Scientist Stewart Nozette Pleads Guilty to Attempted Espionage
Stewart Nozette, a space scientist who was deeply involved in many of the nation’s most highly classified technology programs, pleaded guilty to attempted espionage for providing classified information to an undercover FBI agent posing as an Israeli intelligence officer.
According to a “factual proffer” (pdf) presented by the government in court yesterday, “The defendant [Nozette] initially claimed to be wary of providing any classified information to the UCE [Under Cover Employee of the FBI].” But with continued encouragement, “the defendant’s purported concerns were soon assuaged,” the proffer document stated, and he proceeded to exchange classified information for cash.
Nozette, who was privy to dozens of special access programs and compartmented intelligence programs, was also an innovative technologist with an impressive record of achievement. One of the many unsettling features of his story is that in the past, when I knew him slightly, he was not motivated primarily by a desire for money nor was he oblivious to security. How and why he changed has not been explained. See, relatedly, “Nozette and Nuclear Rocketry,” Secrecy News, October 22, 2009.
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.
AI is already consequential, but its future trajectory remains contested. Policymakers should make their assumptions explicit, focus on what can be shaped rather than what can be perfectly predicted, and build institutions that can learn and respond as evidence changes.