Latest in National Security News
Get up-to-date national security news from our reporters
Germany’s Likely Next Chancellor Pushes for Independence from the U.S., Signaling Shift in U.S.-German Relations
Amid Trump’s controversial statements on Europe and NATO, Germany considers becoming more independent from the United States, weakening ties with one of its closest allies.
read more
Power vacuum leaves space for China, threatening national security
Lawmakers and witnesses debate strategies to ensure U.S. National security against the threat of China.
read more
“Delinquent” and “obsolete:” Trump’s rhetoric threatens transatlantic stability of NATO
President Trump has called for an abrupt increase in defense spending and made threatening statements towards allies that are undermining trust in NATO at a critical moment in the alliance’s history. What does it mean for NATO’s future?
read more
As Trump Shifts on Ukraine, Europeans Rally In Fear That They Now Face Danger
Europeans rally in Washington and raise concerns that Trump’s ties to Putin can lead to Russia’s invasions to their countries.
read more
Former VA inspector general sues for his job back
Former VA Inspector General Michael Missal played a key role in investigating fraud, scandals and misconduct in the agency.
read moreOn the Anniversary of Navalny’s Death, Russians gather outside the White House to Mourn and Demand Freedom for Political Prisoners
WASHINGTON — A few dozen Russian immigrants in Washington gathered outside the White House Sunday to honor the memory of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who died in a Russian prison one year ago.
As a show of solidarity, recordings of Navalny’s past speeches at rallies played through a speaker in the background.
“We are ready to push this Putinist vacuum out of politics and replace it with ourselves,” Navalny’s voice rang out from a speaker. “Every day, do something to make things harder for the authorities and better for the people. Do something to weaken this regime.”
At a time when President Trump has made concessions to Putin to try to negotiate a peace in Ukraine, Russians in several U.S. cities gathered to remember Navalny and protest Russia’s authoritarian tactics.
Among those attending the demonstration was Dmitry Valuyev, president of the nonprofit organization Russian America for Democracy in Russia. He said one of the event’s goals was to inform Americans about the brutal realities of Vladimir Putin’s regime, especially under Donald Trump’s new administration.
“The Russian government does not respect diplomacy. The Russian government fears strength,” Valuyev said. “We live here now, and it is our duty to remind the administration, to remind Congress, to remind Americans of what the Putin regime is, of who Putin is. To remind them every time someone tries to reestablish dialogue or restore relations.”
After Valuyev’s speech, the crowd began chanting, “Russia without Putin. Never forgive, never forget,” in both Russian and English.
Alexei Navalny was poisoned with the nerve agent Novichok in Russia in 2020. He was transported to a hospital in Germany, where he survived, and later made the decision to return to Russia. In the winter of 2021, he was arrested upon crossing the border. He faced multiple criminal charges, and his combined prison sentence exceeded 30 years.
February has been a tragic month in modern Russian history. On February 24, 2022, Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine—a fact protesters highlighted with their posters. Some attendees also wore badges reading, “I am Russian, and I Stand with Ukraine.”
In addition to Navalny, another opposition leader, Boris Nemtsov, was assassinated in February. A potential successor to Russia’s first president, Boris Yeltsin, Nemtsov was ultimately sidelined in favor of Putin. On February 27, 2015, he was shot in the back near Red Square.
Given this string of February tragedies, several demonstrators said, “In the beautiful Russia of the future, there will be no February.”
In August 2024, under President Biden’s administration, Russia and the United States staged the largest prisoner exchange between East and West since the Cold War, with Russia and Belarus jointly releasing 16 people. It remains unclear how political prisoners in these countries will fare under the Trump administration.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Georgia Ian Kelly, who served on the board of the Free Russia Foundation, said he would be surprised if the White House initiated another prisoner swap, suggesting that European governments would likely push for it instead.
“That’s not to say that Washington is monolithic,” Kelly said. “I don’t really anticipate there being a big push from the White House, but there might be some push from Congress. You have people like [Republican] Senator [Roger] Wicker [of Mississippi], who was on the Helsinki Commission and has been very vocal about human rights abuses in Russia. There are also members of the Democratic Party who are very keen to see political prisoners released.”
Earlier this month, three political prisoners were released in Belarus, one of whom was a U.S. citizen. Belarus remains under the authoritarian rule of Alexander Lukashenko and heavily influenced by Russia.
At Sunday’s protest, demonstrators carried a variation of the Russian flag without the red stripe, which symbolizes blood and war. In its place was a second white stripe.
Mikhail Dobrolyubov, a physicist holding one of these flags, said that while the Russian flag once stood as a symbol of opposition to the Soviet Union, it no longer represents a free Russia.
“After everything Russia has done under this flag—in Ukraine, in other places, in Moldova, in Georgia, but first and foremost in Ukraine—I believe that a free, democratic Russia cannot continue to use this flag,” Dobrolyubov said.
One protester, Nabi Aganabiyev, moved to the U.S. two and a half years ago and called it the only country “where human rights and freedoms are respected and upheld.” He emphasized that demonstrations outside the White House should not only remind Americans of the horrors of the Russian regime but also support Russians who cannot freely express themselves at home. However, he was disappointed by the low turnout.
“People, he [Putin] has been in power for 25 years, he sits on the throne. Don’t forget that,” Aganabiyev said. “Alexei Navalny wasn’t afraid to speak about it, Nemtsov wasn’t afraid to speak about it. They gave their lives, and we can’t even spare ten minutes to come to a protest and show the White House that we are not just 20 or 30 people, that we are thousands, and that we are not afraid.”
Some protestors noted that since Navalny’s death, the Russian opposition had significantly weakened. Yuri Petrenko, a Russian attendee, held a poster showing a gravestone with Navalny’s photo and the dates of his life. He admitted that he had never imagined the politician would die in prison and now struggles to see who could replace him.
“For me, Navalny was the main figure of the political opposition in Russia,” Petrenko said. “Without Navalny, things are really difficult for Russia.”
At least one Belarusian joined the demonstration, including Milava Baburina. She had wanted to leave Belarus after the 2020 protests against the presidential election, which declared Lukashenko, who has ruled the country since 1994, the winner. Her brother is currently a political prisoner in Belarus.
“I believe that freedom in Russia also means freedom for my country,” she said. “These two dictators [Putin and Lukashenko] are tied to each other. If one falls, it will be easier to get rid of the other.”
In Russia, people who oppose Putin have continued to face punishment. According to the independent Russian watchdog OVD-Info, more than 40,000 people were detained at protest rallies in Russia between 2020 and 2024.
During Sunday’s demonstration, organizers repeatedly explained safety protocols, which were reminiscent of the instructions given at protests in Russia about what to do in case of arrest. Only this time, they warned attendees about what to do if ICE officers showed up. Do not give your names or IDs, and just head home.
Congress urged to support Syria
WASHINGTON – Two foreign policy experts pushed Congress to support the new Syrian government as a means of stopping Russian and Iranian influence, and a bipartisan group of senators embraced their message.
Former President Bashar al-Assad was forced out of office by a rebel group, the Islamist Hayat Tahir al-Sham (HTS), in December 2024. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held its first hearing on Syria’s regime change.
“I think you have bipartisan agreement that we have a real opportunity with the fall of the Assad regime to see a whole new era in Syria and a new era for U.S. interests in the Middle East,” Michael Singh of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy told Medill News Service after the hearing. “It’s going to take patience, it’s going to take laying out some benchmarks for this new government.”
After many years of sanctioning Syria, senators were grappling with how to redirect US foreign policy in the country in order to minimize the roles Russia and Iran have played.
Singh and Dana Stroul, also of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, testified at the hearing. Both supported lifting sanctions on Syria, which were put in place during Assad’s rule, if the new government meets benchmarks that serve the U.S. interest.
“I think there is a shared interest. Nobody wants to see ISIS reconstitute,” Stroul said at the hearing.
Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), the committee chair, said in the hearing that he wanted to prevent Syria from serving as a launch pad for terrorists and limit Russian and Iranian influence.
Russia and Iran were allies with the Assad family, which led Syria for over 50 years. The Russian government took in Bashar al-Assad after the regime’s fall.
“The regime was committing a variety of atrocities and all kinds of war crime violations,” Robert S. Ford, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Syria during the Obama administration, said in an interview on Wednesday. “Chemical weapons were used and barrel bombs were used and hospitals were bombed.”
Washington had not yet removed sanctions on Syria which were put in place after Syria was declared a state sponsor of terrorism in 1979. The group currently leading Syria, HTS, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, was named a foreign terrorist organization by the Department of State in 2018.
“They [HTS] have not conducted any terrorist attacks from Syrian territory since at least 2013,” Ford said. “They have pledged not to allow any other organization to use Syria as a launching pad for terrorist attacks.”
Stroul recommended in the hearing that the U.S. continue to keep troops in Syria for counterterrorism purposes. Experts testified that ISIS could fill the vacuum if American troops were pulled out. Last year there were about 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria according to the Department of Defense.
Some senators on the committee warned that if the U.S. failed to increase its support for al-Sharaa’s government in Syria, Russia, Iran, ISIS or another adversary would expand its influence.
“I think we can’t emphasize enough that there are U.S. interests at stake in Syria,” Singh said. “The risk of terrorism is at stake. What’s happening in terms of Iran’s power projection, Russia’s power projection, that’s at stake. The flow of refugees into the Middle East and Europe. There are sort of big implications to what happens in Syria. You get things right in Syria and you could undermine Iran and Russia.”
Watch: Senators agree to increase U.S. military presence in the arctic, disagree on how
WASHINGTON — Senators on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee agreed the U.S. must increase its military presence in and relations with Greenland as China and Russia also try to establish Arctic military dominance.
However, senators are divided on how to strengthen this relationship. Republicans favor making Greenland a U.S. territory or entering a Compact of Free Association. Democrats support strengthening existing relationships with Greenland.
Watch the video report here:
Senators discuss new foreign policy approach to Greenland
WASHINGTON – Following on President Trump’s call for the United States to acquire Greenland, senators from both parties on Wednesday coalesced around the need to increase US influence on the Arctic island. In a Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing, senators considered key reasons why acquiring Greenland would be beneficial to the U.S. and its allies.
“Today, we’re here to talk about something that, just a few years ago, was treated as far-fetched but has long been worth serious consideration: the U.S. acquiring Greenland,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who chairs the committee. “But given shifting global dynamics, the geopolitical importance of Greenland makes this conversation one we can no longer ignore.”
Some Democrats took issue with President Trump’s effort to purchase Greenland, given that Greenland and Denmark have been steadfast allies.
“Certainly that’s why I find it troubling. That while our ally is aggressively and actively seeking increased partnership with the United States we have President Trump that insists on purchasing land that is, let’s be very clear, it’s not for sale,” said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.)
The question about Greenland’s fate comes as the United States increasingly competes with Russia and China for influence over the Arctic and control over the Northwest Passage, the shipping route between the Atlantic and Pacific. Although Trump’s plan to acquire Greenland demonstrated his unconventional approach to foreign policy, senators from both parties embraced how his attention to Greenland reflected the importance of the Arctic to the U.S. for security reasons and a source of natural resources.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) stressed that the US must renew and recommit to an Arctic strategy that counters its adversaries and promotes national security.
“We are an Arctic nation, we have interests there, and we need to continue to move forward,” Cantwell said.
President Trump has repeatedly conveyed his interest in purchasing the territory, citing its geopolitical value and rich natural resources. Greenland’s extensive wealth of minerals, which remain largely untapped, includes coal, gold, silver and a variety of other rare earth metals.
Senate committee members also highlighted the socioeconomic benefits that they believe the acquisition would provide to Greenlandic people.
“For Greenlanders, there would be many benefits of becoming an American territory, including American citizenship, including billions of dollars of new American investment in Greenland that would raise the standard of living of the 50,000 Greenlanders there today,” Cruz said.
Greenland, an autonomous territory in the Kingdom of Denmark, is home to 56,000 people, with an extensive local government and two representatives in the Danish parliament.
As President Trump seeks to acquire the island territory, Greenland and Denmark firmly declared that the island is not for sale and never will be. The territory has a long history of seeking independence from Denmark.
Dr. Miłosz J. Cordes, a research fellow at the Danish Foreign Policy Society, said the general public in Denmark had taken offense at Trump’s attempts to buy Greenland.
“When we look at it from Denmark’s perspective, Denmark has always, ever since 1945 or even earlier, has based security on this very strong partnership with the United States,” Cordes said. “Some statements might come across as disturbing for many Danes, main Danish politicians, decision makers, but also the broader Danish public.”
However, witnesses such as Mr. Alexander Gray, a senior fellow in National Security Affairs for the American Foreign Policy Council, urged senators to exert more influence in Greenland.
“When Greenland inevitably obtains independence from Denmark, as their leaders again tell us that they will, who is going to greet them on the other side? Will it be Russia and China, with their history of predatory behavior in small developing states and their unwillingness to respect such state sovereignty? Or will it be the United States?”
When asked after leaving the hearing if the purchase of Greenland was something he believed to be plausible, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said, “I think it’s quite realistic. I think much of the history of the United States we have had territorial acquisitions, I think there are enormous geopolitical reasons and economic reasons why it makes sense and brings enormous benefit to the Greenlanders.”
Additional reporting by Paris Fransway.
Published in conjunction with 
House Republicans urge federal cuts to VA’s education service benefits
WASHINGTON — House Republicans reprimanded leaders of Veterans’ Affairs education programs at a Tuesday subcommittee hearing for “wasting billions and millions” of federal funds on recent projects, including the process to digitize the GI Bill.
“We’re not going to do this anymore. I’ll be in office for at least a year and a half, or whatever is left. I don’t care,” said Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.), chairman of the House VA’s Economic Opportunity subcommittee.
The Republican members of the committee signaled their determination to rein in overspending and delays at the $300 billion VA.
Although it was just his first week in the job, the programs’ acting executive director Ken Smith was brought in to testify before the committee and subjected to grilling.
GOP lawmakers criticized recent initiatives, including revamping the GI bill and career training services to veterans as part of the Dole Act passed in 2024.
Republican lawmakers branded the efforts as failures because they were late and costlier than anticipated.
“So help me understand how the common denominator is that we are always over budget, under delivering and as a result of that, we have less to invest in the services that veterans have earned,” Tom Barrett (R-Mich.) said
The committee also berated the pair for the growing number of VA employees employed in the education service programs in recent years.
They criticized the department’s ballooning budget.
“You’ve bloated bureaucracy and actually shrunk the ability of veterans to get education benefits,” Van Orden shouted across the room.
Democrats asked whether President Donald Trump’s federal hiring freeze and anti-DEI agenda would hurt the VA department.
“They’re talking about doing some of these policies in an effort to starve out some of our dedicated public servants and cut the workforce at the VA,” Morgan McGarvey (D-Ky.) said.
Rather as the meeting progressed, the GOP representative’s criticism echoed the initiatives led by Elon Musk’s DOGE team.
The VA recently started working with a DOGE employee last week. An official VA spokesperson confirmed that the employee would focus on “identifying wasteful contracts, improving VA operations and strengthening management of the department’s IT projects,” common strategies that Musk and his team have started to implement across a wide swath of federal agencies.
With its over $300 billion budget, the GOP representatives said VA could become a prime target of the kind of budget cutting promoted by DOGE.
Pause in federal funding puts maritime industry at risk of falling further behind
WASHINGTON – Maritime industry experts emphasized uncertainty in the United States’ ability to compete with China on the global stage after federal funds for maritime infrastructure were paused by President Donald Trump.
“We are on the brink of failure,” said Brian Schoeneman, the political and legislative director of the Seafarers International Union of North America, which is focused on the rights of mariners and seamen.
“We as a nation have not made maritime infrastructure our priority,” he said.
At their Wednesday morning hearing, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation discussed how the U.S. can build and improve maritime infrastructure despite President Donald Trump signing the “Unleashing American Energy” executive order on his first day in office.
The order stopped federal funding towards the infrastructure provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act as well as funding to ports and maritime-oriented companies to improve technology and resources that could counter international competition.
Despite large land borders with its biggest trading partners – Canada and Mexico – the U.S. relies heavily on its ships and ports. The U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported that 57% of the 2.6 billion short tons, 5.2 trillion pounds, of cargo that moved through U.S. ports in 2022 were imports or exports.
That same year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the marine economy supported 2.4 million jobs. Witness Paul Anderson, the president and chief executive officer of the Port of Tampa Bay who previously served on President George W. Bush’s Federal Maritime Commission and Committee on Marine Transportation pointed to the impact of mariners on the Tampa Bay, Fla. community.
“Shipbuilding and repairs is also…woven into the history of the port,” he said.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which was signed by President Joe Biden in 2021, provided $17 billion for investment in waterways and important port infrastructure. The bill’s funding expires in two years.
“It’s absolutely critical that ports continue to receive funding,” Anderson said.
In 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act provided additional funding for maritime infrastructure that prioritized climate change mitigation.
The pause in federal funding towards acts like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act as well as federal grant programs aimed at developing maritime infrastructure like the Small Shipyard Grant Program and the Port Infrastructure Development Program makes it more difficult for companies to do more than “get by,” said Joe Rella, the president of St. Johns Ship Building, Inc.
New technology would provide the U.S. a much needed boost in the competition with China, said Schoeneman.
“We’re definitely behind,” said Tom Reynolds, the chief strategy officer at Seasats Inc., a company that creates autonomous water vessels for science, defense, and commercial purposes. He was at the hearing on behalf of the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International.
Rep. Mike Ezell (R-Miss.), the chairman of the subcommittee, described his desire for a “robust maritime infrastructure” along the Gulf Coast in his home state. But the witnesses all said that is unlikely without funding from the federal government.
The Jones Act was established in 1920 to regulate maritime commerce and define seaman’s rights. “We wouldn’t be here as a country with no Jones Act,” Schoeneman, who testified at the hearing on behalf of USA Maritime, said.
Scheoeneman also asserted that “wherever we walk away, China walks in,” adding that the end of the U.S. Agency for International Development would have a detrimental effect on mariners who would lose their jobs and on U.S. national security.
The loss of American jobs because of changes in funding would be a part of a larger pattern, something that Reps Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) and Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.) were concerned with. “No one wants to get started in an industry people think is dying,” Shoeneman said.
All of the experts urged Congress to provide more funding for maritime infrastructure.
“I would rate our infrastructure a solid C,” Schoeneman said. “There is much work to be done.”
GOP bill attempts to gradually privatize VA care
WASHINGTON — As their first move in the new presidential administration, Republican top brass on the Senate and House Veterans’ Affairs Committees introduced a bill last week loosening the threshold for veterans to access private care.
On paper, the Veterans’ ACCESS Act appears to show signs of the conservative policy blueprint Project 2025, which President Donald Trump has recently aligned himself with in his wave of executive orders. The 900-page report centers on the downsizing of multiple federal agencies, including policy suggestions that would impact the VA.
“There does seem an interest in really removing barriers to private sector care as part of that,” said Carrie Farmer, co-director of the RAND Epstein Family Veterans Policy Research Institute. “Whether or not that becomes a policy priority for the administration, I think we’ll need to wait and see.”
Notably, the bill may offer a privy window into the GOP’s desire to steer funds and resources away from federal veteran care to the private sector.
But the ongoing struggle is nothing new.
Over the years, the VA agency has become a political hot button over complaints of long wait times, inadequate mental health care services and staffing shortages. Indeed, Republicans have had ample fodder to warrant overhauling the VA’s $300 billion budget.
In 2018, the Trump administration passed the Mission Act that codified the Community Care Network, enabling veterans to access services outside of federal care providers.
Each year, more and more veterans have relied on the program. Today, the Community Care program delivers health care to over 2.8 million veterans.
At first glance, the ACCESS Act appears to expand on approaches taken with the Mission Act. Key provisions from the bill include restructuring veterans’ eligibility requirements for community care and instituting education programs and mental health treatment programs for veterans.
One provision of the ACCESS Act provides veterans the choice to seek in-person community care, despite telehealth treatment, a common fallback for veterans who live in remote areas, already being an option.
Many Republicans from rural states have railed against the VA’s offering of fewer in-person options there — even when the number of private options remains limited.
A caveat of the bill, however, seems to lie in the launching of a new pilot program.
Per Section 302, the bill will direct a three-year pilot program to allow enrolled veterans to access private mental health treatment and substance use services through the community care network — without requiring a referral or preauthorization. Participants would be outside of the VA’s care jurisdiction for those care options.
The pilot, the bill says, is based on TRICARE Prime. Unlike VA Care, TRICARE Prime mainly deals with active duty service members and their families and is managed by the Department of Defense.
Experts suggest that this provision could portend the possibility of a moot VA.
“It is changing the VA primarily into an insurance carrier and paying for care that does not have to be authorized or pre-authorized by the VA,” said Russell Lemle, a senior policy advisor for the Veterans Healthcare Policy Institute.
At a Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee meeting in January, Republican lawmakers touted the new bill as a blanket solution for the VA.
“The VA health care system is an invaluable resource for veterans, but it will only remain so if it stops failing those who need it the most,” said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), the Senate Veterans’ Affair Committee chairman.
Aside from the ACCESS Act, Republicans have offered little foresight into their plans for the VA. Doug Collins, Trump’s recently confirmed Secretary of Veterans Affairs, rejected any efforts to privatize the VA during his confirmation hearing.
“I believe you can have both, you can have a strong VA as it currently exists and you can have the community care aspect,” Collins said.
Some of Collins’ other priorities, he told senators, were shedding department staff and bringing employees back to work in the office.
On Monday, the VA announced its return to in-person work policy, following Trump’s presidential memorandum. Given Collins’ inexperience in working in the VA, it is still unclear what his policies might entail under the new administration.
While Republicans have historically chipped away at the VA, Democrats have remained steadfast in their approach: the VA and private sector must work together.
“Wait times for community care might sometimes be longer in some instances,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “The two systems have to be complementary, not competitive.”
Chinese influence on American college campuses concerns lawmakers despite decreasing numbers of Chinese students
WASHINGTON – The Senate Foreign Relations Committee met on Thursday to discuss China’s influence at home and abroad with committee Chairman James Risch (R-Idaho) calling the country, “the greatest, long-term threat to the United States.”
Both lawmakers and experts raised concerns about the U.S. government’s negligence and failure to keep pace with China politically, economically and militarily.
One specific topic of concern was China’s influence in American colleges and universities, with around 290,000 Chinese students studying in the U.S. in 2023, according to the Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange.
“Colleges and universities are a really target-rich place for the Chinese. They show up with money, and, as pointed out here, colleges and universities respond to money,” said Risch.
Jeffrey Stoff, founder of the Center for Research Security and Integrity said that universities have financial incentives and operations that are at odds with U.S. national and economic interests. According to his testimony, the primary goal of academia is “attracting sustaining revenue sources from anywhere and anyone,” which has enabled China to exploit the open systems of U.S. research institutions.
However, Joshua Kurlantzick, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Medill News Service that is not the case. “I don’t think universities are accepting anyone from anywhere. Each university has certain standards of who they’ll accept, whether Americans or non-Americans.” he said.
Sarah Spreitzer, Vice President and Chief of Staff for Government Relations at the American Council for Education said she would “strongly disagree with the idea that [American institutions] are only in search of revenue.” She said institutions of higher education have been engaging with policymakers and federal security agencies to better understand these threats.
“I think higher education is very aware of some of these issues. We continue to work with our policymakers to balance those national security concerns while also allowing qualified, interested international students come to the United States to study at our institutions,” she said.
During the hearing, Risch said all Chinese students are “agent[s] of the Chinese Communist Party” because they return to China upon graduation. In fact, many students return to China because their student visa status requires them to leave the U.S.
“Once they finish their program of study, they only have a set number of days that they can remain in the U.S. before they’re required to return to their home country,” Spreitzer said.
Factors such as consular and visa barriers, rising U.S. crime statistics and a feeling of unwantedness in the U.S. have contributed to a decrease in the number of Chinese students in the U.S by more than 20 percent since 2019, according to the Washington Post.
Spreitzer said countries like Australia and Canada may provide alternatives with better bridges between getting a student visa and working after graduation.
Dr. Melanie Hart, Senior Director of the Global China Hub at the Atlantic Council said keeping the “student pipeline open” is in U.S. national interest and the government should support American students studying in China to “fill gaps in needed U.S. government China expertise.”
“We need a scalpel for this, not a sledgehammer,” she said.
Kurlantzick saw an additional benefit. “There are pros and cons of having Chinese students but a pro would be they get to see the U.S. for themselves and not how the CCP portrays it,” he said.
Dartmouth College Associate Professor Dr. Jennifer Lind further cautioned that U.S. policymakers should ensure that their responses to China uphold U.S. values, as she highlighted the millions of Chinese American citizens who are negatively impacted.
“As we get frustrated that an authoritarian society is exploiting our free one, while we protect ourselves against Chinese influence operations in the ways recommended here, we must also honor our own values,” she said. “As we formulate our responses to Chinese malign influence operations, U.S. leaders should be thinking not only about this negotiation with Beijing, but also about whether our responses uphold our own values.”
Kash Patel disavowed some of Trump’s pardons and claimed FBI will be independent at confirmation hearing
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee grilled Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official and outspoken critic of the intelligence community, about his vision for the FBI as its next director of the Bureau of Investigation.
Unlike other confirmation hearings this week, where cabinet nominees were met with applause when entering the room, Patel was greeted with silence from the onlookers.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) introduced and welcomed the nominee before displaying a homemade bingo.
“I consider it a serious caricature of what I expect to be witnessed today. I think we’ll have words like ‘enemies list’ and ‘deep state,’” Tillis said. Later, Tillis said he’d hit bingo a couple of times.
“I hope you put money on it, Senator,” Patel said to him.
Throughout the hearing, senators questioned Patel on his loyalty to Trump, past promises to prosecute former officials critical of President Trump and his book Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy. But, when questioned about Trump’s presidential pardons for those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Patel firmly opposed the pardons extended to defendants who assaulted officers.
“I have always rejected any violence against law enforcement, and I have included in that group specifically addressed any violence against law enforcement on January 6,” Patel said. “I do not agree with the commutation of any sentence of any individual who committed violence against law enforcement.”
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) pressed Patel on a social media post in which he wrote: “January 6th, never an insurrection, cowards in uniform, exposed.” Durbin asked, “Who was in the Capitol Building in uniform? Capitol Police. Do you think they were cowards?”
Kash Patel outlined his plans to “let good cops be cops,” restore trust in the FBI, and work with Congress to provide government accountability at his confirmation hearing on Jan. 30, 2025. (Valerie Chu/MNS)
Patel responded by criticizing the delayed National Guard response.
“Any delay to have the National Guard arrive on scene here must be called out, whether it was a fellow Republican or not,” Patel said, referencing his time at the Department of Defense.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) urged Patel to turn and face Capitol Police officers in the room. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) expressed concerns that Patel’s nomination signaled a shift toward weaponizing the FBI for political purposes.
“Those pardons, as Mr. Patel has said, are a mistake, but they are also a signal that we are entering a strange and dangerous time,” Whitehouse said. “The FBI could become Trump’s enforcer … to… stifle speech and dissent, punish political rivals of either party, and hand out get-out-of-jail-free cards for violent supporters.”
Patel deflected when Durbin asked if pardoning Jan. 6 defendants would make America safer.
He said that America can only be considered safe when the country no longer experiences “200,000 drug overdoses over two years” or “50,050 homicides in a day.” He also criticized President Biden’s decision to commute the sentence of a man convicted of murdering two FBI agents, emphasizing, “It goes both ways.”
Senators raised concerns about Patel’s qualifications, citing opposition from both political figures and former Trump administration officials. They spoke of how former Attorney General Bill Barr dismissed Patel’s experience, stating he lacked the respect needed to lead day-to-day FBI operations, let alone serve as its deputy. Also raised was how Trump’s former National Security Adviser John Bolton called Patel’s ideas “ludicrous,” deemed him “absolutely unqualified,” and declared his nomination a “disgrace.”
However, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) defended Patel, crediting his work exposing misconduct in the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation. “Was it you that was able to find out that the Steele Dossier was a bunch of crap?” He asked the nominee.
Patel confirms he “followed the money” and was involved in drafting the Nunes Memo, which criticized the FBI’s handling of the Trump-Russia probe. Graham countered that Patel’s work exposing FBI misconduct in the Russia probe qualified him for the role.
Those in attendance reflected the deep divisions surrounding Patel’s nomination.
Among those present were his parents and sister, the family of Ashli Babbitt, former FBI Director William Webster, and former official Olivia Troye, whom Patel had previously threatened with legal action for opposing his nomination.
Patel has previously said he would like to go after “conspirators” in the government and media. This has raised alarms he could direct the FBI to target Trump’s critics.
Indeed, Patel’s own words have raised alarms. He has openly advocated for going after journalists, saying, “We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media. We’re going to come after you, whether it’s criminally or civilly.”
After asking Patel if he referred to the media as “the most powerful enemy of the United States,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) demanded Patel answer, “if he said that the FBI headquarters, where they investigate cyber crime and terrorism, should be shut down and open as a deep state museum.”
“If the best attacks on me are the false accusations and grotesque mischaracterizations, the only thing this body is doing is defeating the credibility of the men and women at the FBI,” Patel said.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said he wholeheartedly supported the nominee.
“Your commitment to the Constitution, to the rule of law and the American people is remarkable, and I’m honored to know you, to call you my friend and to give you my vote,” he said.
Sen. Schiff claimed Patel’s only qualification is “his willingness to say yes, when everyone else would say no, to whatever the President wanted to do.”
Similarly, others questioned Patel’s loyalty to Trump.
“Would you be willing to resign the post of FBI director if pressed and given no choice but to obey [Trump’s] order or resign?” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) asked the nominee.
Patel said that he would “always” obey the law.
Coons also asked the nominee if he would follow through on past promises of prosecuting former officials like FBI Director Chris Wray.
“I have no interest, no desire, and will not, if confirmed, go backwards. There will be no politicization at the FBI. There will be no retributive actions taken by any FBI,” Patel responded.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D- Conn.) gave Patel his “first test” by asking him if Patel would not tolerate the firing of the FBI agents who worked with Special Counsel Jack Smith on investigations into Trump.
“Every FBI employee will be held to the absolute same standard, and no one will be terminated for cases,” Patel responded. “All FBI employees will be protected against political retribution.”
“If you can’t commit that those FBI agents will be protected from political retribution, we can’t accept you as FBI director,” Blumenthal said. “That was your first test. You failed.”
Watch: Senators examine China’s presence in the Panama Canal during Commerce Committee meeting
WASHINGTON – The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee heard witness testimony about the Panama Canal on Tuesday. Senators focused on the extent of the Chinese government’s involvement with the canal through private businesses and the possible threat to national security.
The Hong Kong-based company Hutchison operates ports at each end of the canal, and China is building a bridge over the waterway. These actions could violate the treaty that transferred the canal from the U.S. to Panama.
Watch the video report here:
Concerns 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.).
.
Medill Today | March 4, 2025