Search

Begin New Search Topic National Security Political Geography North America

11. Effective US Energy Policy Could Strengthen International Security

Author:
Brigham McCown
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
America faces significant geopolitical risk across multiple theaters of operation. With the post–Cold War peace dividend depleted, today’s multipolar political alignment reflects an instability not seen in nearly 100 years. Russia, Iran, and China are directly challenging the American-led world order. Their goal is clear, and the United States cannot allow them to prevail. While Russia’s disregard for the rule of law and internationally established boundaries preoccupies the near term, an emerging great power competition between the West and China looms over Washington’s mid- to long-term foreign policy priorities. Additionally, Iran’s malign influence has led to a resurgence of violence and instability in the Middle East. Closer to home, socialist and anti-democratic governments in the Western Hemisphere are again wooing voters with the failed and discredited policies of yesteryear. As a new geopolitical status quo emerges, the United States will need a secure source of energy. Energy security can be defined as a country’s ability to ensure the uninterrupted availability of reliable and affordable energy sources. It encompasses the stable supply of energy resources, the resilience of energy infrastructure, and a country’s ability to meet its current and future energy demands while also dealing with emergencies, natural disasters, and geopolitical tensions that could disrupt supply. A responsible energy mix promotes national and economic security while providing a realistic pathway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This will include hydrocarbons, renewables, nuclear, and lower-emitting energy sources such as geothermal, hydroelectric, and biofuels. However, the glue that binds any stable energy transition is a key bridge fuel: natural gas. Liquified natural gas (LNG) is critical to meet global energy demand and reduce emissions while promoting American energy security and economic stability worldwide. Yet, the Biden administration recently announced plans to restrict US natural gas exports, directly affecting America’s key allies. In this environment, lawmakers should reflect upon their previous missteps before implementing energy policies that will make the regulatory environment more unstable and unpredictable. Lessons from the Past and Present During World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s drive to build an arsenal of democracy required American energy resources. The US supplied 85 percent of the oil and gas the Allies used,1 including 90 percent of aviation fuel by 1944.2 Ever since then, energy security has been necessary for creating and maintaining peace. Recent events have brought the relationship between energy, economics, and national security back into acute focus. Last year marked the fiftieth anniversary of the Arab Oil Embargo, a reminder of the shortsighted energy policies that gave away America’s energy independence and made the US reliant on Middle Eastern oil for decades. The anniversary coincided with Europe’s struggle to sustain itself following the removal of Russian oil and gas from the market.3 That struggle is not over,4 and the collapse of certain European industrial sectors is ongoing as the continent’s energy prices remain elevated (see figure 1). Drawing on these lessons from history and recent events, below are four principles to guide the future of American energy policy.
Topic:
Energy Policy, National Security, International Security, and Natural Gas
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

12. TikTok Tactics: 2024 US Candidates Dance Around Security Risks

Author:
Lindsay Gorman, Caitlin Goldenberg, and Isabella Nieminen
Publication Date:
10-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Despite TikTok’s ongoing national security risks, 2024 candidates in US House, Senate, gubernatorial, and secretary of state races continue to use the platform to reach voters. Since its emergence onto the social media scene in 2016, viral video app TikTok has exploded in popularity, dominating the screentime of a reported one billion monthly active users worldwide today. This year, the app’s user base has made it an all-but-unavoidable tool for US presidential and vice-presidential candidates, who have used TikTok to make their bids to voters. Yet researchers and lawmakers’ initial national security concerns surrounding the potential for malign influence due to TikTok’s ownership ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) have only become louder as additional voices in Washington and beyond have joined the chorus. To address these concerns, in 2024 Congress passed and President Biden signed House Resolution (HR) 7521 to force TikTok to divest from its PRC-based parent company ByteDance or face a ban in the United States. This was mere months before the president’s campaign joined the platform itself. As election day fast approaches, a wide swath of federal and state candidates are seeking to leverage TikTok’s popularity with GenZ users. In October 2022, the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD) at the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) produced a report documenting how US midterm candidates employed TikTok to reach voters and boost campaign visibility. This year, ahead of the 2024 US general elections in November, ASD and the GMF Technology Program researched the question of whether TikTok use among US Senate, House, gubernatorial, and secretary of state candidates has increased, and how candidates have continued to harness TikTok in campaigns. After two years, Democrats still outweigh Republicans on TikTok use, TikTok’s sluggishness in verifying candidate accounts has worsened, and political TikTok styles are beginning to mature.
Topic:
National Security, Social Media, Domestic Policy, and TikTok
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

13. Has NATO Enlargement Enhanced US National Security?

Author:
Joshua Shifrinson
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
What effect has NATO enlargement had on US national security? Few issues have been as central to US foreign policy over the last three decades. Since the mid 1990s, a bipartisan foreign policy consensus has held that enlarging the alliance was critical to US national security and the only practical manner of consolidating what President Clinton termed a Europe “whole, free, and at peace.” This position is so well-established in the United States’ political culture that several rounds of NATO expansion proceeded without meaningful debate in the US Senate. Indeed, occasional efforts by some policymakers to question the merits of enlargement have been met with accusations of isolationism, or of “working for Vladimir Putin”. By this logic, not only does US national security benefit from an enlarged NATO, but were the United States to stop expanding NATO the sky would be likely to fall. In contrast, this paper makes the case that NATO expansion has been a net loss to US national security and ought not to continue. Note that I focus on US national security, not whether enlargement may have benefitted other actors. Drawing on over a decade of archival research into the origins and consequences of enlargement, I advance three specific arguments. First, claims that NATO benefitted US national security by anchoring the alliance, ensuring the stability of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), and promoting democracy are almost certainly overstated. Instead – second – the alliance has generated a host of problems for the United States by encouraging allied cheap riding and reckless driving, limiting US strategic flexibility, and contributing to the collapse of relations with Moscow. As a result, future enlargement to states such as Ukraine is not in the United States’ interest. The remainder of this essay proceeds in three sections. First, I review and critically evaluate the purported benefits of NATO enlargement. From there, I discuss the variety of problems enlargement has posed to US national security. In both of these sections, I pay particular attention to the consequences of enlargement itself and to how alternative policy options may have affected US interests. I conclude by briefly reflecting on the future of enlargement at a time when Ukrainian accession in particular dominates policy debates.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, National Security, and Enlargement
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

14. Stress-Testing State Power: When Governors and Presidents Diverge on Matters of National Security

Author:
Carrie Cordero
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
As the end of the first quarter of the 21st century approaches, the United States’ unique federalist system of government is increasingly relevant as it relates to national security and foreign affairs. The activities of federal, state, and local governments are increasingly intertwined with national security issues, which in modern history have been reserved for federal government leadership and responsibility. This trend is observable through the assertion of existing legal authorities by governors, legislative action taken by state legislators, and litigation driven by state attorneys general. There are two main ways that states are increasingly engaging in issues touching national security or foreign affairs. The first is by taking action that does or could potentially impact U.S. national security. This includes actions such as litigating against federal government border security and immigration policy implementation, more assertively exercising National Guard authorities to effectuate homeland security policies or conduct law enforcement activities, or engaging in international trade directly with foreign countries, for example during a global pandemic.1 A second method is by taking action in response to an actual or perceived national security threat. This includes actions such as banning state government employees’ access to TikTok, strengthening election security based on threats as reported by the intelligence community (IC), or limiting foreign investment in a state based on national security concerns.2 In short, the interplay between states and the federal government as it relates to national security is undergoing a shift. As Columbia law professor Matthew Waxman has observed, “The federalist macrostructure of our national security system has changed dramatically during the course of our history, and it will continue to evolve.”3 This trend of increasing federalism contrasts with developments during the second half of the 20th century through the early 21st century, a period characterized by tremendous growth in the federal government’s national security enterprise. Milestones from that era include the 1947 National Security Act, which established the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the accompanying growth of the military and intelligence community enterprise. The post-9/11 era saw additional development, growth, and maturation of federal institutions engaged in national security. This era ushered in a new body of federal law and associated institutions created by those laws. These include the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which concentrated the operations and activities of 22 agencies into one. It also led to the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which provides strategic direction, policy development, and management oversight to the other 17 elements of the intelligence community. Meanwhile, throughout this period, the courts afforded substantial deference to the federal government on national security issues and legal authorities.4 The activities of federal, state, and local governments are increasingly intertwined with national security issues, which in modern history have been reserved for federal government leadership and responsibility. This year, the Securing U.S. Democracy Initiative at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) began analyzing the impact of increasing federalism on national security with the aim of developing recommendations that address certain practical aspects of this trend. Although there are a variety of areas where potential tensions lie at the intersection of state action and national security policymaking, this initial research report from the first year of work focuses on two specific aspects: (1) the assertion of National Guard authorities in a domestic protest scenario, and (2) the potential impact of a social media ban related to foreign malign influence on elections. A common thread through both subject areas includes a current and evolving national security threat of malign foreign influence. To examine these issues, the CNAS Securing U.S. Democracy Initiative developed and ran two scenario exercises in May 2024 to explore how a clash of legal authorities between the federal government and state governments might play out.5 Participants in the scenario exercises included former senior government officials who previously held roles such as agency heads and general counsels, a former member of Congress, former congressional chief counsels, former senior National Guard leadership and operational-level Guard personnel, a state-level former deputy secretary of state, and national and homeland security experts and practitioners. Many of the participants have held more than one professional position relevant to the issues explored in the exercises. The participants were charged with examining fictional scenarios set in October 2024, one month before the U.S. presidential election. The scenarios roughly assumed the real-world American political landscape as it existed in May 2024, which at that time included a president who was also the presumptive Democratic nominee seeking reelection in November. The governors represented in each exercise matched the political party governing that state in the real world. Accordingly, the Texas governor in Scenario 1 is a Republican; the California governor in Scenario 2 is a Democrat. This report provides background and analysis on potential tensions that can emerge between state action and national security decision-making in the context of two separate scenario exercises. The goal of the exercises was to better understand the dynamics and decision-making that might occur when state and federal officials disagree about a matter of national security.6 Participants were advised to consider constitutional, legal, and policy factors relevant to each scenario, and to make decisions based on the role to which they were assigned. This report summarizes these tailored exercises and provides insights that emerged from them. The report then provides policy recommendations intended to mitigate the tensions that the exercises suggest can arise when federal and state authorities diverge on issues of national security that were the subject of the scenarios.
Topic:
Government, National Security, Domestic Politics, Federalism, and State Power
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

15. The Rise of US Economic Sanctions on China: Analysis of a New PIIE Dataset

Author:
Martin Chorzempa, Mary Lovely, and Christine Wan
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
Concerns over China’s national security and human rights activities have led the United States to rely increasingly on financial sanctions and export controls to curb Beijing’s behavior. But the tools are so complex it is difficult to assess their effectiveness. A new PIIE dataset sheds light on this economic statecraft. The first Trump administration added three times as many Chinese entities to export control and other sanctions lists than the previous four administrations; the Biden administration added even more to these lists. Most sanctions and controls target high-tech sectors, especially electronics, military and defense entities, aviation, space, and aerospace; targets are chosen under a veil of secrecy, raising questions over accountability and transparency. The benefits of isolating Chinese firms come with potential costs, hobbling innovation for US and allied business, encouraging circumvention of sanctions, and accelerating Chinese innovation.
Topic:
Economics, Human Rights, National Security, Sanctions, and Exports
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

16. Adapting US strategy to account for China’s transformation into a peer nuclear power

Author:
David Shullman, John K. Culver, Kitsch Liao, and Samantha Wong
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
China’s rapidly improving nuclear capabilities and expanding nuclear arsenal underpin its recent rise as a nuclear peer power. For the United States and its allies in the Indo-Pacific region, the uncertainty of China’s intentions behind this nuclear expansion poses a major challenge. It necessitates a revisit of the fundamental assumptions underpinning US and allied planning and preparation for a potential conflict with China. The 2022 White House National Security Strategy1 and National Defense Strategy2 identified China as the only competitor with both the intent and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological wherewithal to reshape the international order. The 2022 United States Nuclear Posture Review noted how China has embarked on an ambitious expansion, modernization, and diversification of its nuclear forces and established a nascent nuclear triad.3 The report further assessed that Beijing will likely possess at least 1,000 deliverable warheads by the end of the decade.4 China also sustains extensive and ambitious space operations. According to the Department of Defense’s 2022 China Military Power Report5, as of 2021, China’s 260 intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) satellites were the largest collection of such constellations globally other than the United States’. The transformation of China’s military capabilities no longer represents the linear, stepwise modernization of an outmoded military that characterized the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) for the past two decades. Since the PLA launched its major internal command and service restructuring in 2015, previous doctrinal and teaching publications acquired and exploited by Western analysts are out of date and likely declining in relevance. By extension, much of the Western analysis of PLA plans, operations, and concepts of deterrence and escalation control are also likely to be out of date. China’s rapid expansion of strategic warfighting capabilities (i.e., nuclear forces, space/counterspace systems, and cyber/information operations) represents tremendous discontinuity in the pace, scope, and scale of the PLA’s transformation, necessitating a major US reassessment of Chinese strategy, doctrine, and warfighting operations. The commonly accepted notion that deliberate Chinese nuclear force modernization is characterized as “running faster to stay in the same place” to sustain a minimal retaliatory posture is assessed to have evolved. China now has a higher likelihood of using its newfound nuclear power to more actively deter or compel6 its opponents and safeguard its core interests. This includes perceived external threats that could negatively impact domestic political interests. As a step in this reassessment, this project reevaluated China’s strategy, doctrine, and warfighting concepts in light of its ongoing rapid transformation into a peer nuclear power, examined implications of this assessment for future US contingencies in the Indo-Pacific region, and produced several actionable findings and recommendations for US government decision-makers that can be addressed in the next five- to ten-year horizon.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, Conflict, and Missile Defense
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

17. Course Correction: Charting a More Effective Approach to U.S.-China Trade

Author:
Clark Packard and Scott Lincicome
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Over the past several years the U.S.-China economic relationship has soured and become subordinated to broader concerns about national security and geopolitics. After a decades‐​long reform agenda in China that lifted hundreds of millions out of grinding poverty, Chinese president Xi Jinping has increasingly turned inward—reembracing Maoist socialism and heavy‐​handed central planning. Washington’s response to these worrisome developments has been reflexively hawkish economically, scattershot, and woefully inadequate for the economic challenge that China presents.
Topic:
National Security, Bilateral Relations, Economy, and Trade
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

18. The Two Faces of American Freedom

Author:
Aziz Rana
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Center for Security, Race and Rights (CSRR), Rutgers University School of Law
Abstract:
Professor Rana situates the American experience within the global history of colonialism, examining the intertwined relationship in U.S. constitutional practice between internal accounts of freedom and external projects of power and expansion. In the process, he reinterprets the American political tradition from the colonial period to modern times, placing issues especially of race, immigration, and national security in the context of shifting notions of empire and citizenship.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, National Security, Politics, Race, Citizenship, Colonialism, and Freedom
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

19. US strategy and force posture for an era of nuclear tripolarity

Author:
Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The term “nuclear tripolarity” describes a world in which China has joined the United States and Russia as a leading nuclear power. As China modernizes its existing nuclear forces and deploys new weapons, it is on track to roughly double its deployed nuclear arsenal in the next few years—from approximately 350 to 700 deliverable warheads. The US Department of Defense projects that China will go further, expanding its arsenal to at least 1,500 warheads by 2035.1 At those force levels, China’s arsenal would be comparable to US and Russian deployed nuclear forces, currently capped at 1,550 by the New START Treaty.2 What are the consequences of emerging tripolarity for US nuclear strategy and force posture? If the United States retains its current approach to nuclear force planning, the growth of China’s arsenal (and the ongoing modernization of Russia’s nuclear weapons) will likely compel the United States to significantly increase its own arsenal. The easiest way to do so would be to upload one to two thousand additional warheads from US reserves onto existing delivery systems when the New START treaty expires in 2026. Unfortunately, a major increase in US forces would likely mark just another step in an intensifying arms competition among the three leading nuclear powers, since China and Russia would then feel pressure to respond.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, Geopolitics, Deterrence, and Multipolarity
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

20. Integrating US and allied capabilities to ensure security in space

Author:
Nicholas Eftimiades
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Over the last two decades, the world entered a new paradigm in the use of space, namely the introduction of highly capable small satellites, just tens or hundreds of kilograms in size. This paradigm has forever changed how countries will employ space capabilities to achieve economic, scientific, and national security interests. As is so often the case, the telltale signs of this global paradigm shift were obvious to more than just a few individuals or industries. Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate began exploring the use of small satellites in the 1990s. The Air Force also established the Operationally Responsive Space program in 2007, which explored the potential use of small satellites. However, both research efforts had no impact on the US Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) satellite acquisition programs. The advancement of small satellites was largely driven by universities and small commercial start-up companies.1 The introduction of commercial and government small satellites has democratized space for states and even individuals. Space remote sensing and communications satellites, once the exclusive domain of the United States and Soviet Union, can now provide space-based services to anyone with a credit card. Eighty-eight countries currently operate satellites, and the next decade will likely see the launch of tens of thousands of new satellites.2 Commercial and government small satellites have changed outer space into a more contested, congested, and competitive environment. The United States has shared space data with its allies since the dawn of the space age.3 Yet it also has a history of operating independently in space. Other domains of warfare and defense policy are more closely integrated between the United States and its allies and partners. The United States has military alliances with dozens of countries and strategic partnerships with many more.4 In recent years, there have been calls to coordinate with, or even integrate allied space capabilities into US national security space strategy and plans. In this regard, the US government has made significant advances. However, much work needs to be done. There is pressure on the United States to act quickly to increase national security space cooperation and integration, driven by rapidly increasing global capabilities and expanding threats from hostile nations and orbital debris. This paper examines the potential strategic benefits to US national security of harnessing allied space capabilities and the current efforts to do so, as well as barriers to achieving success. The paper identifies pathways forward for cooperating with allies and strategic partners on their emerging space capabilities and the potential of integrating US and allied capabilities.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, National Security, European Union, and Space
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Canada, North America, and United States of America