Efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to assert itself as a viable member of the U.S. intelligence community have yielded a new strategic plan for homeland security intelligence and a management directive organizing the Department’s intelligence activity.
The new strategic plan is a handsome document, but largely devoid of significant content.
See “DHS Intelligence Enterprise Strategic Plan,” January 2006 (3.3 MB PDF file).
And see “Intelligence Integration and Management,” DHS Management Directive 8110, January 30, 2006.
Relatedly, “DHS Has Not Implemented an Information Security Program for Its Intelligence Systems,” according to the title of a new DHS Inspector General report (flagged by BeSpacific.com).
By preparing credible, bipartisan options now, before the bill becomes law, we can give the Administration a plan that is ready to implement rather than another study that gathers dust.
Even as companies and countries race to adopt AI, the U.S. lacks the capacity to fully characterize the behavior and risks of AI systems and ensure leadership across the AI stack. This gap has direct consequences for Commerce’s core missions.
The last remaining agreement limiting U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons has now expired. For the first time since 1972, there is no treaty-bound cap on strategic nuclear weapons.
As states take up AI regulation, they must prioritize transparency and build technical capacity to ensure effective governance and build public trust.