, if you are a Republican and you’re voting against Pete Hegseth, you will face a challenge and a primary in your next election cycle.”
The only US-Russia nuclear arms control treaty is nearing its end. What’s next?
Donald Jensen recalled the unease he felt as he boarded a plane bound for Pskov, Russia, in 1988 to visit eight Soviet missile bases, part of a groundbreaking arms control effort following decades of Cold War brinkmanship.
Months earlier, the United States and Soviet Union had signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in December 1987. The agreement committed both nations to eliminate ground-launched, mid-range nuclear missiles by 1991—the first arms reduction treaty of its kind—and introduced unprecedented verification measures, including onsite inspections.
A young foreign service officer, Jensen was among the first 10 Americans sent to the Soviet Union to verify compliance.
“As Americans coming to Moscow, we didn’t even know on the first inspection—which I believe was July 1, 1988—whether we would be shot down or what,” he said.
But the risk paid off. The inspection helped establish and rebuild some trust.
Jensen recalled a small structure with a door on one of the bases. One of his friends said he had been arguing for 15 years about what it contained. “So we wrote a report to open it up, and they did. And you know what was in there? Lizards.”
“So they didn’t cheat,” he added, laughing with relief.
Now, three and a half decades later, the countries appear to have reversed progress on nuclear arms control, and the future is increasingly uncertain.
President-elect Donald Trump pulled out of the INF Treaty in 2019, accusing Russia of failing to comply with the pledge. Russia followed shortly after. Onsite inspections stopped in 2020 and never resumed. The last remaining strategic arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia—the New START Treaty—is set to expire on Feb. 5, 2026. Negotiations for a new one haven’t started, and experts fear the two countries are running out of time.
“It makes things very uncertain and unpredictable, and that could lead to an unstable situation,” Robert Einhorn, a senior fellow in the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative at Brookings, said.
Not enough time to re-negotiate
The New Start Treaty remains the last strategic arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia. It sets the limit for deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550 and caps the number of carriers at 800, with just 700 of them allowed to be deployed.
Allowing the agreement to expire would create a regulation vacuum. But the two countries haven’t been able to kickstart the negotiation process, in part because of Russia’s outcry over U.S. support for Ukraine.
“The United States has urged Russia to begin discussions of strategic stability and what might succeed the expiration of New START, but Russia hasn’t been interested,” said Einhorn, who previously served as the U.S. Department of State special advisor for nonproliferation and arms control.
In a written response to the U.S. from Dec. 2, 2023, obtained by Arms Control Today, the Russian Foreign Ministry deemed Washington’s proposal to launch a bilateral dialogue about succeeding arms control framework “completely inappropriate” and “absolutely untimely,” citing Washington’s lack of interest in a “mutually acceptable settlement of the current crisis” in Ukraine and its unwillingness to consider “Russia’s security concerns.”
Moscow’s response echoed the sentiment of the countries’ last negotiations on nuclear arms control.
“In February 2022, as the war was starting, there was the last round of negotiations between the U.S. and Russia on this potential Framework Agreement. The Russians brought in lots of issues that have to do with, for example, the NATO relationship with Ukraine,” said Xiaodon Liang, a Senior Policy Analyst on Nuclear Weapons Policy and Disarmament at the Arms Control Association.
Even if Moscow and Washington resolve their disagreements over Ukraine under the new administration, experts say the countries would still not have enough time to create a treaty before this one expires.
“It would be overly optimistic to believe that solutions would be found before the expiration of New START,” Einhorn said.
For example, the New START negotiations reportedly lasted 15 months before the document’s signing in 2010.
“That’s really not enough time, and it hasn’t been enough time for quite a while,” Liang added.
The only viable solution in the current timeframe is reaching a temporary agreement between the countries to continue following the New START limitations until a new framework is finalized, both Liang and Einhorn agree.
The U.S. and Russia could say that they will abide by the numerical restrictions of New START on an informal, non-binding basis, giving the countries additional time to work out a formal successor to the treaty, Einhorn said.
“Neither side would be obligated to keep to those levels,” he added.
A new nuclear arms race is possible but disadvantageous for Moscow
The absence of a formal treaty, even if coupled with informal understandings, leaves the nations free to reassess their nuclear strategies, raising fears that the world is teetering on the brink of a new, high-stakes arms race.
But Russia is unlikely to be the one to start it, Liang said.
The U.S. could increase the number of deployed warheads without having to spend a lot of money buying new missiles because its launchers have the capacity to upload more than Russian ones, he explained.
That could increase the U.S. stockpile to a “much higher number” than Russia’s, he said.
If the two countries were to arm their delivery systems to accommodate the maximum number of possible warheads, the U.S. could increase the number of deployed strategic warheads to 3,570 on 715 strategic launchers. In contrast, Russia could increase the number of its deployed warheads to 2,629 on 533 existing launchers, according to a 2023 report by the Federation of American Scientists.
“So for Russia, there’s a reason not to start that down that path,” Liang said.
The country’s declining war economy is another factor that could undermine the ability to expand its arsenal.
The Kremlin has been unable to expand production fast enough to replace conventional weapons at the rate they are being lost on the battlefield, with around half of all artillery shells used by Russia in Ukraine now coming from North Korean stocks. The country is expected to face severe shortages in several categories of weapons, leaving little budget to pursue a costly process of expanding a nuclear arsenal.
Even maintaining and modernizing the current arsenal inflicts high costs for the country: Russia spent $37.3 billion on it over the past five years, according to the 2023 International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons’ report.
While expanding the nuclear arsenal seems unfavorable to Russia, it has been considered in Washington.
Senior Director for Arms Control, Disarmament, and Nonproliferation at the National Security Council Pranay Vaddi said in his June 2024 remarks that enhancing U.S. nuclear capabilities and posture was “incredibly important to rejuvenating strategic arms control.”
With America’s administration set to change, it is difficult to predict the future direction of these conversations.
“A new U.S. administration will have to conduct its own nuclear posture review and decide what will be necessary to strengthen deterrence, and there’s some who believe that the United States cannot rely on the strategic capabilities that it’s permitted under New START,” Einhorn said. “They believe that the United States may need to increase its strategic capabilities to deter both Russia and China.”
But Liang remains optimistic.
“I think the U.S. and Russia both have good reasons to want an agreement … to put a line underneath the relationship so that it doesn’t fall any further than it already has,” he said, referring to both countries’ concerns “about nuclear use and the nuclear arms race arising out of the Ukraine war.”
“So that is the first priority that we hope the Trump administration will take up and that the Russians will hopefully be receptive to,” Liang added.
House Task Force hearing investigating Trump’s assassination attempts explodes into shouting spree
WASHINGTON — Emotions ran high as lawmakers grilled U.S. Secret Service Acting Director Ronald L. Rowe Jr. on the agency’s security failures leading up to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump on July 13.
Thursday’s hearing was the final meeting for the Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Donald J. Trump before the release of their final report about the two attempted assassinations of Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, and in West Palm Beach, Florida, on Sept. 15.
Rowe testified as the solo witness, acknowledging that “July 13 was a failure.”
“We did not meet the expectations of the American public, Congress and our protectees,” Rowe said.
On July 13, Trump was injured in his right ear after being shot by Thomas Crooks, a 20-year-old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. Crooks fired eight rounds from an AR-15 rifle from the roof of a nearby building. The attack also resulted in the death of one attendee and left two others critically injured.
Chairman of the Task Force Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., pinpointed three key areas of failure with the July 13 assassination attempt: planning errors that led to confusion among local law enforcement partners, public access to the building during the rally and a lack of rapid communication between Secret Service personnel.
Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., said, “It’s just wild to me that in 2024, our nation’s premier law enforcement agency on July 13th was using text messages on their personal cell phones, literally sending emails in some cases to deliver real-time information, and scribbling messages on paper and not using a system.”
Other representatives criticized the culture of the Secret Service.
“Your guys showed up that day and didn’t give a shit!” Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn, said. “This is a leadership issue.”
When Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, asked Rowe why he was pictured behind Vice President Harris, President Joe Biden, President-elect Trump and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer at a 9/11 remembrance event, even though he wasn’t the special agent in charge of the detail that day, the exchange quickly evolved into a screaming match.
Rowe yelled, “Do not invoke 9/11 for political purposes!”
After the hearing, Fallon said that Rowe was the one “politicizing” the 9/11 remembrance event.
“That’s a bunch of bullshit. He could have been there to respect 9/11 as every American wants to and not interrupt [the security detail],” Fallon said.
Despite becoming defensive over his appearance at the 9/11 event, Rowe owned up to Secret Service’s “failures” at today’s hearing.
“The terrorist, the nation state actor, the sniper, the lone wolf gunman — they must be lucky once, but the men and women of the Secret Service must be perfect every time,” Rowe said.
The Task Force is set to release its final report within the next few days.
Holocaust Survivors’ Compensation At Stake in Supreme Court Case
WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court Justices signaled uncertainty over whether survivors of the Hungarian Holocaust and their heirs could seek monetary compensation from property confiscated during the genocide in a case Tuesday.
Over 560,000 Hungarian Jews, more than two-thirds of the country’s pre-war Jewish population, were killed during the Holocaust, with the Hungarian government actively collaborating with the Nazis. In 1944, the Hungarian government declared Jewish-owned valuables part of the national wealth and confiscated property, including cash, art and jewelry.
In 2010, 14 survivors and their heirs filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia against the Hungarian government and its national railway, MÁV, accusing them of aiding Nazi atrocities and stealing property.
Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), foreign nations are generally immune from U.S. lawsuits, but exceptions exist. Through the so-called “expropriation exception,” defendants are subject to suit if any of the taken property is present in the U.S. as commercial activity or owned in part of a foreign state which is involved in commercial activity with the U.S., according to the American Bar Association.
The respondents asserted that Hungary profited from the liquidation of the assets through the “commingling” of the property into the country’s government funds.
The judges expressed uncertainty over how to feasibly trace the assets over the 75-year period, using hypotheticals to question the attorneys on their interpretations of the law.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett gave an analogy of stealing Justice Neil Gorsuch’s car, selling it, and then buying a painting with the cash, to question Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General Sopan Joshi about the definition of “exchanging” as it is worded in the FSIA.
“Twenty years later, I sell it, and then I buy a beach house. Would we really say that I’ve exchanged Justice Gorsuch’s car for the beach house?” Barrett said. “What I’m trying to figure out is why any of that is an ‘exchange’ once we go beyond the first step.”
The United States, who appeared in court as amicus curiae and supported the petitioners, argued that ruling in favor of the respondents may open the floodgates for foreign nationals to sue the U.S. government for expropriation cases.
Justice Samuel Alito questioned Joshi on if there were plausible causes for foreign countries or nationals to sue the U.S. in retaliation.
“I’m not saying that’s going to happen. I’m saying it risks it happening,” Joshi said in response.
Director of the Loyola Justice for Atrocities Clinic Rajika Shah co-wrote an amicus brief submitted by The 1939 Society, an organization of Holocaust survivors and descendents. Shah called the United States’s argument “insulting.”
“If the United States ever committed anything anywhere near approaching the atrocities of the Holocaust, I would be absolutely delighted to see claims being brought in any forum… or any other country around the world,” Shah said. “That argument just simply cannot hold any water whatsoever.”
Other justices, including Justice Elena Kagan, seemed skeptical about overruling the expropriation clause of the FSIA.
“Doesn’t this provide a roadmap to any country that wants to expropriate property?” Kagan asked. “In other words, just sell the property, put it into your national treasury, and insulate yourself from all claims for all time?”
The Supreme Court’s decision is not expected to be released until mid-2025.
Experts speculate potential Russian response to Kyiv’s use of Western weapons
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv issued a warning on Wednesday morning that Russia might launch a “significant air attack,” closing the embassy and recommending employees to shelter in place, with at least two other Western embassies—Greece and Italy—joining in.
The warning came on the day Ukraine used UK-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missiles to strike military targets inside Russia for the first time, according to media outlets citing Ukrainian and Western officials and local footage. On Tuesday, Ukrainian forces used U.S.-made ATACMS, or Army Tactical Missile Systems, to strike into Russian territory for the first time, following the long-sought green light to do so from President Joe Biden.
Russia has so far responded with foreboding statements and a change to the country’s nuclear doctrine.
“We will be taking this as a qualitatively new phase of the Western war against Russia,” Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said at a news conference on Tuesday. “And we will react accordingly.”
The threat came amid Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent changes to the country’s nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and enshrining Russia’s right to respond to “aggression by any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear one” in what appears to be a direct reference to the Biden administration’s action.
As of Wednesday afternoon, no “significant air attack” has come. In a press conference, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said the embassy will return to normal on Thursday, but “there is always a threat” of more strikes.
Some appear skeptical about the escalation of the Russian response.
“I think believing that Russia is somehow going to do something more than they’ve already done is a misplaced notion, just because they’re already attacking Ukraine in so many different ways,” said James Goldgeier, Brookings Institution visiting fellow.
Russia is fighting a war to destroy Ukraine, and they’re already doing everything they can to achieve this objective, so I think they’re just going to continue on,” added Goldgeier, who previously served as director for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian affairs in the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton.
Other experts think the Kremlin might respond with attacks outside Ukraine, alluding to the possibility of sabotage in Europe.
“The horizontal escalation that Russia can do, especially with sabotage in Europe, is certainly something that we have to keep in mind,” said Liana Fix, a fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Kremlin has long been accused by Western officials of fighting a shadow war in Europe. Most recently, two undersea cables carrying internet data deep in the Baltic Sea were damaged this week, drawing warnings from European governments of possible Russian “hybrid warfare” targeting global communications infrastructure.
Nuclear Response
So far, Russia’s response “on paper” has been limited to the changes to nuclear doctrine, Fix added. But there appears to be an agreement among experts that Moscow will not deploy its nuclear arsenal quite yet.
“Its credibility, when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons, is significantly damaged, and has been damaged over the last two years,” Fix added. “Russia has argued again and again that it would do it, but again and again, this has turned out a bluff, and the lower the threshold becomes in a doctrine, the more difficult it is to make this doctrine actually credible.”
Charles Kupchan, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, agreed.
“I don’t think the Russians are going to use nuclear weapons, even though we saw, over the last few days, a lowering of the threshold on the use of nuclear weapons,” he said.
Goldgeier explained there isn’t “a lot of military utility” for Putin to use atomic weapons.
“I think that the costs to Russia and to him for using nuclear weapons would just be so enormous, I think the level of international condemnation would be huge,” he said.
Trump’s shadow looms as Ukraine allies mark 1,000 days of the war
WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, Nov. 19, Ukraine marked 1,000 days since Russia launched its full-scale invasion with a military milestone—its first use of the U.S.-manufactured Army Tactical Missile Systems to strike into Russian territory.
The move came days after President Joe Biden’s administration approved Kyiv’s long-sought demand to use American-manufactured weapons to strike deep into Russia.
Shortly after, Russian President Vladimir Putin formalized changes to the country’s nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and enshrining Russia’s right to respond to “aggression by any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear one” in what appears to be a direct reference to the Biden administration’s action.
As tensions escalate and uncertainty looms over the future of the conflict, U.S. and Ukrainian officials face the delicate task of balancing their advocacy for Ukraine with attempts to curry favor with President-elect Donald Trump.
“I look forward to working with President Donald Trump to rebuild the deterrence that the Biden-Harris regime has wandered into endless one-sided war, one with Ukrainian sovereign borders,” Joe Wilson (R.-S.C.), the U.S. Helsinki Commission Chair, said in an opening statement at the commission’s hearing to acknowledge the war’s milestone on Tuesday.
Still, Wilson expressed his support for continuing and accelerating U.S. support of Ukraine, diverging from Trump’s national security approach.
“Unprecedented restrictions that should have never been applied to an ally have led tragically to countless Ukrainian deaths, and have put the world in greater danger than ever before,” Wilson said, adding that “peace through strength is ensuring that Ukraine can strike legitimate military targets within Russia.”
Key Trump allies, such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and the president-elect’s son Donald Trump Jr., have accused President Joe Biden of trying to start World War III by lifting the restriction. Trump himself has not commented on the development, but has criticized the amount the U.S. has spent on supporting Ukraine and pledged to end the war swiftly, repeatedly saying he could end it “in a day.”
Steve Cohen, (D-Tenn.) a member of the Helsinki Commission, noted that Wilson’s outspoken support for Ukraine might hurt his political future under the president-elect’s government.
“At this time, he’s seeking a higher position on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which I hope he gets, but some of his support for Ukraine may be used against him because of the change of administrations,” Cohen said.
“I don’t have much hope for the continued American support which Ukraine needs, but they’ll have mine, and I think they’ll have most of the Democrats, and hopefully they’ll have Republicans like Joe Wilson too,” Cohen added.
Ukraine and Trump
Ukrainian officials speaking at the hearing also appeared preoccupied with getting in Trump’s good grace.
“We cannot call a pause in the war ‘peace.’ We cannot say that justice has been solved while Russian war criminals are still smiling,” Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a message pre-recorded specifically for the hearing.
The statement appears to be a criticism of the mounting pressure to pursue peace talks with Moscow. Among the main advocates for the negotiations is Trump’s incoming administration: Vice-President JD Vance outlined a plan that critics call an equivalent to a Russian victory, with Moscow retaining de facto control over the Ukrainian territory it occupies now and Ukraine left with no membership to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, which it has sought after.
“This war must end in accordance with international law, with peace built through strength, so that Russian forces can never again shatter peace anywhere, anywhere in the world,” Zelenskyy added, paying tribute to Trump’s own pledge. The president-elect has promised “peace through strength” in announcements of several key nominees, and Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also used the phrase.
This statement is the latest in a series of Zelenskyy’s apparent attempts to win favor with Trump. He told Ukrainian broadcaster Suspilne on Friday, Nov. 15, that Trump’s reelection as president means the conflict will “end faster,” playing to Trump’s “dealmaker” reputation. The Ukrainian leader was also among the first to congratulate the president-elect on his victory, saying he appreciates “President Trump’s commitment to the ‘peace through strength’ approach in global affairs.”
Foreign Minister of Ukraine Andrii Sybiha also attempted to strike a balance between opposing Trump’s alleged plans to strike a deal with Russia and building rapport with the president-elect.
“When facing such a brutal and lawless regime as Putin’s Russia, there can be no alternative to peace through strength,” Sybiha said in testimony at the hearing, honoring Trump’s national security approach.
“Ukraine will not accept any initiative that suggests compromises on our sovereignty or territorial integrity,” he added. “Rewarding Russia with territorial gains will not restore peace, but instead provoke further aggression.”
.
Medill Today | February 20, 2025