U.S. National Security and Military News Review

Soldier’s Struggles Began Before Las Vegas Tesla Explosion, Nurse Says

Dave Philipps — Sat, 04 Jan 2025 21:32:38 -0500

A Green Beret who had served several combat tours fatally shot himself in a Cybertruck that exploded outside a Trump hotel on New Year’s Day.

México y Honduras se preparan para la amenaza de deportaciones masivas de Trump

Annie Correal — Sat, 04 Jan 2025 12:14:11 -0500

La presidenta de Honduras ha sido la primera dirigente de la región en plantear una respuesta concreta al plan de Trump de las deportaciones. Los secretarios de Relaciones Exteriores de su país y de México se reunirán para discutir sus acciones.

Eleven Precedents of ISIS-Inspired Vehicle Rammings: Precursors to New Orleans Attack

Tom Joscelyn — Sat, 04 Jan 2025 11:45:25 -0500

On New Year’s Day, at least 14 people were killed and dozens more wounded when a man drove a rented pickup truck into a crowd of revelers on Bourbon Street, New Orleans. The FBI quickly identified the assailant as Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a U.S. Army veteran, saying that an ISIS flag was found in his truck and the Bureau was “working to determine” his “potential associations and affiliations with terrorist organizations.” Christopher Raia, the deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, explained in a press briefing that Jabbar posted several videos on Facebook as he drove the truck from Houston to New Orleans. In those videos, Jabbar proclaimed “his support for ISIS” and said “he had joined ISIS before this summer.”

Despite Jabbar’s alleged fealty to ISIS, there is still much we do not know about him. Thus far, ISIS has not claimed responsibility for his violence, even though the group has repeatedly claimed credit for similar attacks in the past (see below). And aspiring terrorists are not automatons; like all humans, their behavior can rarely be attributed to a single factor. According to the FBI, Jabbar himself said he considered harming his own family and friends before deciding to attack in New Orleans. Such a sentiment may indicate a deeper psychological break or trauma.

Nonetheless, Jabbar allegedly decided that an attack in New Orleans was preferable because it would be viewed as part of the “war between the believers and the disbelievers” – a common ISIS motif. Indeed, the modus operandi he chose for his attack bears similarities to a string of ISIS-inspired attacks in the past.

As explained below, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and ISIS have repeatedly called on their followers to use their cars and trucks to run over victims. Jihadist groups are not unique in this regard. Other extremists, including those espousing far-right views, have used vehicles as ramming weapons against civilians. In December, a man who reportedly holds “Islamophobic” views and expressed his admiration for the far-right, anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, rammed a car into Magdeburg’s Christmas market. Five people were killed in the attack, which also wounded more than 200 others. German authorities have stated that the assailant in that attack also demonstrated signs of mental illness.

Men inspired by ISIS have repeatedly employed this tactic as well. Just Security has collection of nine examples, from July 2016 to April 2020, of ISIS-inspired terrorists using vehicles to run over civilians in the U.S., Europe, and Central Asia. Two of these vehicular attacks were carried out inside the United States. In addition to those nine examples are two examples in which ISIS-inspired terrorists used their vehicles to run over police.

It is potentially noteworthy that Jabbar used the same tactic. In the cases identified, there is evidence indicating that ISIS inspired the attacks. However, authorities often did not find a tangible operational link between the perpetrators and the ISIS organization. It may be the case that authorities also do not find any such connection between Jabbar and ISIS.

In some of the cases summarized below, ISIS-inspired terrorists recorded themselves swearing their fealty to the group and its leader prior to their day of terror. Jabbar’s videos have not been released to the public, but he allegedly made similar pronouncements. An analysis of his videos, as well as the “potential” improvised explosive devices (IEDs) allegedly found in his possession, may provide additional clues as to his path to Bourbon Street. There are multiple ways one can learn to assemble IEDs, but investigators are likely working to determine if his devices resemble those found in the online literature produced by ISIS and other terrorist groups.

A Propaganda Campaign to Inspire Vehicle Attacks

The simple idea to turn a vehicle into a ramming weapon is an old one. Terrorist groups found it difficult to plot and execute spectacular, mass casualty terrorist attacks in the United States after the 9/11 hijackings. Al Qaeda’s deadliest day led to a global manhunt for known al-Qaeda leaders and operatives, increased scrutiny of suspected terrorists, and other enhanced security measures. Given these operational roadblocks, al Qaeda sought to encourage individuals living in the West – that is, so-called lone wolves – to lash out on their own. Al Qaeda ideologues reasoned that if individuals could be encouraged to act on their own, without any detectable connections to an organized group, then they could evade detection by security services and terrorize civilians in the West.

With that focus in mind, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) began publishing its English-language Inspire magazine in 2010. The second issue of the magazine, released in October of that year, included what may be the initial inspiration for the horror witnessed on Bourbon Street on New Year’s Day. One section was titled, “Tips for our brothers in the U.S.” and, among other ideas, encouraged al Qaeda’s admirers to turn a pickup truck into the “Ultimate Mowing Machine.” AQAP advised potential adherents that they should use their trucks “not to mow grass, but mow down the enemies of God.” The article emphasized: “To achieve maximum carnage, you need to pick up as much speed as you can while still retaining good control … to strike as many people as possible in your first run.”

While AQAP’s specific “Ultimate Mowing Machine” suggestion had little to no effect at first, the same general idea was repeatedly marketed by ISIS. In a lengthy diatribe released in October 2014, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the first spokesman of ISIS, encouraged followers to kill civilians living in the West however they could. “The best thing you can do is to strive to your best and kill any disbeliever, whether he be French, American, or from any of their allies,” al-Adnani said. “If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies,” Al-Adnani continued. “Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him” (emphasis added).

ISIS spread this murderous idea online in the years that followed, repeatedly encouraging its followers to turn their cars or trucks into weapons. And multiple aspiring terrorists carried out attacks using their vehicles around the globe, which ISIS then lauded.

Timeline of Similar ISIS-Inspired Attacks Using Vehicles

On July 14, 2016, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel drove a truck into a crowd celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France. More than 80 people were killed in the attack and hundreds more wounded. Two days later, ISIS claimed responsibility, labeling the perpetrator “a soldier of the Islamic State,” adding that he “executed the operation in response to calls to target citizens of coalition nations, which fight the Islamic State.” Despite ISIS’s claim of responsibility, French authorities did not find any solid links between Bouhlel and the group. Bouhlel’s father told the press that he had previously suffered from depression, received psychiatric treatment and had a history of substance abuse. Bouhlel’s fascination with ISIS also seems to have been a recent development at the time of his attack, as he watched the group’s videos online in the weeks preceding it.
Four and a half months later, on Nov. 28, 2016, a Somali refugee, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, drove his car into pedestrians at Ohio State University. After targeting people with his vehicle, Artan jumped out and began attacking his victims with a knife. A campus police officer quickly reacted and shot Artan, killing him. No innocents were killed in the incident, but multiple victims were injured. Once again, ISIS claimed that the perpetrator was its “soldier” and that he had acted in accordance with the group’s call to attack civilians in the anti-ISIS coalition countries. However, the FBI found Artan had “acted alone and was not directed by a terrorist organization.” It “appears” Artan was “influenced by extremist ideology, including Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) propaganda,” the FBI added.
Less than one month later, on Dec. 19, 2016, another young man, Anis Amri, hijacked and then drove a truck into a crowd at a Christmas market in Berlin. Twelve people were killed and dozens more wounded. Amri was killed in a shootout with police in Milan, Italy shortly after his attack. Prior to his demise, however, Amri recorded a video in which he pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. And he transmitted the video to one of ISIS’s chief propaganda outlets, the Amaq News Agency, for posting online. Other small-scale attacks throughout Europe in the months preceding Amri’s vehicular assault followed a similar pattern. On multiple occasions, terrorists recorded videos in which they pledged allegiance to ISIS’s so-called caliph. The videos served as an effective propaganda tool, allowing ISIS to portray itself as a guiding hand. Amri’s ties to ISIS went beyond his recorded allegiance. German prosecutors tied him to a network of extremists that included the ISIS terrorists responsible for the Nov. 2015 attacks in Paris.
On March 22, 2017, Khalid Masood drove his car into pedestrians on the Westminster Bridge near the British Parliament. Masood then got out of his vehicle and attacked others, including police officers, with knives before he was shot dead. In total, four people were killed and 29 others injured. Years prior to his attack, MI5 officials investigated Masood’s suspected ties to extremists, but ultimately decided to close their inquiry after they determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant prosecution. Masood also had a lengthy criminal history. After his attack, British authorities found that Masood “clearly had an interest in Jihad,” and his actions “echo[ed] the rhetoric of [ISIS] leaders in terms of methodology and attacking police and civilians,” but they did not find any evidence directly linking him to ISIS. Nonetheless, ISIS claimed he acted as its “soldier.”
On April 7, 2017, Rakhmat Akilov drove a hijacked beer truck into a crowd of people in Stockholm, Sweden. Five people were killed and more than a dozen injured. “We know he has shown sympathies to extreme groups, among them ISIS,” Jonas Hysing, the Swedish national police spokesman, said at the time. “We won’t comment any further on that,” Hysing added. Akilov’s lawyer subsequently said his client had admitted to committing a “terrorist crime.” However, it does not appear that ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack.
On June 3, 2017, three assailants drove a van into pedestrians on the London Bridge and then proceeded to Borough Market, where they jumped out of the vehicle and began stabbing victims in restaurants. All three terrorists – identified as Khuram Shazad Butt, Rachid Redouane, and Youssef Zaghba – were shot and killed during their attack, but not before they killed seven victims and wounded dozens more. The assailants had known ties to extremists

Digest of Recent Articles on Just Security (Dec. 23, 2024-Jan. 3, 2025)

Just Security — Sat, 04 Jan 2025 07:29:21 -0500

Book Recommendations

The Just Security 2024 Year-End Book Recommendations
by Just Security

New Orleans Terror Attack

A Reflection on Terrorism, New Orleans and the Dangers of Overreach
by Fionnuala Ní Aoláin

Russia-Ukraine War

Russia’s “Human Safari” Terror Tactic in Key Southeastern Ukraine Region of Kherson
by Mercedes Sapuppo

Series: Tech Policy Under Trump 2.0

United States / Iran

U.S. Options for Iran Diplomacy in 2025
by Kelsey Davenport

Intelligence Community / Reform

Law and Leadership for National Security in 2025 and Beyond
by Alex Joel

U.S. Congress / Oversight

The Ethics Complaint Against Liz Cheney: Blue Smoke Without Fire
by David Luban

ICJ / Gender Apartheid

Suing the Taliban at the ICJ Over Abuses of Afghan Women Isn’t a Panacea. Countries Must Do More Now.
by Jayne Huckerby

Podcast: Technology / Migration

The Just Security Podcast: How Border Technologies Impact Migration
Paras Shah interview with Judith Cabrera and Petra Molnar

The post Digest of Recent Articles on Just Security (Dec. 23, 2024-Jan. 3, 2025) appeared first on Just Security.

Jimmy Carter Helped Clean Up Canada’s Chalk River Nuclear Accident

Ian Austen — Sat, 04 Jan 2025 06:00:02 -0500

The former American president, who died this week at 100, was among those who came to clean up a partial meltdown at Chalk River, Ontario.

Honduran Leader Threatens to Push U.S. Military Out of Base if Trump Orders Mass Deportations

Annie Correal — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 23:36:40 -0500

In pushing back against President-elect Donald J. Trump’s plan, President Xiomara Castro threatened that a base hosting U.S. troops could “lose all reason to exist in Honduras.”

New Orleans Attacker Had Transmitter to Set Off Explosives, F.B.I. Says

Isabelle Taft, Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs and Eduardo Medina — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 20:40:55 -0500

Bomb-making materials were found at a short-term rental house, and the authorities said they had recovered a transmitter intended to set off explosives on the city’s famous Bourbon Street.

ATTRITION: Weaponizing Starvation By Bombing Chemical Plants

Fri, 03 Jan 2025 19:07:03 -0500

SEA TRANSPORTATION: American Resupply Ships

Fri, 03 Jan 2025 19:05:42 -0500

Marines still targeting 2030 for Hornet replacement, despite F-35 delays

Audrey Decker — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 17:02:55 -0500

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION MIRAMAR, California—While Marines wait for new F-35s, officials say recent delivery delays haven't altered their goal to fully switch to the fifth-generation stealth fighter jet by the end of the decade.

The service is replacing its aging F/A-18 Hornets with F-35s, a massive effort complicated by a year-long pause in deliveries of the newest version of the jet.

“It's not gonna happen all overnight, but right now, I think the forecast still has us completing it in 2030,” said Col. William Mitchell, commanding officer of Marine Aircraft Group 11, which includes two F-35C squadrons, an F-35B training squadron, two F/A-18C squadrons, and a KC-130 aerial refueling squadron.

But for that plan to work, Lockheed Martin needs to finish clearing a backlog of deliveries caused by technology-development problems that led the Pentagon to stop accepting the aircraft for a year. In July, Lockheed received the green light to resume deliveries without the full version of the upgrade, dubbed Technology Refresh-3.

“We need Lockheed Martin to deliver the jets, and we need to continue to procure them, but on paper, that is what the plan is right now,” Mitchell said.

The delays have caused some “nuances” to the schedule but won’t necessarily have a “ripple effect” that will extend the overall transition, Mitchell said. The Marines’ second F-35C squadron, VMFA-311, was supposed to have all 10 of its F-35s months ago, but is currently short four. The squadron likely won’t get its first TR-3 jet until May, but the exact date is still up in the air.

“It's an impact, just that we have fewer jets to fly…but no deployment has been held up. They've still been able to fly their six aircraft and get a lot of great training and do a lot of great events with what they have,” he said.

Despite software-development problems with TR-3, the software VMFA-311 is flying with now is solid, Mitchell said. “The jets that we fly here, no issues, aside from any anomaly you might get in any aircraft, but it's very dependable, very resilient. But obviously in the test world, I can't really speak to that. That's where the delays seem to be.”

Eventually, the two remaining F/A-18 squadrons will become F-35 squadrons, and MAG-11 will have four F-35C squadrons, Mitchell said, in addition to its F-35B training squadron and KC-130 squadron. The Marine Corps also plans to increase the number of F-35s per squadron from 10 to 12, but that likely won’t happen until the early 2030s, he said.

Under the service’s 2022 aviation plan, the Marines plan to buy a total of 67 F-35Cs and 353 F-35Bs, at a rate of roughly 20 aircraft per year. The service has yet to release its new aviation plan, which was supposed to be published by the end of 2024.

Mitchell hasn’t seen the new document yet, but said he doesn’t think much has changed in the F-35 transition plan “other than some delays in squadrons that are standing up due to the TR-3 delays.”

In the coming years, all F/A-18 infrastructure will become F-35 infrastructure, and three new hangars will be built here at Miramar to support the new squadrons. In the meantime, Marine aviators and maintainers have started to switch to the new jet, and more Marines will move over once the Hornet squadrons sundown.

“Marines will be up for reenlistment, and then they'll put in a reenlistment [lateral] move package and then, the next month, they're at school to learn how to work on the F-35. So that happens throughout the course of a year. Same thing with the pilots: they can put in a package to transition to an F-35 and there’s a board process for that, and so that’s managed through Headquarters Marine Corps Manpower,” he said.

While the service prepares for its future fleet, it’s squeezing all the life out of its remaining Hornets. The F/A-18s are getting a version of RTX’s APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, which is already in service on the Navy’s F/A-18E/Fs. The service is about halfway through the radar installation, which will bring a ton of new capability to the Hornets, Mitchell said.

The F/A-18s are also getting beyond-line-of-sight reception for communications, and an upgraded GPS system, Mitchell said. “There's some upgraded navigation, but there's really kind of not a whole lot more we can do, but where we can, we are.”

The Hornet squadrons have enjoyed high readiness rates, despite their age, since the squadron can take parts from retiring aircraft, Mitchell said.

“As we transition to the F-35, we’ve been able to take the best jets that we have with the most life on them, and then place them in our operational squadrons, and harvest a lot of parts from the aircraft that were going to be retired. So the supply system is very healthy in the F-18, pilots are getting a lot of flight hours in the F-18. The readiness is some of the best I've seen in many years,” he said.

The service maintains that the Hornet is the “Swiss Army knife” of the Marine Corps air component, since the F-35 is still waiting on some capabilities, like maritime strike.

“There are certain maritime strike capabilities that the F-18 have that aren't mature yet in the F-35 so, we're basically help each other out, whereas the F-35 is more survivable in INDOPACOM against some of the advanced threats that our adversaries have than the F-18, so they can push in a little bit further and help mitigate some of those threats, to allow the F-18s to employ their tactics,” Mitchell said.

]]>

Treasury Dept. Hits Chinese Tech Company With Sanctions After Breach

Zach Montague — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 15:15:06 -0500

The agency imposed penalties on a company it blamed for supporting the Chinese hacking group Flax Typhoon in a 2022-23 infiltration.

U.S. Hits Chinese Cybersecurity Company With Sanctions After Breach

Zach Montague — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 15:15:06 -0500

The agency imposed penalties on a company it blamed for supporting the Chinese hacking group Flax Typhoon in a 2022-23 infiltration.

Soldier’s Bomb in Cybertruck Explosion at Trump Hotel Could Have Been More Lethal

Dave Philipps — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 13:19:03 -0500

Fellow soldiers say the Army sergeant who set off the explosion could have done far more harm. Investigators are trying to figure out why he didn’t.

Trump's promise to build more warships is on a collision course with his deportation pledges

Nicole Foy, ProPublica — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 13:06:41 -0500

Early last year, then-candidate Donald Trump promised that when he got back into the Oval Office, he’d authorize the U.S. Navy to build more ships. “It’s very important,” he said, “because it’s jobs, great jobs.”

However, the companies that build ships for the government are already having trouble finding enough workers to fill those jobs. And Trump may make it even harder if he follows through on another pledge he’s made: to clamp down on immigration.

The president-elect has told his supporters he would impose new limits on the numbers of immigrants allowed into the country and stage the largest mass deportation campaign in history. Meanwhile, the shipbuilding industry, which he also says he supports and which has given significant financial support to Republican causes, is struggling to overcome an acute worker shortage. Immigrants have been critical to helping fill the gaps.

According to a Navy report from last year, several major shipbuilding programs are years behind schedule, owing largely to a lack of workers. The shortfall is so severe that warship production is down to its lowest level in a quarter century.

Shipbuilders and the government have poured millions of dollars into training and recruiting American workers, and, as part of a bipartisan bill just introduced in the Senate, they have proposed to spend even more. Last year the Navy awarded nearly $1 billion in a no-bid contract to a Texas nonprofit to modernize the industry with more advanced technology in a way that will make it more attractive to workers. The nonprofit has already produced splashy TV ads for submarine jobs. One of its goals is to help the submarine industry hire 140,000 new workers in the next 10 years. “We build giants,” one of its ads beckons. “It takes one to build one.”

Still, experts say that these robust efforts have so far resulted in nowhere near enough workers for current needs, let alone a workforce large enough to handle expanded production. “We’re trying to get blood from a turnip,” said Shelby Oakley, an analyst at the Government Accountability Office. “The domestic workforce is just not there.”

In the meantime, the industry is relying on immigrants for a range of shipyard duties, with many working jobs similar to those on a construction site, including on cleanup crews and as welders, painters and pipefitters. And executives worry that any future immigration crackdown or restrictions on legal immigration, including limits on asylum or temporary protected status programs, could cause disruptions that would further harm their capacity for production.

Ron Wille, the president and chief operating officer of All American Marine in Washington state, said that his company was “clawing” for workers. And Peter Duclos, the president of Gladding-Hearn Shipbuilding in Somerset, Massachusetts, said the current immigration system is “so broken” that he was already having trouble holding onto valuable workers and finding more.

There is no publicly available data that shows how much the shipbuilding industry relies on immigrant labor, particularly undocumented immigrant labor. Both Wille and Duclos said that they do not employ undocumented workers, and industry experts say undocumented workers are unlikely to be working on projects requiring security clearances. However, reporting by ProPublica last year found that some shipbuilders with government contracts have used such workers. That reporting focused on a major Louisiana shipyard run by a company called Thoma-Sea, where undocumented immigrants have often been hired through third-party subcontractors.

The story reported on a young undocumented Guatemalan immigrant who was helping build an $89 million U.S. government ship for tracking hurricanes. When he died on the job after working at Thoma-Sea for two years, neither the company nor the subcontractor paid death benefits to his partner and young son.

ProPublica also reported that executives at Thoma-Sea, which declined to comment, had made tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to Republican candidates. However, if Trump’s last time in office is any guide, the shipbuilding industry wouldn’t be exempted from any future crackdown. One of the final workplace raids under Trump’s first administration was conducted at an even larger shipbuilder in Louisiana called Bollinger.

In July 2020, federal immigration agents arrested 19 “unlawfully present foreign nationals” at Bollinger’s Lockport shipyard, according to a story in the Times-Picayune/New Orleans Advocate. Immigration and Customs Enforcement refused to provide information on the raid. According to Bollinger’s website, that yard produces U.S. Coast Guard and Navy patrol boats. Five of the workers arrested were sent to an ICE detention center and 14 were released with pending deportation cases, according to the news report.

Bollinger denied any wrongdoing following the raid. Four years later, there’s no evidence in publicly available federal court records that Bollinger executives faced any charges in connection to it. Meanwhile, federal electoral records show that the company’s executives donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican elected officials last year, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, both Republicans from Louisiana. The company did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment.

President Joe Biden’s administration ended workplace raids like the one at Bollinger, saying that it would instead focus on “unscrupulous employers.” Department of Homeland Security officials did not answer questions or provide data on how many employers had been prosecuted since then. However, Trump’s designated “border czar,” Tom Homan, has signaled that the incoming administration will return to carrying out the raids. When asked how the second Trump administration will increase shipbuilding while limiting immigration, a spokesperson for Trump’s transition team only doubled down on the president-elect’s deportation promises, saying they would focus enforcement on “illegal criminals, drug dealers, and human traffickers.”

A few days after Trump won the election, a group of undocumented shipyard welders leaving a Hispanic grocery store near the port in Houma, Louisiana, expressed a dim view when asked what they thought lay ahead. One man, who declined to provide his name, broke into a nervous laugh and blurted, “Well, we could be deported.” Another man, a welder from the Mexican state of Coahuila who’d been working in the U.S. for about two years, also declined to give his name but said he worried about losing the life he’d managed to build in this country.

“When they grab you,” he said, “they’ll take you, and you’ll have to leave everything behind.”

Do you have information about undocumented immigrants in the workforce? Contact nicole.foy@propublica.org or reach her on Signal 661-549-0572.

.ProPublicaThis story was originally published by

]]>

A Reflection on Terrorism, New Orleans and the Dangers of Overreach

Fionnuala Ní Aoláin — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 12:00:07 -0500

On New Year’s Day, a murderous attack on Bourbon Street in New Orleans left at least 15 people dead and scores injured. Those killed were ordinary people out celebrating the start of a New Year, being happy and hopeful, and taking advantage of a city that celebrates like no other. Understanding the “who,” and the “why,” of this crime is necessary to prevent further violence but also to calibrate threats accurately, avoid hyperbole in defining it and the perpetrator, and prevent useless and ill-conceived inflation of terrorism risks in the United States.

The FBI currently assesses that the perpetrator, a U.S. Army veteran, was acting alone. Law enforcement officials are also rightly investigating the crime as an act of terrorism. They established a terrorism link after reportedly finding that the perpetrator carried an ISIS-style flag in his truck and pledged allegiance to the group in several videos posted online. This is not the first incident in the U.S. when self-radicalized perpetrators have used the moniker of ISIS to justify their brutal violence. Other incidents include: the December 2015 shooting in San Bernadino, California; the June 2016 Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, Florida; and the October 2017 truck attack in New York City. The 2017 attack in Manhattan is similar to the incident in New Orleans. In both instances, an individual claiming fealty to ISIS drove his rented truck into a crowd of innocent civilians. And the New Year’s attack on Bourbon Street likely won’t be the last incident involving a deranged perpetrator linking his violence to a designated terrorist group.

On slow news days at the beginning of the New Year, the focus on an ISIS link dominates media conversations. Alas, the narrow focus on ISIS has the effect of flattening out deliberative and useful conversations about self-radicalization, lone wolf terrorism, and mental health. It also means that other useful discussions are not adequately addressed, including those concerning the profiles of offenders, the tactical capacity of individuals, and the role of social media in enabling this kind of inspiration. Regrettably, when it comes to acts of violence defined as terrorism there is a tendency to avoid the logical conversations we should have as policy makers, responsible media and commentators, and instead focus on the “sexy” stuff, such as the actual or alleged links with foreign terrorist organizations rather than the things we know about most crimes including the crime of terrorism.

It is easy to forget that the focus on ISIS serves terrorist organizations well by ascribing acts of violence and/or terrorism to them when they may have played no concrete role. In fact, that is precisely what ISIS leadership has long demanded. In a sense, the tenuousness of the link does not matter. ISIS seeks the appearance of global reach – whether the characterization is accurate or not. And it is a propaganda success for ISIS if the ordinary public is convinced that it has ubiquitous reach, even if in fact there is little truth in the assertion. In fact, homeland terrorism threats in the United States are dominated by an “amorphous threat environment where individuals or small cells independently plot attacks to advance a range of ideologies and political objectives.” The fact that one individual links himself to ISIS does not mean that the group played a constitutive or organizational role in his action, or that the threat of ISIS as an organization is manifestly higher on the territory of the United States. The public needs to understand that the trapping of a flag and videos crediting ISIS do not make this individual a card-carrying member of his identified terrorist group.

There are good reasons to be cautious when assessing the individual perpetrator and the overall risk or terrorism. Providing ISIS the unwarranted credit it seeks could facilitate political overreach, as well as the misuse of governmental tools in response to an inaccurate characterization of threats.

None of this is intended to suggest that law enforcement or the public should dismiss the link to terrorism in New Orleans. Quite the contrary. It is to underscore the value of accurately and precisely defining the threat and the actors involved, as analysts would in any other crime. It is also a reminder that the U.S. government should not treat terrorism as an exceptional or existential threat but instead deal with it logically and objectively as it would any other crime.

Were the media and the U.S. government to take a more nuanced approach to discussing terrorism, it might help break the cycle of affirmation that ISIS and other terrorist groups rely on to produce and encourage horrific violence. An inability to think logically and coherently about the motivations of individual perpetrators only helps groups such as ISIS advance their aims. Terrorism prevention requires the media and the U.S. government to do a better job in naming the crime, identifying its causes and responding to it in a sensible way.

IMAGE: Members of the National Guard monitor a blocked off section of the French Quarter, after at least 15 people were killed during an attack early in the morning on January 1, 2025 in New Orleans, Louisiana. (Photo by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

The post A Reflection on Terrorism, New Orleans and the Dangers of Overreach appeared first on Just Security.

Lone-wolf attacks have become a hallmark of post-caliphate ISIS

Sara Harmouch, The Conversation — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 11:58:31 -0500

The deadly Jan. 1, 2025, attack in New Orleans serves as a reminder of the persistent threat to the U.S. from individuals inspired by extremist Islamist groups.

While the investigation is still ongoing, some details about the suspect have been released. Authorities say Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a U.S. Army veteran, was behind the assault in which a truck was driven into a dense crowd in New Orleans’ French Quarter a few hours after midnight, killing at least 15 people and injuring dozens more. Jabbar, who died in a shoot-out with police, had pledged loyalty to the Islamic State group in online videos posted on Dec. 31, according to the FBI.

It represents the first major assault on an American city by an individual purportedly influenced by the Islamic State group, or one of its affiliates, since a 2017 truck assault in New York City that killed eight.

The New Orleans attack, like that earlier incident, underscores an important point: While the Islamic State group’s territorial caliphate – the area in Syria and Iraq in which it assumed both political and religious authority and sought to enforce its interpretation of Islamic law – has been dismantled, the group’s ability to inspire acts of terror on U.S. soil through online propaganda and ideological influence remains alarmingly potent.

As a terrorism expert and a scholar specializing in radical Islamist militant groups, I believe the case of Jabbar – an American soldier who was radicalized in the U.S. – echoes similar lone-wolf attacks in the West over the past decade.

With lost territory in the Middle East, the Islamic State group has sought to exploit personal grievances, mental health struggles and ideological vulnerabilities, transforming isolated individuals in the West into deadly instruments of violence.

The New Year’s Day attack took place in New Orleans’ famous French Quarter. At about 3:15 a.m., Jabbar plowed his truck into a dense crowd along the popular Bourbon Street.

In the immediate aftermath, investigators discovered a black banner in his vehicle – the flag used by many Islamist militant groups, including the Islamic State.

While the Islamic State has not yet officially claimed the attack on any of its social media platforms, subsequent reviews of Jabbar’s online activity revealed videos posted just hours before the incident, in which he pledged allegiance to the group. On Jan. 2, Christopher Raia of the FBI’s counterterrorism division said Jabbar was “100% inspired by ISIS,” using an alternative name for the group.

Jabbar’s background adds complexity to the narrative. A 42-year-old veteran, he had no prior known links to extremist networks, according to the FBI, underscoring the challenge posed by self-radicalized individuals who operate outside the scope of traditional terrorist cells.

At this early stage of the investigation, it appears the attack was planned independently, driven by an ideological alignment with the Islamic State group rather than at the direction of any of its leaders. This highlights the decentralized and unpredictable nature of the current terrorist threat landscape.

At the height of its power in 2014-2015, the Islamic State group controlled significant territory across Syria and Iraq, establishing a self-declared caliphate. While this physical caliphate was dismantled by 2019, following sustained efforts by the U.S.-led Global Coalition to Defeat the Islamic State, the group continues to operate, conduct and inspire attacks.

Lone-wolf attacks, inspired by Islamic State group propaganda but lacking direct operational support, have become the hallmark of the post-caliphate era.

By inspiring individuals to carry out attacks independently, the Islamic State group aims to create an atmosphere of fear and instability, demonstrating its global influence despite lacking a physical caliphate.

It has actively sought to radicalize and mobilize individuals in the U.S. through digital platforms, spreading violent narratives and offering tactical guidance to potential attackers.

This strategy allows the group to maintain relevance and project strength despite its physical losses in the Middle East.

The New Orleans incident follows a pattern seen in previous attacks in the West — such as the 2016 Nice truck attack in France, the 2016 Berlin Christmas market attack and the 2017 London Bridge attack. In each case, individuals were motivated by the Islamic State group’s call to action, using readily available means – vehicles, knives or firearms – to inflict mass casualties.

This model of terrorism is not only low cost but also difficult for intelligence agencies to intercept, as it often lacks the logistical trail associated with larger, coordinated plots.

A critical component of the Islamic State group’s continued influence is its sophisticated use of online platforms to spread propaganda.

Even after significant efforts by social media companies to dismantle extremist content, the Islamic State group, al-Qaida and their affiliates have adapted by migrating to encrypted messaging services, dark web forums and niche platforms.

These digital spaces enable extremist groups to distribute radical content, call for violence and foster a sense of global community among supporters.

Jabbar’s apparent radicalization is, I believe, likely to have been driven by such online materials – more will be known when the FBI is through investigating the many phones and laptops agents retrieved after the attack.

Such online propaganda frequently blends religious rhetoric with narratives of personal empowerment and martyrdom. The psychological appeal of Islamic State group propaganda lies in its ability to offer disenfranchised individuals a sense of purpose, framing violence as a form of spiritual fulfillment and resistance against perceived oppression.

The case of Jabbar also raises broader questions about domestic radicalization within the United States.

Individuals like Jabbar – who are not part of any terrorist cell and seemingly have no prior known links to extremism – are often able to operate undetected until they commit acts of violence.

The Islamic State group’s broader strategy in inspiring lone-actor attacks extends beyond mere acts of violence.

By inciting terror in Western nations, the group aims to polarize societies, foster anti-Muslim sentiment and provoke overreactions from governments – conditions that can fuel further radicalization and recruitment.

This cycle of violence and social division serves not just the Islamic State group, but other Islamist militant groups’ long-term objective of destabilizing the West and reinforcing its narrative of a civilizational clash between Islam and the West.

Attacks such as that in New Orleans serve as powerful propaganda tools, demonstrating that the Islamic State group’s ideology remains alive despite its territorial losses. Each successful attack amplifies the perception of the Islamic State group’s resolve, bolstering the morale of supporters and attracting new recruits.

The New Orleans attack is a sobering reminder that the influence of extremist Islamist groups extends far beyond the borders of the Middle East. As the Islamic State group and other radical militant groups evolve and adapt, the threat of lone-wolf attacks looms over the U.S. and other nations.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

]]>

The D Brief: NOLA attacker acted alone, FBI says; China’s new jets; Cyber breaches hint at what’s next; US Steel sale blocked; And a bit more.

Ben Watson, Bradley Peniston, and Audrey Decker — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 11:22:26 -0500

Update: New Orleans attacker acted alone, vowed allegiance to ISIS, officials say. Reversing an early assessment, FBI officials said Thursday that Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a 42-year-old Texas native who served as a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, acted alone when he drove his truck into a crowd of New Year’s Day revelers in New Orleans, killing 14 and injuring more.

Jabbar’s act was premeditated terrorism, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Christopher Raia told reporters on Thursday. Reuters has more.

Welcome to this Friday edition of The D Brief, brought to you by Ben Watson, Bradley Peniston, and Audrey Decker. Share your newsletter tips, reading recommendations, or feedback here. And if you’re not already subscribed, you can do that here. On this day in 1944, Marine Corps ace pilot Maj. Greg “Pappy” Boyington was shot down over the Pacific before being recovered by Japanese sailors, who placed him in a prisoner-of-war camp, where he remained for almost two years before being released after the Japanese capitulated. Boyington would later receive the Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross for his actions in the Pacific.

China

Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin are among more than two dozen defense firms China added to its export control list Thursday, citing Chinese “national security and interests.”

Beijing also added 10 companies to its “unreliable entities list” over arms sales to Taiwan, the New York Times reports.

Expert reax: “Most of this is probably at the symbolic level because so many of these entities were already subject to [China’s] sanctions,” consultant Andrew Gilholm said, adding that “what we’re seeing is the widening scope and number of entities being added in a single listing.”

Panning out: The new sanctions “are part of an economic tit-for-tat that has escalated in recent months,” the Times explains. “It began during Mr. Trump’s first term, after he took aim at China with tariffs and restrictions on trade…Since then, the Biden administration has also expanded its restrictions on Chinese companies and imposed bans on dual-use products, recently targeting 140 Chinese companies.”

ICYMI: China sanctioned seven companies last Friday over arms sales to Taiwan, AP reported at the time. That list of entities includes Insitu Inc., Hudson Technologies Co., Saronic Technologies, Inc., Raytheon Canada, Raytheon Australia, Aerkomm Inc. and Oceaneering International Inc.

Also worth noting: The Commerce Department announced Thursday it might implement tough new restrictions banning the use of Chinese- and Russian-made drones across the United States. Officials are accepting public feedback as they consider the change—already praised by some lawmakers—in the coming weeks.

Uncertainty about those and other sanctions may have driven Beijing’s successful effort to hack into the U.S. Treasury. News broke Monday of the breach of “a highly sensitive office in the Treasury Department that administers economic sanctions against countries and groups of individuals — one of the most potent tools possessed by the United States to achieve national security aims,” the Washington Post reported.

The breach was likely intended to learn about U.S. sanctions on Chinese exporters, David Sedney, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, said Thursday. The Chinese “want to be prepared for what, first, the Biden administration in its closing days does, and then what the Trump administration does, starting on Jan. 20,” Sedney told Alhurra. He said that suggests the attacks are likely to grow in scope and sophistication.

Comparing the Biden-administration response and Trump-team statements about recent breaches illuminates how the White House approach to cybersecurity may change after Jan. 20, Defense One’s Patrick Tucker writes, here.

China is apparently flying new tailless combat aircraft. Imagery of two new Chinese combat aircraft circulated on social media last week, throwing airpower observers for a loop. Both designs are tailless and feature advanced and stealthy technology. Experts told Air & Space Force Magazine that one image is likely a prototype stealth bomber, and the other is a new lamba-winged jet demonstrator.

The Air Force is “closely monitoring” China’s military modernization programs, a service official said, adding that “this development is consistent with our understanding of China’s strategic objectives and long-term force planning. Their new weapons systems introduce additional complexity in the PLA, which requires highly skilled personnel to actually employ them to the max extent of their capability.” The War Zone has more here and here.

Related reading:

“China launches amphibious assault ship that can launch fighter jets,” AP reported on December 26;
“Fear That China Rules the Waves Jolts U.S. to Pursue Maritime Revival,” the Wall Street Journal reported last week as well—extending themes we addressed in a recent Defense One Radio podcast;
And “China Has Limited Firepower to Counter U.S. Tariffs,” the Journal reported separately on Sunday.

Additional reading from the region:

“Philippines' Marcos drops estranged VP Duterte from security council,” Reuters reported Friday from Manila;
“Investigators halt execution of warrant to detain Yoon after standoff at presidential residence,” South Korea’s Yonhap news agency reports from a tense and developing situation;
And “Myanmar’s military rulers enact cybersecurity law with wide-ranging censorship provisions,” AP reported Friday.

Industry

Biden blocks Nippon Steel’s $14.1 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel. After months of speculation and similar messaging from both the Harris and Trump campaigns, President Biden on Friday formally blocked a takeover bid to buy U.S. Steel—America’s third-largest steelmaker—by Japanese industry titan Nippon Steel, the fourth-largest steelmaker in the world.

“As a committee of national security and trade experts across the executive branch determined, this acquisition would place one of America’s largest steel producers under foreign control and create risk for our national security and our critical supply chains,” Biden said in a statement Friday. “That is why I am taking action to block this deal,” he said.

Fine print: According to the order issued Friday, the companies have 30 days to abandon the deal unless a federal panel (the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S.) decides to extend its review of the acquisition.

“It is my solemn responsibility as President to ensure that, now and long into the future, America has a strong domestically owned and operated steel industry that can continue to power our national sources of strength at home and abroad; and it is a fulfillment of that responsibility to block foreign ownership of this vital American company,” the outgoing president said.

Big picture: “Biden’s rejection of the deal is the latest sign of the U.S. government’s tilt toward protectionist policies for homegrown businesses,” the Wall Street Journal reports. “It also clouds the future of 124-year-old U.S. Steel, where executives have said they might close plants and shift production to lower-cost facilities if the sale didn’t proceed.”

Next: “The matter will probably head to court,” the New York Times writes in Friday’s Dealbook newsletter. That’s partly because the deal stipulates Nippon pay U.S. Steel $565 million if regulators block the acquisition. But the companies might also “sue each other, perhaps citing a failure to do enough to win approval,” the Times reports.

]]>

Motive in Las Vegas Cybertruck Explosion Is Still Unclear as New Details Emerge

Jacey Fortin and Jesus Jiménez — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 09:52:02 -0500

Officials said they used data from Tesla charging stations to chart the driver’s dayslong journey from Colorado to the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas.

Suing the Taliban at the ICJ Over Abuses of Afghan Women Isn’t a Panacea. Countries Must Do More Now.

Jayne Huckerby — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 08:55:08 -0500

One international court proceeding to watch for this year is the promise of Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, and Canada to file a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers over their increasingly repressive treatment of women. Using an overlooked provision in the international human rights treaty on women’s rights, the four States formally called on the country’s de facto authorities, the Taliban, to cease their violations of the treaty. The case has rightly been described as groundbreaking and is indeed a key reminder that legally the Taliban does not have a blank check when it comes to women’s rights.

But the case, announced in late September and likely to take many months before even potentially going to the ICJ, is not a silver bullet, and it may undercut obligations that require both the Taliban and the international community to act now to stop the abuses of women in Afghanistan. It also risks creating bad precedent on how States use international law to end gender discrimination in countries other than their own. The issue gained new urgency this week, as the Taliban said it would close all domestic and foreign non-governmental organizations that still employ women in Afghanistan.

The Case in Context

The planned complaint invokes the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women’s (CEDAW’s) inter-state jurisdictional clause, which provides for disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the treaty to be resolved through negotiation, arbitration, and ultimately the ICJ. It is part of a more recent trend toward countries using human rights treaties to hold other countries to account without there being any specific injury to the complaining State(s). Another example of inter-state accountability mechanisms at work is the 243 recommendations addressed to Afghanistan in the U.N. Human Rights Council’s most recent Universal Periodic Review of the country this year.

The case also comes at a critical juncture in the international community’s posture toward the Taliban de facto authorities. In December last year, a political process through the U.N. Security Council resulted in a resolution urging increased international engagement with the Taliban. The resolution specified the need for Afghanistan to meet its “international obligations,” and acknowledged “the need to ensure the full, equal, meaningful and safe participation of Afghan women in the process throughout.” Yet this summer, when it came to the third U.N. convening of meetings in Doha, Qatar, to discuss Afghanistan, U.N. officials excluded women at the insistence of the Taliban. The Taliban had been excluded from the first meeting and refused to attend the second because Afghan women and civil society would be present, so Doha 3 was widely seen as an extraordinary betrayal of Afghan women by the international community.

Adding further insult to injury, after Doha 3, an emboldened Taliban quickly escalated and formalized its domestic legal campaign against women; just over a week after the meeting concluded, on July 9, it adopted its 115-page “virtue and vice” law, later publicly released in August. The U.N. has described it as “utterly intolerable.” Indeed, the next month, a coalition of 26 countries supporting the prospective ICJ case issued a statement noting that they have “repeatedly urged” the Taliban to voluntarily respect international human rights law but that “the situation has not improved — on the contrary, it continues to worsen.”

Campaign to Codify `Gender Apartheid’

Meanwhile, in the background of all these efforts — that is, the political process on Afghanistan and its emphasis on “international obligations,” Doha 3, and a new ICJ case — have been core questions about exactly what comprises the Taliban’s international obligations, whether those obligations sufficiently proscribe its anti-women agenda, and what international law currently requires of other States and the U.N. in tackling gender discrimination in the country.

All of these questions have been inadvertently complicated by a coincident international campaign to include “gender apartheid” in international law (with a focus on codification in a new draft Crimes Against Humanity Treaty). This has had outsized significance for Afghanistan because the international campaign to codify a crime of “gender apartheid” draws heavily on the Afghanistan example. Most notably, the U.N. special rapporteur on Afghanistan and a working group on discrimination against women and girls have echoed the language used by some Afghan women’s rights defenders to describe what the Taliban is doing as “gender apartheid.”

Unfortunately, the campaign has sometimes leaned heavily into the argument (in my view, incorrect) that gender discrimination in Afghanistan is so systematic and intentional that existing international human rights and other law is not fit for purpose. Additionally, the use by Afghan women and feminist allies of the term “gender apartheid” as an advocacy tool and the separate but associated legal push for a global crime of the same has led many international officials to avoid the term “gender apartheid” in relation to Afghanistan because they believe (also, without foundation) that it requires absolute and prolonged non-engagement with the Taliban.

Either or both of these stances — that international law doesn’t speak fully to the Taliban’s gender crimes and that tackling serious gender crimes might require full isolation of the Taliban — in practice has inadvertently suggested that both the de facto authorities in Afghanistan and officials in other countries have some latitude to sidestep the gender discrimination occurring in the country right now.

Who Holds Current International Legal Obligations In and On Afghanistan?

For its part, the Taliban presently bears responsibility for implementing the human rights obligations of Afghanistan, which is bound by seven of the nine core human rights treaties (all but the treaties on disappearances and migrant workers). Afghanistan is also a party to the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court and which relevantly proscribes the crime of gender persecution (the Office of the Prosecutor’s 2022 Policy on the Crime of Gender Persecution specifically identifies Afghanistan as a “[r]ecent example[] of acts that may amount to gender persecution[.]”). And it is further bound by international humanitarian law, which protects women and girls through general and specific guarantees.

Yet, the de facto authorities are not the only ones who have international law obligations in Afghanistan. For example, as with this ICJ case, States have the ability to sue Afghanistan under some of the human rights treaties (e.g., CEDAW but also the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment). Additionally, other countries’ human rights obligations apply extraterritorially when they exercise power or effective control, meaning when their acts or omissions impact the rights of persons in Afghanistan in a “direct and reasonably foreseeable manner,” such as through military, counterterrorism, development, and humanitarian activities. This means, for example, that countries’ decisions to send all-male delegations to meet with the de facto authorities should be scrutinized under their extraterritorial human rights obligations on non-discrimination and equality. The U.N., in operating in Afghanistan, is also obligated to respect human rights, including in line with the U.N. Charter. That requires, at minimum for example, a robust human rights due diligence policy with respect to non-U.N. security forces.

Why (or Why Not) Sue Afghanistan Under CEDAW?

Restrictions against the rights of women and girls by de facto authorities are required to be assessed under the full spectrum of binding international law, not just the obligations under the women’s rights treaty. So, why then a case under CEDAW? Legally, it makes a lot of sense. The committee in charge of monitoring the treaty has repeatedly said that religion, culture, and/or tradition cannot be invoked to undermine women’s rights. This is important. I’ve legally analyzed all the core edicts, laws, and policies of the Taliban since 2021 for the U.N., and none of these provisions are subtle in the use of religion as a pretext for fundamentally depriving women and girls of protection. The CEDAW Committee also has found certain practices to be illegal in other contexts — the requirement for male guardianship (mahram) in Saudi Arabia, for instance — that the Taliban also mandates.

As a non-discrimination treaty, CEDAW also contains a comprehensive framework of three overarching obligations to prohibit discrimination, ensure equality, and address gender stereotypes that is well-suited to address the breadth of the Taliban’s gender repression. The treaty also requires States to avoid and remedy violations against those who have intersecting forms of discrimination, such as rural women, women with disabilities, and minority women – that’s key in Afghanistan, where the Taliban’s edicts are experienced unevenly among women. And importantly, the treaty prohibits discrimination by private actors, which is an often-overlooked but pervasive challenge in Afghanistan as the Taliban’s campaign against women relies heavily on male family members to enforce its edicts and metes out punishment for failure to do so (e.g., punishing brothers or fathers for female family members not wearing “proper” hijab).

Notwithstanding this normative clarity, using the global norms package on women’s rights in this way to address the Taliban comes with risks. Foreign intervention in Afghanistan has long used women’s rights as a cover for coercion (e.g., the post-9/11 invasion in 2001 was framed in part as an effort to emancipate women); at the same time, the international community has too often spoken over or for — rather than with or at the direction of — Afghan women. And a case about Muslim women in Afghanistan brought by four Global North countries under international human rights law notionally bound for The Hague that will very likely turn on a substantive question about the relationship between religion and women’s rights risks reinforcing many well-known critiques of international law on women’s rights, including that it can be Eurocentric, top-down white saviorism that selectively focuses abroad.

As the complaint makes its way through the CEDAW process and potentially after many months to the ICJ, elevating local perspectives, such as those of Afghan women’s rights defenders and legal scholars, will be key. It also will be important to support fact-finding led by grassroots women’s organizations that often have the most access to victims and can therefore expose the full impacts of the Taliban’s policies. Having Afghan women and women’s organizations lead these processes ensures not only that the violations and potential remedies are fully captured, but also that holding the Taliban to account under human rights law is not too easily dismissed as being a Western project to save Afghan women. Other countries holding themselves to account for their own adverse foreign policies on women in Afghanistan will also help close the legitimacy gap that stems from this perceived one-sidedness.

Next Steps

Existing international law, not just under the women’s rights treaty but under a range of human rights guarantees, fully proscribes what the Taliban is doing to Afghan women. That gives States a foothold to act in relation to the Taliban, including by using the human rights treaties like CEDAW to sue them. But, ending abuses by the Taliban is not just about “holding #Afghanistan to account,” as the minister of foreign affairs of the Netherlands put it in a social media post when he and his counterparts announced the case.

Instead, beyond suing the Taliban and awaiting a potential ICJ case or a potential future “gender apartheid” norm, it is also important for governments and the international community to meaningfully act on women’s rights now, not only vis-à-vis the Taliban but also to hold themselves to account for what is happening to women in Afghanistan today. This means that States and the U.N. should — and in some cases legally must — right their own policies that have and continue to exacerbate the plight of women in Afghanistan. That includes ensuring that they do not fund or support activities with the Taliban that exclude or harm women and girls, such as in education assistance or counter-terrorism and anti-money laundering programing or in combatting climate change through technology transfers and other measures.

But it’s not only an obligation to refrain from making things worse for women and girls that is relevant here; instead, the international community should take positive steps to guarantee gender equality, including for example, by centering the restoration of education of women and girls and ensuring that any foreign policies on Afghanistan also have a plan for how to make up for all the lost opportunities for women and girls since the Taliban regime returned to power in 2021.

IMAGE: Afghan burqa-clad women walk past a Taliban security personnel along a street in Jalalabad on April 30, 2023. (Photo by Shafiullah Kakar/AFP via Getty Images)

The post Suing the Taliban at the ICJ Over Abuses of Afghan Women Isn’t a Panacea. Countries Must Do More Now. appeared first on Just Security.

Early Edition: January 3, 2025

Weronika Galka — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 07:34:26 -0500

Signup to receive the Early Edition in your inbox here.

A curated weekday guide to major news and developments over the past 24 hours. Here’s today’s news:

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR

Israeli airstrikes killed at least 68 people across Gaza yesterday, including the head of the enclave’s police force and his deputy, according to the Hamas-run interior ministry. Israel said the deputy was the leader of Hamas security forces in southern Gaza. Nidal Al-Mughrabi and Clauda Tanios report for Reuters.

An Israeli delegation is expected to arrive in Doha today to continue negotiations on a Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal. Dana Karni and Mitchell McCluskey report for CNN.

U.N. officials say they are preparing to shutter the aid agency for Palestinians’ (UNRWA) operations in Gaza and the West Bank ahead of the Israeli ban on cooperation with the agency coming into force later this month. Jack Nicas reports for the New York Times.

An Israeli hostage held by Gaza’s Islamic Jihad militant group has tried to take his own life and was prevented from dying by a medical team, the group’s spokesperson claimed yesterday. Clauda Tanios reports for Reuters.

GLOBAL AFFAIRS

South Korean investigators today halted their efforts to detain the country’s impeached President Yoon Suk-Yeol following a scuffle and a hours-long standoff between Yoon’s presidential security service and law enforcement officials. Michelle Ye Hee Lee reports for the Washington Post.

Italy yesterday summoned Iran’s ambassador to demand the release of an Italian journalist detained in December, as Iran demanded Italy free an Iranian citizen arrested on a U.S. warrant over a Jordan drone attack that killed three American troops. Nicole Winfield reports for AP News.

Argentina yesterday said it filed a complaint against Venezuela with the International Criminal Court, alleging it “forcibly disappeared” a member of Argentina’s security forces. Venezuela’s attorney general denied the allegations, saying the man is “being processed before a relevant court.” Maximilian Heath reports for Reuters.

SYRIA

Israel’s military yesterday confirmed it raided and dismantled an underground missile production site in Syria in September, saying the site was backed by Iran and used to manufacture precision missiles for Hezbollah. James Mackenzie reports for Reuters.

The foreign ministers of Germany and France will meet Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) chief and Syria’s de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa in Damascus today on behalf of the European Union, the ministries announced. Miranda Murray, John Irish, and Dominique Vidalon report for Reuters.

U.S. DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS

President Biden yesterday presented former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), the heads of the Jan. 6 House Committee, with the Presidential Citizens Medal. Maeve Reston reports for the Washington Post.

The Commerce Department yesterday said it was considering restricting or banning Chinese drones in the United States, citing the involvement of “foreign adversaries” in their manufacture and supply. Ana Swanson reports for the New York Times.

The Texas man who killed 14 people by driving a pickup truck into a New Orleans crowd on New Year’s Day likely acted alone, the FBI said yesterday. Justin Jouvenal, Lauren Weber, and Maria Sacchetti report for the Washington Post.

The suspect involved in the Wednesday explosion of a car at Las Vegas’ Trump hotel was an Army special operations soldier, military officials said yesterday. U.S. Army Special Operations Command said he was “on approved leave at the time of his death.” Paul McLeary and Jack Detsch report for POLITICO.

A Pennsylvania man who previously served in the U.S. Army was indicted on charges of attempting to support Hezbollah and making false statements to the FBI, the Justice Department said yesterday. Kanishka Singh reports for Reuters.

The FBI yesterday released new details of their investigation into the person believed to have placed pipe bombs in Washington D.C. before the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, in a bid to encourage tips that might help identify the suspect. Devlin Barrett and Alan Feuer report for the New York Times.

The federal courts will not refer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the Justice Department over alleged ethics law violations, the U.S. Judicial Conference said yesterday, citing the lack of clarity on whether it has the power to make a criminal referral regarding a Supreme Court justice. Lindsay Whitehurst reports for AP News.

Law enforcement agents yesterday raided the home of Jeffrey Maddrey, the former Chief of Department of New York City Police and Mayor Eric Adams’ top aide. Maddrey resigned last month after allegations he sexually assaulted a woman working for him. Joe Anuta and Jeff Coltin report for POLITICO.

A federal appeals court yesterday ruled the FCC lacked the authority to restore certain net neutrality rules last year, pointing to the Supreme Court’s June decision overturning Chevron deference when faced with legal ambiguity. Miranda Nazzaro reports for The Hill.

U.S. FOREIGN AFFAIRS

White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan presented Biden with options for a potential U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities if Tehran moves toward a nuclear weapon in a meeting several weeks ago, sources say. Biden reportedly did not green-light such a response. According to another source, there are currently no active White House discussions about military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Barak Ravid reports for Axios.

China yesterday imposed trade controls on dozens of U.S. companies, including Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin, in the latest escalation in the Beijing-Washington tit-for-tat over national security products. Alexandra Stevenson reports for the New York Times.

The U.S. State Department has approved a potential $3.64 billion sale of air-to-air missiles to Japan, the Pentagon announced yesterday. Ismail Shakil reports for Reuters.

HOUTHI DEVELOPMENTS

Israel intercepted a missile and a drone launched from Yemen early today, amid continuing Houthi rocket fire. AFP reports; Tia Goldberg reports for AP News.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR

Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico yesterday threatened to cut financial support for Ukrainian refugees and electricity supplies to Kyiv over Ukraine’s halt of Russian gas exports. Rob Cameron and Jack Burgess report for BBC News; Jan Lopatka reports for Reuters.

A Russian court ordered the internet company Yandex to stop displaying images of one of Russia’s largest oil refineries following repeated Ukrainian drone attacks on the facility, the state news agency reported today. Alexander Marrow reports for Reuters.

The post Early Edition: January 3, 2025 appeared first on Just Security.

Responses to China’s escalating cyber attacks highlights Biden, Trump differences

Patrick Tucker — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 20:23:43 -0500

The differing responses of current and incoming administration officials to the unprecedented intensity of Chinese cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure illustrate how the Biden team’s focus on regulation and intelligence-sharing may change under a successor more focused on retribution.

Either way, “It looks as if things are going to get much worse before they get any better,” David Sedney, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, said Thursday.

News broke Monday of a Beijing-sponsored breach of the U.S. Treasury Department, which Sedney told Alhurra was likely intended to learn about U.S. sanctions on Chinese exporters. In September, the Biden administration added restrictions on Chinese goods, while Donald Trump has floated the idea of tariffs of up to 60 percent.

Sedney said that the Chinese “want to be prepared for what, first, the Biden administration in its closing days does, and then what the Trump administration does, starting on Jan. 20.”

He said that suggests the attacks are likely to grow in scope and sophistication.

Meanwhile, U.S. officials continue to uncover and assess attacks by the Salt Typhoon group, which has breached nine U.S. telecommunications providers via systems used to cooperate with U.S. government surveillance requests, This has given the Chinese government “broad and full” access to Americans’ data and the ”capability to geolocate millions of individuals, to record phone calls at will,” Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber Anne Neuberger told reporters on Dec. 27.

Still, Neuberger said, Salt Typhoon’s work seems to be aimed mainly at spying on a limited set of specific government officials.

“We believe a large number of individuals were affected by geolocation and metadata of phones; a smaller number around actual collection of phone calls and texts. And I think the scale we’re talking about is far larger on the geolocation; probably less than 100 on the actual individuals,” she said.

But outgoing FBI Director Christopher Wray told an FBI town hall on Dec. 11 that the telecommunications hack was the “most significant cyber espionage campaign in history.”

The Biden administration has said the attacks show why industry should be subject to more mandatory cybersecurity protocols.

"We know that voluntary cybersecurity practices are inadequate to protect against China, Russia, and Iran hacking of our critical infrastructure," Neuberger said, effectively endorsing an FCC proposal requiring telecommunications companies to better secure their networks.

The administration has also urged increased collaboration between government and private industry to improve monitoring and resilience, while promoting encrypted communications to ward off eavesdropping. These steps are part of a broader push to address vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure exposed by state-sponsored attacks.

In contrast, the Trump team’s approach to cybersecurity—as outlined by Kash Patel, Trump’s prospective nominee for FBI director; and Rep. Mike Waltz, R-Fla., Trump’s pick for national security advisor—combines aggressive countermeasures and proposals to cut back federal cybersecurity capabilities. Patel has argued that the FBI, which has long led the U.S. government’s counterintelligence efforts on domestic territory, should focus on law enforcement.

"We need to decentralize the FBI, close its D.C. headquarters, and get back to basics," Patel said in a September interview with the “Shawn Ryan Show.”

Waltz has championed the use of offensive cyber operations against adversaries. He has also suggested taking economic measures to punish nation-state actors for cyber intrusions. But since Trump is already talking about higher tariffs, the effect of other sanctions might be muted.

Other incoming Trump team members have suggested reducing cybersecurity regulations on business and shrinking or eliminating government institutions that respond to cyber threats. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 suggests shrinking the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in favor of private sector-led solutions.

Such cutbacks could undermine the FBI’s and CISA’s ability to attribute attacks like those of Salt Typhoon—and therefore make it more difficult to unleash the kind of offensive measures that Waltz suggests.

]]>

China’s escalating cyber attacks highlight Biden, Trump differences

Patrick Tucker — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 20:23:43 -0500

Sedney said that the Chinese “want to be prepared for what, first, the Biden administration in its closing days does, and then what the Trump administration does, starting on Jan. 20.”

He said that suggests the attacks are likely to grow in scope and sophistication.

Still, Neuberger said, Salt Typhoon’s work seems to be aimed mainly at spying on a limited set of specific government officials.

But outgoing FBI Director Christopher Wray told an FBI town hall on Dec. 11 that the telecommunications hack was the “most significant cyber espionage campaign in history.”

The Biden administration has said the attacks show why industry should be subject to more mandatory cybersecurity protocols.

"We need to decentralize the FBI, close its D.C. headquarters, and get back to basics," Patel said in a September interview with the “Shawn Ryan Show.”

]]>

Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth and the Honor of the American Military

Phil Klay — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 20:13:03 -0500

Donald Trump’s foreign policy may not be as disastrous as that of George W. Bush, whose idealism and hubris led to calamity, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be corrosive.

Trump’s Cabinet Picks Won’t Solve What Happened in New Orleans

David Firestone — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 19:10:56 -0500

The Senate needs to ensure the next cabinet is full of real professionals.

ATTRITION: Iranian Crossroads

Thu, 02 Jan 2025 19:05:40 -0500

WINNING: Israeli Forever Wars

Thu, 02 Jan 2025 19:04:26 -0500

F.B.I. Offers New Details on Jan. 6 Pipe Bomb Suspect, Seeking Tips

Devlin Barrett and Alan Feuer — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 18:00:06 -0500

Four years later, the largest lingering mystery of the Capitol riot remains unsolved.

U.S. Weighs Ban on Chinese Drones, Citing National Security Concerns

Ana Swanson — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 14:45:32 -0500

The Commerce Department requested that private companies comment on the implications of the rule by March. The final decision will fall to the Trump administration.

The Ethics Complaint Against Liz Cheney: Blue Smoke Without Fire

David Luban — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 12:01:23 -0500

A recently released House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight report accuses former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney of unethical conduct and concludes that “the Federal Bureau of Investigation must also investigate Representative Cheney.” The report is the House Republican majority’s investigation of the House’s own January 6 report, created when the Democrats still controlled the chamber. President-elect Donald Trump exulted that Cheney “could be in a lot of trouble.” The allegation is that Cheney violated the “anti-contact rule” of legal ethics, by communicating with Cassidy Hutchinson without going through her lawyer. And, because of that supposed violation, the Subcommittee urges the FBI to investigate Cheney for the crime of witness tampering (p. 117).

Whatever trouble Cheney may be in, it is not the legal ethics violation that the House report focuses upon. That accusation is based on a selective quotation of the anti-contact rule, leaving out the very words that prove that it does not apply. The effect is to create a public show that may well serve political purposes, but should be a complete nonstarter under any bona fide legal review.

The Background

In brief, the incidents in question occurred during the testimony of former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson before the House January 6 select committee. Hutchinson was represented at the time by attorney Stefan Passantino, a former ethics counsel in the Trump White House. Hutchinson eventually testified (p. 50) that Passantino told her, “We just want to focus on protecting the president. We all know you’re loyal.” She also testified (pp. 36-37) that Passantino coached her on how to rely on the answer “I don’t recall.” She said, “Stefan had said something to the effect of, ‘The committee doesn’t know what you can and can’t recall, so we want to be able to use that as much as we can unless you really, really remember something very clearly.” Hutchinson also testified: “I said, ‘But, if I do recall something but not every little detail, Stefan, can I still say I don’t recall?’ And he had said, ‘Yes.’” (Other details from the congressional transcripts are included in a bar ethics complaint against Passantino; the complaint was later dismissed after Hutchinson declined to cooperate with the inquiries.)

After the initial interviews, in which Hutchinson was represented by Passantino, Cheney secretly contacted Hutchinson through an intermediary, according to the report. The House report quotes excerpts from both Hutchinson’s and Cheney’s memoirs about what transpired. According to Cheney, Hutchinson told her she was inclined to represent herself going forward, but Cheney cautioned her to get independent legal advice. Hutchinson’s version is that she asked Cheney if she could recommend a lawyer, and Cheney provided some names. In any event, Hutchinson fired Passantino and retained counsel recommended by Cheney. Hutchinson’s subsequent testimony was very damaging to Trump. One might quibble with these facts about the communications between Cheney and Hutchinson or add more to them, but I assume they are generally correct for the purpose of this analysis.

The Accusation

The House report explains what the supposed ethics problem is for Cheney: a violation of the bar’s rule on communicating with a person represented by counsel (D.C. Rule 4.2(a)):

It is unusual – and potentially unethical – for a Member of Congress conducting an investigation to contact a witness if the Member knows that the individual is represented by legal counsel. Representative Cheney is an attorney, and an attorney who circumvents an individual’s legal representation would violate well-established attorney ethics standards and the Washington D.C. Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, regardless of who initiates the contact. While it is not clear how the D.C. Bar would apply this rule to an attorney who also sits as a Member of Congress, its rules state that “a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a person known to be represented by another lawyer in the matter ….” This appears to be precisely what Representative Cheney did at this time. (Interim Report, p. 22)

The report cites Rule 4.2(a), and a 2011 case that “bears a striking resemblance to Representative Cheney’s communications with the represented party Hutchinson.”

In parallel with this accusation from the House, America First Legal, a Trump-aligned public interest legal organization, filed an ethics complaint in late October against Cheney on behalf of Passantino. (The complaint is here.) Its accusation is the same: she violated Rule 4.2(a).

The Rule

The problem is, though, that she didn’t, because the rule applies only to lawyers who are representing clients – which Cheney was not.

Both the House report and the America First Legal complaint conspicuously lop off the first seven words of the sentence they quote from Rule 4.2(a), which make it clear why the rule doesn’t apply:

During the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a person known to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other person …. (emphasis added)

Cheney was not representing a client.

The House report and the bar complaint similarly fail to mention Comment [7] to the D.C. Rule:

[7] This rule also does not preclude communication with a represented person who is seeking advice from a lawyer who is not otherwise representing a client in the matter (emphasis added).

Cheney was not “otherwise representing a client in the matter.” Whatever else you may think of her communications with Hutchinson, Cheney had no client.

Only lawyers representing another person in the matter are bound by the anti-contact rule; lawyers “not otherwise representing a client in the matter” are not. This distinction is not a mere technicality – it’s a vital protection of the client’s right to seek a second opinion.

Suppose you are unhappy with the way your lawyer is representing you. For whatever reason, you suspect they aren’t acting in your best interests. Maybe they don’t return your phone calls. Maybe they haven’t moved on your case for six months. Or maybe you think they have a conflict of interest, because somebody else is paying them. You want to do a reality check with a second lawyer – a friend, perhaps – to confirm or allay your suspicions about your lawyer. But for obvious reasons, you don’t want to ask your current lawyer’s consent to that reality check. It’s not simply that they might not consent. It’s also that you don’t want to tip your lawyer off that you don’t entirely trust them. Construing the anti-contact rule the way that the House report and the America First Legal complaint do would strip away the client’s right to get a second opinion about her lawyer without that lawyer’s permission. No wonder one has to perform cosmetic surgery on the rule to reach their conclusion.

Here, Hutchinson apparently had doubts about whether Passantino was acting in her best interests or Trump’s. If Passantino indeed told her “We just want to focus on protecting the president,” she had reason to wonder whose interests he was putting first. She said she worried, among other things, whether “if I do remember things but not every little detail, and I say I don’t recall, wouldn’t I be perjuring myself?” (Hutchinson’s testimony, page 36 lines 14-15). Passantino (according to her testimony) reassured her that “[t]he committee doesn’t know what you can and can’t recall.” These would be good reasons to want independent advice without having to ask Passantino’s consent – and Comment [7] to the anti-contact rule makes it clear that the rule does not take away her right to speak to another lawyer. The ethics rules, after all, are meant to protect clients, not tie their hands.

As for the disciplinary case that the Report says “bears a striking resemblance to Representative Cheney’s communications with the represented party Hutchinson,” it is this:

IN RE ANNE P. HOVIS. Bar No. 412531. July 13, 2011. Bar Counsel issued Hovis an informal admonition. While representing a client, Hovis inappropriately communicated about the subject of the representation with a party she knew to be represented by another lawyer in the matter. Rule 4.2(a). (emphasis added)

Far from bearing “a striking resemblance” to Cheney’s conversations with Hutchinson, the emphasized language shows a striking lack of resemblance, because Hovis was representing a client (more details here and here), while Cheney was not. Cheney was a member of the congressional select committee, not a counsel for the committee. Counsel for the committee represents it; members of the committee do not. (For several other DC bar disciplinary decisions that also, naturally, involve violation of Rule 4.2 by a lawyer while representing a client, see Claude Roxborough (Docket No. 2008~D262); Erling Hansen (Docket No. 2002-D507); Sonya Armfield (Docket No. 2016-D027); William Rogers (Docket No. 12-BD-012); Denise Daniels (Docket No. 22-BD-014); and Brenda Wagner (Docket No. 20-BD-059)).

It seems that the only pertinent legal ethics rule might be the prohibition on frivolous complaints (D.C. Rule 3.1) – and it could well apply to America First Legal’s complaint, not to Cheney:

A lawyer shall not bring … a proceeding … unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good-faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.

Perhaps America First Legal has a good-faith argument for extending the anti-contact rule to limit clients’ right to obtain advice without clearing it with the very lawyer the client mistrusts. If so, their complaint doesn’t offer it – perhaps because then they would have to admit that they didn’t quote the existing rule correctly.

Upping the Stakes: The Accusation of Witness Tampering

As I mentioned, the report recommends that Cheney be investigated by the FBI for witness tampering, in violation of 18 USC §1512. The relevant clauses of §1512 make it a crime to knowingly and corruptly persuade or attempt to persuade someone, with intent to influence their testimony in an official proceeding (§1512(b)(1)), or “corruptly … otherwise obstruct[ ], influence[ ], or impede[ ] any official proceeding, or attempt[ ] to do so.”

The question is what makes Cheney’s contacts with Hutchinson “corrupt.” Here is what the Report says (p. 117):

Evidence uncovered by the Subcommittee revealed that former Congresswoman Liz Cheney tampered with at least one witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, by secretly communicating with Hutchinson without Hutchinson’s attorney’s knowledge.

The paragraph is a bit cryptic, but it appears that the ethics violation – the violation of the anti-contact rule – is what makes Cheney’s contact with Hutchinson “corrupt.”

But there was no ethics violation.

The report also accuses Hutchinson of perjury, and accuses Cheney of suborning perjury. The accusation against Cheney would have merit only if Hutchinson did perjure herself, and did so at Cheney’s behest. These are matters of fact (or fiction) that I cannot comment on. If the accusations are true, that might provide an independent reason to suppose that Cheney contacted Hutchinson “corruptly.” But if they are false, then there is no basis for any criminal accusation against Cheney. The House Subcommittee would be doing exactly what they accused the January 6th select committee of doing: weaponizing the justice system for low political gain.

Photo credit: (L) Cassidy Hutchinson testifies during the sixth hearing by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol in the Cannon House Office Building on June 28, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images); (R) US Representative Liz Cheney (R) during a House Select Committee hearing to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the US Capitol, in the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on June 9, 2022. (Mandel Ngan / AFP via Getty Images).

The post The Ethics Complaint Against Liz Cheney: Blue Smoke Without Fire appeared first on Just Security.

What to Know About ISIS Terror Attacks

Eve Sampson — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 11:52:40 -0500

The group whose flag was found after a New Orleans truck-ramming attack has never stopped orchestrating and inspiring acts of terror.

The D Brief: New Orleans attack; US, Israeli strikes in Yemen; Africa’s ‘new era of war’; What drove Afghanistan lies?; And a bit more.

Ben Watson, Bradley Peniston, and Meghann Myers — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 11:41:37 -0500

Army veteran behind New Orleans truck attack

Investigators say they’ve uncovered ISIS-related videos posted online just hours before a Houston-based Army veteran drove into a crowd of people early Wednesday in New Orleans, and then opened fire with a weapon—killing 15 and wounding nearly three dozen others on Bourbon Street before he was shot and killed by police. An Islamic State group flag was later found in the truck used for the attack.

Authorities said afterward they do not believe he acted alone, prompting a wider investigation by federal officials, according to the Associated Press, reporting Thursday.

POTUS: “The FBI is taking the lead in the investigation and is investigating this incident as an act of terrorism,” President Joe Biden said in a statement Wednesday evening. “In the meantime, my heart goes out to the victims and their families who were simply trying to celebrate the holiday,” he added.

The driver was a U.S. citizen from Texas, and an Army staff sergeant with eight years on active duty, which concluded in early 2015. His name was Shamsud-Din Bahar Jabbar, and he had deployed once to Afghanistan from 2009 to early 2010. He was later in the Army Reserves for five years ending in 2020, according to an Army spokesperson. Over his career, he had served as both a Human Resource Specialist (42A) and Information Technology (IT) Specialist (25B).

He’d also recently held a six-figure job at the accounting firm Deloitte, according to the New York Times. One problem for investigators: “Jabbar did not appear to have a history of violence,” the Times writes. And “Criminal records in Texas show charges for minor infractions two decades ago — misdemeanor theft in 2002, driving with an invalid license in 2005.”

Post first, ask questions later: “President-elect Trump falsely suggested on social media that the man who drove a pickup truck into a crowd in New Orleans was an immigrant,” the New York Times reported Wednesday. As noted above, the suspect was in fact a U.S.-born citizen and an Army veteran.

The MAGA echo chamber: It wasn’t just the president-elect propagating the falsehood about an alleged migrant responsible for the truck attack in New Orleans. Trump’s son, Don Jr., also spread the lie on his social media account; so did far-right Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and a high-profile employee at Newsmax.

Developing: A U.S. soldier was driving the Cybertruck that exploded in Las Vegas on Wednesday, killing himself and wounding at least seven others in front of the Trump International Hotel, according to ABC7 News in Denver.

The Army confirms: “Master Sgt. Matthew Alan Livelsberger enlisted as an 18X and served in the active duty Army from January 2006 to March 2011. Livelsberger then joined the National Guard from March 2011 to July 2012, followed by the Army Reserve from July 2012 to December 2012. He entered the active duty Army in December 2012 and was a U.S. Army Special Operations Soldier. Additionally, U.S. Army Special Operations Command can confirm Livelsberger was assigned to the command and on approved leave at the time of his death. USASOC is in full cooperation with federal and state law enforcement agencies, but as a matter of policy, will not comment on ongoing investigations.”

“Firework mortars and camp fuel canisters were found stuffed into the back” of the truck, AP reported. More from New York Times and NBC News.

Related reading:

“FBI finds 150 homemade bombs at Virginia home in one of the largest such seizures, prosecutors say,” AP reported Wednesday;
And a “US soldier [was] charged with selling stolen confidential phone records,” Reuters reported Wednesday; cybersecurity researcher Brian Krebs has more in his exclusive profile of the soldier and his apparent cyber shenanigans, here.

Welcome to our first D Brief of 2025, brought to you by Ben Watson with Bradley Peniston and Meghann Myers. Share your newsletter tips, reading recommendations, or feedback here. And if you’re not already subscribed, you can do that here. On this day in 1959, the Soviets launched Luna 1, the first spacecraft to approach the Moon and to orbit the Sun.

Ukraine developments

U.S. announces $5.9B in aid for Ukraine. That’s $2.5 billion in security assistance and $3.4 billion in additional budgetary assistance, officials said on Monday. (Reuters, DOD)

New: Patriots to Romania. The Romanian government awarded Raytheon a $946 million contract to supply additional Patriot air defense “production hardware, software and services” to its military, the Pentagon announced last week.

Background: The former Soviet bloc and current NATO member first bought several of the systems back in 2017; officials in Bucharest sent one of those systems to Ukraine this past October, which reportedly leaves Romania with just one operating Patriot in its possession today.

Hot item: Patriot systems have proven effective in Ukraine’s defense against Russian missile and drone attacks, and that success has attracted attention from neighboring countries looking to bolster defenses against possible future Russian attacks.

Related reading:

“Ukraine Slows Firing of Missiles Into Russia as Trump Prepares to Take Office, NYT reported on Dec. 27;
See also, “How Suicide Drones Transformed the Front Lines in Ukraine,” which is a NYT deep dive reported by C.J. Chivers from Kharkiv and other locations; many of its themes will be familiar to Defense One readers;
ICYMI: “Ukraine says it shot down Russian helicopter using a naval drone,” AP reported Tuesday;
And: “The Russian billionaires whose chemical factories fuel Russia’s war machine,” via Reuters reporting Monday;
“Starlink to roll out direct-to-cell services in Ukraine” late this year, Reuters reported this week, adding, “Direct-to-cell devices are connected to satellites equipped with modems that function like a cellphone tower, beaming phone signals from space directly to smartphones.”

Commentary: Why did so many American generals lie about the war in Afghanistan and why did they do so for so long? John Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, asks these questions in an op-ed published Thursday in the New York Times. In his words, “Why did so many senior officials tell Congress and the public, year after year, that success was on the horizon when they knew otherwise?” Sopko writes ahead of his agency’s final report on Afghanistan, expected sometime later this year.

His advice: Make all IGs independent. “If we are going to fix a broken system that puts bureaucrats and special interests ahead of taxpayers, the first step is to make all federal inspectors general as fully independent as my office has been,” Sopko says. “We were able to do our work only because Congress granted us the freedom to operate independently. Inspectors general for the military, State Department and USAID, however, do not enjoy such autonomy,” he says.

But a bigger problem concerns “incentives in our government that impede truth-telling,” says Sopko. If the U.S. cannot stop or reform those incentives and the processes feeding them, “we will keep pursuing projects both at home and overseas that do not work, rewarding those who rationalize failure while reporting success, and burning untold billions of dollars. American taxpayers deserve better,” he says. Read the rest, here (gift link).

Corollary: America’s failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have “contributed to Ukraine becoming a contested domestic political issue in the United States (or non-issue),” argues Franz-Stefan Gady, formerly of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, writing Thursday on social media.

“Many who advocated for staying in Afghanistan and invading Iraq are now fervent supporters of continuous military support to Ukraine,” he writes, and posits, “This association is negatively impacting public perception regarding US support for Ukraine…the Ukrainian cause is often discredited in the eyes of many American voters due to this connection.”

Global terrorism

The American and Israeli militaries carried out airstrikes on Iran-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen over the holiday break. The Pentagon says U.S. forces in the region attacked Houthi targets in the capital city of Sana’a and other locations along Yemen’s coasts Monday and Tuesday.

U.S. Navy ships and aircraft are believed to have hit “a Houthi command and control facility and advanced conventional weapon production and storage facilities” for the production of both missiles and drones, Central Command officials said in a statement. “These facilities were used in Houthi operations, such as attacks against U.S. Navy warships and merchant vessels in the southern Red Sea and Gulf of Aden,” CENTCOM said.

Also destroyed: “a Houthi coastal radar site and seven cruise missiles and one-way attack UAVs over the Red Sea,” CENTCOM added.

Last Thursday, Israeli airstrikes hit the airport in Sana’a as the World Health Organization’s director-general was boarding a flight, AP reported last week. As a result, “The air traffic control tower, the departure lounge—just a few meters from where we were—and the runway were damaged,” the WHO chief said on social media.

Other Israeli targets included the port cities of Hodeida, Al-Salif and Ras Qantib.

Background: During the weekend before Christmas, “16 people were wounded when a Houthi missile hit a playground in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv, while other missiles and drones [were] shot down,” AP reported.

By the way: Israel’s military is still working to kill Hamas terrorists around Gaza, including a man named Hassam Shahwan, whom the Israeli Defense Forces say was the chief of Internal Security Forces for Hamas. He was “eliminated by the [Israeli Air Force] in an intelligence-based strike in the Humanitarian Area in Khan Yunis,” the IDF announced Thursday.

Across the Bab el-Mandeb strait, Somali security forces fought off a “large and sophisticated attack” by Islamic State militants Tuesday in the northeastern region of Puntland, Reuters reported. The attack involved at least nine suicide bombers and several other militants, according to a Puntland parliamentarian and military officer on location when the violence occurred. An unspecified number of soldiers were reportedly wounded in the attack.

And lastly, in case you missed it: “Africa Has Entered a New Era of War,” the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday citing data from Uppsala University and Norway’s Peace Research Institute Oslo.

“Africa is now experiencing more conflicts than at any point since at least 1946,” the Journal reports. That includes “28 state-based conflicts across 16 of the continent’s 54 countries, more than in any other region in the world and double the count just a decade and a half ago.”

What’s going on? “Many of the most-affected states were left vulnerable after failing to settle on a strong mode of governance after independence—whether as functioning democracies or established authoritarian systems—or were destabilized during moments of once-in-a-generation political transitions,” some experts told the Journal.

Why it matters: “The consequences go beyond the immediate loss of life,” one expert said. Some of those consequences include “Stalled development, delayed elections and a broader sense of impunity” across the region. More, here.

]]>

Border Technologies Under Trump 2.0

Petra Molnar — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 09:02:16 -0500

(Editor’s Note: This is the next installment of our series, “Tech Policy under Trump 2.0.” Read the first article in the series here).

The day after Donald Trump was reelected U.S. president, stocks in private prison firms soared. These firms may soon expand prisons to house detainees awaiting deportation and propel an increase in surveillance and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven technologies to accomplish this task.

In his campaign and after reelection, Trump has signaled sweeping reforms to the U.S. immigration system. Among other things, he promised to: conduct the largest mass deportation in U.S. history, assisted by the military; end birthright citizenship; militarize the border and introduce more border surveillance; reintroduce travel bans similar to the infamous Muslim travel ban in his first term; revive the “remain in Mexico” policy; penalize sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with federal deportation agents; greatly expand the ambit of ICE; deputize the National Guard to carry out immigration arrests; and suspend refugee admissions.

But the Trump administration cannot do this alone. An already multi-billion dollar border and surveillance industry is set to profit under Trump’s plans for new border enforcement spending, immigration surveillance and mass deportation. And with virtually no safeguards and laws to govern the development and deployment of new technologies such as AI, the U.S.-Mexico border continues to be a laboratory for high-risk experimentation.

Digitizing Migration

In recent years, digital technologies have become embedded in virtually every aspect of migration. From visa triaging algorithms to drone surveillance with biometric data collection capabilities at the border, companies and governments increasingly are developing and deploying unregulated technologies to manage migration. Various reports, including last year’s study by the U.N. Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, which I co-authored with Professor Lorna McGregor, argue that these technologies infringe on fundamental human rights. For example, infringements on the right to privacy occur when sensitive information is shared during asylum procedures, infringements on equality and freedom from discrimination occur when racially-biased algorithms make decisions, and even infringements on the right to life, liberty and security occur when surveillance pushes individuals into life-threatening terrain like the Sonoran desert. These technologies also operate in a system of decision-making which is already opaque, with broad discretion and vast power differences between officials making decisions and people-on-the-move who are most impacted by unregulated or inadequately regulated technologies.

The Elbit Systems Surveillance Tower in the Sonora Desert, Arizona, May 2024. (Photo by Petra Molnar)

Importantly, much of this technological development predates the incoming Trump administration. The Democrats expanded the U.S. border industrial complex and the country’s commitment to so-called “smart border” technologies, presenting them as a “humane alternative” to the Trump wall and an effective deterrent to immigration. However, scholars such as Samuel Norton Chambers, Geoffrey Alan Boyce, Sarah Launius and Alicia Dinsmore found in their peer-reviewed study that increased surveillance does not deter people who are desperate for safety. Instead, people are forced to take more dangerous routes to avoid detection, leading to an increase of mortality at the U.S.-Mexico border. Indeed, during the six years that I have been documenting the impacts of border technologies for my book The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, I have personally visited spaces in the Sonoran desert, where people have died after being caught in this growing surveillance dragnet. These individuals were exercising their internationally-protected right to asylum, enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention and established legal principles such as non-refoulement, or the fundamental principle of international human rights and refugee law that prohibits states from returning people to countries where they may face persecution, torture or other human rights violations.

This system of AI-powered border surveillance is growing, including drone surveillance, ground sensors, and fixed surveillance towers by the Israeli company Elbit systems. More novel interventions have also been announced, such as the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) 2022 unveiling of a fleet of “robo-dogs” — quadruped military-grade machines which are joining the theatre of surveillance at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The Private Sector’s Growing Influence in the White House

Governments around the world are jostling to be the leader in what some have called the “AI arms race,” vying for geopolitical influence by riding on the coattails of innovation. The United States continues to be very much a leader in this race, with Trump already signaling plans to “Make America First in AI.” On Dec. 5, Trump appointed former PayPal executive and billionaire David Sacks as America’s first “AI and crypto czar.” Sacks “will focus on making America the clear global leader in both areas,” Trump wrote on social media.

A water barrel placed by Samaritan groups in the Sonoran desert, 2022. (Photo by Petra Molnar)

But Sacks is only the most-recent addition to Trump’s cadre of techno-optimists. Trump appointed Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an informal advisory body. Various other Silicon Valley Republicans, such as defense contractor Palantir’s founder Peter Thiel and Anduril’s CEO Palmer Luckey, will likely have influence in the new administration. Thiel financed the meteoric rise of Vice President-elect JD Vance, while Anduril continues to make advances both in border surveillance as well as autonomous warfare, once again highlighting the conflation of militarization, national security and migration concerns.

The Elbit Systems Surveillance Tower, 2022. (Photo by Petra Molnar)

And because governments, including the United States, often cannot develop cutting-edge technologies in-house, they over-rely on public-private partnerships, sold to departments and agencies of government by private sector vendors, whether as a product or service. These partnerships further obfuscate responsibility over the very real implications of using technologies in high-risk applications, such as at the border and in migration. As a result, an algorithm’s source code, its training data or other inputs may be proprietary, and — to the extent that they exist as confidential business assets or intellectual property — can sometimes be shielded from public scrutiny.

Private sector businesses already have an existing independent responsibility to ensure that the technologies they develop do not violate international human rights. Unfortunately, government surveillance, policing, immigration enforcement and border security programs can incentivize and reward industry for developing rights-infringing technologies. For example, invoking the national security carve-outs may enable circumvention of the rights protections and commitments to public transparency and accountability. And if there are profits to be made in the growing border industrial complex, what incentives exist for private sector actors to take the lead in safeguarding the rights of people who are often marginalized?

Global Governance of Border Technologies

Currently, very few laws regulate the integration of AI into border security. There have been some promising moves in recent years, such as the long-awaited European Union’s Act to Regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI Act), which was finally ratified in August 2024. However, while this omnibus bill could have set a global precedent on AI governance, especially in high-risks zones such as the border and migration applications, it falls short in virtually every aspect of recognizing the human impacts of these technologies. The AI Act also has various carveouts and exemptions in place for national security matters, which include technologies used in migration and border enforcement. Additionally, the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law is the world’s first binding treaty on AI. According to its Article 1, the Convention “aims to ensure that activities throughout the lifecycle of artificial intelligence systems are fully consistent with human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.” However, it remains silent on border technologies and other uses of AI, such as policing or welfare, that disproportionately impact marginalized communities, nor does it include safeguards for ethnicity and race.

Internationally, in March 2024, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Resolution entitled “Seizing the opportunities of safe, secure, and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems for sustainable development.” Again, this document is near-silent on migration, with one mention of cross-border data flows.

This lack of focus on high-risk border technologies and the EU’s weak governance on border technologies will allow for more and more experimental projects to proliferate, setting a global standard on how governments will approach migration technologies. The EU often sets a precedent for how other countries govern technology. With the weak protections offered by the EU AI act on border technologies, it is no surprise that the U.S. government similarly does little to protect people on the move from harmful technologies.

In October 2023, the Biden administration released its Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. This order does not mention high-risk border technologies. Trump has vowed to rescind the executive order on AI when he returns to the White House.

Unbridled techno-optimism and the growing influence of the private sector go hand in hand, with governance and regulation being misguidedly seen as stifling innovation. As close allies to President-elect Trump, certain tech executives are likely to have significant sway in loosening restrictions on technology at the border.

Politics are Fueling a Digital War on Migration

Border technologies should not be viewed in isolation, but in an ecosystem replete with the criminalization of migration, anti-migrant sentiments and politicized differences. When migration is presented as a problem to be solved, in a lucrative border surveillance industry, it is no wonder that private sector players step in to offer a solution. However, these solutions present serious risks to peoples’ lives, such as when the startup Brinc proposed outfitting drones with tasers to prevent migration from Mexico into the United States. The Canada-U.S. border is also increasingly politicized, with the Canadian government on Dec. 17 announcing a massive expansion of surveillance and tightening of the northern border after Trump threatened a 25 percent tariff on the country.

Two orange crosses mark the final resting place of people who died making the dangerous crossing into the United States, Arizona, 2022. (Photo by Petra Molnar)

In this digital war on migration, paying close attention to what happens at the border and in migration spaces matters because they are often the first places where high-risk technologies are tested. These frontier spaces are opaque, with mass

Law and Leadership for National Security in 2025 and Beyond

Alex Joel — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 08:59:35 -0500

At a time of polarized political discussion in the United States there is broad consensus on at least one topic: the seriousness of foreign threats confronting the country. According to the Intelligence Community’s (IC’s) Annual Threat Assessment released in February 2024, threats range from nation state actors such as China, Russian, North Korea, and Iran, to regional conflicts such as those roiling the Middle East, to non-state actors such as transnational criminal organizations, human traffickers, and foreign terrorists. Citing threats emanating from across the globe, Speaker Mike Johnson called for “fortitude and fight” in confronting “Chinese communists, Russian oligarchs, and Islamic terrorists.”

Policymakers need accurate, timely, and objective intelligence now more than ever. With the start of a new administration and a new Congress, it is time to take stock of how well the IC is positioned to deliver on its national security mission. As noted by Dustin Carmack, former Chief of Staff for then-Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, in his chapter on the Intelligence Community for the Project 2025 report, “An incoming conservative President needs to use these intelligence authorities aggressively to anticipate and thwart our adversaries, including Russia, Iran, North Korea, and especially China, while maintaining counterterrorism tools that have demonstrated their effectiveness. This means empowering the right personnel to manage, build, and effectively execute actions dispersed throughout the IC to deliver intelligence in an ever-challenging world.” That said, as then-candidate Trump affirmed in 2023, it is essential also “to ensure that [intelligence agencies] are not spying on our citizens.” The IC must, therefore, have the legal authorities it needs to keep the country safe, with robust civil liberties protections and oversight, operating under a senior leadership team that knows how to use those authorities effectively and lawfully.

As we start the new year, the IC faces a pivotal moment. It must find ways to deliver “decision advantage” to policymakers in the face of evolving threats and rapidly changing technology. Policymakers in turn must understand the IC’s structure and capabilities, the effectiveness of which depends on key national security legal authorities and civil liberties safeguards.

This article examines the challenges and opportunities for the IC in 2025 and beyond, focusing on the leadership role of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in the context of the IC’s current structure, and the critical importance of FISA Section 702 as the IC’s premier intelligence tool. It highlights the need for collaborative leadership, proactive transparency, and robust oversight to maintain public trust as the IC acts to preserve, improve, and judiciously deploy its powerful authorities in the new year and beyond.

The IC Orchestra and its Conductor

At the outset, it is important to keep in mind that the IC is not a single, unitary entity. With 18 elements—16 of which are nested within six federal departments—and with an annual budget of $76.5 billion, the IC is both impressively resourced and confoundingly complex. It includes powerful and well-known agencies that have authorities for clandestine collection, such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for human intelligence, the National Security Agency (NSA) for signals intelligence, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for conducting national security investigations inside the United States. The IC also includes smaller offices such as the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence. Although the IC elements share much in common in terms of intelligence priorities, tradecraft, culture, and overall mission, they also have their own specialized areas of focus and capability.

An apt way to think of the IC is as an orchestra. It works best when the elements are attuned to one another, using their instruments skillfully and harmoniously, with the musicians understanding and fulfilling their roles to their utmost abilities. Just as an orchestra has a conductor to help ensure that the music from the whole is better than the sum of its parts, so too does the IC, in the form of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). As Senator Marco Rubio observed in a hearing in 2024, the DNI “acts as the conductor of the orchestra, and it’s a tough orchestra. Some of the instruments in that orchestra are bigger and more powerful than others, like the CIA.”

The IC’s current leadership structure owes much to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. That Commission found that the IC had failed to “connect the dots” of available intelligence in ways that contributed to its failure to predict and prevent the 9/11 attacks. Among the contributing factors, the Commission highlighted the organizational complexity of the IC, noting that structural barriers impeded all-important “joint intelligence work.” It found that the head of the CIA—then referred to as the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI)—held “too many jobs”:

The DCI now has at least three jobs. He is expected to run a particular agency, the CIA. He is expected to manage the loose confederation of agencies that is the intelligence community. He is expected to be the analyst in chief for the government, sifting evidence and directly briefing the President as his principal intelligence adviser. No recent DCI has been able to do all three effectively. Usually what loses out is management of the intelligence community, a difficult task even in the best case because the DCI’s current authorities are weak. With so much to do, the DCI often has not used even the authority he has.

In response, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), which created the position of Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The IRTPA requires that the DNI have “extensive national security expertise,” and assigns the DNI the responsibility to “serve as the head of the intelligence community” while also acting as the “principal adviser to the President … for intelligence matters related to the national security.” The Act also assigned other responsibilities to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in the areas of personnel, security, standards, policies, and the like. Reflecting on the impact of this separation of responsibility from the CIA, former CIA Director Michael Hayden noted: “The creation of the DNI freed up the director of the Central Intelligence Agency to spend every waking and sometimes not-so-wakeful moment running CIA. I cannot imagine doing that job [CIA Director], filling that function, if I had to do what [the DNI] had to do every morning.” Notably, Hayden had also served as Principal Deputy DNI and Director of NSA. Hayden’s sentiment was echoed by former Acting DCIA John McLaughlin, who in a December 2024 retrospective on intelligence reform, wrote:

As someone initially very skeptical of the idea, I’ve come to the view that the DNI, with all the changes, now performs an essential integration and tasking role for the intelligence community, while also providing a public face and locus of accountability for the whole intelligence enterprise. And as a former CIA official, once responsible for coordinating the work of the huge complex community while managing CIA’s global mission, I see the benefit of the DCIA now being able to focus more exclusively on the latter

As a result of the 9/11 Commission, the IRTPA also placed the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) within ODNI, as well as the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC). The Commission had called for the DNI to “oversee national intelligence centers to provide all-source analysis and plan intelligence operations for the whole government on major problems.” The ODNI now also includes the National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center (founded in 2005 based on the recommendations of the WMD Commission), the Cyberthreat Intelligence Integration Center, and the Foreign Malign Influence Center.

An important caveat to the centralization of the ODNI: the IRTPA limits the DNI’s authority over the other IC elements by stipulating that the ODNI must exercise its authorities “in a manner that respects and does not abrogate the statutory responsibilities of the heads of the departments of the United States Government concerning such departments.”

With such limited authorities and the challenging mission of integrating 18 different elements into a cohesive whole, the DNI’s task is an unenviable one. As former Representative Jane Harman, one of the architects of the IRTPA, noted in a discussion on intelligence reform in 2010: “We had to make compromises to get the bill through. You will all remember the implacable opposition of then-Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. … [As a result, the DNI’s job is] 50 percent law and 50 percent leadership.”

This is a helpful characterization of the challenge facing a new administration as it seeks to ensure the IC is operating at optimal efficiency. The law gets the IC only partway there. The rest depends on leadership. This puts a premium on the expertise, judgment, experience and collaborative mindset of IC leaders.

Two decades after the 9/11 attacks, the former Chair and Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission—Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton—looked back favorably on the progress made implementing their recommendations. They wrote:

[O]ne of the biggest challenges we identified—reforming intelligence and counterterrorism capabilities—has largely been achieved, making Americans much safer…. Over time, the DNI found its role…. It is focusing on long-term challenges requiring inter-agency coordination rather than micromanaging internal agency operations or seeking to control intelligence collection and covert action…. The DNI is recognized as the public face of the intelligence community, communicating a shared view on threats and priorities. It is leading community-wide initiatives related to privacy, civil liberties, transparency, and the implications of new and emerging technologies.

FISA Section 702

If the IC is an orchestra and the DNI its conductor, then one can think of the authorities enabling agencies to collect, analyze, and disseminate intelligence as the musical instruments. And there is no more important instrument than Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Section 702 enables the government—acting primarily through NSA, which works closely with the FBI, CIA, and National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)—to compel electronic communications service providers to hand over the communications of specific foreign intelligence “targets” (individual users of communications services) who must be non-U.S. persons located outside the country. Briefly, this is how Section 702 works: The government submits annual certifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for its review and approval. The certifications include targeting, querying, and minimization procedures that the government must follow. The targeting procedures require that NSA document its reasonable assessment not only that the targets are non-U.S. persons abroad, but also that they are communicating foreign intelligence information that fits within an intelligence topic set forth in the certifications. As reported by ODNI, “[t]opics of certifications the FISC has approved to date include counterterrorism; combatting proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and foreign governments and related entities.” The FISC-approved procedures contain other safeguards designed to protect privacy and civil liberties. Agency implementation is subject to a multi-layered compliance and oversight system.

Given the central position of the United States and its tech companies in global communications, it should come as no surprise that Section 702 is an extraordinarily valuable authority. Indeed, there is now broad consensus in the national security community on its importance. According to a joint letter to Congress from ODNI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), “Section 702 provides critical and unique foreign intelligence at a speed and reliability that the Intelligence Community cannot replicate with any other authority. The Intelligence Community relies on Section 702 in almost every aspect of its work and, as a result, the authority is essential to our national security.” As Sen. John Cornyn stated during the congressional debates on Section 702:

I call [Section 702] the most important law that most Americans never heard of. But it is an essential tool for our intelligence community to protect the American people against a whole array of threats… [T]he best I can tell, there is broad bipartisan consensus about the value of section 702…. Section 702-acquired information has helped combat terrorism, disrupt drug trafficking, thwart cyber-attacks, prevent our adversaries from trafficking in weapons of mass destruction, and much more.

Returning to the orchestra metaphor, the indispensability of Section 702 for national security is comparable to that of the violin for orchestral music. The violin’s “ability to shape the texture, balance the sound, and lead the ensemble makes it indispensable to the orchestral tradition,” earning its place as the “largest and most important section of the orchestra.” Of course, this assumes that the orchestra has a violin section at all. Section 702 must prove its worth periodically to continue to play its part, and its next test is rapidly approaching.

Section 702 Reauthorization

Since its passage in 2008, Section 702 has contained a sunset clause. If Congress does not reauthorize it before the sunset deadline, the authority lapses. Congress most recently reauthorized Section 702 in April, by passing the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISA). RISA amended Section 702 in significant ways and reauthorized it for two years. It will be up for reauthorization again in April 2026. That means the reauthorization debate will recommence in the first year of the new administration. Given its importance, a top priority of the new administration should be to reauthorize FISA Section 702.

Of course, much depends on the position that President Donald Trump directs his administration to take. During the lead-up to the 2017 reauthorization vote then-President Trump posted anti-FISA tweets that caused considerable confusion on the Hill. He ultimately supported reauthorization, issuing a signing statement in which he said that Section 702 “has proven to be among the Nation’s most effective foreign intelligence tools” and “provides robust privacy protections for American citizens.” In April of 2024, as the House reauthorization vote neared, Trump again posted his opposition to FISA, this time on Truth Social: “KILL FISA, IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME, AND MANY OTHERS. THEY SPIED ON MY CAMPAIGN!!!” As a compromise, House Republicans moved up the sunset date by three years, so that Section 702 would be up for reauthorization again in 2026—during a second Trump term—rather than the originally agreed date in 2029.

There is reason to believe that in his second term, President Trump could again support Section 702 reauthorization. Trump’s public complaints about FISA appear to be directed at Title I of FISA rather than Section 702. Title I is a complex provision that, in essence, authorizes the government to conduct electronic surveillance that targets Americans inside the United States if the government first obtains an order from the FISC finding that there is probable cause to believe that the target is an agent of a foreign power. This is the authority that the FBI used to conduct surveillance on Carter Page after he had worked with the Trump 2016 election campaign; the FBI’s misuse of Title I motivated Congress to include a range of new restrictions and safeguards when they enacted the RISA Act. Although the FBI’s use of FISA Section 702 also generated serious concerns due to non-compliance with query restrictions on U.S. persons, those incidents did not involve the Trump campaign.

[Editor’s note: Readers may also be interested in Asha Rangappa’s Expert Backgrounder: Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act vs. Section 702 (2023)]

In addition, people Trump has named for key national security posts have expressed strong support for Section 702, with the additional safeguards included in the RISA Act. John Ratcliffe, who has been identified as the future nominee for Director of the CIA, signed a letter endorsing the reauthorization bill, describing Section 702 as “one of the most critical tools the Intelligence Community has at its disposal [which] must be reauthorized.” Sen. Rubio, who is to be nominated for Secretary of State, strongly supported reauthorization through the RISA Act, stating that “702 is an indispensable national security tool. Without it

The Just Security Podcast: How Border Technologies Impact Migration

Judith Cabrera — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 08:24:25 -0500

In just a few weeks, Donald Trump will begin his second term as U.S. president. During his campaign and after reelection, Trump has signaled sweeping reforms to the U.S. immigration system. Among his top goals are promises to conduct the largest mass deportation in U.S. history, militarize the border, and introduce more border surveillance.

In recent years, digital technologies have impacted virtually every aspect of migration. From visa triaging algorithms to drone surveillance with biometric data collection capabilities, companies and governments are increasingly developing and using these technologies to implement their migration policies.

How are new forms of technology affecting people on the move?

Joining the show discuss border technologies and what we can expect from the new administration are Judith Cabrera and Petra Molnar.

Judith is Co-Director of the Border Line Crisis Center, an organization which provides comprehensive networks of care to the migrant community in Tijuana, Mexico. Petra co-runs the Refugee Law Lab at York University and is a faculty associate at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society.

Show Notes:

Petra’s book The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in The Age of Artificial Intelligence published by The New Press
Just Security’s Technology coverage
Just Security’s Migration coverage
Just Security’s Artificial Intelligence coverage
Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Listen to the episode, with a transcript available soon, by clicking below.

The post The Just Security Podcast: How Border Technologies Impact Migration appeared first on Just Security.

Early Edition: January 2, 2025

Weronika Galka — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 07:51:42 -0500

Signup to receive the Early Edition in your inbox here.

A curated weekday guide to most recent major news and developments. Here’s today’s news:

SYRIA

Syria’s rebel administration gave some foreign jihadist fighters senior roles in Damascus’ new armed forces, according to Syrian sources. An Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) source said the appointments are a “token of recognition” of the “sacrifices” of Islamist jihadists in the struggle against former president Bashar Assad. Timour Azhari, Khalil Ashawi, and Suleiman Al-Khalidi report for Reuters.

Elections in Syria may not be held “for up to four years,” HTS head and the country’s de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa said on Sunday, citing the need to prepare the infrastructure. Nadeen Ebrahim and Mostafa Salem report for CNN.

France carried out missile strikes last weekend on the self-styled Islamic State group’s sites in Syria, the country’s armed forces minister said on Tuesday. Sudip Kar-Gupta reports for Reuters.

The ceasefire between Turkey and the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces is holding in northern Syria, the Pentagon said on Monday. Idrees Ali reports for Reuters.

SYRIA — U.S. RESPONSE

The United States “expressed concern” to the country’s new foreign minister about reports of violent militant group attacks on Syria’s minorities, U.S. officials said. Barak Ravid reports for Axios.

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR

The Palestinian Authority yesterday temporarily suspended Al-Jazeera’s West Bank broadcasts and operations, accusing the network of “provok[ing] strife and interfer[ing] in Palestinian internal affairs,” the official Palestinian news agency said. Abeer Salman, Hira Humayun, and Kareem El Damanhoury report for CNN.

An Israeli airstrike killed at least 10 people sheltering in a southern Gaza tent camp for displaced families early today, according to medics. Nidal Al-Mughrabi reports for Reuters.

At least 6 babies died from the cold in Gaza in the past week, the UN aid agency for Palestinians said Tuesday, as the plummeting temperatures deepen Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. Amanda Coletta reports for the Washington Post.

Gaza’s population dropped by 6% in 2024, with 100,000 Palestinians leaving the territory and 45,553 killed by Israeli attacks, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics said in a report released Tuesday. Nadeen Ebrahim, Dana Karni, and Kareem El Damanhoury report for CNN.

Israel’s former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant yesterday announced he is resigning from parliament. Maayan Lubell reports for Reuters.

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR — U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE

Israeli attacks on hospitals pushed Gaza’s healthcare system to “the brink of total collapse” and may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, the U.N. Human Rights Office said in a report published Tuesday. The report covers the conflict from Oct. 7, 2023 to June 30, 2024. David Gritten reports for BBC News.

The World Health Organization’s chief on Tuesday called for the immediate release of Kamal Adwan Hospital’s director detained last week during the Israeli forces’ raid on the facility. Leo Sands, Kelly Kasulis Cho, Kelsey Baker, and Hajar Harb report for the Washington Post.

HOUTHI DEVELOPMENTS

The U.S. military said on Tuesday it carried out a series of strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. A Houthi spokesperson said the group will “confront any escalation by escalating.” Adam Rasgon reports for the New York Times.

Israel’s ambassador to the U.N. on Monday issued a “final warning” to Houthi militants to halt missile attacks on Israel, saying they risk the same “miserable fate” as “Hamas, Hezbollah, and Assad.” Daphne Psaledakis and Jonathan Landay report for Reuters.

U.S. DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS

The Treasury Department on Monday told lawmakers a state-sponsored actor in China hacked its systems last month, adding the actor accessed some workstations and unclassified documents and there is “no evidence” they have continued access to Treasury systems. Connor Hart and Dustin Volz report for the Wall Street Journal.

A U.S. army veteran’s killing of at least 15 people in New Orleans using a pickup truck bearing an Islamic State flag is being investigated as an “act of terrorism,” the FBI said, adding the attack may have been carried out with the help of others. Brian Thevenot reports for Reuters.

A Pentagon appeals court on Monday upheld the validity of the plea deals in the Sept. 11 case, agreeing with the military judge’s ruling that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin did not have the authority to retroactively withdraw them. Carol Rosenberg reports for the New York Times.

The FBI arrested a Virginia man who stored more than 150 explosive devices at his home, the largest cache of “finished explosive devices” found in the bureau’s history, court documents posted Monday show. Rebbecca Beitsch reports for The Hill.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts criticised the “specter of open disregard for federal court rulings” and “regrettable” attempts to intimidate judges “by suggesting political bias” by officials in his annual report released Tuesday. John Fritze reports for CNN.

Around 15% of Puerto Rico is still without power after an “island-wide” blackout on New Year’s Eve. Avery Lotz reports for Axios.

Federal authorities indicted a U.S. soldier over alleged sales of stolen confidential phone records, according to court records made public on Monday. A.J. Vicens reports for Reuters.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR

President Biden on Monday announced the United States is sending nearly $2.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine. Separately, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the administration had released $3.4 billion in budget aid to Ukraine, in what she said was the final disbursement of appropriated funds. Helene Cooper reports for the New York Times.

Ukraine halted the flow of Russian gas through its pipeline network yesterday, following the expiry of a pre-war transit deal at the end of 2024. Hanna Arhirova reports for AP News.

Russia and Ukraine on Monday announced they exchanged more than 300 prisoners of war, the largest in months, in a deal brokered by the United Arab Emirates. Nataliya Vasilyeva reports for the New York Times.

The Treasury Department on Tuesday issued sanctions against a Russian judge over her role in human-rights activist Alexei Gorinov’s detention under Moscow’s censorship laws over his opposition to the war in Ukraine. Doina Chiacu reports for Reuters.

U.S. FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The Pentagon on Monday repatriated a Tunisian Guantánamo detainee who was held at the prison since the day it opened. The U.S. government had deemed him eligible for release in 2010. Carol Rosenberg reports for the New York Times.

The Treasury Department on Tuesday announced new sanctions on Iranian and Russian entities over alleged attempts to influence the 2024 U.S. election. Jeff Stein reports for the Washington Post.

Montenegro extradited a South Korean charged with fraud over a $40 billion cryptocurrency crash to the United States on Tuesday. Predrag Milic reports for AP News.

GLOBAL AFFAIRS

A South Korean court on Tuesday approved the arrest of President Yoon Suk-Yeol requested by prosecutors in the criminal investigation into his martial law decree. Josh Smith and Joyce Lee report for Reuters.

Afghanistan’s Taliban-led government said it will not escalate its attacks after launching a series of strikes on Pakistani military posts over the weekend. Eltaf Najafizada and Ismail Dilawar report for Bloomberg.

The Islamic State yesterday claimed responsibility for a Tuesday attack on a military base in northeastern Somalia. A local counter-terrorism officer said nine suicide bombers had been killed and several soldiers had been injured in the attack. Muhammad Al Gebaly reports for Reuters.

Kenyan police have arrested dozens of protesters on Monday, including an opposition lawmaker, in nationwide clashes over alleged abductions of government critics. Larry Madowo and Christian Edwards report for CNN.

The president of Ivory Coast on Tuesday announced French forces will withdraw from its territory, further reducing France’s waning power in West Africa. Ruth Maclean reports for the New York Times.

The post Early Edition: January 2, 2025 appeared first on Just Security.

2024 in review: Commentary

Defense One Staff — Thu, 02 Jan 2025 06:00:00 -0500

The Pentagon has been learning the wrong lessons for three decades
The Gulf War sowed the seeds of future defeat. We must uproot them—and urgently.
John Ferrari, Senior Nonresident Fellow, AEI

We have China’s ‘anti-access’ challenge exactly backward
Stronger regional security depends on getting this right—then setting aside our wants for our needs.
Peter W. Singer, Strategist, New America

The Army is too top-heavy
Surplus generals, swollen staffs, and excess headquarters drain headcount and resources from warfighting units.
R.D. Hooker, Jr., Senior Associate, Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center

The US is not serious about aircraft carriers—or their industrial base
Congress should reject the Navy’s plan to increase the gaps between new carriers.
Bryan McGrath, Managing Director, The FerryBridge Group

U.S. Air Force culture needs a reboot
Too many of today’s operators think of themselves as passive helpers, not innovative war-winners.
Paula Thornhill and Lt. Col. Shane Praiswater

How China is winning the Middle East
China is working to present itself as a responsible alternative to the U.S. in the Middle East, just as many are questioning Washington’s long-term comm...
Peter W. Singer, Strategist, New America

The US military must prepare for a second Trump presidency
His re-election could have profound effects on civil-military relations.
Gregory D. Foster, Professor, National Defense University

Will Musk’s ‘Algorithm’ reduce military inefficiency—or increase risk?
It's good to question Pentagon requirements. But many exist for deadly serious reasons that may not be obvious in a hasty review.
Todd Harrison, Senior Fellow, AEI

Could a Canadian experiment help US Navy recruiting?
More than a hundred young Canadians are spending a trial year in their fleet.
Marissa Lemar

The X-Men and Avengers have lessons for international defense cooperation
We train as we fight, but we don’t buy as we fight.
Dan Ward, Senior Principal Systems Engineer, MITRE

In Norway, young people compete to serve in the military
Other countries mulling wider national service plans should learn about the Norwegian model.
Elisabeth Braw, Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council

]]>

Investigators Search for Links Between New Orleans Attack and Las Vegas Blast

Glenn Thrush — Wed, 01 Jan 2025 22:37:52 -0500

The two episodes have superficial similarities, including that both suspects used the same car rental app.

Investigators Search for Links Between New Orleans and Las Vegas Attacks

Glenn Thrush — Wed, 01 Jan 2025 22:20:44 -0500

The two episodes have superficial similarities, including that both attackers used the same car rental app.

New Orleans Attack on New Year’s Turns Celebration Into Terror

Jenna Russell, Keith Bradsher, Devlin Barrett and Emily Cochrane — Wed, 01 Jan 2025 21:24:50 -0500

The attack that left 15 dead and about three dozen injured followed a distressingly familiar pattern of assailants turning vehicles into weapons.

In New Orleans, Celebration Is Followed By Terror in the French Quarter

Jenna Russell, Keith Bradsher, Devlin Barrett and Emily Cochrane — Wed, 01 Jan 2025 20:08:01 -0500

The attack that left 15 dead and about three dozen injured followed a distressingly familiar pattern of assailants turning vehicles into weapons.

Deadly New Orleans Attack on Bourbon Street: What We Know

Soumya Karlamangla — Wed, 01 Jan 2025 19:28:25 -0500

A man drove a pickup into crowds celebrating the New Year on Bourbon Street early Wednesday morning, killing at least 15 people. President Biden said he was “inspired by ISIS.”

INTELLIGENCE: Ukrainian Police Problems

Wed, 01 Jan 2025 19:27:41 -0500

PROCUREMENT: Norway Pays To Survive

Wed, 01 Jan 2025 19:25:01 -0500

New Orleans Attacker Evaded a Security System Under Repair

Emily Cochrane — Wed, 01 Jan 2025 17:08:02 -0500

Bollards that normally protect pedestrians from vehicles were to be replaced as part of the city’s preparations for the Super Bowl next month. The attacker drove his pickup around a police vehicle parked to block traffic from the street he struck.

F.B.I. Says It Found Largest Cache of Homemade Explosives in Its History at Va. Farm

Alan Feuer — Wed, 01 Jan 2025 14:09:54 -0500

Investigators discovered more than 150 devices, mostly pipe bombs, on a property outside Norfolk, court papers say.

2024 in review: Defense systems

Defense One Staff — Wed, 01 Jan 2025 06:00:00 -0500

Spy agency ready to launch new vehicle-tracking satellites
After tests go well, NRO director looks to start replacing JSTARS aircraft with orbital sensors.
Audrey Decker, Staff Writer

Meet the Air Force’s secretive long-range drone that flies for days
The robot surveillance aircraft can fly for 80 hours without refueling.
Audrey Decker, Staff Writer

B-21 production is a go, Pentagon says
Defense undersecretary confirms Northrop Grumman has approval to start making non-test variants of the stealth bomber.
Audrey Decker, Staff Writer

Giant military manta ray drone passes first ocean test
Manta Ray prototype demonstrates propulsion, steering in step toward “real-world operations.”
Patrick Tucker, Science & Technology Editor

US Army rushes to boost defenses as Russia ups strike-drone autonomy
From the Red Sea to the Pacific, the drone and counter-drone game is accelerating.
Patrick Tucker, Science & Technology Editor

The Pentagon is already testing tomorrow’s AI-powered swarm drones, ships
DOD pulled off unmanned amphibious landings, self-coding drones, and more just in the last year. What's next?
Patrick Tucker, Science & Technology Editor

Chinese hacking operations have entered a far more dangerous phase, US warns
“This is truly an Everything Everywhere, All at Once scenario,” one official said.
Patrick Tucker, Science & Technology Editor

'Fast movers': Chinese satellites zoom around for inspections—or interference
In a previously unreported incident, one of China's maneuvering satellites was tracked and approached by a Russian one.
David D. Chen and Peter W. Singer

The Marines want to ‘litter the battlefield’ with anti-drone sensors
Some units will get portable devices within a year, officials said.
Sam Skove, Staff Writer

'ChatGPT, plan my top-secret mission'
Microsoft adds an air-gapped generative AI tool to its cloud services for classified workloads.
Adam Mazmanian, Editor-at-Large, Nextgov/FCW

]]>

BOOK REVIEW: We Shall Conquer or Die: Partisan Warfare in 1862 Western Kentucky

Wed, 01 Jan 2025 03:00:07 -0500

WEAPONS: Kids Assemble Grenades

Tue, 31 Dec 2024 19:13:43 -0500

MORALE: Annual Wars Update for 2024

Tue, 31 Dec 2024 19:11:55 -0500

Pentagon Appeals Court Upholds Plea Deals in Sept. 11 Case

Carol Rosenberg — Tue, 31 Dec 2024 17:11:27 -0500

The three-judge decision appeared, at least for now, to put plea proceedings for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and two others back on track to take place in early January at Guantánamo Bay.