Some recent reports of the Congressional Research Service that have not previously been made readily available in the public domain include the following (all pdf).
“Climate Change: Science and Policy Implications,” January 25, 2007.
“Foreign Science and Engineering Presence in U.S. Institutions and the Labor Force,” updated January 12, 2007.
“U.S. Military Dispositions: Fact Sheet,” updated January 30, 2007.
“Navy Ship Names: Background For Congress,” updated January 17, 2007.
“Latin America: Terrorism Issues,” updated January 22, 2007.
“U.S. National Science Foundation: An Overview,” updated January 24, 2007.
“War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance,” updated January 16, 2007.
“Laos: Background and U.S. Relations,” updated February 5, 2007.
“Kyrgyzstan’s Constitutional Crisis: Context and Implications for U.S. Interests,” updated January 5, 2007.
At the conclusion of a widely cited article on U.S. policy towards Iran in the latest issue of The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh referred to a November 2006 report by CRS “on what it depicted as the Administration’s blurring of the line between C.I.A. activities and strictly military ones.”
The referenced report is “Covert Action: Legislative Background and Possible Policy Questions,” November 2, 2006.
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.