The decline of arms control as an instrument of policy in the Bush Administration is charted in a new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service, which surveys the evolution of the field over the last several decades.
“The Bush Administration has altered the role of arms control in U.S. national security policy,” the CRS report states.
“The President and many in his Administration question the degree to which arms control negotiations and formal treaties can enhance U.S. security objectives.”
“Instead, the Administration would prefer, when necessary, that the United States take unilateral military action or join in ad hoc coalitions to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”
“The absence of confidence in arms control has extended to the State Department, where the Bush Administration has removed the phrase ‘arms control’ from all bureaus that were responsible for this policy area.”
See “Arms Control and Nonproliferation: A Catalog of Treaties and Agreements,” January 29, 2007.
It is in the interests of the United States to appropriately protect information that needs to be protected while maintaining our participation in new discoveries to maintain our competitive advantage.
The question is not whether the capital exists (it does!), nor whether energy solutions are available (they are!), but whether we can align energy finance quickly enough to channel the right types of capital where and when it’s needed most.
Our analysis of federal AI governance across administrations shows that divergent compliance procedures and uneven institutional capacity challenge the government’s ability to deploy AI in ways that uphold public trust.
From California to New Jersey, wildfires are taking a toll—costing the United States up to $424 billion annually and displacing tens of thousands of people. Congress needs solutions.