Search

Begin New Search Political Geography North America Author Carrie Cordero

1. 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

2. Protecting the Protectors: Preventing and Mitigating Domestic Violent Extremism in the Military, Veteran, and Law Enforcement Communities

Author:
Carrie Cordero, Katherine L. Kuzminski, Arona Baigal, and Josh Campbell
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
In recent years, the involvement of currently serving military members and law enforcement officers, as well as veterans of those two professions, in domestic violent extremist organizations and activities has received public attention. While they represent the minority of those engaged in domestic violent extremism (DVE), their participation merits additional scrutiny, given the nature of their professions—which includes taking a sworn oath to defend the Constitution and the nation, possessing the authority to use force to safeguard national security and public safety, and adhering to a professional ethic. It is especially important to scrutinize their participation in DVE because members of these communities have engaged in violence against the very system they are sworn to protect. There are three phases in the service lifecycle to identify and prevent individual engagement in or sympathy for DVE organizations: screening during the recruitment process; training and managing currently serving personnel; and screening, educating, and resourcing individuals transitioning out of service. Efforts to identify and address DVE are approached differently in the Department of Defense (DoD) and the law enforcement community. For military service members, a centralized, top-down structure with formal policies, practices, and programs provides guidance from the DoD, the military departments, and the military services across all three phases of the service lifecycle. By contrast, the law enforcement community operates across a patchwork of decentralized federal, state, county, and local hierarchies, resulting in wide variation between policies and practices across approximately 18,000 local police agencies. Even though the DoD has a formal structure to address DVE, the department still faces challenges similar to those of the law enforcement community in managing participation in DVE organizations and activities by current and former service members. While recent efforts to update policies regarding the screening, management, and transition of service members are necessary, they are not sufficient to prevent the appeal of DVE. Similarly, the absence of a cohesive structure connecting law enforcement agencies prevents opportunities to develop and implement formal mechanisms to address the challenge. Members of the military and law enforcement communities (both those currently serving and veterans) play a unique role in the American social contract. In exchange for authorities to use force in the name of the state for the protection of society, members of these professions are expected to uphold a stricter moral standard than their civilian counterparts. Moreover, members of the profession are expected to regulate entry into their ranks and enforce norms of acceptable behavior through individual and communal allegiance to a code of ethics. While externally imposed laws and policies can define the boundaries of acceptable behavior within the profession, internal enforcement of a shared professional ethos is more likely to intrinsically motivate behavior that aligns with the high standards of the profession. The DoD, the military services, and law enforcement organizations would benefit from thoughtful and consistent updates to social media screening processes. Law enforcement organizations should follow best practices to include counter-DVE training within existing training modules on related topics. Beyond updates to policy, real opportunities exist for engaging in communicating, modeling, and enforcing the professional ethic internally across the lifecycle of service. Increased formal education and training of the professional ethic by respected leaders within these communities may be more impactful than externally required “box checking” activities. Membership organizations, including police-, military-, and veteran-serving organizations, can provide consistent, standardized professional development and a sense of community and purpose for those currently serving, and can also reach transitioning and veteran members of the military and law enforcement communities who may be disconnected from support.
Topic:
Law Enforcement, Violent Extremism, Veterans, Countering Violent Extremism, and Military
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

3. Intelligence Transparency and Foreign Threats to Elections: Responsibilities, Risks, and Recommendations

Author:
Carrie Cordero
Publication Date:
07-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
As the United States nears a consequential November election in a charged political environment and society reels this year from a global pandemic, historic unemployment, and a summer of civic unrest and violence, the threat of malign foreign interference in the campaign season and election system looms. In 2016, policymakers and intelligence community leaders were reluctant to release information publicly regarding the activities of the Russian government intended to affect the election. This year, a new playbook is needed to ensure that the intelligence community, policymakers, and the public are in sync regarding transparency expectations about foreign threats to the election. The discussion that follows provides context—how intelligence transparency was addressed in the 2016 election, adjustments that were made for the 2018 midterms—and articulates responsibilities of the intelligence community versus the risks involved in greater transparency. The paper concludes with recommendations for transparency about election threats in order to protect against and mitigate ongoing foreign efforts to damage our stressed democracy.
Topic:
Government, Intelligence, Elections, and Democracy
Political Geography:
Russia, North America, and United States of America

4. Reforming the Department of Homeland Security Through Enhanced Oversight & Accountability

Author:
Carrie Cordero
Publication Date:
05-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
In November 2002, 14 months after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS or the department) was created by Congress to make America safer from terrorism.1 At the time, the policy focus was on international terrorism, in particular al Qaeda. Since then, not only has the terrorism landscape evolved—from al Qaeda and its affiliates to ISIS to the present increased attention to domestic terrorism linked to white supremacist violence2—but the scope and complexity of national security threats have evolved. The new department centralized border security, immigration enforcement, transportation security, emergency management, and critical infrastructure protection, plus additional functions, with an intent to protect against future terrorist attack. The fundamental activities of the department, however, have always been broader than terrorism. And over the years, attention to the department has quickly shifted depending on the critical events of the time, whether a natural disaster, such as Hurricane Katrina in 2005, or persistent cyberattacks and other malign cyberactivity since the mid-2000s, or the emergence of a global pandemic.3 Meanwhile, due to a variety of factors, the size and complexity of DHS’s law enforcement functions have grown, while recent attention has focused primarily on the border and immigration functions. The department is arguably the most operational agency in the federal government in terms of its routine activities that affect and directly touch millions of people each day. These varying and disparate missions across the department are focused domestically and therefore require substantial attention to whether and how they are carried out in accordance with law and respect for constitutional protections. This report, issued as part of a Center for a New American Security (CNAS) project4 on enhancing DHS oversight and accountability, posits that 18 years into the department’s existence, the functions of border security and immigration enforcement, as well as the law enforcement functions of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in particular, have grown disproportionately large in size and broad in scope, without the necessary oversight and accountability structures that must accompany such activities.5 And DHS’s border and immigration functions are under tremendous strain as they are tasked with increased policy directives, humanitarian challenges on the southern border, intense political pressure, and growing public scrutiny about these functions. The department is in severe need of legislative attention and policy coordination. If it does not reform to address the issues identified in this report, it is likely the department will face calls for partial or full dismantlement under a future administration.6 Such a result would undo nearly 20 years of effort to better protect the nation from terrorism and emerging homeland threats, and risk returning to a pre-9/11 era of dis-jointed homeland security coordination.
Topic:
Security, Terrorism, Homeland Security, Accountability, and Oversight
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

5. Enhancing Congressional Intelligence Committee Effectiveness

Author:
Carrie Cordero
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
In fall 2018, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) initiated a foundation-funded project focused on bolstering bipartisan national security decision-making in Congress. As part of that effort, CNAS is focusing on challenges in conducting intelligence oversight. The project includes written reports, roundtables, engagement with congressional members and staff, and additional outreach bringing attention to the importance of bolstering meaningful and effective congressional intelligence oversight. The first paper in this series, Intelligence Oversight Priorities for the 116th Congress, was published in April 2019. This is the second paper in the series and intends to reboot the policy dialogue regarding steps the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) can take to enhance their effectiveness at overseeing the intelligence community’s activities and bolster public confidence in both their own activities and those of the intelligence community.1 The goal of this working paper is to provide a fresh assessment regarding whether the committees need significant structural reforms, assess which proposals previously generated are politically feasible, and identify areas for future research.
Topic:
Government, Intelligence, and Reform
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America