Domestic Terrorism: An Overview, & More from CRS
The problem of “domestic terrorism” is examined in a new report from the Congressional Research Service, along with an assessment of the government’s difficulty in addressing it.
“Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), domestic terrorists–people who commit crimes within the homeland and draw inspiration from U.S.-based extremist ideologies and movements–have not received as much attention from federal law enforcement as their violent jihadist counterparts,” the report says.
Among other obstacles to an effective response, “The federal government lacks a process for publicly designating domestic terrorist organizations.” See Domestic Terrorism: An Overview by CRS Specialist Jerome P. Bjelopera, August 21, 2017.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
Confederate Names and Military Installations, CRS Insight, August 22, 2017
FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, August 22, 2017
Human Rights in China and U.S. Policy: Issues for the 115th Congress, July 17, 2017
North Korean Cyber Capabilities: In Brief, August 3, 2017
Justice Department’s Role in Cyber Incident Response, August 23, 2017
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): History and Overview, updated August 17, 2017
Remedies for Patent Infringement, July 18, 2017
Russia: Background and U.S. Interests, updated August 21, 2017
If you’re new to the climate intervention space, welcome! The TL;DR: if we can’t stop the most catastrophic impacts of climate change with current tools quickly enough, then we need a bigger toolbox.
After months of delay, the council tasked by President Trump to review the FEMA released its final report. Our disaster policy nerds have thoughts.
FAS and FLI partnered to build a series of convenings and reports across the intersections of artificial intelligence (AI) with biosecurity, cybersecurity, nuclear command and control, military integration, and frontier AI governance. This project brought together leaders across these areas and created a space that was rigorous, transpartisan, and solutions-oriented to approach how we should think about how AI is rapidly changing global risks.
Investment should instead be directed at sectors where American technology and innovation exist but the infrastructure to commercialize them domestically does not—and where the national security case is clear.