“If President Obama really welcomed a debate [on intelligence surveillance policy], there are all kinds of things he could do in terms of declassification and disclosure to foster it. But he’s not doing any of them.” At least that’s my perception. See Debate on Secret Data Looks Unlikely, Partly Due to Secrecy by Scott Shane and Jonathan Weisman, New York Times, June 11.
“As the administration and some in Congress vent their anger about leaks to The Post and to Britain’s Guardian newspaper, officials have only themselves to blame,” wrote Dana Milbank in the Washington Post today. “It is precisely their effort to hide such a vast and consequential program from the American public that caused this pressure valve to burst.” See Edward Snowden’s NSA leaks are the backlash of too much secrecy, June 11.
I discussed some aspects of the latest surveillance controversy on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal today.
As Congress considers broader packages to advance critical minerals production and supply chain resilience, science diplomacy vehicles must be part of that conversation, not as an afterthought, but as an intentional and foundational pillar of any strategy.
“Structured partnerships with our allies on critical minerals innovation can ensure that the best science and the best talent are working together towards shared security and economic prosperity.”
This is a bipartisan, commonsense measure to reauthorize the Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) before it expires in September 2026.
Many states are introducing AI policies and task forces, but lack the “AI-native” personnel to build and maintain initiatives. To address this in the short term, states should establish AI Resilience Cohorts to embed early-career technologists in key offices to support state AI initiatives. Right now, Virginia and New Jersey have the opportunity to take […]