Latest in National Security News
Get up-to-date national security news from our reporters
Democrats press Hegseth during Secretary of Defense confirmation hearing Tuesday
In a particularly partisan confirmation hearing for Secretary of Defense, Democrats held Pete Hegseth’s feet to the fire, while Republicans welcomed the nominee.
read more
The only US-Russia nuclear arms control treaty is nearing its end. What’s next?
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, and negotiations for a new one are far from underway. Experts say the path forward is uncertain, with a looming possibility of another nuclear arms race on the horizon, although some remain optimistic.
read more
House Task Force hearing investigating Trump’s assassination attempts explodes into shouting spree
A screaming match ensued when a representative’s criticisms became increasingly harsh and personal.
read more
Holocaust Survivors’ Compensation At Stake in Supreme Court Case
Oral arguments for Holocaust compensation case Republic of Hungary v. Simon commenced Tuesday.
read more
Experts speculate potential Russian response to Kyiv’s use of Western weapons
As the world braces for Moscow’s response to Kyiv’s use of U.S. and UK-made missiles to strike into Russian territory, experts agree that no nuclear weapon use is to come. There might be an escalation in hybrid attacks on European soil, though.
read moreTrump’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.”
Protesters call for ending U.S. aid to Israel at postponed House Homeland Security Committee meeting
WASHINGTON — The gallery filled and protesters chanted, but the House Homeland Security Committee hearing entitled “Worldwide Threats to the Homeland” did not start on Wednesday after scheduling conflicts with the witnesses.
The hearing, which would be the second on the same topic hosted by this committee, was slated to focus on issues related to the southern border, while also touching on threats from Russia and the Middle East.
Instead, protesters arrived early and staged a mock hearing, sitting in the committee members’ chairs and agreeing to resolutions ending U.S. support and involvement in the Israel-Hamas war. One protester acted as a pretend chairwoman, declaring a resolution to end all U.S. aid to Israel as “unanimously agreed” to.
Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas was slated to testify at the hearing. Mayorkas’s tenure at DHS has been marred by partisan accusations of dereliction of duty surrounding the influx of crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border, which led to a successful impeachment by House Republicans with a near-party line vote in January.
FBI Director Christopher Wray, appointed by former President Donald Trump, and Brett Holmgren, acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center, were also scheduled to testify.
Instead, demonstrators homed in on the Israel-Hamas war before the hearing was scheduled to begin, with many arriving more than an hour early. Some wore matching keffiyeh, a traditional cotton headdress worn in parts of the Middle East, and shirts adorned with the names and photos of children killed in Gaza.
Multiple people in the group, the majority of which were women, wore pink-colored keffiyeh, a reference to their membership in the anti-war non-profit Code Pink: Women for Peace.
“Bombs and weapons and guns do not keep us safe,” the protesters chanted before the hearing. “We keep us safe, the community keeps us safe, stop arming Israel.”
Protester Ann Wright said they have been focused on this issue for over a year, staging events across Washington and in both chambers of Congress.
Recently, some senators have proposed a measure to appease these protesters’ demands. Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, announced he would call for a floor vote on the “Joint Resolutions of Disapproval,” a piece of legislation pushed by progressives to end weapons shipments to the State of Israel. The measure is unlikely to pass, as members from both sides of the aisle have spoken against it.
But some protesters seek more than just the cut-off of U.S. weapons.
“I’m from Hawaii, but I’ll be here until we have a ceasefire,” Wright said. “I’ve been opposing U.S. international action for 21 years, and I’m not stopping anytime soon.”
At the mock hearing, the group held up signs on printer paper reading, “Israel: A threat to national security.”
Upon learning of the hearing’s postponement, the group planned where they would protest for the remainder of the day, splitting their time between the House and Senate chambers before returning tomorrow for the Senate Homeland Security committee hearing.
American, South Korean experts discuss biggest issues facing alliance
WASHINGTON — Top U.S. and South Korean national security officials and experts addressed the biggest issues facing their alliance at the ROK-U.S. Strategic Forum Monday, with the recent deployment of North Korean troops to Russia in focus.
The speakers discussed the denuclearization of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or the DPRK, and the region’s role in the Russo-Ukrainian War. The forum also addressed goals for the trilateral partnership between the U.S., South Korea and Japan, as well as the possibility that South Korea could join the G7.
The event was co-hosted by the Korea Foundation and the Center for Strategic & International Studies.
Authoritarian Convergence
Experts agreed that the aggression exhibited by China, Iran, North Korea and Russia was the forefront issue the ROK-U.S. alliance should focus on. The group is often dubbed the “axis of upheaval” by U.S.-based foreign policy analysts for their efforts in opposing Western-led international order and the autocratic leadership that their governments arguably share in common.
Speakers expressed concern about the news that around 11,000 North Korean troops entered the battlefield in Kursk on Monday, demonstrating that the DPRK is co-belligerent with Russia.
“This is a dangerous strategic gamble by Kim Jong Un,” Park Jin, the Former Republic of Korea Minister of Foreign Affairs, said at the panel. Park said he believes North Korea is hoping to receive advanced military technology from Russia in return, including nuclear submarine technology and airfighters.
Park also reiterated a necessity for the DPRK to denuclearize in order to avoid two hostile states on the Korean peninsula.
“We should send a very strong message together, between the U.S., Korea, Japan and other countries, to make sure that North Korea can come back to the right position,” Park said. “If not, then we will strengthen our sanctions on North Korea.”
Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Senior Fellow and Director for the Transatlantic Security Program at Center for a New American Security, said there is also a worry that Russia could help Iran acquire nuclear weapons.
“Now that Moscow has shed its concern over being a responsible global actor, it is less constrained now in its actions than it has been in the past, and is even more likely to aid the Iranian regime,” Taylor said.
In his keynote remarks, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said that he believes China may be trying to distance itself from the collaboration between North Korea and Russia.
“They are concerned that Russian encouragement may cause the DPRK to contemplate either actions or military developments that are not in China’s interests,” Campbell said.
U.S.-Korea-Japan Trilateral Partnership
Panelists vocalized that the most pressing issues the U.S.-Korea-Japan trilateral partnership needed to tackle were Taiwan and the South China Sea, as well as the growing nuclear arsenal of China, Russia and the DPRK.
On Nov. 15, the White House announced in a joint statement with Japan and the Republic of Korea that they would be establishing a Trilateral Secretariat in order to ensure the partnership is “built to last.” In their statement, they condemned the DPRK and Russia for expanding a “war of aggression against Ukraine,” and China’s “unlawful maritime claims in the South China Sea,” which refers to China’s claim of Taiwan as part of its territory.
However, a common concern among the panelists was that the three countries would prioritize their individual ties with one another over the interests of the group.
For instance, the South Korean public is dissatisfied with the Japanese government’s lack of acknowledgement over its occupation of their home country during World War II, which could destabilize ties between South Korea and Japan, according to Former First Vice Minister of the Republic of Korea Shin Kak-soo.
Katrin Fraser Katz, an adjunct fellow at CSIS Korea Chair, recommended that President Trump continue to favor trilateral cooperation over bilateral dealings.
“The U.S. is facing an axis that’s growing,” Katz said. “Do we want to face that alone, or do we want to face that with a strong network? It’s up to him. Does he want to win?”
Global Governance (G7)
Lee Shin-hwa, a professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Korea University, said she hopes to see more discussion facilitated about the Korean peninsula during the next G7 summit in June 2025, especially around North Korea’s human rights violations and denuclearization.
Panelists also considered the possibility of adding South Korea to the G7.
“Korea can contribute significantly to the expansion and strengthening of the democratic international order. This is a very important reason for Korea to join the G7 as a country that cherishes the importance of democracy, more than any other country,” said Park, who also spoke at the Authoritarian Convergence panel.
Meanwhile, some panelists criticized the G20 for being too diffuse to achieve outcomes, especially because of the vast amount of contradicting interests the countries within the alliance have.
“An institution with China, Russia and others, we’re probably not going to solve some of the most critical problems facing the democratic world,” Clete Willems, a G7/G20 Sherpa during the first Trump administration, said. “The G7 has a lot more potential.”
Moldova fended off Russian election meddling, experts warn it’s too early to celebrate
WASHINGTON — Moldova’s pro-EU President Maia Sandu secured a second term in a pivotal runoff on Nov. 4, defeating Alexandr Stoianoglo, a rival backed by the traditionally pro-Russian Socialist Party. Two weeks earlier, Moldovans narrowly voted in a national referendum to enshrine the country’s pursuit of EU membership into the country’s constitution.
Both votes were overshadowed by claims of what the country’s foreign ministry called “illegal and deliberate interference” as it handed its formal note of protest to the Russian ambassador to Moldova on Tuesday.
According to Stephen Nix—a senior director for Eurasia at the International Republican Institute, an organization that sent an election observation mission to Moldova—Russia’s influence campaign included cyber attacks and an arson attempt at Moldova’s Central Election Commission. There were also accusations of AI-generated robocall death threats, bomb threats at international polling locations and a vote-buying network that allegedly made payments to up to 130,000 Moldovan citizens to sway their vote.
“The 2024 electoral period saw unprecedented levels of brazen Russian interference,” Nix said, speaking at the U.S. Helsinki Commission meeting in Washington on Tuesday.
Moscow denied the meddling allegations, although it maintained the vote was “neither democratic nor fair” and refuses to recognize Sandu as the legitimate president.
The pro-Western election and referendum results, which came despite the alleged meddling attempts, mark a move away from over a century of Russian influence, underscoring a shift toward the West amid a rise of tension in the region.
However, experts warn the development could be reversed soon.
“They refuse to recognize the outcome of the Sandu election; they will not accept the referendum vote either,” Stephen Blank, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, said at the meeting. “So, therefore, they are going to keep trying.”
In particular, experts say Russia’s meddling attempts might intensify even further ahead of Moldova’s looming parliamentary election in 2025.
“The escalation of Russian interference tactics during the presidential election demonstrates the piloting of new Russian techniques, which are expected to further escalate during the upcoming parliamentary election,” Nix said.
The parliamentary vote could prove pivotal for Moldova’s political trajectory. The country, located between war-torn Ukraine and EU-member Romania, appears to have become another battleground in Russia’s ongoing campaign against Western influence in the post-Soviet region. Chisinau has been under heightened pressure ever since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, with Moscow resorting to measures like energy blackmail to keep Moldova close.
“The parliamentary elections will elect a legislature which will be instrumental in the activities preparing Moldova for…European Union accession,” senior adviser for Russia and Europe at the United States Institute of Peace Donald Jensen said at the Tuesday U.S. Helsinki Commission meeting. “If a Russian party goes into a coalition with PAS, Maia Sandu’s party…the EU accession process can be stopped and hindered and spread out and ultimately go off the rails, as we’ve seen in some other post-Soviet countries nearby.”
Moldova’s presidential election results came a week after Georgia, another ex-Soviet state seeking EU membership, saw an anti-Western Georgian Dream party claim 54 percent of votes in a contested election marked by violence and irregularities, galvanizing thousands to flood the capital in protest.
Blinken blasts Congress for holdups on budget and other critical issues
WASHINGTON – Congressional delays in passing spending and other legislation undermines U.S. positioning on the global stage and invigorates “competitors,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at the Foreign Service Institute on Wednesday.
“Look, if we’re serious about U.S. leadership in the world, we can’t keep operating without knowing whether we’ll have a budget for the next fiscal year, forcing us to impose harmful cuts and hiring freezes,” he said. “We can’t reduce our investments in international financial institutions…we can’t fail to pay our dues at the UN and cede the space to our competitors.”
Last month, Congress failed to pass an annual budget and narrowly avoided a looming partial government shutdown by introducing a stopgap spending bill—known as a continuing resolution—that temporarily funds the government until it expires in mid-December.
It was the latest in a series of near-shutdowns over the past few years. In September 2023, for example, Congress averted the shutdown by mere hours.
But the problem extends beyond budget logjams, according to Blinken. Congress has moved too slowly to confirm the nominations of some high-profile positions, causing a significant increase in time spent between personnel nominations and confirmations.
“We can’t hold up the confirmation of highly skilled, capable and patriotic Americans, sometimes for years, at a time when they should be leading our members overseas,” he said. “In 2001, on average, nominees were confirmed 50 days after their nomination; today, nominees—including our ambassadors—are waiting an average of 240 days.”
Such holdups undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts and embolden adversaries, Blinken warned.
“It’s damaging our diplomacy, it’s undermining our competitiveness, it’s disincentivizing public service, and of course, this all feeds our competitors’ false narratives of our decline and division,” he said. “It reinforces their conviction—false conviction—that now is the time to challenge the United States and pursue their revisionist goals.”
Earlier in the speech, Blinken noted the Department of State received “historic budget increases” from Congress, allowing the body to have more people in the Foreign Service than ever before.
The remarks at the Foreign Service Institute come a month after the Republican-led House Foreign Affairs Committee voted to recommend that Blinken be held in contempt of Congress amid a standoff over his testimony about the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
China’s “national treasures”: What’s next for panda diplomacy?
WASHINGTON — On Oct. 15, two giant pandas arrived at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo after a 19-hour trans-Pacific flight on a FedEx carrier plane, fittingly known as the “Panda Express”. Before last week’s arrival, pandas have not occupied the National Zoo since November 2023, when three giant pandas were returned to China ahead of an expiring loan agreement.
Pandas and the future of diplomacy
Given U.S. and China’s competitive relationship and tense diplomatic atmosphere in recent years, the pandas’ November departure concerned the panda-loving public, as an agreement had not been constructed at the time for new giant pandas to occupy the National Zoo in the trio’s place.
Chee Meng Tan, an assistant professor at the University of Nottingham Malaysia, said the recall of the pandas signified the Chinese government’s disapproval with America’s stance on key political differences, including the U.S.’s containment strategy in the South China Sea and America’s support for Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War.
“The fact that pandas are national treasures means that you can’t just leave them in the hands of people that are not on very good terms with you,” Tan said.
However, E. Elena Songster, author of “Panda Nation: The Construction and Conservation of China’s Modern Icon,” offers a different theory — rather than making a political statement, the Chinese government likely wanted the pandas to retire in their home country.
“The pandas were getting quite old,” she said. “They probably did want to bring these geriatric pandas back to China… to spend their sunset years in the homeland.”
Four pandas from Zoo Atlanta were also returned to China on Oct. 12, with the original loan beginning in 1999. With the end of this long-standing loan, Songster believes the recent panda loans represent a new era of U.S.-China diplomacy, backed by a Xi Jinping-headed government.
“Those original loans were all made under a previous leadership in China, and so it’s my feeling that Xi Jinping really wants these new loans to be on him, starting this new legacy of panda loans to the United States,” Songster said.
Tan agrees that Xi Jinping is attempting to “reset” the political relationship through new panda loans, but notes that China is particular in sending pandas to strategic places around the U.S., such as the San Diego Zoo and San Francisco Zoo in California to “woo the tech crowd.”
“San Francisco is one of the world centers for AI, so I would imagine that he’s signaling the importance of San Francisco to China’s AI ambition,” he said.
Pandas as a diplomatic tool
The exchange of giant pandas has historically symbolized China’s willingness to forge strong diplomatic ties with another country. The National Zoo’s first pandas were received in 1972 by President Nixon’s administration as a gift, during China’s transformation away from the cultural seclusion which occurred under Mao Zedong’s government.
“When the Chinese gifted [Patricia] Nixon the first pair of government-gifted pandas, it was a signal that U.S.-China relations were heading towards normalization,” Judith Shapiro, Director of Dual Degree in National Resources and Sustainable Development at American University, said.
In 1984, the Chinese government switched from gifting giant pandas to renting them out on loans to countries, allowing the government to keep their ownership over the pandas and to relocate them at will, unlike the nature of a permanent one-time gift.
A 2013 study showed that the timing of panda loans has historically coincided with when countries make favorable deals or contracts, signaling China’s approval for the policies. On the flip side, the rescinding of pandas can also signal China’s disapproval, such as when two bears were recalled days after Beijing warned President Obama against meeting the Dalai Lama, a Tibetan spiritual leader, in 2010.
“There’s always a certain amount of interpretation that has to be made, because the government of the People’s Republic of China usually maintain in all their official statements that every panda loan is an act of goodwill, but they’re very aware of the power of the panda in terms of its broad appeal to people,” Songster said.
But pandas cannot appear instantly. There is also a great scientific effort behind every panda loan, requiring time on both ends to prepare for the panda’s transport. The hosting zoo must raise millions of dollars to build an adequate panda habitat and support the panda’s annual fee — $1 million dollars — to the China Wildlife Conservation Association “to support research and conservation efforts in China,” according to the Smithsonian’s National Zoo & Conservation Biology Institute.
However, the program’s conservation efforts have been questionable. A The New York Times investigation found that China has removed more pandas from the wild than it has released, and that individual pandas have been hurt by aggressive artificial breeding practices.
“As an actual conservation program, the success is really dubious, compared with the fact that each individual panda on this loan is incredibly valuable financially to the Chinese and to the recipient zoo,” Shapiro said.
China has promised two more pandas to the San Francisco Zoo, but it is uncertain whether U.S. zoos will receive more in the future. One thing is certain — the American public loves pandas, and as long as China’s panda loan policy resumes as normal, American zoos will continue to vye for giant pandas.
“People really love seeing pandas. They love going and visiting them, they enjoy watching them on videos,” Songster said. “People are inclined to attach meaning to the pandas, and it’s often associated with their affection for them.”
Sullivan reiterates de-risking instead of decoupling Chinese trade, underscores export controls
Washington — Ending trade with foreign competitors to protect U.S. technology is not a path forward, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said Wednesday, underscoring the need for more nuanced and targeted export controls.
“It doesn’t make sense to allow companies to sell advanced technology to countries that could use them to gain military advantage over the United States,” Sullivan said in remarks at the Brookings Institution. “Now, it would be a mistake to attempt to return to the Cold War paradigm of almost no trade, including technological trade among geopolitical rivals.”
He said a system of nuanced and targeted export control should continue instead, “de-risking” trade with China rather than “decoupling” with the country.
“Yes, the fence is high, as it should be, and … the yard is small, and we’re not looking to expand it needlessly,” he said, using an Obama administration trope where the yard refers to the pool of the exported items controlled and the fence stands for the control itself.
The U.S. must consider four distinct questions when examining how to continue with the export control system of limited items under tight restrictions, Sullivan said. These questions include examining which sensitive technologies are most likely to become foundational to national security, as well as identifying where competitors will be exerting maximum effort.
Some experts say this statement is a turn from Sullivan’s previous remarks, moving from a more absolutist, idealistic tone to a more practical approach.
“I think that that set of four questions suggested a more moderate tone, a more kind of realistic, updated understanding of the limitations on what we can do,” said Martin Chorzempa, a Senior Fellow at the Petersen Institute of International Economics, comparing Sullivan’s remarks from two years ago.
But targeted export controls of this nature aren’t new.
Former President Barack Obama instituted the Export Control Reform Initiative (ECR) in his first term, creating new, more nuanced rules around working with foreign trade partners. The ECR liberalized trade in general, but put tighter controls on a select group of specific technologies, according to Robert Shaw, the program director for the Export Control and Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.
The system maintained its path throughout Donald Trump’s presidency and was picked up by the Biden administration.
“With respect to China in particular, [it’s] continued, essentially on a similar vector from the Obama administration and all the way to the present,” he said.
Still, Biden introduced some new policies into the system–-such as for semiconductors.
In 2022, the administration’s Chips and Science Act put roughly $52 billion into domestic research and development for these critical pieces, which are used in many electrical devices from medical equipment to smartphones. Around that time, the U.S. also introduced enhanced export controls focused on limiting China from accessing US-originating semiconductor technology.
“Export controls on semiconductors were new,” said Mary E. Lovely, Anthony M. Solomon Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute. “It is, in some sense, echoing things we saw before, but also amplifying them and increasing their use,” comparing the initiative to export controls from the Trump administration.
Shaw said the export controls’ design under Biden sets them apart, particularly the way they allow for quick tweaks as needed.
“They can be easily adjusted to where they could be fairly quickly calibrated to either be tightened further or loosened,” Shaw said.
Sullivan ended his remarks by doubling-down on the need to utilize secure trade policy, not only for America’s interests now, but also for its future in the global economy.
“Our task ahead is to harness that power to take on the realities of today’s geopolitical moment in a way that will not only preserve America’s endurance strengths, but extend them for generations to come,” Sullivan said.
Here’s what experts say is keeping Biden from making a decision on Ukraine
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration is still hesitant to take a definitive stance on whether to lift restrictions preventing Kyiv from using U.S.-made long-range missiles to strike military targets deep inside Russia, despite months of pleading from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
U.S. President Joe Biden is under increasing pressure as Kyiv struggles to hold Moscow’s forces back in eastern Ukraine. Yesterday, the country’s soldiers were forced to withdraw from Vuhledar, a town in the Donetsk region viewed as a critical stronghold at the intersection of Ukraine’s eastern and southern fronts, putting an end to two years of fighting and underscoring Ukraine’s need for assistance as the war is nearing its third anniversary.
A potential decision seemed imminent in recent weeks, with Secretary of State Antony Blinken visiting Kyiv and Zelensky meeting with leaders in Washington within a span of a month.
But despite the time pressure and the extensive diplomatic efforts, Biden’s decision on whether to lift the restriction has yet to come.
“There is hope that, rather than a public announcement that Ukraine’s permissions have changed, we would learn this just from seeing a strike into Russia, which is actually how some of the other weapons deliveries have played out, but right now, he has not made that decision,” said Shelby Magid, a deputy director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.
Experts say the reason Biden hasn’t made a decision boils down to Russia’s nuclear threats, the imminent presidential election and the risk that lifting restrictions may still not be enough to boost Ukraine’s military position.
Threats of nuclear escalation
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s continuous nuclear threats are among the reasons behind Biden’s hesitation to lift the restrictions. Moscow could view the move as proof that “the West is inching into directly going to war with Russia” and show its teeth in response, according to Richard Betts, a senior national security fellow at the U.S.-based think tank Council on Foreign Relations.
“At the low end, it might be a nuclear test, a symbolic warning that there could be more to come,” he said. “Or worse than that, [it might be] the use of five or ten tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.”
Feeding into the theory, Putin said last Wednesday that Moscow could use nuclear arms if it was struck with conventional missiles under newly proposed amendments to Russia’s nuclear doctrine. He added, “aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state, be considered as their joint attack.” The statement came amid Zelensky’s visit to the U.S. and appeared to be a straight-forward warning referencing the scenario if Kyiv’s request is granted.
But some say the threats are exaggerated.
“Other countries and some of our European leaders have the same access to information and the same analysis, and they don’t have these concerns,” Magid said. “I think the U.S., we’re getting in our own way.”
Fears of sabotaging Harris’ campaign
The main reason behind Biden’s hesitation to lift the restrictions is the upcoming elections, according to Dan Whitman, a senior fellow at the U.S.-based Foreign Policy Research Institute.
“We’ve seen these red lines don’t really exist,” he said. “President Biden just doesn’t want to do anything that would compromise the victory of Kamala Harris.”
According to the Pew Research Center, foreign policy is among the top issues in the upcoming election, with 62% of registered voters saying it is “very important” to their vote. With that, more registered voters express confidence in former President Donald Trump’s foreign policy than in that of Vice President Kamala Harris.
“If Harris had a clear lead, Biden would have more freedom to make global strategic decisions,” Whitman said. “He doesn’t have much freedom until November 5 – maybe on November 6, he lifts all the restrictions.”
Uncertainty whether the risk is worth the outcome
Another factor in Biden’s decision-making—or lack thereof—on the matter is that green-lighting the use of U.S.-based missiles might not be enough to significantly change Ukraine’s military position.
“It’s not clear that using the longer-range weapons will make a huge difference in the war: the United States doesn’t have many of them to give, and this is a war of attrition in which Russia has a natural advantage,” Betts, an expert in military strategy and intelligence, said. “In a strictly military sense, it would help in the short term for Ukraine, but it’s not likely to be a radical change that’s going to tilt the balance.”
Still, others argue that Ukraine’s ability to strike deeper into Russian territory could have significant tactical advantages.
“No one decision or one system will completely change the course of the war immediately and end the war,” Magid said. “But the ability to hit more into Russia and hit where the military sites actually are – the airfields, the ammo and logistics sites – would immediately lessen how many strikes are coming against Ukraine.”
Deepfakes pose threats to upcoming US Presidential Elections
WASHINGTON — As the Presidential elections are approaching, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, stated that a bipartisan bill is necessary to safeguard the upcoming elections since artificial intelligence (AI) is already being used to interfere with them.
During a Tuesday hearing, he called for big tech and social media companies to be held accountable for election effects and other AI-driven campaigns.
“It’s not science fiction that artificial intelligence will somehow interfere with our elections in the future, possibly, or hypothetically. It’s already being used to sow lies about candidates and suppress the vote,” he said.
He added that deepfakes pose threats to politics and the integrity of American democracy by highlighting recent examples of both domestic and foreign disinformation, such as the call that thousands of residents of New Hampshire received in January from someone posing as President Joe Biden telling them not to cast their votes in the state’s primary election.
Another incident is when Microsoft revealed that social media accounts linked to the Chinese Communist Party were using artificial intelligence to influence American politics earlier this month.
According to David Scanlan, New Hampshire Secretary of State, any message intended for voters that contains content generated by AI should include a disclosure so that voters are aware of its origin.
“To mitigate the impact on voters and election outcomes, it is important to have the temper to promptly address misinformation,” he said.
He added that there is a need to strengthen voter education in order for people to find reliable and accurate election-related information, as well as to be able to identify misleading information.
Rijul Gupta, Founder and CEO of DeepMedia, Inc., a leading deepfake detection and AI security company, defined deepfakes as images, audio, or videos that have been generated or manipulated by AI in a manner that may harm or mislead the public.
He stated that as technology advances, it poses a threat to the shared reality that underpins our society by instilling uncertainty in the minds of people, making them doubt the accuracy of any information they come across.
“In a world where the very nature of truth is called into question, the foundations of our democratic institutions, which rely on an informed and engaged citizenry, are at risk,” he said.
He added that deepfakes represent a market failure, an abuse of a public good that has detrimental effects and undermines trust in the information era.
“We can accelerate the growth of the Generative AI market while ensuring its safety and integrity by internalizing these negative outcomes through smart regulation and industry collaboration,” he said.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., called for the passage of multiple bipartisan bills that are ready, and said it is time that these bills get a vote.
“Let’s not allow companies that control the news in this country to use AI to further their hammer hold on the United States of America and our political process. The leadership of both parties and the Senate need to support an effort to get a vote.” he said.
Lawmakers urge investigation into Pakistan’s election irregularities
WASHINGTON — Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, called on the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs on Wednesday to investigate electoral irregularities and violence that took place in the recent election in Pakistan on February 8, 2024.
The United States and international election monitors have raised concerns about pre-election and election-day irregularities, including disproportionate limitations on freedom of expression and assembly, attacks on journalists and limitations on internet and telecom services.
“In addition to promoting democratic values, supporting Pakistan’s economy is a key strategic goal of our bilateral relationship,” said Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn.
Donald Lu, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau for South and Central Asian Affairs, testified in front of Congress, stating that after the day of the elections, the State Department issued a clear statement condemning electoral violence, human rights violations, media attacks, internet and telecommunication restrictions and allegations of interference in the electoral process, urging a full investigation.
“Second, We’re very focused on economic stability for Pakistan and for Pakistan to deal with its social terrorism and political issues,” said Lu.
Chairman Joe Wilson cross-examined the accusations against Imran Khan, claiming that the U.S. government was involved in removing Khan from power. Lu stated that there was no such involvement from the U.S. and that it was just a conspiracy theory. “The then-ambassador of Pakistan to the United States has testified to his government that there was no conspiracy. We respect the sovereignty of Pakistan,” said Lu.
During the hearing, observers shouted “liar” and “free Iman Khan, the only democratic prime minister,” and seemed dissatisfied with Donald Lu’s testimony. Capitol Police escorted the protestors from the hearing room.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., questioned the impartiality of the Pakistani judicial system. He raised concerns about the treatment of American citizens, including Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, who has been jailed for over 14 years without charge. Emphasizing the importance of prioritizing human rights in Pakistan, he called for the American ambassador to visit and the president to take action.
“That’s the same judicial system with Dr. Afridi in jail for 14 years. For getting bin Laden. Do we have faith that Imran Khan has not been the victim of selective prosecution?” Sherman said.
McCaul stated that Pakistan is experiencing substantial economic issues, such as record inflation and foreign debt, and its domestic condition is catastrophic. He also maintained human rights in Pakistan must be protected for democracy to flourish. He says the United States and Pakistan must continue to work together to combat terrorism and promote regional stability.
“We also know that if the United States falls away from our relationship with Pakistan, the Chinese Communist Party will gain even more influence,” said McCaul. “CCP is only interested in a one-way relationship of debt trap diplomacy and Pakistan [is] the ground zero for the Belt and Road Initiative.”
The ranking members of the committee urged Pakistan’s government and Election Commission to investigate interference and fraud in the recent election with complete transparency and hold those responsible accountable.
Investment Firms Step Away from Chinese Tech Companies After Scrutiny
WASHINGTON – For years, US venture capital firms have invested in Chinese technology companies linked to China’s military and persecution of the Uyghur people. Now, the recent glare of the spotlight from Congress and declining public opinion of China has prompted these firms to step back from involvement in the country.
A bipartisan investigation released last month, co-sponsored by Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), alleges that several prominent Silicon Valley firms invested at least $3 billion over the last 20 years in Chinese companies. The report contends that these firms contributed to China’s military and surveillance of the Uyghur people, a predominantly Muslim ethnic group native to Northwest China.
The venture capital firms cited – Sequoia Capital China, Walden International, Qualcomm Ventures, GSR Ventures and GGV Capital – invested in China’s AI and semiconductor sectors. The list includes $1.9 billion in AI companies, and over $1.2 billion in 150 semiconductor companies – a “dual-use” technology that is used for both civilian and military purposes. Several of the companies are blacklisted by the US government.
“We need to understand that a dollar given to a Chinese AI company, semiconductor company, or any other advanced dual-use technology company is a dollar that can be given to support the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] and the PLA [People’s Liberation Army],” Rep. Gallagher said in a statement to the Medill News Service. “We need to cut off the flow of funds. We can’t afford to keep funding our own destruction.”
In the report, the lawmakers warned that because the committee examined only five venture capital firms, the investigation greatly understates the total US investment in China’s AI and semiconductor sectors. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the total US foreign direct investment in China was $126.1 billion in 2022.
Reps. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi, who lead the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, launched the investigation in July 2023. The lawmakers sent letters to venture capital firms requesting information about the firms’ investments in Chinese entities.
Taking aim at Artificial Intelligence
The report investigated AI companies that primarily develop technology used for facial recognition and surveillance for the Chinese military. According to the report, this technology has been used to identify and track Uyghurs living in China.
For instance, Megvii, developer of the Face++ facial recognition software, is one of the primary companies investigated, receiving over $15 million from GGV Capital since 2019. Roughly two-thirds of Megvii’s revenue came from CCP surveillance projects in the year GGV invested in Megvii, the report stated.
After GGV Capital made its investment, Megvii was placed on “multiple US government red flag lists over its involvement in surveilling and tracking Uyghurs in Xinjiang,” according to the report.
A GGV Capital spokesperson told the Medill News Service that the company is “actively seeking exit” from investments with Megvii. The committee’s report noted that the firm has faced challenges with the separation due to “limited market appetite for purchasing the shares.”
GGV Capital is also splitting into two separate entities, GGV Capital U.S. and GGV Capital Asia, a transition the firm expects to complete by the end of March. According to a statement provided to the Medill News Service, the split will be a “separation of all business and operational processes to function as separate and independent firms.”
GGV Capital US “will not invest in China,” the statement said.
While the committee’s report called efforts to split off from China “a step in the right direction,” Reps. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi specified that legislative action is still needed to stop “future flows of American capital to problematic PRC companies.”
When Megvii filed for an initial public offering in Hong Kong’s stock market in late 2019, the company issued a now-archived report stating that agreements with customers require its technology to be used only for “civil purposes,” not for military use or human rights violations.
GGV Capital told the Medill News Service that the firm “was not aware of any potential (or actual) abuse of Megvii’s technology as an investment risk and only became aware when certain details became known publicly.”
According to the 2019 Megvii report, other major US finance firms were co-sponsors of Megvii’s IPO, including Goldman-Sachs, Citigroup, and J.P. Morgan. After Megvii’s 2019 IPO application lapsed, Megvii filed for a new IPO in Shanghai in 2021, and the major U.S. finance firms were no longer listed as co-sponsors. However, GGV Capital hasn’t ended its relationship with Megvii completely despite attempting separation.
Worries over China’s domination in microchips
According to the committee’s report, China also plans to dominate the semiconductor industry by 2030 by increasing domestic production and collaborating with foreign firms. Semiconductors are essential parts of electronic devices, used in a variety of products from smartphones to weapons.
The investigation found that Walden International, a venture capital firm headquartered in California, is one of the largest investors in the Chinese semiconductor industry. The firm may have invested as much as $2.2 billion in China’s semiconductor sector. This includes a combined $125 million investment in Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, or SMIC, and its affiliated entities, which is now on multiple U.S. blacklists because it supplies the Chinese military.
Walden International did not respond to a request for comment.
Albert Keidel, an economist and professor at George Washington University specializing in East Asia, said he is skeptical of the report’s findings. He argued that the investigation misinterprets the firms’ investments as dangerous, when in reality the investments are common among growing economies.
Keidel noted that the report emphasized the firms’ investments in dual-use technologies. He said the report had “logical issues,” pointing out that foreign investment in US companies like Boeing could be interpreted as beneficial to the US military.
“Is investing in portfolio investments in large Chinese firms that have a dual purpose really going to stop the Chinese from advancing their technologies?” Keidel said. “I really doubt it.”
Several of the firms responded similarly to the investigation’s findings. According to the report, the firms made their investments “during an era of optimism.”
“We need to face the fact that China is a competent government that is trying to increase its standard of living,” Keidel claimed. “We’re pointing the finger at others that are becoming successful and good competitors.”
Rep. Krishnamoorthi’s perspective on dual-use technology differed from Keidel’s. According to a statement from Krishnamoorthi, the report shows investments in “sensitive sectors,” sometimes through blacklisted companies.
“Dual-use technologies pose inherent dangers in the wrong hands through their military applications,” Rep. Krishnamoorthi said in the statement. “Through its military buildup, ongoing genocide, and other human rights abuses, the CCP has shown that it does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.”
Consulting and Intangible Involvement
Beyond financial investment, some venture capital and consulting firms have been identified as providing intangible expertise and advice to Chinese companies supporting the military. According to the report, these services include talent acquisition, consulting and job training.
According to the report, GGV Capital worked with Tsinghua University to launch a financial training program for companies in GGV’s ecosystem. Walden International reported that it “often assists its portfolio companies with identifying talent, suggesting or connecting with other investors, and corporate strategy matters.” The report notes that the firm provided these services for SMIC.
Some consulting firms have also recently been identified as having collaborated with Chinese companies. The Financial Times reported last month that Urban China Initiative, a think tank led by Mckinsey & Company, advised the CCP and provided research instrumental to China’s 2016-2020 Five Year Plan.
In response, Rep. Gallagher issued a statement condemning McKinsey.
“One is left to conclude that McKinsey’s true mission is to make money, even if that money comes from genocidal communists,” Rep. Gallagher said in the statement. “Companies like McKinsey that help the CCP in its quest to destroy individual dignity and American global leadership should be prohibited from receiving taxpayer dollars.”
In response to the allegations made by The Financial Times report, McKinsey issued a statement asserting that “the Urban China Initiative is not McKinsey, and it did not perform work on McKinsey’s behalf.”
McKinsey stated that UCI was co-founded in 2011 with Columbia University and Tsinghua University. The consulting firm denied working with China, stating its “client work in China is overwhelmingly for US, multinational and Chinese private sector entities.”
McKinsey shut down UCI in 2021, following recent trends of divestment in Chinese organizations and separation from branches in China.
Next Steps
Reps. Krishnamoorthi and Gallagher recommended that Congress pass legislation to prohibit investments in PRC companies on US sanctions and red flag lists, including the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Entity List. They also recommended that such lists be updated to include more companies with ties to China’s technology industries.
“The Committee’s findings suggest that there are billions of dollars beyond those captured in this report that have flowed into PRC companies that support the PRC’s military, digital authoritarianism, and efforts to develop technological supremacy and undermine American technological leadership,” the report said.
Published in conjunction with 
‘Putin will not stop at Ukraine’: Biden presses for more aid to Ukraine in State of the Union
WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden didn’t waste any time mentioning his support for Ukraine during his State of the Union address on Thursday night, rallying Americans to move forward with aid.
“My message to President Putin is simple,” Biden said. “We will not walk away. We will not bow down. I will not bow down.”
Within minutes of starting his speech, Biden highlighted how freedom and democracy are under attack, not only within the United States but globally.
“Overseas, Putin of Russia is on the march, invading Ukraine and sowing chaos throughout Europe and beyond,” Biden remarked. “If anybody in this room thinks Putin will stop at Ukraine, I assure you, he will not.”
Biden told lawmakers that Ukraine could halt Putin if the country continued to receive the weapons and resources to defend itself. More money for Ukraine has been a controversial topic on Capitol Hill for months after House Republicans delayed any funding bills, making it nearly impossible for Biden to send any resources.
“Send me a bipartisan national security bill,” Biden said to lawmakers. “In a literal sense, history is watching.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), positioned behind Biden during the speech, shook his head as soon as the president mentioned the need to support Ukraine.
Other Republicans, especially hard-right members of the House Freedom Caucus, have strongly condemned the latest supplemental foreign aid bill, saying it lacks attention to the U.S.-Mexico border crisis. They are criticizing Biden’s decision to begin his State of the Union speech with a foreign policy issue like Ukraine instead of addressing American needs first.
“Joe Biden opened his State of the Union speech by talking about a foreign country, Ukraine. Americans are DYING every single day from Biden’s deadly open border policy,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) wrote in a post on X minutes after Biden began his speech.
The president often brought up his “predecessor,” former President Donald Trump, without mentioning him by name. He asserted that Trump had bowed down to a Russian leader.
“It’s outrageous. It’s dangerous. It’s unacceptable,” Biden declared.
Trump, for his part, spent the night posting on his Truth Social account, hitting at Biden. He claimed it was Biden’s policies that allowed for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
“He said I bowed down to the Russian Leader. He gave them everything, including Ukraine,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
.
Medill Today | January 22, 2025