20 Episode results for "Department Of Homeland"
Federal officers may not have been properly trained when sent to Portland this summer, report says
"A new report from the department of homeland. Security's inspector general says federal law enforcement officers. Who were sent to downtown portland this summer to respond to the large protests. There may not have been properly trained oregon public broadcasting. Conrad wilson has more. The inspector general says it found several department of homeland security officers who deployed to portland to protect federal property in weren't trained on the federal law that outlined required conduct according to the report. Some of those officers use force. The inspector general also found the federal protective service sent officers from other agencies to cities across the country. But those officers were not properly authorized under the law. The officers who deployed to portland repeatedly engaged in questionable conduct as they tried to quell protests including using unmarked vehicles and military uniform to detain people. Who were not charged for its part homeland. Security largely dismissed the reports findings and recommendations. I'm conrad wilson in portland.
The Expanded Intelligence Activities of the Department of Homeland Security
"There's no law enforcement authority in virtually any homeland security sub agency that extends to State Law, and so what I think is the move here. That is both ominous, and and I am unjustified is the move to treat both relatively minor federal crimes, and perhaps even some stay defenses as the kinds of threats to homeland security that all of these statutory authorities then trigger various responses to it. Ah Context in which you know, there's no suggestion outside of maybe right way in media that local authorities are unwilling or unable to enforce the relevant. Federal Statutes. I'm David Preece, and this is the law podcast July Twenty First Two thousand twenty. Yesterday law fair published an article revealing analyzing a document from the Department of Homeland Security. Offering legal guidance to analysts in its office of Intelligence and analysis. Regarding the appropriate intelligence activities to mitigate the threat to monuments, memorials and statues among other things. To discuss this new information in its implications, we assembled in the virtual jungle studio, not only the two authors of that article. Law Affairs Editor in Chief Benjamin Widows and University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck, but also carry Cordeiro senior fellow in general counsel at the Center for new American security, who has researched and written extensively on dhs authorize and policies and Paul Rosenzweig bike, senior fellow for national security and Cybersecurity at the St Institute and himself a former deputy assistant secretary for policy at DHS H.. It's the Law Fair podcast July twenty first the expanded intelligence activities of the Department of Homeland Security. Ben Start US off today. l'affaire posted an article DHS authorizes domestic surveillance to protect statues and monuments. What is this all about? What information came forward? And what does it indicate? Well yesterday evening I received a copy of a guidance document which was sent to the DHS office of intelligence analysis, which purports to give a legal guidance, regarding collection, retention and distribution of intelligence. In connection with. The protests that are going on. The specific context appears to be Portland, although it is not one hundred percent clear from the document that that's what generated it. The document describes the president's executive order of a month ago late. June which we'd kind of all thought was a nothing burger at the time designating the protection of monuments and statues as well as federal property and buildings as a significant homeland security issue. And therefore concluded that it was appropriate for. The Intelligence and analysis group at DHS to do domestic collection and intelligence, concerning people and organizations that posed a significant threat either to federal personnel to federal buildings or activities, but also to monuments and statues public memorial statues, whether they are federal or not, and so the question that this raise to me was hey, I I did I. You know I knew that. DHS had a sort of analytic cadre that. Did kind of terrorism and you know other sort of homeland security threats, but since when did statues and monuments become a homeland security threat of the sort of magnitude that would justify essentially spying on protesters right? Into be fair. It's important to note what the document did not say it had some retention guidelines. If I recall requiring that US, person information that was not mission related must be purged within one hundred and eighty days, and it said something about the surveillance had to be for the sole purpose of monitoring activities could not. Be Related to First Amendment exercises or the purpose of suppressing criticism. Is that right? Yeah, so you know these are the basically the attorney general's guidelines for D. H. S.. Intelligence activities, and those are kind of standard components of them, and they do apply to this as well and this document. Sort of reemphasize is that you know it would not be appropriate under this document to say well Hey David priests. Protesting you know. Next to the. Nathan, Bedford Forrest Memorial therefore, let's check out all his his social media posts, but it would be appropriate for example if you were involved in such a protest and you. For some reason, they had a good faith basis for believing that you pose a threat to that monument to say checkout all your social media post, public social media posts, and presumably who you were following, who was? was part of the the group that you were putting together for this protest, and so you end up spying on a lot of people who, even if there was a reasonable basis to fear that you might do something to this statue, there would be you know all the people around. You might be implicated in in this collection in a fashion that really poses I think some First Amendment concerns. Let's dig a little bit deeper on this then, Steve at its core, then assuming that there is some actual defacing of a monument memorial or a statue is what this memo inside DHS talks about is it legal and how so? So I mean I think the short answer is yes. It is probably legal in the sense that the office of Intelligence and analysis is not. It's not the NSA they're not directly intercepting communications. They are not conducting the kinds of surveillance that raised fourth amendment concerns where we might have to talk about you know who's who has nation of privacy in the like I think the place where it really starts looking sketchy to me and where one argument might be that it exceeds the statutory mission of the Department Home Security. Is In so far as the monuments and memorials that are being defaced are not federal and are nonfederal property. I mean there are ways to read the memo so that the defacement of any public memorial would qualify within the relevant. Hook and you know no one's going to dispute that face Santa Memorial is as a crime whether it's a federal memorial or a state or local memorial, but the notion that the Department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction in a case in which it's purely state or local property, and even it has jurisdiction the notion that it ought to be a homeland security priority within the auspices of the Homeland Security Act, you know. Know that's where I think there's an art. There are certainly arguments that this is not a naked violation of the statute, but you know man. This is not what the Department of Homeland Security was created to do, and you know separate from the sort of more goal in optical concerns I have it just it's. It's part and parcel of what strikes me about the entire Portland phenomenon, which is the executive branch of the Federal Government use them some isolated acts of vandalism of federal property and one assault on a US marshal service deputy as justification for effectively this massive federal response that now as we've learned from this memo includes intelligence gathering on. for better for worse peaceful protesters who just happen to be in the neighborhood with other people who might vandals, and so you know the short answer is. Probably just skirts the line of being legal I mean I. Don't think this government has willy nilly dozens that are illegal, but it just seems like a just terrible abuse in optical in normative terms of why we have a Department of Homeland, security, and why we have enough intelligence analysis within it so fair to you to say that. It may not be illegal. That is there may be legal reasoning behind it, but that doesn't make it good policy. Lawful but awful if you will. But and just to stress the off apartment I mean you know the the as we say in the piece, and this is something that I think the original that we clarified it after we wrote initially, you know because counterintelligence. On the hunt security. They're only collecting public source information that is to say they're only getting information. That's already available out there in the world, which is a big part of why I suspect it's not unlawful, but you know there are reasons why we don't just let the government do that any reason at any time and you know I just I have very little faith that the government in a position to meet him fully. Fully separate out the very small number of people who actually are committing federal crimes in the middle of these protests from the hundreds of folks who may at most be committed local and state crimes, and the thousands of folks who are doing nothing illegal, indeed who are exercising the quintessential. First Amendment right of protests in their government. That's where this memo like so much of the federal government's response in Portland Mix. Me Enormously queasy. By coincidence it seems carry today in the bulwark. You wrote that the Department of Homeland Security is becoming almost a rogue arm federal law enforcement, due to a combination of what you call inherent insufficient within its own internal controls and inappropriate political pressure. Talk through that a bit. And how do you see this new guidance as a manifestation of that? Short will the piece in the bulwark also talks about how I think that D.. H. S. is basically going down the road of becoming an accidental internal security service, or at least that the potential the groundwork is sort of there for them to do it if they wanted to and within I, think twelve hours of that piece going up. Ben and Steve have written as l'affaire piece that in some ways confirms that that's the Path A. A the department has been going on, so my concerns with respect to the oversight and accountability of the department stemmed from the fact that I don't think Congress intended to make the Department of Homeland Security. The Nation's largest law enforcement force, and yet that is actually what has happened. I think if you asked most members of the public or even most members of Congress. Perhaps you know who's the chief law enforcement officer of the country I. I think they probably would tell you. The attorney general may be somewhat think of the FBI director in that role but I don't think they would tell you. It was Chad Wolf and yeah. The acting secretary now commands in over sixty thousand person, strong law enforcement component of the federal government, and when you couple that with the president's political aspirations and political narrative where he wants to present himself as a quote, law and order President and. And the political malleability that we're seeing amongst the leadership at dhs where now he has fired or removed nearly every original Senate confirmed official who has served in that department it just makes for a toxic brew of a large law enforcement force that has a variety and broad array of legal authorities to perform the particular mission, and now those authorities are being manipulated by week. Leaders who are influenced politically and it's a very bad combination. Paul let me get your take on this because you among us have actually served in the Department of Homeland Security in a policy role, but That might make you more aware than any of us about the application of the Homeland Security Act of two thousand, two to the day to day, duties of the Department and that act was very clear. The primary mission of the department was listed as preventing terrorist attacks within the United States reducing the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism to minimizing damage from terrorist attacks. That sure doesn't sound like what this guidance is offering. How do you think this jobs with the statutory creation of Homeland Security and how it has evolved to this point? Well I think Steve got it exactly right. It's lawful but awful. which is to say that the department was created with a lot of discretionary authorities that made sense at the time and make sense even today if they're deployed in the face of true emergencies that require. Exigent responses by the executive branch say to a terrorist threat or attack of some sort. What is unique about what the department is doing now? What the trump administration is doing now is deploying those same discretionary authorities in the service of essentially the president's political agenda, and in the service of an aggrandizement to the Department of authority over domestic issues that nobody would have anticipated it would have at the time of its founding carry is exactly right that one of the factors that's allowing this to happen is the absolute dearth of leadership at the department. Everybody's in an acting capacity of one form or another in ways that transgress. The spirit, if not the letter of the Vacancies Reform Ogden, Steve can talk to about that at length. I'm sure, but all of these authorities make some sense I mean initially you like the idea that the federal protective service can be supplemented with other personnel if necessary and emergency. What's wrong here is that it's a fake emergency. The only thing that any of my colleagues have said so far that I would sort of disagreed with A. A little bit, and it actually makes the point. Even stronger is a Steve's caution Inari note that this involves protection of non federal monuments and icons, and sadly That's true of a lot of s authority, most of the critical infrastructure that the department is assigned responsibility for in one way, or another is non federal in nature, and sometimes it exercises that protective authority in a regulatory way sometimes exercises in a physical way one of my. Favorite stories from the beginning was our. Decision that I was mistaken at the time and has since been rescinded to include the Iowa State County Fair as critical infrastructure at because of the potential for catastrophic terrorist attack was in an election year because it may be. Well I think it was, but it was state owned is is the point and yet it was. It was listed in the in the DHS list of of early protected icons, monuments and events. Because of its potential for negative terrorist consequence, so that one piece of what Steve said I don't think actually forms a good break point at least not in terms of the way. The department is historically operated. I think what is more manifest about that. Now end with this is that most of those all of those were offered by state says things that we want to Da that they want to D. H. Assistance Rower. So what's really unique about this circumstance? Of course? Is that at least in Portland the governor and the mayor saying to dhs get out and each say no. No, we're here anyway. which is truly a bizarre application of the State Federal Partnership Idea that under girded? DHS. Sure let me get a response to that Kerry. What do you think? So I do want to just point out and I'm curious as to Paul. In Steven Benz, reaction to this that I do think there is an argument, however that the activity at least as it was described in their piece, I haven't seen the the complete original memo, so just going based off of what they have reported i. do think there's an argument that the activity described does go beyond the statutory authorization, the statutory mandate for the Intelligence Analysis Unit which is supposed to do because it's a title analysis. And the way that that's described in the homeland, Security Act is that it would do analysis. Of Information obtained by other components, so it's other components within the department itself and information obtained from other governmental entities so the way I understand N A to have been designed is that it was the repository where information collected from other components within the department, so for example information that ice might come across in the conduct of conducting immigration, enforcement or information that state and locals might obtained in the context of doing their law enforcement activities or Obtain from the intelligence community that needs to be pushed out to law enforcement and state locals that I was supposed to do that analysis. I do think that this is a big jump and potentially outside the scope of their statutory responsibilities to have analysts be authorized to do collection. Steve! What do you think about this? I I. Harry is certainly right that it's a big jump especially from what the practice has been for the first. You know definite and a half little more of the department. I just I was looking at the statute, which has six. USC Section, one twenty-one. D. And you know there's discussion in the statute about other threats right so so of the focus as understandably as on terrorism and vulnerabilities arise from potential terrorist attacks etcetera, but there are these vague references to other threats to the homeland, and I think you know when I sort of think all the rubbers on the road, both in Portland at the shortly in Chicago. Is this notion that any offence against? Against Federal, law can be a threat to the homeland right, and then so titus back to Paul's one quibble with me, which was perfectly fair. You know it's always been true that homeland security has plenty of interests and oversight and responsibility for stuff. That isn't just federal in federal property. The one exception I would say though is there's no law enforcement authority in virtually any homeland security sub agency that extends to State Law. And so I think the move here. That is both ominous and and I think unjustified is the move to treat both relatively minor federal crimes, and perhaps even some state offenses as the kinds of threats to homeland security that all of these statutory authorities than trigger various responses to it a context in which you know, there's no suggestion outside of maybe right way in media that local authorities are unwilling or unable to enforce the relevant. Federal Statutes Right I WANNA get I. WanNa get responses from Paulin ben to that, but let me let me put this question out there to help frame those responses. Responses at at one level. The kind of activity that's being described here is triggering this INA action is just minor property crime after all, and that doesn't seem to constitute a threat to the security of the homeland on the other hand, any relatively minor crime against the person of the president would be considered a threat to the security of the homeland. So there's some difference between the person of the president and a confederate statue in where that lies is at the heart of this interpretation of lawful but awful so i Paul respond to that and to Steve and then we'll turn to Ben. Well? I guess the way I would characterize. This is one of discretionary judgment. The statute is written broadly, especially given that it was crafted at a time of of national crisis, in which it was thought that a large fraction of what had caused nine eleven was the rigidity of bureaucratic processes, and there's obviously some historical debate about that, but that was kind of what was animating this and so. To a large degree, the statute recapitulated something that's very common in all of our national security laws, which is strong congressional authorizations and limits with executive exceptions, and what we're seeing now is the weakness of that overall structure, a we rely on judgment to distinguish between minor threats to the person of the president and minor threats to a statute of Nathan, a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest and yet the statute written as such probably can't capture that distinction. So it authorizes responses in both places on I would add one other thing, and this is actually a bit of response to carry. which is I actually strongly suspect notwithstanding what the memo may say or what Ben says, the memo says because I haven't seen it that the. Analysts are not actually doing the collecting They don't have the drones. They don't have the access to the cameras. They may be trolling open source like facebook and twitter for leads on future protests, and in that sense they might be conducting collecting, but they would have told you that was analysis. Even beforehand I suspect most of the what's new about. This is an integration of existing collection activity by ice and BP Border Patrol into their analysis and different targeting to to a different collection requirement now they're going to collect about threats to statues instead of about threats to the president. That discretionary changes really the more fundamental problem. Ben Yeah so I showed a little bit of light on on this question that carry on Paul both allude to which is what the what the memo says, and is it really? Is it really describing collection by Iana and the answer is? Yes, it really is describing collection by I n a but Paul's point is well taken that it may not actually mean that it may actually mean something more akin to what Paul is describing that is i. n a people doing a certain amount of social media collection in that sense and sort of looking. Looking at open source stuff that's available online, but actual other collection coming from the components that said the memo is titled Dhs Office of Intelligence Analysis. Activities in furtherance of protecting American monuments, etc, and it is written in the second person you can do this, and so it's written actually to the office of Intelligence and analysis. The section on reasonable belief says is your reasonable belief. You must have a reasonable belief that to do any intelligence activity addressed in this job a that it supports a mission. It's all written in the second person then when it. Gets to the section entitled executing these missions, it says you. May collect retain and disseminate information in as follows, and so the entire thing is written to you I. The office of Intelligence and analysis, and there is an explicit discussion of collection, and when you are allowed to collect that said I, think Paul is probably right that what this? Is Contemplating as a whole bunch of analysts doing the sort of network tracing. You know to go back to my original example We know that David priests wants to do damage to that. Nathan Bedford Forrest Statue so. Let's see. Let's look at all. His facebook posts and maybe see who his friends are on facebook, and who's clicking that they like those you know. Let's blow up. Are Not blow up because that would be terrorism. Let's paint a horns on Nathan Bedford. Forrest, right and so I I think it is possible to read the memo in a number of different ways in that regard and I think probably for reasons that Stephen I can explain in more detail were almost certainly talking more about public record, collation and annotation and. Collection here and social media trawling, and were probably not talking about a lot of physical surveillance and so I guess is, we're talking about the reason. It's written that this way is because it is contemplating a bunch of analysts sitting around kind of chasing down social media stuff. Right, it would take a very ambitious analyst indeed to read that authorization for collection and say to herself. Okay that allows me to set up a covert network of sources to infiltrate or On my own it. It does read more like using the quote collection that you do in the course of your duties against terrorist targets. For example you can now do that against people who I will say to all of you does not include me at this point who are facing the Nathan Bedford. Forrest statues not yet anyway well. You don't rule anything out. Ben Steve Let me! Turn to you to follow up on that specifically. Which is the memo talking about? The sole purpose of this collection in pointing out that in some detail about the analysts need to establish reasonable belief to support this activity that they can't rely on hunches or intuitions which are insufficient, but must be based on experience, training, knowledge, facts, and circumstances, which you can articulate talk through that. Why was that necessary for? Whomever had the sad duty of writing this thing. Why did they have to put that in there to tell analysts don't rely on hunches to create a reasonable belief. Yeah, I mean. That sounds a heck of a lot like the jurisprudence regarding reasonable suspicion under the horns amendment. And and what? Losses could tell you chapter in verses is the doctrine of Terry stops. So, the the case law is replete with discussions of how government officers, especially law enforcement officers formulate reasonable suspicion in theory. How do it at the time? They're actually acting on it, but in practice it's usually how they do it after the fact when they have to explain themselves in court. And you know that's the case. Law says quite aggressively hunches don't count right. It has to be based on experience as we based on. It could be circumstantial evidence, but has to be evidence and so I think the idea here. Is that the you know whatever kind of coalition and collection the analysts are doing for it to be actionable in the sense that is going to produce a report that is distributed to somebody else. You know the memo basically incorporated in Italy something akin to a terry. Stop Standard for the idea that before we're going to be. Putting together this file on an American citizen, we have to have reasonable suspicion that they were doing more than just exercising their first amendment rights. We have reasonable suspicion that they were somehow related to the ongoing or prior acts of criminality that we're investigating, and then just I think raises the question well, what makes reasonable suspicion that one of hundreds of protesters in a crowd who, perhaps on social media has video of an episode of vandalism is him or herself somehow. Somehow responsible for the venues, MIAMI? I think the the reasonable suspicion. Standard is notoriously malleable, and so I think the concern in this context is that you know it's very easy to impose reasonable suspicion by association in a context where you have clear acts of vandalism, perhaps even some federal crimes and a heck of a lot of people. Who are you know in the neighborhood at it in the wrong place at the wrong time if that's where all this leads. The president by now has fired or has removed or has pressed to resign. Nearly every Senate confirmed leadership official in the Department of Homeland Security such that the organization now looks quite different from most other executive departments carry. You've argued recently in your report for the centre of new American security that the Department of Homeland Security urgently requires congressional attention to improve internal controls and its accountability mechanisms, and yet so far today we have. Have not heard howls of rage from Congress about this activity from DHS, which implies that for some reason, this is not yet the tipping point to call for better congressional oversight of D. H. S. to be frank is not just a function of the last three years, but has been out there for some fifteen years. What do you think Congress can and should do to respond to this potential misuse of D H S authority. Thanks yet will so first of all just a word on that report, which actually Paulo's also sat on the task force that that helped give advice that went into that report, which was issued in May and the report, really focused on ways that Congress can increase the oversight and accountability of of the department focused in particular on the border. Security Immigration Enforcement and law enforcement components of the department, so I did a deep dive into a the oversight that is very weak within the department and one. One of the things that came out of that was number one. The Need for new guidelines modernized investigative guidelines that would apply for all of the law enforcement related activity that the department does and two that the mission needed to be updated so that it would be of the department so that it would reflect its actual activities as opposed to the terrorism focus that it was originally created for and yet we all know that it's day to day. Activities are very much out of sync with that. I do see members of Congress in particular. The senators out of Oregon concerned and expressing concern publicly about what has transpired in Portland what I am. A have been a little bit nervous about today is that they will take that concern that they have with what they're seeing. In Portland in create legislative fixes that are very very narrow, very very tailored, so for example I've seen proposals to require that the. Officers display their names or I at least identify themselves because there's been so many reports of. Official federal government officials who are not identified. In any meaningful way and I guess I would say that's important in. That's useful, but that doesn't even scratch the surface. Of what really needs to be done in the department, they need to take a much broader view at the fact that there is no component in the department that effectively coordinates internal oversight in control. That's why we ended up I. Think with officers in military style fatigues deployed who who are at least according to the reporting I've seen. Most likely originating from the the border. Patrol or customs and border. Protection deployed into the interior of the United City in Egypt activities that have nothing to do with the mission of their originating agency and then engaging in those activities in a way that is potentially violent of of constitutional rights to take for example, the reports of people being detained without probable cause and and being released, which is something that you know we all in the national security space have heard of in other countries in other world that do not have the United States constitution, so it's very concerning to see something like that here, so all of which is to say that I. do hope that members of Congress. Seize this moment. And understand that there really might be an opportunity here to take a really hard luck at d. h. s and make much broader legislative adjustments that are far overdue, instead of just a couple of things that might sound good, but but really don't solve problems and just one other final thought on that I think there there could be a perspective that while look you know, carry were in. In the middle of a pandemic, we have all of these other, which is a a national health and economic civic crisis, and you know it would be nice to reform H., but this really isn't the time and you know to that I would say it time in times of crisis that adherence to the rule of law in having procedures and rules that law enforcement follows are actually most. Most important, and so I don't think it's a coincidence that we are in a crisis where the country is just exhausted and overwhelmed by the corona virus, and this happens to be the time that the trump administration, and the Department of Homeland Security are taking advantage of in sang that they're going to start deploying homeland security officials to numerous American cities right before I circle back to Stephen. Stephen Ben, Paul Carey just namedrop you there, so so let me let you follow up on the congressional angle will wrap that up. You've talked not just in contributing to that report, but for more than ten years you've been writing about the fact that well more than a hundred different subcommittees in Congress have some portion of jurisdiction over DHS. So, what can and should congress do now? Well I think the problem that we face here is really a lack of congressional will if you will. you know Congress has known for fifteen years that it needs to rationalize its oversight, and it will never do so because that means that they are engaged in some form of zero sum game with some people gaining and some people losing and so. The mechanics of what they need to do you know reforming the oversight process and giving more authority to the Homeland Security Committees is is trivial easy. Really the challenge frankly is getting somebody to care enough to do it I it is. Beyond my comprehension that Congress has yet to to undertake this seriously, but even if they did reorganize it that wouldn't be enough. They'd have to want to use that authority. They'd have to want to exercise oversight over the department in a way that effectively manages its activities. The department has not had an authorization bill since it was formed. The Department of Defense gets an authorization bill every year so I I don't want one every year, but let's give D. H. S. one every three years just. Metal, set and guide it right, yeah! Steve let me. Let me turn to you both to respond to that, and then I have a question for you about the courts go ahead. Yes, so I had to sort of quick thoughts in response to to carry and Paul I. I mean on the vacancy point. It's worth stress in I. In case you, you lost track of your scorecard. Today is the four hundred and sixty a day that there has not been a Senate confirmed secretary of Department of security or even a nominee that is the longest vacancy in a cabinet position in the history of this. This country and I just I'm floored every day that this has not become a huge. You know sort of rallying cry for Institutional Minded Republicans in the Senate that their institutional authority is basically being completely eroded in the name of politics, and you know I think it is remotely stretch to suggest as carry has both you know here and elsewhere that digest especially prone to much of this Michele. Gospel caused. These are all acting officials and the triumvirate of acting. Secretary Wolf Tengku Cinelli. Who keeps unlawfully referring to himself as the acting deputy secretary when it isn't. And Mark Morgan. Who's the acting commissioner? Part how we got here on Congress I think it's worth stress in that the administration may have actually time this very poorly, because although deitch has doesn't do authorization bills, the do do appropriations, bills and appropriations is on the house agenda for next week, and so I'm going to be very interested to see what I mean. I I don't think we should be surprised at all. If Democrats rally around at least some kind of funding cut off for some of. What did JESS DOING IN PORTLAND? I think the real question is whether that puts you know Republicans in the Senate into any kind of a pretty pickle or whether I mean. So far. I've only seen one senator one Republican Rand Paul come out and criticize what's been going on in Portland so I guess time will tell that's going to go anywhere, but the one power Congress still has is the power to not appropriate funds for departments in the adjusts. I think is is one where the Democrats may actually have for the moment a little bit of a stick. And on the issue of acting officials, I have to mention that acting secretary Chad Wolf has just said on. Fox News something that I think it's imaginable that it confirmed secretary would say, but it's a stretch. He said I don't need invitations by the state mayors or governors to do our job. We're going to do that whether they like us there. Or Not Ben Chime in here well. You know that is the kind of thing that is appropriate to say if it is the Eisenhower Administration and the state officials are trying to prevent the integration of. A university or a public school, but it is in an environment in which what you're referring to when you describe yourself as doing your job. Is You know patrolling? The streets of a city in a fashion that the local community finds quite offensive and in defense of Principles that are you know? The federal interest in downtown Portland is not the the strongest federal interest in the world. I mean I would never say that. Protecting Federal Court is not an important equity, but it's not an equity that you need to affect. In a fashion quite like that, and it's perfectly doable, other means, and so you know you have to ask the question. Why are they doing this? And in in that regard I do think it's important to come back to Steve's original point. which is you know they're doing this? Because the president is interested in projecting a particular image, and it's the same image. He tries to project about the border he. He is the guy who is going to protect you from caravans. He is the guy who's GonNa. Protect you from anarchists in your cities, and you know there's a significant racial element to to this way of talking and I. Do think that you know the deployment of the Department of Homeland Security for this purpose is a Guinea grotesque politicization of law enforcement and it's one that is going to require. Lot of restoration of confidence, and that kind of brings me back to carries point which I really WanNa. Foot stomp. You know the answer to this problem is not a law that requires you know that people have names on their badges, although they should have their names displayed, and they should identify their agencies. The the answer to this problem is not a narrow set of reforms that. Bans the specific practices that people are finding offensive. The answer to this problem is to ask in a in a deep way. Why is the Department of Homeland Security Amenable to this kind of politicization in a way that for example, the FBI or the secret service have not been right, and you don't see the secret service. They're doing this and you don't see the. Domestic components of the FBI counter and a intelligence people. Being deployed on issue on matters like this and you say so. What's functioning in those entities? have had their own problems to be sure, but they're functioning at a level that things that. Are Not and because DHS is so big I mean. CB is the biggest law enforcement agency in the country by a lot, and you know the possibility that it becomes the shock troops of the president's agenda, whatever president and whatever agenda is not a healthy thing for a democratic culture, Carey and Paul. Let me turn to both of you to follow up on this with some specific angles. Carry you. You've done a lot of looking not just at. At deitch S, but also others operating in this wider area, and that's the National Counterterrorism Center NC t C., or the analysts said FBI even perhaps CIA in cooperation with them. Do you get the sense that this guidance that happened to go to the Department of Homeland? Security's Office of Intelligence and analysis I A. Do you think there may be things going on at places like NC TC, and if so, is this the tip of the iceberg? Well I don't know I haven't seen anything like that reported I'm inclined to think not because it doesn't sound like again. I'm relying on the on the right above this memo, but it doesn't sound like there's any foreign angle that is being alleged and as David. The intelligence community is focused on collecting foreign intelligence so with respect to the CIA with respect to most of what NC TC does, they would all be looking for foreign intelligence angle now now whether or not the FBI in its domestic terrorism remit is looking at this I. Think gets to an important question because we have now heard over the last couple of months since the protests have begun following. The killing of George Floyd. We have heard the attorney general talk about anarchists, Antifa and wow, we heard multiple homeland security officials talk about Arcus than we've heard the president talk about anarchists and. Clear is whether there actually is any US government intelligence analysis that indicates that there is some organized effort in other words organ, whether they're domestic or not, they could be domestic, but but organized domestic groups that are plotting violent activity. I Feel Lake particularly out of homeland, security and out of out of the White House that we're hearing things that sound like that, but I haven't actually seen anything that confirms it and so I'm disinclined to believe it. Not You know in in small part because of the lack of truth, telling rocker that the president has so one of the major concerns that I have about this memo that that Bannon Steve have reported. Is! That it raises. The question of is the president setting intelligence. Collection Priorities, and that's a job normally that we would think of would be the director of National Intelligence, who sets intelligence collection priorities for the agency for the intelligence community writ large, and for intelligence, caution components, and that's based on. A studied objective review of the threat picture. And we have neither been the benefit of a worldwide briefing this year for the first time in I think twenty five years, there was no annual worldwide rap briefing, and so we really have this big gaping question as to whether or not, there is any truth at all to the administration talking points that these protests have components of them that are some kind of organized anarchist agenda I'm not yet convinced it might be that that information is there although I think if it was there, they probably would communicate it to back themselves up, but I'm hearing it. Paul Lemme Lemme, ask you to on that, but also do include your perspective as a former policy official at dhs I I know the culture of CIA into a lesser extent, the State Department and FBI from spending a lot of time in those places. I, don't know the culture of the Department of Homeland. Security is there a culture of the analysts? I N, a simpler standing up, saluting saying Yup. If you tell us that we're going to deploy all of our authorities, and all of our assessments to the issue of peaceful protesters. Dammit, we're going to do it because we do what we're told. Talk through a little bit of that culture in your answer before we close out with Steve. Well I, I think that there's an unstated and incorrect premise in your question, which is the DHS has culture. He knows. Each of the components has a historical culture Most of them were. Seriously transformed by the events of nine eleven. If you'd have asked what customs and border protections culture was before nine eleven, the border patrol is would have been basically cowboys on the border and the customs. Guys would've been much more. Yell Clerks, if you will managing trade with a little bit of of of work with respect to immigration, but not that much. An a didn't exist fifteen years ago, so it has no culture at all. There's a reason that as Ben Accurately says, we haven't seen this sort of collapse at the FBI or even at the secret service, and that's because they are traditional storied agencies. They've made mistakes. Lord knows in the past and they they've tried to learn from them, but they have a an inculcated view of what their role is in this world, and even the oldest agencies that DHS like CB BP had that inculcated. Radically transformed know just fifteen years ago and they're still trying to figure out what is the only agency? At DHS that has retained in my view, it's real sense of self. Is the coastguard roaches sensually has continued on as it had before without too much change in in any of its focus or activities so. It is actually the lack of culture, and frankly the lack of any ability at the senior management level to create such a culture. The secretary and centralizing forces lack any ability to bind the department together in a way that could that could create such a culture, and so they've they've lacked that leadership in terms of capabilities ever since the formations to what extent they had success, it was through force of will of strong secretaries. Like Chertoff and Jay Johnson, and that and that's what is lacking now. Is You know as as Chad wolves quote makes clear. He's about as weakened and subservient man, as you can imagine in this position, so as a corollary of that Paul, you don't see the strong sense of culture especially in Vienna prompting resignations over something like this. Not at all. Not at all, if there, if if there's any resignations and principal over this at dhs I will eat my shorts it certainly at the political level I imagine there may be some analysts Chris a lot of the cadre. is Ex. or Ex FBI, so they have a sense of that. This shouldn't be happening and there may be some at the GS eleven or twelve level, but otherwise now Steve let me close with you. We've talked about the executive and legislative branches, but is there any judiciary action possible in the near-term on this that is does an individual protester, even based on the revelation of this have any standing to sue based on the presumption of harm of this kind of collection for first amendment activity. Probably not I mean. The you know there's a there's a case from the nineteen seventies that I think is is not familiar to many folks called layered versus tatum and Laird Verses Tatum was actually a lawsuit, arising out of allegations turned out to be pretty true about live scale government surveillance of domestic protests during the Vietnam War. And the Supreme Court in their versa, tatum through the case opposite held that the plaintiffs didn't have standing because they couldn't actually demonstrate that they themselves have been subjected to the surveillance. They had been harmed I. think that would probably be the end result of any lawsuit that arises out of the conduct. That's tracing this memo. It's worth stressing. There are already pending lawsuits one by the ACLU and I think one by the Oregon Department of Justice against the Department of Homeland. Security arising out of many of the activities on the ground in Portland, but you know. I'm I'm always one to think that the courts have something to do and I think this is actually an area where they have very little to do i. mean this is ultimately. A question of reining in statutory authorities that are being used in ways that I don't think anyone can reasonably argue congress ever intended and renting them in mind you for a department that was created. You know eighteen seventeen eighteen years ago entirely so that we would be better prepared to face real threats to the homeland and. This is what the Department of Homeland. Security is more interested in finding out who defaced federal courthouse in Portland, than it is in actually helping to combat the spread of a deadly and unprecedented public health virus crow virus says just about everything that there is to say about how the trump administration structures priorities at about what kind of fifth we should have and that kind of decision making. Well. I have a feeling. This overall conversation is not over, but the particular one is Benjamin US Steve Vladic carry, Cordeiro and Paul. Rosenzweig thanks for joining me. The law fair podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. Please share in rate the podcast whatever you can do to help us spread the word about it especially on an important topic like this. This episode is edited and produced by Gen, PACI Howell. Zachary Frank of Rodeo studios is our ever patient audio engineer and Sophia Yan performed our music. As always. Thanks for listening.
China-linked hackers are targeting US coronavirus vaccine research, FBI warns
"The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security Cyber Division warning that hackers backed by the Chinese government maybe attempting to steal the work of researchers dealing with a response to the current virus pandemic the two agencies issued a public service announcement of the potential threats. Today comes amid heightened tensions between the two countries over the source of the outbreak and China's response.
Department of Homeland Security Confirms It Will Not Require US Citizen Face Scans at Airports - DTH
"These are the daily tech headlines for Friday December sixth two thousand nineteen. I'm rich drop Alito. The US Department of Homeland Security confirmed it will not expand facial. Id Scans to citizens arriving and departing at airports in government filing earlier this week the department proposed to amend the regulations to provide that all travelers including US citizens may be required to be photographed upon entry or departure currently non US citizens must submit to face. Scans want arriving or leaving the US while citizens may opt out an agency. Spokesperson said the change was initially considered because having separate processes for citizens and foreign nationals critic critic logistical and operational challenges that impact security at Qualcomm snapdragon summit the company announced snapdragon extra to platform a high a are VR platform. That offers double the compute. Angie puke power of the X. are one the extra to support five G. for low latency experiences over fast. Data connections supports supports eight K.. Three hundred sixty degree video playback and can output to three K. by three K.. Per Eye displays running at ninety frames per second it also includes a vision processor supports up to seven cameras for tracking and dedicated a engine for object in voice recognition five. Oem's are developing headsets on the platform qualcomm also announced what's the partnership with Pokemon go developer Mantech to create reference hardware software and cloud components for augmented reality glasses based on the ex- are two with support from the anteks. It's real world platform. QUALCOMM also announced two new windows on arm systems on a chip the snapdragon. Eight and seventy the agency is meant to be a successor to the snapdragon. Eight fifty offering up to thirty percent better performance with a cry of four ninety. CPU adrenal six seventy five GPU and an integrated x twenty twenty four L. T. Modem with the option to include an extra fifty five five G. Modem the seventy is meant to for more entry level laptops and includes an OCTA core Kreil for sixty eight. CPU CPU Torino six ATP and X Fifteen Lt Modem with no Yup Shin Qualcomm says the seventy will offer twenty five percent better system performance and toys is the battery life of competing x eighty six platforms at the same price point. The previously announced snapdragon. Eight will remain the highest performance windows on arm. SEC although as was Kinda Garden Burger the verge points out no devices with that stock platform have shipped yet Bloomberg reports that according to sources Samsung's upcoming Galaxy S.. Eleven device will feature a one hundred eight megapixel camera as part of four overall on the pack. The other cameras will include a five x optical Zoom Lens and an Ultra Wide Angle. Lent's as well as time of flight depths in camera the high resolution sensor and telephoto camera will also reportedly be included on galaxy fold clam shell device. Both devices are are expected to be announced in February earlier. This week security expert. Brian Krebs reported that iphones make use of location data. Even when a user there has turned off the location setting apple told tech crunch that this was caused by international regulations that require Ultra wideband to be turned off in certain locations apple. It says Iowa's requests location for the purpose of complying with those regulations. Apple says the request is handled entirely on the device. An apple does not collect that location. Apple says we'll ask a toggle for ultra wideband in future. IOS Updates Ultra wideband enables precise location awareness between devices. Though things like apple tags have yet to be released to take advantage of it Alibaba back Chinese startup auto has applied to test. self-driving vehicles without backup drivers in California. Which would be the second company after Waymo to do so auto X. would be able to test self-driving cars with a backup provided as a remote human operator rather than a driver in the vehicle if granted the permanent Wednesday users of what's up in Kashmir began to disappear from group Chats busby news reports that the reason is that India shutdown Internet access in the the region for months ago and many users are now subject to an inactivity policy that removes a what's up account if a user does not log in for one hundred twenty days that policy is meant to to maintain security and limit data retention users may lose access to chat logs entered images if they have not been backed up India's? What's up largest market with an estimated three eight hundred forty million users Kashmir has approximately three million smartphone users netflix? CEO Hastings announced the company plans to invest roughly four hundred twenty million dollars on content India across fiscal years. Two Thousand Nineteen and twenty twenty with majority of that spent unoriginal content. Netflix has already commissioned fifteen original the series and over twenty original local language films in the Country Hastings previously stated. The company plans to invest fifteen billion dollars in content in two thousand nineteen and identified India India as a key part of netflixing international subscription growth. WAYMO launched its APP and the IRS APPS for allowing residents in the Phoenix Arizona area to to sign up and request rides on. Its way one autonomous car service signing up at new users to a wait list and be invited to join the Waymo one early right program Waymo Mo launch an APP on Google play back in April and finally the Space Startup Rocket Lab completed its tenth ever launched which saw its to stage electron rocket it carry an artificial meteoroid spacecraft and six micro satellites into orbit the lodge also saw rocket lab testing new guidance system as an initial test orient the booster for re the entry with plans to eventually reuse the booster unlike spacex or blue origin. The plant isn't a vertically. Land the booster rocket lab plans to use helicopters to capture first-stage stage boosters under a controlled fall the aim with reuse is increased frequency with an eventual goal of a once a week electron launch featuring a five hundred pound payload. Remember for discussion of the news of the day subscribed to take new show at think. NEW SHOW DOT com. You could find shelter and links all these headlines there as well. Thanks for listening. We'll talk to you next time for an from all of us here at daily tech headlines Remember Hab a super sparkly day.
DHS and your money
"Earlier this year president trump circumvented the congressional appropriation process by declaring a national emergency. I'm Bill Newman and this is the civil liberties minute and and then based on his alleged national emergency funding military money to D h s the Department of Homeland Security to build his border wall all both the House and the Senate voted to terminate trump's national emergency but trump then vetoed the house and Senate action as expected this back back and forth with the Legislative branch demonstrates the president's blatant disregard for the will the people who largely rejected his anti immigrant agenda in the midterm elections as well as his intransigent disregard for Congress's power as a CO equal branch of government but there is a way to fight back right now now congress is deciding the Department of Homeland Security Budget for the next fiscal year and it is I suggest important for us to raise our voices while we have a chance chance we can contact our senators representatives right now and demand that they cut. DHS's budget and prevent the president from transferring money from other agencies to the the Department of Homeland Security. If we want to pursue the inclusive humane values that we as a country profess and for which we have stood many times in the past then we you must hold trump's d._h._S. accountable and that means cutting its budget the civil liberties minute is made possible by the A._C._l._U. because freedom can't protect itself.
Top WA elections official threatened, doxxed after challenging Trump campaign's election misinformation
"State officials say someone has made death threats against washington's election director. This is the state's electoral college met in olympia k. O. w. politics reporter. David hite has more before. Washington's twelve electors voted in favor of the biden harris. Ticket secretary of state. Kim wyman broke down. This is a moment in our country's history where electors in state capitals across america are convening to cast their votes. It's not clear what brought wyman to tears. But behind the scenes washington state officials notified the department of homeland security and the state owned counterterrorism center about a death threat. The target state elections director loria gino. A website shows her face inside crosshairs along with a photo of her home and her home address. It says she's being targeted because she called the twenty twenty election the most secure in american history. The website also goes after election officials and governors and five other states as well as employees voting machine manufacturers david hyde k. u. o. w. news.
Adopting AI at the Department of Homeland Security
"There are a lot of boring government jobs in the world. But Aaron Camelias lucky enough to not have one of those Erin is the portfolio manager of the cybersecurity division for the US department of homeland security. She gets interface between the US government and the startup and technology ecosystems and we speak with Aaron this week about transferable lessons from the use cases, it's kinda developments of AI in the public sector in the US government to folks in the private sector. So we look at two main questions Aaron today, first and foremost, how does an existing organization in the case of the United States, Department of homeland security over one hundred years old here at as an existing organization pick. It's right. I projects have they kind of look through a lens of opportunity for a and you'll hear Aaron talk about how she thinks about kind of the core capabilities of AI, and how they've kind of layered that on top of the needs of the US department of homeland security, and that might be an interesting. Lens for those of you in business. In addition to that Erin speaks with us about sort of lessons learned kind of upgrading the infrastructure in skills of existing organization. The US department of homeland security is not like Amazon, this is not a world where data data infrastructure kinda flow easily and everybody's familiar with the language skills of data science. This is the opposite of that in many of you work in larger organizations or even midsize companies are also dealing with the opposite of that. So how do we take that kind of environment and make learning a I kind of the nor how do we pick projects to develop those kind of skills? How do we kind of encouraging existing organization to level up when it comes to a new skill set for chill intelligence? So without further ado, the top right into the episode. This is Aaron Kenneally with the US department of homeland security. I'm your host, Dan. Fa- gela. And you're listening to a and industry. So Erin, where I wanted to start off is just getting your perspective on where artificial intelligence is on the radar for folks in kind of homeland security. We've covered a lot of the applications in the CIA FBI and public sector domains, and people are curious to what's actually happening there is, there are some perspective, you could shed on, you know, kind of what's in the scopes. Sure, you know, I think I off starting off with what you can probably generalize across all industry, with regard to a Bility's that's strengths of sensing detecting, denting, filtering, classifying, correlating, raving rights. So those are all capabilities movie do is trying to take those capabilities to address what we do, which is understanding where government DHS, other state, and local law enforcement have capability, gaps in terms of filling their remitted their mission. So for instance, things like anomaly detection improving. You know, situational awareness for big threat modeling, whether that insider threat or fraud, detection, and prevention indication that whole sweet nothings like reducing false positives, and specific even more specific than that is, you know, for like again. DHS TSA CB p the border patrol folks. Immigration scanning luggage for threatening objects human faces for threatening Persson's vehicles that may be approaching, you know, airports critical infrastructures shipping containers that may contain threats even these like physical objects in sensitive places. So think about the Boston marathon being able to better detect threats in open areas like that. And then or operations so beyond the detection things like entity resolution, a whole bunch of different ways to name, and characterize persons, and entities of being able to kind of cut through the cross. So that we can make decisions smarter decisions faster emergency preparedness is another big one. You know, you can imagine all the different types of information being thrown at first responders they needed triage, situational awareness in different sources in real time, so gone, you know, that decisions or in general. And so this is a pretty so I appreciate you just crack in the watermelon open for us here. It sounds like on, on one level some of the things that, you know, I was maybe expecting around border coastguard luggage vehicles. You also mentioned you started off with just literally saying, hey, here's the capabilities that enable were just finding ways to layer that on top of what we have going on to be honest, that sounds almost exactly like what farm is trying to do. Almost exactly like would finance is trying to do and I know in those spaces, it's kind of flow going, you know, if you're not Amazon, and everything isn't already digital and data science friendly being able to find where this stuff plugs in is not easy, but you highlighted some some interesting ones with. Luggage. Would this potentially be training systems to read x rays to be more accurately highlight detector, make that little red light? Go off to let people know. Hey, this is maybe a bag to look at versus this one that kinda reminds me of maybe the medical diagnostics use cases, that may be a particular potential application. I'm thinking computer vision because of how many camera things you mentioned absolutely will? And again, it's being able to make decision in a much more efficient. In fact, is more efficiency is, in fact, ignition can be officiant, still sort of, you know, violate people's rights expectations. And that's a huge other layer that we have to be concerned with the because, you know, we do impacts people in that regard. Unlike some other industries, so we've gotta be super sensitive to that pressure. It's all, yeah. Yeah. Well, certainly in this country, we do maybe not necessarily every nation of the world. But. We'll just tip the old hat on that one. So with respect to the sort of efficiency, effectiveness, you used the false positives example, our audience right now is probably thinking, okay cybersecurity. No. We look at number of threats we highlight the ones that actually might have some credence to them in, you don't notify our people when it's maybe not worth notifying them is that, that sounds like kind of theme that anomaly detection theme that can just be extrapolated across almost anything at American borders. Is is that safe to presume, or maybe they're a couple of apples, you might highlight while so absolutely? I mean, you know, look in the in the security realm. I forget, who it was that had a report out recently in, in terms of the rate of attack of now, wear, the adversaries are using a I just as much if not more and meet can't respond at the rate of humans on. So, so we've got to be with the toys artificial intelligence Yelda. No, really sift through all sorts of processes services. This is from a cybersecurity perspective with you're looking at it in context, there's anomaly detection, was just online and he's got you know the processes and services and, you know, users registries network connections in all sorts of stuff, and they can be information overload, and it can also be distraction. So, so certainly, that's one area where we're trying to leverage capabilities. Yeah. Essentially, the there's a lot of monotonous and kind of wrote things involved in security involved in borders. And if you can coax out the ones that are really worth paying attention to more efficiently kind of fun allowed the ones that maybe don't need as much human time or Technology Resources, it sounds like that, that might be kind of a sweet spot for a I from what you're saying. Absolutely cool. The second topic that I knew would be relevant for this conversation would be getting a perspective on how in organizations large. As yours, you're in the government thinks about upgrading core systems with artificial intelligence, because the folks who are to dinner, well aware that this is not software that we simply install and all his well, this is kind of a new way of doing new way of managing data when it comes to how the government is thinking about kind of grass roots how a level up these systems. What's the philosophy there because that is that is a monster to work on? Sure. Yeah. I mean gosh, just the start off. You know, the government is notoriously behind industries start. So we're starting behind the eight ball as it is. You know, word challenge to adopt technology in a in a very rapid pace, due to various concerns of just the bureaucracy are procurements lack of deftness on college. And in general, dealing with any large organization that come into the picture, you know, there's, there's a top, I guess I would down Kevin along two dimensions one. So you've got so sort of technical gaps in challenges deal with regard to adopting a on, then there is what I'll call, I guess, decision support adoption challenges. So first of civic to a cybersecurity on just simply mapping homeland security and defense problems into forms that are trestle by is non trivial. Right. So it's very different than taking know, even autonomous vehicles, facial recognition security is not a well-defined problem for you've got dynamic code, you've got dynamic attack services at teaching methods, so it's, it's not it's not an easy to find problems for machines. Tackle, Secondly, you've got a lot of sort of data problems to deal with, with regard to lack of data standards in interoperability, you know that will enable reduce reliance on human base things so things like. Data tagging jurisdiction rates. It's very manually human intensive exercise in its area. We wanted to point a of again those standards are there. So it's a little bit. You know, impeding our ability to that some other technical gaps here, just you know, validating the generated outcomes, again, because we're affecting people's lives and safety and oftentimes civil liberties, so we gotta make sure that we get ready and that it's validated catches, the poice something that renders a decision about somebody at an airport wrong. We need to be robust in that regard. That's a real challenge, obviously, for you, folks. An Amazon can show me the wrong set of books in the wrong set of rain, boots a hundred times but getting called once out of the line, and interrogators is probably enough to the consequences are greater there. Right. And so it seems like clearly you have those hindrances, and so does the world of healthcare, diagnosing. Cancer, you're not gonna fit Sydney that you're not gonna fifty fifty where to put someone's life savings, if we're investing money with a I in the finance world. So these are all much bigger challenges than a lot of the media e-commerce world has to deal with. Do you see the government at this point thinking about AI in terms of a realization that they need to overhaul core data infrastructure have the stuff be more harmonious accessible? Or do you see it more today as a bit of a sniping strategy finding isolated use cases where a I can deliver value? And hopefully, we can learn something that maybe we can scale a bit into the future. It isn't more underpinning or is it more, sniping at this point, I think it's Nai-ping, you know, like said, its rendering large scale enterprise wise decisions, and then operationalizing those are very difficult. And then oftentimes, the problem is once decision is made a lot of money is thrown after that are thrown added. I should say if it proves the failure, you know, oftentimes it becomes very. Difficult to back out of it. So I think we're definitely approaching it from a sniping perspective. And I actually I don't necessarily disagree with that, just given the nature of the environment that business environment that we're dealing with. Yeah. I think it's we'll obviously that the infrastructure of something like the government is, is going to be really a robust serve challenge here compared to, you know, a firm that has forty people where overhauling how we deal with data is a totally different ballgame. Do you see people thinking about this as a way of learning? In other words, hey, let's try these individual use cases in hope to kind of cultivate. Some of the just the core fundamentals have had a work with a I had a work with data how to build these basic skills, or a lot of people still thinking about it like it's just another tool. All it's just plug it in over here. Let's plug it in over there, where where are they entered into a mindset in? Do you agree with their mindset? You know, I think it's probably a little bit of both depends on the level of comfort with the technology of the person that you're dealing with, and this sort of points back to one of. The adoption challenges that I did get to, which is just the organizational acceptance of new approaches in that requires, you know, comfort level of executives who are writing the checks to, to understand what those approaches are telling their operators to do that. They're making the actions that they're taking and really being willing to risk their own performance assessments on the use of those technologies. So I've seen a mixed bag and it's interesting in, in more of the law enforcement role. I've seen it, you know, span, the gamut of you've got the guys who are kinda geeky, and they wanna be kinda first movers. And in they're willing to embrace new technology just plug it in run with it. And you've got a lot of people who they just, they don't trust the technology because they don't understand it necessarily or they see it as kind of job threat. So it's kind of the board. Yeah. Interesting. Well, I guess one more one more facet of. Just being in such a large organization is even the way things are embraced, or thought of or conceived, as just gonna be so wildly different department to department, if there were any transferable lessons as we wrap up on the call here. You know, I, I realize that a lot of the folks that are tuned in are really thinking about dealing with similar circumstances to yourself. How do we kind of cherry pick the right? Use cases. Maybe learned something here in deal with the fact that we have a big existing organization that we have to run are there, any experiences or lessons that you have that you feel like would be useful for that crowd. Oh, gosh. I would, you know, the takeaway lesson there is I just make sure that you is, this is probably not news to you, but, you know, it really takes a multi stakeholder approach. Gotta get the technologists in with the Smith. Subject matter experts and the ground truth, folks, who you're deploying the I to assist in. Really? I mean that's the equation for me. One. Single entity I think, can't do it. You can't just throw a technologist at it. You're certainly not gonna just throw the technology in the lap of the SME or the first responder, so it really does, if it's gonna work in it's going to succeed if it's gonna be embedded in adopting in the, the business processes of the government's, you've gotta have all three of those entities together very, very pivotal lesson. Hopefully, the folks who are tuned in many of you read the executive guide. You'll be with our term, connective tissue in just how right? Erin is in literally, every sector, not just in the one that you work in Aaron as to kind of how important that is hopefully, that, that mind shift is gonna sink in, and hopefully, the people tuned in are going to take that lesson to heart and help it sink into to upgrade their organization as you are trying to yours. Aaron I realized that's all that we have for time, but I sincerely, appreciate you sharing a beer perspective in stepping out of the office to take this interview today that was very kind of you. And thank you for joining us on a industry. Thanks much damn. Thanks for listening to this week's episode of a industry. This is your host, Dan, for July hope that we catch you next week. Many of our executive listeners often get great ideas from our podcast or newsletters, but they end up coming to us for more help, so they might see some research project that we did with the World Bank, and they might wanna do some of their own research, on deeper market opportunities for a in a specific sector or understanding the growth rates of AI in a certain domain. They might have seen some AI business strategy work that we've done with a pharmaceutical company and maybe ask about things along those lines, see one of the presentations, we've given at the United Nations, and ask if we can speak at an event and while we certainly do these things were certainly involved with clients on pretty big projects on regular basis. A lot of the time these messages will just end up in my personal inbox people will find my Email or they'll just find me on Lincoln send along the message and this ends up being actually pretty. Tough to juggle at this point given the travel schedule and given all the client projects that were involved in, and few people, actually know, particularly people who only listen to the podcast and aren't emerged dot com or on the newsletter. Don't do we actually have services page that lists what we can help with? So we are not the best at everything. But in terms of what we do, which is mapping the capability space of AI, and conveying that to executives in ways that help them win in the market specific services tailored to that can be found at E M, E R, J dot com slash services. So here emerge artificial intelligence research. We work with government departments. We work with public companies we work with organizations who are serious about making a competitive advantage. And again, we actually do list sort of the programs that we have so many of the podcast listeners, don't know this these messages end up in my inbox. And then I'm traveling for two weeks, and I feel really bad that I get back to people later but you can reach us through that services page. Or simply send along. Mail. It services at EMC or J dot com services at EMC, RJ dot com. From there Dylan or Marcus or one of our team members will be able to get back to you much more quickly than I would feeling did. So if you're interested in doing more with what you've learned here, if you have serious business initiatives related to artificial intelligence, and you wanna take your organization to the next level. Just simply reach us at emerge dot com slash services. That's E. M. E R, J dot com slash services or just Email services at emerge dot com emerged with J, so thanks so much for tuning into this week's episode next week. Again, we're gonna be diving into use cases, and trends, and conveying, the transferable lessons that you can bring your organization and I'll Fota having you here next week.
Blocked Bulletin from DHS
"Hello and welcome to powerhouse politics maybe news chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl and I'm ABC News Political Director Klein Reclaim. We had a major election already It's only beginning. September. But we had an election. In Massachusetts in Massachusetts. Primary what lady primary. So late anyway the big headline on a Massachusetts is the Joe Kennedy. The third has become the first Kennedy to lose a Democratic primary in the State of Massachusetts in American history there have been quite a few of them losing to to sender markey tried to try to to knock him off Ed. Markey of course, has been in Congress longer than. Joe Kennedy two thirds been alive and I think maybe blogger we've been alive or pretty close been around for a long time. This was a quite a result coming out of Massachusetts Joe Kennedy. The third who, I know. Well, I know you know him as well a friend of the podcast actually. A A real talent somebody who seen having a a big future in in democratic politics. But. He took a big risk here by trying to knock off incumbent senator who was you know from the start quite popular in the state of Massachusetts A in the context in this race is important. You know as you know John I covered masses politics at the Boston Globe starting in two zero, two, thousand I I've known market for a long time now Joe Kennedy for for a long time. Everyone is always said about Joe Kennedy since back when he was a DA that that he had national abilities inclinations, he could go all the way he could be a president candidate. He could be a senator Kennedy, in fact, the Senate seats kind of had a name on it, his name on it for while he was trying to jump the line though because things were getting crowded in Massachusetts politics is changing and there's a lot of folks that. Believe that the next time a Senate seat opens up in Massachusetts and keep my they don't open up very long those guys named Kennedy and Kerry how those seats for a long time up that Presley member of the squad who knocked off incumbent on our own two years ago is GonNa WanNa jump into the fray. There is an opening. So he took a risk. It was a calculated risk to try to knock off Ed Markey who is a progressive? Good Guy I don't think anyone ever speaks ill of him dean of the delegation in Massachusetts well, well known in Washington perhaps better known in Washington Massachusetts. But when he announced a year ago, you love people that I talked to him I thought that. Marquee might retire he get out of the way. Kennedy would would would be a shoe in to win this and then something weird happens something interesting happened which is The voters happened, and of course. Got Involved and if you listen to Ed Markey in this campaign, you heard a lot about Alexandria Cossio Cortez who defied a lot of people's expectations of her and endorsed Ed Markey and they teamed up on the green new deal and suddenly Ed Markey age seventy, four in Washington since the mid nineteen seventies became the insurgent and he was able to rebrand recast himself and tap into a lot of the young progressive energy that's out there Allah Bernie Sanders contemporary of his and beat a Kennedy in Massachusetts. It is. It is stunning in the broad scope of things at tells us something important about where the Democratic Party today. And it was the endorsements were interesting actually across the board I mean you had on one hand. endorsing Ed Markey, but you know Joe Kennedy. Had had a very impressive elicit endorsements including Nancy Pelosi I gotta say and I and I and I WANNA get on to to the president's activities this week in Joe Biden's response but I have to say that they'd knowing in following a Joe's career. A. This is a setback without question but I think that he's I think he's got a a I always very hung. But. But I think that I think he's got a next act that will that will be very he'll. He'll pull something off it's going to be. He's I. Think he's going to be a player democratic politics major propeller major major player Democratic Politics for for Longtime Despite this serious setback I agree with that, he loses his house seat. If Joe Biden wins, you can easily see him sliding into the administration. He's always gonNA be a Kennedy. That's an interesting thing about family legacy is that you could be a former whatever you're always going to be a candidate. He's in he is he is attractive and Bright Guy, and he'll east has all of those things ahead of him. But for now it is Senator Markey and it Senator Markey powered by a progressive movement that by the way is not necessarily Joe Biden's Democratic Party Ed Markey and Joe Biden see eye to eye on lots of things but you know talk green new deal talk Medicare for all and you start to see some some Some breakdowns and Democratic Unity going forward and these are these are the little fissures that are going to play out in maybe more dramatic fashion if Biden is able to win the presidency. Okay now, we broke a big story on ABC this morning on election interference. We really got the goods on this rack was a an intelligence bulletin. that was written early July that was supposed to be sent out of warning about a Russian campaign, a scheme to plant stories about about Joe, Biden's mental mental health and this thing was set to go out. It did not go out. We got the details on how that will happen. So we're GONNA come back in the show and we're GONNA. Talk. To John Cohen who used to work on the intelligence unit over the Department of Homeland Security and in the secretary's office and he's GonNa help us explain what went down with this bulletin. But before we get to that, I, want to talk about a different kind of interference this interview that the president had with Laura Ingraham which was spread out over two days. had. A LOT OF A. Lot of interesting things from the president but none more interesting than what he had to say about these dark forces in the shadows. Controlling Joe Biden take a listen. Biden strings I. IS IT former? That you've never heard of people that are in the dark shadows people that I was that mean that sounds like conspiracy theory dark show people that you haven't heard of the people that are on the streets. There are people that are controlling the street. We had somebody get on a plane from a certain city, this weekend and the plane it was almost completely loaded with with thugs wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms with gear and this, and that there there are a plant where's. I'll tell you sometime but it's under investigation right now. And then rick so I mean. On a plane in new he can't tell us where was what he's GonNa tell us sometime. But in any way he look the he's the president He has access on this, but he has access to the to the best intelligence that there is I mean he's got as I bleed. He's got the clearance. You can see anything. So he's got he's got a thing called the CIA out there he's got at the deny the got a you know they got a whole bunch of other intelligence agencies. He's got the FBI can talk to Anyway he was asked what he actually meant by this thought about this that you were referring spot. I could probably refer you to the person and they could do it. I'd like to ask that person who is okay but a person was on a plane. said that there were about six people like that person more or less. And what happened is the entire plane filled up with? Looters the anarchists, the riders, people that obviously were looking for trouble. And the person felt very uncomfortable the plant this was a firsthand account. Of a plane going from Washington to wherever. Had I'll see if I can get that information for you. Maybe they'll speak you maybe they weren't. Person Woman Man Luder rioter. It does tell you that he's talking to people that are probably more influential than even his own intelligence community when it comes to getting inside his head if this is an e theory as to who rick and. I I'm well who gave the president this sizzling hot piece of intelligence that had apparently evaded the the FBI. I don't have a name for you but I do think I think it is probably someone that we see on TV a couple of times that would be my guess is that these? Part of the network of people who are in touch with the president on a regular basis passing things that passing on things. A lot of these people are on nationally recognized radio and television programs on on a regular basis talking about the president's insights, it's a wild. Way To manage a white houses, you know well John but look there's no evidence we should stated forthrightly there's no evidence that anyone is organizing these or paying for these. Protests of the plane the thugs on a plane theory has not had any evidence. To support it, and this is a week. Also Joe Biden I think you know took a very firm stance a- against it and and basically call the president of out to say you're not going to be able to just sit. Somebody that I'm not listen to what what he said on Monday about the efforts by the president to try to portray him in a way. Ask, yourself. Why look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for riders? Really. I WANT WANNA. Safe. America. Safe from cove. Safe from crime and loonie safe from racially motivated violence safe from bad cops. Let me be crystal. Clear. SAFE FROM FOUR MORE YEARS OF DONALD TRUMP. Call, it the really strategy right the you're going to buy that really lead me, and this is why we see this polling. John. We see this I think in our perceptions of of the race throughout it's going to be very hard to turn Joe Biden into a radical left wing. Maybe Shell who's WHO's doing the bidding of people on the fringes. It's hard to do is that a possible and president's doing probably ineffective jaw of? The debate rounds quote Unquote Law and order when as we talked about these sites and sounds from his own America but making Joe Biden into. This. Crazy socalist monster is going to be a very difficult task and I think Biden is he emerges a little bit more now he's GonNa be going Wisconsin tomorrow. He's GonNa make it difficult for the president that tournament to something that he is a yeah but it's not so much biden is a socialist monster it's it's what you pointed to the Shell the the the the Biden isn't controlled by Biden that those people in the shadows. But what he's saying when he when he's a little more convincing is he is he's he's saying that look Biden is the figurehead here but the Democratic Party has gone far the left they're the ones that can have the real influence. You know it's going to be a a OC it's going to be Bernie. Sanders is can be the far left. I mean I I don't know I don't know. But when he goes off in talks about plane loads full of looters and riders so they wear uniforms. Identify on the plane you gotTa Luder, a writer and agitator. I by the same token John. I. Mean You're right. But I also think we can't underestimate the degree to which people may be watching the sights and sounds of from from Portland from Wisconsin the earlier in the summer Minnesota and said, wait a second what is going on here and if they again, it's awkward for the president because literally he is the president now. But if they associate the president, the incumbent president with the guy who wants a crackdown on it and associate the Challenger was someone who? Is Wink wink nod nod. Okay. With with with violence continuing That's that's a different election and that's an election donald trump can win. Right, and the images of of of storefronts being smashed in of you know fires being said of. Looting and rioting. Psalm on the on on the fringes offering intellectual defense of looting. as as a as a form of legitimate protests I mean that's the kind of stuff they did. Donald trump will try to an and his campaign will try to tie directly to Joe Biden and to say that's basically what what the case Joe Biden's making on show Biden. Himself was ever made any case anywhere near anywhere remotely like that throughout his lengthy career in public office, but they will try to make that case maybe it's Person Looter Rieter Camera TV something. continue to say I would I would fail the quiz. So I'm not going to even engage I already I said. All, right. Well, let's let's take a quick break and when we come back, we're going to take a deeper dive into this story about the DHS. Intelligence bulletin warning about a Russian schemed interfere with the election in a bulletin odd. It was withheld and withheld a it appears to be a at the direction of office of the acting secretary. Of Homeland Security Chad. Wolf. We will be right back. I welcome back to power politics and we are joined now by John. Cone former undersecretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security in ABC News contributor. John. Thanks for joining us. Hey, great to be with you. Wanted to bring you on to talk about this story that that we just broke here on ABC which seems. Pretty clear. Cut In quite remarkable. This is a story about how the DHS had prepared an intelligence bulletin that was going to go out to to various local and state law enforcement agencies, and other stakeholders about Russian interference in the election I've alert, the bulletin which we obtain. said very simply give you the title. The title was a Russia Likely, to denigrate health of US candidates to influence twenty twenty election and this bulletin a made it clear that it was really US candidate that US candidate is Joe Biden. They say we as we assess Russian, malign influence actors likely to continue denigrating. Presidential candidates through allegations of poor mental or physical health to influence the outcome of the twenty twenty elections. That's from the bulletin they point to some examples including. Stories that were placed in Russia controlled News outlets like rt in sputnik about Biden Biden's occasional misspeaking is signs of dementia and anyway. So the this Bolton was was set to go out we obtained a an email that went internally to the senior leadership of of DHS. Sayings was dated July seventh this destroy seventy two months ago about two months ago saying that the Bolton was GonNa go out on July ninth. But here's to you know everybody take look at before we send it out and then within that memo going out we have. An email coming back from. The Chief of staff to Chad Wolf saying hold on. Wait. We. D. I discussed this with with as your the actual language of the email. Please hold on sending this one out until you have a chance to speak to as warm as one acting secretary Chad Wolf. That was two months ago the memo never came out. Now John. In reporting this, we obviously went to get a response from the public. Affairs folks the Department of Homeland, security? What surprised me is this response came in late last night. Is Absolutely no denial of the story. In fact, they confirmed the story they said the the reason why the memo did not go out. This bulletin did not go out is because They had questions about it. did it wasn't fully developed in terms of of of the? Intelligence behind it and. The language of this bulletin. So that's why they held it back they say. I'm suspicious of that. He told me what what, what's your take on this you worked over there you worked in Intelligence Department of Homeland Security. What what is the significance of this bulletin being drafted seemed rather routine Planned to be sent out in suddenly because the chief of staff to the secretary says hold off it doesn't go out. Yeah. So there's a few issues and I'm skeptical as you are. So I as it relates to the release of this specific or any product coming out of HSS intelligence arm intelligence analysis office is. As a product is developed it goes through rigorous scrutiny by lawyers by a part of the department involved with civil liberties in civil rights, protection and privacy, and it goes to rigorous review from an intelligence perspective are the sources credible is the information credible you know can we confirm and if it passes all those bars if all that? You know if it goes through all of that, that product is finalized and right before it's released. A memo an email goes out with saying this products about to be released take a look at it. You may get questions so it's not that it's sent around the department for approval it sent out to Legislative Affairs Public Affairs the secretary's office saying we're about to release this intelligence product get questions about it. We WanNa give you a heads up about it. That's the point that this memo was apparently blocked, and that's highly unusual and in my time at DHS and as you pointed out I work both in the secretary's office. And I also lead I in a a short time period. During my time. In my experience, a product was never blocked in that way. Maybe you played with the timing of the release because someone had an event or on travel depending on the on the importance of the event but. You never I never experienced a product being blocked the second point that's really important about this is that. This along with other reporting suggests that Russia's still of concern they're they're using the spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories in an effort to influence the outcome of the election The way they are doing that is through a combination of Social media to and and what they call grey sites which are. Online sites that are supposed to look like a media think site and they introduce this information and they hope that mainstream media sources, politicians, others will amplify disinformation they're sending in your story suggests that that's the process that was followed with this that dhs in the intelligence community picked up that this was a a narrative that Russian Russia was using as part of their disinformation campaign and they were able to successfully get the mainstream environment to pick up on it I and amplify it as well. Now one point is this bulletin and again I've posted this. If you look on posted on my twitter feed, you'll be able to see a full right up on all this on ABC News Dot Com. You can go look and you can see the actual documents here and it's important that the bulletin. Headline about Russia the bulk of it is about Russia at also says that they assess That actually, the Iranians and the Chinese off are trying to do a similar thing questioning the mental health preparedness of presidential candidates although in that case, eighties. Trying to raise questions about the mental preparedness of of Donald Trump suggesting he's a narcissist and. An has mental problems. That's the Chinese and the Iranians but the bulk of this is is about the Russians. What I want to ask is the other part of the one I wanna ask you about is the other part of the DHS explanation as to why this was blocked. They say the three other bulletins on election security were sent out by the Department of Homeland, security in the month of August alone. So in other words, they're not blocking information about elections security is just that they didn't believe this one was really ready to go. Do you what do you make of that explanation in? Do you have any visibility on that? These are these are not classified documents, but they're also not generally public released documents they go out to to to law enforcement. And other stakeholders do do you know about these other three bulletins and? Whether or not they actually get into this question of Russian interference specifically. I don't know what three bulletins they are referencing in particular. There has been reporting that has come out of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The intelligence community more broadly and even Department of Homeland, security talking about. Interference in the twenty twenty election but there but there's also a growing body of public reported and some of this is coming from people who recently have left the the trump administration that the intelligence community is basically operates under an understanding that reporting on Russia will be met with anger by the president will a negative response and the way that they can get information out about Russia is by blending it together with references to other countries like China and Iran, and that's really from my perspective as somebody who has worked for Republicans and Democratic administrations who has worked in Homeland Security and law enforcement a national security for over three decades. That's really dangerous because. The only thing that should be guiding the release of intelligence products. Particularly, intelligence products are intended to help us counter act a serious threat. is to make sure that their objective and they're based on fact, and they're not influenced altered or blocked for political considerations and if in if important intelligence and think about this, right, we're talking about disinformation campaigns we're talking about foreign intelligence services. Planting conspiracy theories and lies into the public discourse to influence how people on election day whether they decide not to come out and vote or whether they vote in a certain. The only way you can counteract that is by identifying those. That inaccurate information and notifying people and that's what this bulletin was intended to write. This bulletin was intended was a message from the Department of Homeland Security saying, Hey, we feel highly competent that Russia as part of their disinformation effort is spreading this line narrative about Joe Biden's mental acuity, and we think you need to know this so that when you see this information, you disregard it. So by blocking this, you're actually undermining the ability of our government to protect against foreign interference. John can you try to decode for us the the meaning of make sure you make sure you're talking to Chad Wolf before this goes out Chad Wolf has been a controversial figure John John Giancarlo interviewed him on Sunday on this week but a lot of folks have been arguing that his that he's in the role now as acting secretary and an improper fashion, the president of has indicated that he's. Nominating him although it's unclear if he's ever going to be installed on a permanent basis, he was chief of staff before to to Secretary Nielsen. But what does it mean to you or how can you read between lines here to to figure out what it means that you had to check with Chad? Wolf before we go any further? I think it means exactly what you just described I. Think it's a message being sent to the Office of. Intelligence analysis that this product is not to go out until secretary says, it can go out everything. Is there another leap you can you can draw based on who had is how this administration operates that this is this does this suggest to you that that kind of flag that that the Secretary Wolf would have because of the president's concerns There have been concerns that raised, regarding, acting secretary wealth at his willingness to embrace the political rhetoric. In the narrative, the political narratives of this administration have. Has served undermine the credibility or at least created perception much broad part of our population that the department is operating based on political considerations verse says. Operational hand and. What the threat intelligence actually tell us and I think you can point to over the past three and a half years. This isn't simply limited to to chat chadwell though I. Think there are some things that he's doing right now that have people scratching their heads particularly as it relates to his rhetoric involving state and local authorities during this time period the time period of these protests but you know if you look at the department in the way that it described conditions at the southern border to. Suggest that there were terrorists point across the border or that conditions were more dangerous than they were to justify the border wall and some of the other actions taken if you look at the fact that the department's leadership. And the White House. Emphasized the threat posed by of left describe as left wing radical extremists versus what their own intelligence reporting saying, which is there's violence occurring in cities across the country by. Extremists on both the fire right in the fire left. The willingness to attack local officials with very. Virulent language. You know in my experience, if you have concerns about how local officials were behaving operationally, that was a private discussion between senior managers at the department does local officials the willingness to throw out there publicly in blame local officials for destruction violence occurring in cities you is problematic. It undermines. The credibility of the organization, but it also undermines the relationship with the state and local officials in the department. Of Homeland. Security has a broad set of missions and he can't conduct an almost any of them without strong support from state and local governments. So there's a number of law enforcement official spoken to over the past few days are scratching their heads saying, why? Why would he take such a hostile tone? You know. With with partners he has to rely on. In the days months weeks ahead to protect the homeland so that you know they're hard concerns being raised that you know he has been. More, willing than others to embrace the partisan political rhetoric and amplify that rhetoric on behalf of the president, and that's not helpful to the departments being able to carry out its critical mission John. What what other questions connecting dots here we saw the announcement from the administration over the weekend that that in person intelligence briefings from the office of the Director of national, intelligence would cease for members of Congress they're concerned about leaks. There's a lot of information that federal government has a and discretion that the federal government has in how that information is disseminated. You see a pattern here you see connective tissue between those these different storylines that that we're talking about. Nye. It's the latter I see connective tissue I. Think you know particularly as it relates to the Intel committees the Senate and House intelligence committees. It's a regular occurrence on it. Other other officials across the intelligence community regularly go to this committee's in providing person breathing in person briefings are important because it allows the the members of the intelligence committees to ask questions that allow them to evaluate how intelligence was collected. To evaluate the credibility of the intelligence if you are restricting in person briefings at the same time, you're blocking or altering intelligence products so that they either don't piss off the president or are they or they support the political of the partisan political narrative or the campaign narrative than you you? There are concerns. Ripe Rightful Concerns that Congress isn't getting the whole picture. So you know look as relates the to the election, right? where it's just around the corner, we know that Russia has Russia and other foreign hostile countries have have are engaged in an effort to influence the outcome of those elections. We know that there are concerns that enough hasn't been done to counteract those activities particularly as it relates to the use of a conspiracy theories disinformation too. Since a voter behavior we know that one of the ways that you counteract those types of campaigns by sharing information as broadly as possible with Congress those running for office, the political, parties, state, and local officials, and even the public so that they can. Understand. How disinformation is being spread and can recognize it when they see it so you want to share information about the content of this information and you do that because that's how Yukon Iraq disinformation campaigns you tell people hey, you may be saying this you may be hearing this. It's not true and it's part of an effort by a foreign government influence your behavior before you walk into a voting booth if you even decide to go to the voting booth based on you seeing this information. So this isn't the time to restrict the flow of information to anybody we the government has a core part of their efforts to protect twenty twenty election should be out there. Sharing Information as broadly as possible in particular Congress so. Again as the security and law enforcement professional I, find it really disturbing. The the the pattern that is becoming clearer and clearer. That the Actions that are vital to protecting this nation, not only through the election. More broadly are just not occurring and and it's not occurring because intelligence professionals are afraid of of of angering the president. Or putting something out that's viewed as being inconsistent with their political narrative. Well, I thought that one of the more alarming things that I found out through the process of writing front row at the trump show was the Kirsten Nielsen in her entire tenure. As the Secretary of Homeland Security A- tenure that included the midterm elections presiding over during the midterm elections when there was an obvious threats a verified threat of from foreign actors including the Russians to interfere. that. She had a grand total of one. One conversation with the president of the United. States. About election security one conversation a briefing odd. That was held in the situation room scheduled of although the relevant players and the way the briefing was described to me. Yeah. I write in my book. It started out with a brief cheat she said but it was going to be about The. President said it's very clear that that the Russians didn't do anything the change to to get me elected right is it didn't change a single out. and. Then it went off the rails on fell other subjects they never actually went and discuss the security of the upcoming election. So it was one conversation election security and it was not a detailed conversation, and if you don't have the president of the United, states setting the agenda and describing what the priorities are you know as you know somebody who has worked at high levels administration, it's You know it's harder to get things done. So, but John John Cohen, thank you for for coming on powerhouse politics in helping us understand would seem to me to be a pretty significant story here this morning on ABC. News. Yeah thanks it was nice being with you. All the time we have for power politics. We will be back next week for Trevor Hastings who has returned. Avery Miller and the entire power house politics team. Thank you for listening and we'll talk to you.
Trump shifting DHS focus from counterterrorism to immigration
"From the newsroom of the Washington Post. I this is Tracey John Kelly from the post. Washington. This is post reports I'm Martine powers. It's Wednesday April seventeenth. Today in a Volvo mandate for the department of homeland security, President Trump's unlikely brain trust and shrinking at national landmarks. The department of homeland security has been in the news a lot lately the head of that department as well as a number of other higher ups in D H S recently pushed out, and that's because Trump thought that they weren't tough enough on the border. I share the president school of securing the border facing an unprecedented humanitarian and worse. Thirty crisis league. I think the president is legitimately concerned about the crisis of the border. So I'm Nick mirror off I cover migration enforcement and the department of homeland security recently that has meant mostly covering the southern border because that's the part of DHS that the president has been focused on. But then in addition to these immigration and border focused agencies that have consumed the presence attention right now, we've got things like the secret service the coast guard FEMA, really it's this kind of sprawling agglomeration of different things that were mashed together in the. Week of the September eleventh terrorist attacks one of the lessons learned from what had happened was that there were these federal agencies that weren't necessarily communicating. Very well, what does that mean? It means that they were sharing information, they weren't organized under a single command structure, and they were in some cases using different databases, and to the idea is that because you had all of these different agencies not under the same umbrella that that had allowed September eleventh to happen. I don't know if they could draw the line directly from one thing to the other. But it was broader sense that these things needed to be more centralized and that agencies should be streamlined the communication should be streamlined. And that in particular, you know, the ability to develop information databases about the identity of people coming into the country was crucial to protecting against another attack of that kind today. We're taking historic action. To defend the United States. And protect our citizens against the dangers of new era. With my signature this act of congress will create a new department of homeland security. Ensuring that our efforts to defend this country are comprehensive and United. And so this idea that the country would be safer if all of these things were centralized in one department. How is that panned out? I mean, if if the goal was to prevent another nine eleven I think we can say it's been largely successful. The, you know, the United States is developed incredibly sophisticated ways to track people that come into the country to know their whereabouts of those types of things have tightened up considerably. And I think DHS, you know, clearly deserves some credit for that the question now, I think going forward is. You know, what is the S is identity? Right. This agency that was founded primarily with a counter terrorism mission is increasingly at least in the public Cy becoming kind of an immigration enforcement agents. Easy. And you know, one of the things we've seen with the president and his frustration with the h s and his willingness to just kinda clean house across the department is that he's not necessarily very interested in some of the other functions the performs, and you know, why aides tell us that he really only cares about two things the border and disaster response. Why is it that President Trump only seems to focus on the immigration part where the emergency response part of DHS and not these other parts that are also really important to keeping the country safe. That's how he thinks of the chess secretary Nielsen was brought in largely by John Kelly. The president's former chief of staff and his first Deitch a secretary because she brought experience with India chess. But also this cyber security expertise, and that was widely interpreted as this wreckage. Mission that cybersecurity had become a central part of the us mission. Sill let me give you the bottom line up front. We are facing an urgent evolving crisis in cyberspace. Our adversaries capabilities online are simply outpacing our stove piped defenses. In fact, I believe that cyber threats collectively now exceed the danger of physical attacks against us. This is a major sea change for my department and for our country's security yet. What we saw was the president really wasn't that interested in speaking with her about security or hearing about cybersecurity some White House. Aides told us that he would just refer to it as the cyber and his passion so to speak was the border and at the same time he was facing for at least for more than a year. Now these steady increases at the border and seeing this dynamic snowball in which more and more people were arriving, and he had a secretary who didn't in his mind. To be able to respond with a kind of quote unquote, tough measures that he wanted. And so finally things really came to a head late last month when Nielsen food to Europe to attend the g seven and also to go to a series of counterterrorism and cybersecurity oriented meetings and her team had told the White House that she was going to be taking that trip. But when the president found out that his secretary was in Europe in the middle of a border crisis. He grew very upset and White House called Nielsen, and she was on the next plane back to Washington, but you know, she only lasted a few more days, the last idea Claire still on top of everything I wanna out welcome everyone, an echo Eclair said welcoming you to the new home here at Saint Elizabeth's shake at the is happening right at the moment that the department has moved into its brand new headquarters in southeast Washington. Then. Secretary Nielsen cut the ribbon at this new headquarters along with her deputy, Clare Grady and looking on was tech sales. The the head of the secret service, and you know, a week later all of them are out. So, you know, even at this moment win, the top leaders of h s are are moving into this gleaming new headquarters that's been under construction for years there in the middle of this massive shakeup behalf of the American people allow me as your secretary one last time to say, thank you. And I ask God to bless each of you and your families to watch over you. And to bless our great nation. Thank you. This is the largest federal construction project in Washington since the Pentagon and this five billion dollar new headquarters was built precisely to try to consolidate all of these agencies leaders in one single place and create a uniform corporate culture. And it's position overlooking? The city is meant also to symbolize its role as a protector of of the country, but it remains to be seen whether a president who's so fixated on the border and immigration, whether that will have some kind of affect on the on the corporate culture, they're trying to create with his headquarters. Thank you so much. Nick mirror off covers immigration and the department of homeland security for the post. Somehow presidents for better for worse have been drawn to intellectual figures to kind of guide them give them insight or even retroactively sort of impose some kind of intellectual Herranz on what they've done. For example, President George W Bush would hold these intellectual salons during the latter part of his presidency, George W Bush, he relied heavily on meetings with columnists philosophers, and theologians philosophers philosophers. Yeah. During during the dark days of the war in Iraq. I mean Bush wasn't big on second thoughts. Right. But I think he realized things weren't going. Well, and in kind of personal sense. I think it would help them to meet with with figures like these to kind of think through all that. My name is Carlos Lozada. I am the nonfiction book critic for the Washington Post. Carlos has been exploring this idea of presidential brain trusts. And he says that this act of intellectual curiosity from Bush was not unique, of course, president want to seek out expert teas from people outside their cabinet, or at least most presidents would want that. Ronald Reagan, not a big intellectual himself relied on a lot of the ready made plans and ideas from the Heritage Foundation Bill Clinton like nothing better than to sit around all night, talking, you know, policy debates Obama would would do the kind of the Bush thing where he would meet with with columnists and intellectuals and historians from from time to time Trump is different right? Trump basically campaigned against established expertise he doesn't like to read. And yet still there are intellectuals of sort who decided that they see something there that they can. Can build on. So why did he want to write about quote, unquote, Trump intellectuals for a couple of reasons I've I've written recently about the hardcore anti-trump conservatives and of written about the really hardcore sycophantic, Trump supporters and their books, and I felt like this was episode three of the trilogy, you know? And and to me there's there's this really inherent contradiction in what they're trying to do. You know, they they want to attach is sort of intellectual infrastructure around a president. Who is so proudly anti intellectual and the kind of fools errand aspect of that effort is just really interesting to me, they're they're these kind of ancillary figures of the Trump era that I didn't wanna miss and they're getting attention. Some of these books sell really well. And some of them are even getting you know. Nominated to the Federal Reserve. So I I didn't want to miss whatever it is. They had to say. So can you talk about who some of these people are who are the Trump intellectuals of our era? So one for instance, and one of the ones who became sort of notorious joined the twenty sixteen campaign was a guy named Michael Anton who wrote an essay called the flight ninety three election suggesting that voting for Trump was like charging the cockpit on nine eleven. It was your only choice you might die in the process. But if you didn't death was certain the pretty controversial metaphor. Yes. And he got he got I think deservedly a lot of criticism for that imagery. He has come back now with a book called after the flight ninety three election, which is one of the books that I that I read in which he tries to again, less than making the practice case for Trump, basically saying look at the left over it's this pervasive. Sickness spreading throughout the west. And Trump is is standing against that. And that's all we have to support him. Another one is Davis. Hanson historian proto called the case for Trump. And also, it seems to be more the case against Trump's enemies than it is the case for Donald Trump. But both he and Anton are very animated by immigration as an issue. And so that's a big reason that they support Trump and the third book that I looked at in this this kind of dive into the pro-trump intellectuals is Trump nominees by Stephen Moore, and Arthur Laffer to economic analysts Arthur Laffer famously known for the notion of the the laugh recur, which basically means that, you know, by cutting taxes, you will, you know, increase tax revenues because growth will be. So high by the tax cuts that sort of overpowers everything and Stephen Moore who has now been nominated by Trump to serve on the Federal Reserve Board and their book is a a defense of Trump's economic worldview, but really it's, you know, the brief for tax cuts, and that's the issue that that drives them to support Donald Trump above anything else. But it seems like there's this fundamental contradiction. All these books is that they're making this argument that there is this like intellectual infrastructure behind how the president makes decisions when he is very much like a proud, anti intellectual and isn't going to other people for advice, and doesn't have this like strong cohort of thinkers that he's going to win on his decisions that he's a guy who has his instincts and his gut and he goes with that. And it feels like try. To kind of institute some sort of like theme when we know that that's that these books don't reflect how President Trump actually makes decisions. I think it's completely right? And what's interesting. I think is also see that not just on the sort of pro-trump thinkers, but you see that tendency among writers and intellectuals who also oppose Trump like they have their vision of the world. And then they see either Trump potentially fitting into that. Or Trump countering that on on the side of Trump's critics you've seen how you know all these writers are saying that the Trump presidency is basically ushering in the end of the Republic. And and how that happens depends completely on their particular expertise writes, the political scientists are saying stuff of democracy, right? The philosophers worry about the death of truth. You know, the historian death of leadership. You know, it's they take their particular lens to analyze what the Trump presidency. Is all about whether in favor or against. So I think it's a common tendency among writers who are grappling with the Trump presidency. One of the democratic twenty twenty contenders. Trump doesn't really have an ideology has a style. Right. And I think that's what a lot of these writers can't really can't really admit to themselves. They very much want it to be they want at an ISM to something. In this case, it's Trump how do these quote unquote, Trump intellectuals feel about the fact that President Trump, not only isn't listening to them? But also isn't listening to his own administration or his own government. Right that he is often ignoring intelligence from the intelligence community. Obviously, this is an issue that is going to come up as we await the release of the mullahs report. So what do they have to say about that? I think that they to the extent that they weigh in on the controversies over Russia in the campaign, and all this it's to sort of de legitimize the the inquiry. They suggested a lot of the stuff is overblown and exaggerated to the extent that they deal with it at all, you know, it's it's their books. And so they're happy to kind of ignore things that don't necessarily fit into the story. They're trying to tell and I think that they are not terribly troubled. By Trump's anti-intellectualism by Trump's unwillingness to listen to to advice by Trump's tendency to listen more to cable news than to his own advisers. They praise his two they praise his instincts. They praise his impulses because they suggest that those impulses, you know, reflect and of a popular will more so than than that of you know, left wing heads doesn't mean right wing heads are correct either. So you just won the Pulitzer prize for criticism and one of the things that was pointed out about the body of work that that got you that prizes. The fact that you have been using nonfiction books as a lens through which to understand it presidency. Why do you think these books in other books are important in understanding who Trump is and how he operates I think that more important than understanding who Trump? Is. Is the attempt to understand how we are reacting and responding to Trump, and how Trump presidency came to be conceivable thing that happened in this country. And I think that's where reading the books surrounding the Trump presidency can be a valuable experience. I don't think that they end up giving me. Enormous insight on Trump that is desperately necessary. To me. It's less about trying to understand him and get into his head in some books to attempt that there's books by by scientists were trying to to examine Trump, but it's far more about trying to understand the country. How it got to that moment? And now how it's trying to deal with with this very unorthodox commander and chief. Carlos lives on it is the nonfiction book critic for the post and on Monday, he was awarded a Pulitzer prize for criticism Pulitzer's also went to to other journalists affiliated with the post the Taga for Lorenzo to newly in cartoonist Darren. And now one more thing bears ears national monument. Bears national monument is named after a pair of beauts that stick up of the landscape, and they sort of resemble the ears of bear. And you can see them from basically anywhere within the region. And they were used as navigational landmarks by people who lived there still can use them that way, which is really cool. I'm Joe, FOX graphics reporter. My name is Lauren tyranny. And I'm a graphics reporter incur tiger. Joe warn were part of a team post journalists who recently went to bears ears national monument or to its left of it. Here's national monument was established in two thousand sixteen by the Obama administration and the bears years region is located in southeastern Utah, which is near the four corners region. If you talk to in archaeologists, they'll tell you that the four corners areas, one of the best places, you can be as archaeologists in the United States, and the reason for that is partly because of the weather. The dry climate is conducive to the preservation of remains, even if they're in the open. So we spoke with Jonathan till who's the curator at the edge of the cedar state park museum in blanding Utah. This was a a real heavily occupied portion of the world for a couple of years. And that included the first farmers people have been living in the bears years region for over thirteen thousand years, and it's really incredible just the lawn history of people in this region. And it's not as densely populated now as it once was in the past. But this area has the rich history of the people that have lived here in all the tribes that have called this place home. Call those votes for prince of our ancestors, we spoke with a Hopi archaeologist, and the Hopi tribe is one of the five tribes that is from this region. And archaeologists we spoke to Lyle blink CuA was able to give us some insight into artifacts. And how important this region is physical proof that shows to us into the rest of the world that our oral histories aren't midst or not legends that there's. In fact, validity to them that they did in fact happen. And now we're able to go back and utilize, you know, the science of archaeology to help what we've always known in two thousand seventeen President Trump reduce the size of bears ears national monument by eighty five percent. This move was really unprecedented because never before in US history had a president reduce the size of national monument that have been designated through the antiquated act. So one thing that could mean is that all the thousands of archaeological sites that are within the former boundary won't have the same level of protection? So rather than having federal employees there who can educate visitors on the safe places to go and the sites that can stand having people come by and look at them and walk through them. Instead, you'll just have people going to what they see on Google maps or on Instagram or to these places that may not be so resilient to all the foot. Traffic leaves a lot of land open to potential development fracking and oil drilling. And there's a lot of culturally an archaeologically important sites in these areas that are left outside of the national monument now. You can see Joe in Lawrence stunning visual project called what remains of bears ears at post reports dot com. That's it for today show. Thanks for listening. Tomorrow will be our one hundred episode post reports and in addition to the news, we're gonna have a short origin story about the bell. That you hear ringing in the open of episode. Make sure that you listen, and you can also follow me on Twitter at Martine powers were Alby sharing a sneak peek of that story. I'm Martine powers. We'll be back tomorrow with more stories from the Washington Post.
A Public Charge: Trump v. Immigrants (again).
"October Eleventh Two Thousand Nineteen United States District Court for the Southern District of New York I'm Bill Newman and this is the civil liberties minute. In the case of the city and State of New York Connecticut and Vermont versus the Department of Homeland Security the issue was the new proposed.
The Trump Administration Deploys Federal Forces To U.S. Cities
"Hi it Diane on my mind. Trump deploys federal agents to cities for nearly two months following the killing have George Floyd. testers in Portland gathered to voice APP Egyptian police alone and racism. Month videos, handy images artist met or agency, an unmarked vehicles, using forks and making arrests are prompting confusion and feared. The trump administration has since said. Those officers are from the US custom. Ten Border Patrol sent back that Department of Homeland Security. Agent aren't now standing by him Seattle to help make sense of this I spoke with Zola. K- no young. New York Times Homeland Security correspondent. The trump administration is promised to use a full force the government to defend federal property and the effort included Portland. They're now expanding it to Seattle. Explain what's going on sure so. I think that this story goes back a couple of weeks even before some of the unrest that we saw in Washington DC and Lafayette Square as well in late May. What you had was mass demonstrations throughout the United States and individual acts of violence as well and. And individuals within those acts who, at times, were damaging property and small groups, in which escalate at times now there was one incident in Oakland California in which an officer who was guarding federal courthouse with the Federal Protective Service which is an arm of the Department of Homeland, security was shot and killed. The reason I bring. This up is because the next day you had a rare press conference from senior officials with the Department of Homeland Security? In which they in addition to honoring that officer, they also kind of laid out a message right and that message was that they would not tolerate any damaging federal property at one point the acting Deputy Secretary Ken Kuch Anneli actually said if you do these crimes that they would treat it as an act of domestic terrorism I think the reaction at that time wasn't as much. Much that there was a reality in which those charges would be brought, it did send a message that we might see a different response involvement when it comes to the federal government when it comes to demonstrations, which which shortly for the most part were local police department matter, and then after that we saw large-scale federal deployment in Washington DC after a weekend of unrest multiple federal. Federal agencies as well as your. Arlington County police in front of Lafayette, park, clearing the way using chemical substances to clear the way for a photo opportunity for the President Blackhawk helicopters. You know flying in downtown. DC I say all of that to set the stage because I do think that lead kind of the way to where we are now in Portland fast forward a couple. Couple of weeks after that unrest in Washington DC, you may remember that the focus of these demonstrations while they didn't weren't as widespread the focus start honing on monuments that some felt were symbols of a described racist pass of this country, and at that point you also saw relation from the president, in which he comes with an executive order as well directing his federal agencies to. Increase security at statues monuments, but also, and this is important several property. At that time. DHS is one of those agencies that response and they pulled together. These teams of tactical agents from various agencies during the week end of July fourth, they were dispatched to a couple cities. You didn't really hear much about it, but one of those cities was Portland in that that was the deployment that we're seeing. Those are the agents that are on the ground now now it. During this time there have been protests in Portland really around and similarly a federal courthouse, federal property and what? What you have is the department reacting in part to the president's direction to increase security at federal property, but the department is also citing a decades old statute that says that the Homeland Security Agency will or Xiao defend federal property, but I think the question here is also to what extent an arm of the Department of Homeland Security Federal Protective Service already had that mission, and to see the deployment that we're now seeing I think provide some images and has prompted many including former officials with the Department of Homeland Security to raise an eyebrow at the tactics that we're seeing deployed. To what extent in Portland, the protesters in any way damaging or harming federal property? Yes, it's important as well to lay the context. You're right, I think everyone's not painted under the same brush. When we talk about these crowds during the day, I think you still see many of those peaceful protesters even in the night there's some people that go and protest peacefully. We have seen mothers locked arms outside of the protests. We have seen families. Go out you. You know as well demonstrating, but also the Department of Homeland Security published lists of save their allegations, but a list that includes people using lasers against to shine at federal agents, throwing rocks, throwing water bottles as well at officials, the Acting Secretary of the department actually traveled to Portland last week and took images in front of walls around some federal property that has been defaced with graffiti as well as I should say, there was a police union building. In which individuals set fire? To that building, but I I want to be clear about this. There have been individuals in this crowd that have gone out and based off of the departments account committed crimes against property and threatened those officers. The question is how widespread is it? And what kind of response does it warn? So? The so-called special response teams there in Portland and now on Stanton by in Seattle Y so yes, let let's talk about the teams there in Portland. You have US marshalls and on the Department of Homeland Security side. You have a team known as the board tax team. From Border Patrol. Usually they would be investigating drug smuggling, high intensity operations, and then you also have special teams with ice, and then as you noted you also now have another special response team similar to board tack that has been deployed to Seattle I think we should go back to the history of the department, a little bit just real quickly when the Department of Homeland, security was created, we should remember that it was in the wake of nine eleven and I at all of these different agencies. Agencies that were cobbled together to form this agency that was supposed to have a coordinated effort to protect the united. States from national security threats, and at that time I think the thinking was primarily foreign terrorism threats, one of the advantages at the time that people thought is, we can put all these agencies together in order to have agent support one another. This agency is struggling with this threat. So why don't we bring this team? That's able to quickly be deployed and support them. What I think a lot of people questioned now is was the intent ever to actually turn your attention away from outside the United States to inward to domestic issues, and at that two demonstrations now if you're currently of the department, they would say that they're filling a void The Acting Secretary Chad Wolf, said at a press conference earlier this week he called the mayor of Portland, as well as the governor of Portland and said I want to collaborate with you guys and they said and this is the words. Words of of Wolf paraphrasing here in, but pretty much no thanks, we have this under control, and regardless the acting secretary has deployed these tactical teams to as he's described. Fill this void that has been created. Is there no control that either the mayor of Portland Door? The governor of Oregon has when the Department of Homeland. Security says we'd like to come in and help you historically when it comes to something like this, I mean four homeland security officials have told me yes. We can deploy these teams given. Given that that courthouse is a federal courthouse in we are the federal agency responsible for guarding mullets buildings, but if you ask former officials, they would say look. A huge role of this department is collaborating with state and local agencies. One must remember that this is the department that also issues grants to state and local law. Enforcement Departments often relies on them, and it goes both ways for information sharing, so if you ask, previous officials are former official. They would say yeah. We can, but it's very rare that you. You would ever have unilateral intervention in fact, Tom Ridge the first Homeland Security Secretary of the department said in a radio interview the other day I. Think he said it. You can check this, but it would be a cold day in hell, if I would have a unilateral intervention in a location like this. He was also on the news hour last night. Saying pretty much the same thing, so what's the excuse in Seattle beyond demonstrations? Are we again saying well? Federal buildings are being threatened so if you ask. They would say they're emphasizing nece. They're drawing a line between what's going on in Portland and what's in this deployment in? SEATTLE? They are saying that it is pretty much as a precaution at this time. You know they're dispatching this tactical team of C. B. P. now I, did speak to an F. B. S. official yesterday that will protective service official. Who confirmed that they're going to be there and I asked well if they're on standby, why deploy them? You know what's the point here? And there are expected demonstrations this weekend to, but at this time they are saying that drawing a line between what's going to happen. What's happened in Portland? Of what's happened here? And as far as the justification? They say it is the same, however that we need help. Protecting these buildings in the case that any of these expected demonstrations would get unwieldy. Federal officials have also said they plan to send hundreds of law enforcement. Enforcement Officers to Chicago to help fight gun violence now number one. How is different from what's happening in Portland and Seattle but number two. The president has said these are all led by Democrats who aren't doing enough at and if you elect Joe Biden, he's GonNa. Be the same loose sky, and he's going to bring down our he's so. Is this truly in defensive cities, or is it up purely political move number? Number one this deployment you have as opposed to the deployment in Portland, which is a majority, the Department of Homeland Security and law, those tactical agents that would usually be along the border, and what have you? This involves a bit more of a traditional law enforcement agencies. You Lot agents that you would see coming from federal agencies the FBI the ATF. You still do have homeland security agents that are going from actually A. A division of ice, HSI agents special agents that don't do as much immigration matters, but more so long term investigations will be deployed. That's a bit more in the traditional landscape, but here's the thing as you. As you noted even in the announcement of this, you can see the difference between the Attorney General, announcing it, and even the acting secretary, announcing it saying this will be different than Portland, but in the president. Announcing it saying and as well as comments from the from the previous day, saying we're, we're deploying this federal forks to these cities kind of wrapping in the political rhetoric into law enforcement matters, which if you speak to law enforcement officials, they would hope would be political, so you see them trying to draw a line, but as you noted, the presence seems intent on pointing the finger at the you know the Democratic leaders leading these cities just a day before this announcement, his campaign actually issued in an APP for his reelection, in which displayed images, not just from Portland but from. Unrest of course highlighting some of the more individual acts of violence, some of that unrest, and ending it by saying as you noted you won't be safe, and Joe Biden's America, and it does bring up a question when you speak to those who used to be with these federal agencies as well as other as others in the law enforcement community as well as observers and that's. The sole measure of success here bringing an end to this unrest that we're seeing, or is it partially about the optics of this as well the president for weeks has been touting himself as an law and order president as one that would crack down on the alleged crime, an alleged chaos in these cities that he has sought to describe in such a way and the optics of deploying tactical agents to stop. The depicting and describing would help him with that message, so you're seeing that the measure of success may be involving or likely is involving politics at this time. More, my conversation lizzo Latin Keynote Leeann. After a short break. Here's. My conversation with Alan Kay, no young's. He's The New York Times. Homeland Security correspondent. So, the question becomes. How likely are the federal agent going to spread through out the country in ways that in my view I? Mean I hate to use this phrase, but. They look like Brown shirts. They are not wearing identification for the most part. They weren't in Portland certainly to begin with. They are hosting people, and then letting them go without charging them. They are frightening people, and as the mayor said as governor Portland's. Making things worse. How can the president continue to justify this kind of federal move in to democratically operated cities I think there's two kinds of statements and messages that we've heard from the head of the agency I. Cover the Department of Homeland Security that I think kind of help. Answer the question of what's to come right so on one hand. The senior official Wolf Acting Secretary of the department has said situation in Portland. Is Quote Unquote Meek Right now? That would seem to say that we we not like we see the spread of tactical agents throughout the country. that. This is something that you're unrest. There has as warranted exclusively, but at the same time, a couple of things need to be known for their two days later. They did dispatch another team to see out. So there's that you know. The president is very keen on seeing this display of force. We mentioned the politics there. There's that as well and then also as. As far as their justification, and maybe a foreshadowing was to comes what Al. the same ficials have repeatedly cited US code, forty, thirteen fifteen, and what that says is that they shall protect federal property, but not just for protect federal property, but that the acting secretary has the ability to designate any agent, not just with F.. PS, any of the homeland security agencies. To, be dispatched to go, protect federal property, which is what's happening in Portland. And, he also I want to bring up another comment that he said that made clash with the Portland is unique situation, and that is when he said I don't need permission from these local and state leaders in order to send these officials into these cities to protect federal buildings that in of itself is brand new. Is it not has that ever been done before other than after nine eleven without the permission of local and And state authorities the laws isn't new. The sending federal agents into cities for certain situations is not new what I think. We are seeing that we have not seen in a while is the rhetoric of these federal officials on top of the tactics displayed here. You're still seeing that senior officials with the administration pretty much attacking the mayor of Portland in attacking the governor for not in their words doing enough to call us. Yeah your knife in this goes back to earlier in our conversation, the main difference here is the lack of collaboration between the state and local and federal authorities and one more thing if I can just bring up to bring up kind of what's a question here because I brought up that law before, and I, don't WanNa make it seem like there's no debate over the affording that it's that it's given to these federal authorities. The question here is well because you brought up a wisely as well. The tactics that these agents are actually using in Portland right so the senior officials have defended the fact that protesters there are saying that they lack proper insignia. You can imagine how alarming it would be to see someone in camouflage. Coming up to you. They're saying look. They have police on them. They have the logo of an agency on them, but there isn't question here, and the administration is saying, and it does say it in the law that we legally have the ability to conduct investigations away from federal property within the city, and that's how they've defended going detaining somebody and going to question them, but the question is well here is what's the level of probable cause? What does this and`red for that investigation? When you go and pick somebody up I think that is also. Also going to be that sticks around for will continue to be debated in the days to come the inspector, General of the Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the federal agents tactics in Portland and in front Lafayette Square in Marchington in early June Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security is also looking into the use of force in Portland talk about these investigations, one other thing that the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General, said that it would examine as well at this time, and its letter to Democrats is also the authority that the department is using to deploy all of these forces to these cities. We've brought up his law good amount, but they also mentioned the executive order that the president signed directing his agencies to defend statues monuments in federal property, so it'll be interesting to see what happens with those investigations as well I mean. Yeah, we're seeing a level of UH. Whether, it'd be local state. The inspector generals as well. People have questions here right and I think it does come down to this. Where is the line between fulfilling your legal mandate, your responsibility of protecting federal property and crossing that line quite literally into going into the city, and potentially violating the civil liberties of people that are going on to protest. This is something that I think will definitely be debated in the investigations to come. How much justification do you need at times? What standard must you meet in order to utilize tactics that we're seeing new cities, but you know to some people. It looks as though the Department and Homeland Security has. Has Become Donald Trump's private army that in these urban confrontations, the Department of Defense made it clear after the Lafayette Square fiasco it would not allow its troops to be used for crowd control. So is this an effort on the president's part to use these various troops from various department to create a situation that makes him look like the strong law and order president in the present first term there have long been questions specifically with the Department of Homeland Security over the level of politicization of this department under president trump initially with the southwest border, and the redirection reprogramming of billions of dollars from the department offense to construct his border wall. The immigration policies that have almost singular leave than focused on. If you were to ask observers as well as former officials, let's remember. This is an agency that has quite a good many responsibilities at FEMA is under the Department of Homeland Security. FEMA has a huge stake in the coronavirus pandemic response. The department is responsible for cybersecurity. We've an election coming up. There have long been questions with this department about the priorities under president, trump and I think that this adds to that. I would I would say the reporting shows that it really adds to that that whether or not this deployment should be the number one priority for this department. And I think it should be noted as well. You know a lot of people that I talk to have brought up the current state of leadership at the various federal agencies under the president and weather that allows for the actions and decisions that we are seeing. The department hasn't had a Senate confirmed secretary in quite a while since Secretary Kirsten Nielsen after that. It was Kevin Macarena and now we have Chad Wolf his deputy, also being enacting, so there's questions around that as well columnist Anne. Applebaum wrote for the Atlantic that the officer who are going into these cities don't have the training necessary for the kind of crowd control. That is indeed what's. There and they have experienced patrolling the borders checking on airline passengers, doing things that sort, but exactly the wrong kind of experience for dealing with the situations in Portland or in Seattle Aetna Popa I'm also an onto. Say That instead of working with local leaders what these troops are doing is antagonizing them, not making the situation better, but actually making it worse so as far as the training. We last weekend at EPA times we obtained a memo that actually was addressed to Acting Secretary Wolf an official Department of Homeland Security memo for this android like to to just read one section of it. I'll quote here. the highly skilled tactical teams assigned to support the civil unrest and riots do not specifically have. In, riot control mass demonstrations moving forward. If this type of response is going to be the norm, specialized training and standardize equipment should be deployed to these responding agencies. You're right that. These these teams, and this is how the department in the administration has pushed back against our report. They have not denied the authenticity of the memo. They have said that these teams as you noted, are at the border, often dealing with crowds of migrants that may go to the ports of entry. often dealing with have been deployed to riots at ice detention facilities regards. There is a question here. This section was in a memo. Dad was addressed to the highest levels of the department so I. Think it brings up a question over whether that training that they received prepared them well to go into cities and respond to what was to now. Now this brings up the second portion to your question when you used to cover the PD, and when you talk to local police department leaders, they often say that the key to calming a protest or demonstration is de escalation tactics, and I talked to one local police chief right when the Washington DC kind of tension happened with the federal deployment there, and they were saying even the mere notion of just almost seeing the image of a federal agent or tactical officer in so much more difficult to de-escalate tensions at that time, and of course we should know that yes, there are still acts of violence that are being committed in these demonstrations. But the question here is. How do you bring this to an end exactly and are the forces. They're the best way to do that. And with the friction right now between the federal leaders and the local leaders I'm still left with the question of how this will come to net. So the trump campaign for his reelection and right wing media are now using images from Portland to again brand donald trump as a law and order president, the question becomes. Is it working considering the kind of backlash? You're getting from citizenry and. Like the officials, or is it helping to drive down trump's advantage that he thought he had going into this election campaign. I think it's to be determined on what the results will be I mean we know that there that the Administration is intent on stoking division and also rallying his base with this you know quote, Unquote Law and order message we also. That my colleague Mike Bakker, wrote a included this good story. He's on the ground in Portland and I think it's also important to note that this. There's this message as you noted from some outlets, but also from administration themselves that these American cities are under siege, and he included in his piece that yes, while tensions are high especially at night around the federal courthouse. Saying that in Portland, you still have people going to diners during the day. You still have people enjoying the river during the day you still have people walking around He did not describe it as a city under siege, so there seems to be as well a difference between kind of the reality of the situation, and some of the portrayals it in this time of chaos in this time of Cova. Do you believe that the American people are getting a very different impression of the role of the Department of Homeland Security I. Think that is actually one of the main words of some of the people that help stand the department up. That helped build this department. We mentioned earlier. How in addition to protecting the US from threats? In addition to responding to national disasters and national emergencies, you don't one huge factor in every mission of the Department of Homeland, security is relationships with state and local departments, but also the public. Being able to have the public come forward with tips. Being able to have the public trust the law enforcement agencies that are designed to protect them. And if you speak to some of the officials that helps down this department up, it's primary concern before we close. You have any other, thought it like to convey to our listeners. I mean going forward. I. Suppose I'm curious in one thing that I will be focused on him. My reporting is Jiang on as well the story in Portland because as we noted. Both the federal. The federal authorities do not seem intent on. Pulling out at this time. and. The local authorities continued to want them to, so it seems we are still at a stalemate. But I think one thing that it's important to remember is just how broad the mission set of this department is in. Wow, we focus on these deployments. I'll be interested on how the department continues to respond to some of the other crisis that we're facing this country. The Corona virus cyber threats immigration matters as well national security threats. Terrorism threats there so many issues at this department is responsible for an I. I know ways mean to say that. The this department of two hundred and four hundred thousand employees is not working on all the issues I'm sure that career fficials in there are, but there is a question of when the focus. Yes, rhetorically wise is so exclusively on one thing my question is will send a message down throughout the facet of the department. It's something that that will try to report out so. Thank you son that? Being with us. Thanks so much for having me. At that telephone for today, thanks to those of you. Who reached out? Tim Me To let me know what you need to cover. During this very difficult time. Do continue to let us know what's on your mind. You can find us on facebook and twitter or sent an email. The Yard Punt cads. Dad Deputy Mute Dot Org. Are theme is it gives composed by Jim Brown Berg and in lands or a Wanderley. This show is produced by Rebecca. Kaufman Alison Brody and Sandra Baker. Are Engineer is my chick? Thanks for listening, please do wear those masks. I'll talk to you next week. I'm Diane Rate.
Season Three Trailer
"The world is a big place and this year it's come home to us like never before we have tremendous partisan conflict polarization in the society that would be the worst recession since the nineteen thirties. If the coronavirus pandemic isn't a wakeup call nothing will be what happens anywhere can affect US everywhere and even as we face the present new challenges are gathering on the horizon. Our. Intensive fishing sacrifices, millions of fish. We a biological limit tribe has bought our silence with their the end of the century four out of ten people will African. Given rise to national security. Investigation. The Department of Homeland Security says white supremacy will still be the most persistent. Threatening us through twenty twenty one why it matters is here to help we're looking past the headlines and working with the best minds in the business to understand what's coming and what can be done. Maybe. Let's zoom out a little bit at this point. You know what's at stake for the world when it comes to the survival of the Amazon. So what the Amazon really is, it's sort of like a climate bomb and as soon as you start cutting down the rainforest that bomb is released. So World Toilet Day is coming up. Why would we need a day like that? Well, what would you do if you didn't have toilet if you had one message to communicate to the world about this issue what would it be? Good question sounds like something out of a movie. It sounds so magical. Well, there have been movies about that, but it's real. Real So join the Council on Foreign Relations and Gabrielle Sierra. Bring some of the world's most powerful stories home to you. This is why it matters.
More federal officers are being sent to Portland
"Oregon public broadcasting confirms more out of town. Federal law. Enforcement officers are deploying to Portland in the coming days Conrad. Wilson reports multiple federal law enforcement sources say they're deploying dozens of additional. US marshals and officers with the Department of Homeland Security Court documents from last week show one hundred and fourteen officers from a variety of federal agencies are defending the federal courthouse in downtown Portland at the same time. Federal officials are acknowledging privately. They've contributed to the quick escalation between law enforcement and groups of protesters earlier this month protests. Protests, in Portland, had dwindled to less than one hundred people at times, but actions by federal law enforcement have escalated the situation, not only was a protester shot in the head with the crowd control device, but officers under the direction of Homeland Security made questionable late night arrests using unmarked vans. The government's response so far has sparked four civil rights, lawsuits and a Department of Justice. Inspector General Investigation lawmakers in Congress have also proposed legislation limiting the role of federal law enforcement in American cities I'm kind of Wilson in Portland.
President 'Heaping Fuel On The Fire' Of Unrest, Ex-Trump DHS Official Says
"Last Spring Elizabeth Newman on a trip for work I had been overseas at a conference with. counterpart and something happened that changed the way she thought about her work was there with my State Department colleague. Newman. WORKED ON COUNTERTERRORISM THREAT PREVENTION AT the Department of Homeland Security. In this conference was in Spain. And the purpose was to talk about our our progress in defeating Isis and how we were going hindle returning foreign terrorist fighters. So as you can hear, the conference was supposed to be about defeating Isis. Which is why I'm. Elizabeth. Newman. Heard what her counterparts from other countries were talking about. Two. surprised. As we're doing introductions, everybody goes around eighty countries are represented here. You're going around the table. Tell us what your top three issues are. Challenges. Threats are within your country and I was stunned eighty percent said some form of racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism. They often talk about it in terms of right wing extremism in other countries and very few people were talking about. Isis, this is. In March of twenty one, thousand, nine, hundred. And the very next day Christ church happened. Gunman reportedly dressed in tactical view opened fire on a mosque, two different shooting locations both believed to be at mosques being more than ninety minutes now, since the first reported shootings and yet there are still ambulances pulling out with a steady stream of victims. Shooter Killed Fifty One people at two mosques in. Christchurch Church New Zealand. It was it was heartbreaking because the community was realizing this is a. Threat, what do we do about it and the very next day we have that tragic event in Christchurch. We all know wasn't just Christ church. The. El Paso's shooting happened later that year, the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting came before that. And White supremacists marched in. CHARLOTTESVILLE before that. All this violence or visit rhetoric people inside our own country. People motivated by racial and ethnic hatred. Made Elizabeth Newman. Start to realize if this had come from a group like Isis. The president of the United States would have talked about it but because it's coming from inside our country and it's on this, you know the political spectrum side of. The president's base. He is not talking about it. Coming up the events in Kenosha Wisconsin. This past week fit a larger pattern of the president, not just ignoring the threat of violence from the right. But some say encouraging it. Elizabeth Newman former official in his own administration says she voted for the President and twenty sixteen but won't do it again. This is considered this from NPR Kelly mcevers. It is Wednesday September Second Support for NPR and the following message come from USA facts, which believes that informed public debate can only happen when all Americans have access to the facts see government data that's accessible and understandable at USA fax dot. Org. This is considered this from. NPR. So before we hear more from Elizabeth Newman about what the federal government is or isn't doing about domestic right wing violence let's talk about what's happening with local law enforcement. In Kenosha Wisconsin the now everybody is aware that ECHINACEA policed of Arvin. one of our officers shot an individual here in the city of nausea. Press conference last week Kenosha police chief Daniel McKenna's said he understood why. So many people were protesting the fact that a police officer shot Jacob Lake there's a lot of. A lot of good people want to draw attention to underlying issues to draw attention for the need for change thing is this was after a seventeen year old white man named Kyle Rittenhouse was arrested and charged with killing two people at protests. We should stay right here. We don't know a ton about Kyle Rittenhouse. We do know he said in a video before the shooting that it was his job to protect businesses in Kenosha and that his online profile shows he is pro law enforcement. Still what chief Myskina said was basically. If everyone hadn't been out past curfew that night. Those to people wouldn't have been killed everybody involved was out after the curfew not gonNA, make a great deal of that. But the point is to curfews in place to protect had person's been out involved in in violation of that perhaps the situation that unfolded would not have happened. Later said, he wasn't blaming the victims, but it's not like all the police discouraged these armed men in Kenosha that night either. Cell. Phone video posted online. Officers do bottles of water to some of them. From armored trucks couple. couple. couple. TURNS OUT IN A lot of American cities relaxed gun laws mean that COPs can't legally do much about people who carry guns to protest. Here's what Ronald surpass former police superintendent in New Orleans still NPR. Allow for people to have them and they don't violate in any other way. Than the police just have to be observational about the weapons. And of course, this isn't just about Kenosha. Past. Week. A caravan of trump's supporters drove pickup trucks into downtown. PORTLAND. Or other people were protesting hundreds of cars trucks streamed across the Morrison Bridge carrying American flags and trump flags into downtown Portland. Drexel recorded speeding through crowds. Shooting. Pepper spray paint balls at protesters. Large numbers of people that were supporters but that was a peaceful protest and paint is not paint as a defensive mechanism. Paint is not bullets a man named Aaron J Danielson. A right wing demonstrator was shot and killed in Portland that night. Officials are still investigating what happened and I think it's disgraceful. These people protested peacefully. Then the president weighed in and suggested Kyle Rittenhouse the alleged shooter in Kenosha might have been defending himself when he allegedly killed two people. And repeated his claim that so-called left-wing actors like Antifa, doesn't left or the problem and antennas the Rub. The writers are the ones responsible for violence and unrest in. American. Cities, gloves Warren police faith history, and American values this tearing our country part, which is what they want. They think it's good but it's gotten out of control. All this brings us back to Elizabeth Newman. Who by the way is a lifelong Republican. She's been in and out of government since after nine eleven. She says, left wing violence is not the threat that the president is making it out to be. In fact, she says. The opposite is true if you look at the arrests that have occurred in the protests of the summer by and large, I mean it's it's the boo glue movement or it's an association with Cunanan it's it's right. The right side of the spectrum it is not Antifa a there is left wing extremism there is anti-fascism, but they historically have not killed as many people. Newman's last day of work in the trump administration was April tenth earlier this year. She been thinking about quitting since last fall. Here's about to start her third year as an assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland, security. And she told her husband it would only be two. She says the decision came to her after she was asked if she would vote for trump again like she did in two thousand, sixteen somebody asked me the question and I just realized I I can't vote for him. So made made the plans. It takes a while to ensure an orderly transition, and now that she is no longer part of the administration Elizabeth Newman is talking about her experience. And she's in a new ad for a group called Republican voters against trump arguing that president trump's own words actually encouraged far right groups things like they're good people on both sides or send them back where they came from those words gave permission to white supremacists to think that what they were doing was permissible newman talk to NPR's Steve Inskeep this week about what it was like to work in the trump administration and why in her opinion the president's language could lead to even more violence. Clearly we have problems within policing and we need to address those but instead, we're just issuing soundbites and accusations on. You know it's the Democrat run cities that are having these problems or it is the fault of the Mayor of Portland or the governor of Oregon for not being able to handle the protests that have been happening for the last three months and I just think that's an oversimplification and by oversimplifying it sends messages to the right. Side of the political spectrum that they have to defend themselves that rioting and looting and violence may come to their streets and they need to defend themselves, and then you end up with an opportunity for individuals what appears to be the situation with Calverton House. To take matters into their own hands and it's just it's so sad to watch and it could be somewhat preventable I. think there would still be unrest and still be some violence but if the president would not keep heaping fuel on the fire, some of the unrest, some of the death that we have seen would not be happening how many people served under you when you were Assistant Secretary. At towards the end, we were up to about seventy. We started with about thirty. I want to say it was about thirty five when we started how much of a contrast was there between official government policy and the president's rhetoric. That's a great question. I think there's a lot of contrast actually in that's in some ways. That's what makes it hard to explain to the? American. People why you think he's dangerous because you can point to well, you have this policy in this policy and you made progress here and the reason that you have good policies or progress because for me personally, I had account them five secretaries, three years who all gave me the top cover to go and do what I needed to do in this issue space. Who All said, this is important. Don't worry about the tweets I'll handle it ugo focus on figuring out how to address this threat. We we should define for the layman when you say top cover, you mean by top covering mean like your you work for an agency you work for a cabinet secretary and deputy secretary, and then you have a layer of under secretaries. Or. Assistants. Secretaries is are all politically appointed positions and at the beginning of the administration and twenty seventeen you had people that came in maybe aware that this man was going to be a very different type of president. Maybe we didn't like his language has some character flaws that you wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt that you could help him. Decisions. The all of those people are gone in who you were left with our that either really really buy into the trump agenda and worship at the altar of of trump or you had people that. Know that in order to keep their job, they just have to say, yes, there's no protection. There's nobody who's pushing back on the president anymore are the president's words to the public. Powerful enough in and of themselves that they undermine all the what you felt was good work that you were doing. At times. Yes. and. What I mean by that is when you see the attacker, his manifesto was citing language rhetoric that comes from. The president's campaign rallies. An invasion from Mexico and how we got to protect our country as where we're building the wall. Right is to protect our country from the invasion of people from down south coming into our country like you can have a debate about. Immigration, you can have a debate about the fact that we do need to secure southern border, but you can do it in a way that's responsible and doesn't use rhetoric that leads people to fear and the president does the opposite. He uses rhetoric to scare people. I don't think he is intending to. Cause people to act out in violence but it's his inability to receive feedback or or correction or adjustment. That is is what makes this so dangerous? He'd just when faced with criticism he doubles down. If we just look at your set of issues and look at this fall. How much danger do you feel the country is in this fall? I. Am concerned that the country's. The country is. We're experiencing. We're feeling a lot of tension we're feeling. The. The there's too much US versus them. There's too much anger to even have a calm conversation to try to solve some of the problems that we have in front of us. And so that as a security professional, you look at the environment that we're currently operating in knowing that you in the lead up to the election, the rhetoric is just going to get more intense so. You worry that we're we're sitting on tender box about to explode because more fuel keeps being added to the fire. So I hope that calmer and cooler heads prevail a hope that without without the angry and divisive rhetoric, we would be healthier as a country. Elizabeth Newman former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland. Security. Talking to my colleague. Steve INSKEEP. This is considered this from NPR I'm Kelly mcevers. on NPR's built this how simple splash of color accidentally launched Sandy Chila, which into a forty year career as a designer entrepreneur and creator of the now famous Chila, which place mat subscriber listen now. If, you have access to a smart speaker you have access to the entire world of NPR, all the latest news, all the captivating stories just ask your smart speaker play. NPR see you can activate all our voices with yours?
Border Security Talks Begin On Capitol Hill With Signs of Narrow Bipartisan Deal
"Support for this podcast and the following message. Come from Comcast business having the nation's largest gig speed network was just the start. Now, they're providing gig fueled apps and solutions that exceed expectations and help businesses perform Comcast business beyond fast. The federal government is once again open. But if lawmakers can't cut a deal that President Trump will sign there could be another partial government shutdown in a little more than two weeks in an effort to prevent that. A bipartisan group of seventeen house and Senate negotiators kicked off formal. Talks today to come up with a funding agreement for the department of homeland security there is broad agreement and congress on what it takes to secure the border except for when it comes to President Trump's demand to build a wall along the US Mexico border NPR congressional correspondent Susan Davis is tracking these negotiations and joins us now. Hi, sue, Gary, President Trump tweeted this morning that these talks are a quote waste of time. If they don't result in a wall. What did today's meeting reveal about how? Likely it is that this deal ends with the president getting to claim victory on this. I think the next two weeks are going to see a lot of verbal gymnastics on exactly what does it mean to have a barrier on the wall? One of the conference today is Georgia Republican Congressman Tom graves, and he kind of talked about this dynamic, and here's what he said a suspect. We might have some discussions about terminology and words we use. But whether it's deterrence, whether it's obstructions, whether it's walls, whether it's barriers I think, we all are here for a very narrow purpose and scope, and that is to provide the necessary resources to secure our homeland Democrats have put a I offer on the table. It includes a lot more money for things like customs offices customs officers technology repairs ports of entry and lots more for humanitarian aid. But they made a very specific point not to include any new money for physical barriers. I will say Democrats have not drawn a red line here. They have given themselves some wiggle room. When they are pressed about could they? Support any kind of physical barrier. One of the leadership's one of the members of the leadership had came Jeffrey said this week that they could do. So if there was evidence based reasons for them how big is the scope of the deal that they're talking about. I mean are things like protections for Obama era DACA recipients on the table. President Trump had put that on the table during the shutdown when they were trying to reopen government. Those have been taken off the table again from the perspective on Capitol Hill. Mummy cours are saying don't expect big immigration deal here. This is not going to be about DACA. It's not going to be anything else outside of these funding issues for the border. It's worth reminding people that this fight is over a Bill that is just the annual funding Bill for the department of homeland security, it's only for calendar year twenty nineteen and Nita Lowey. Who's the chairman of the preparations committee said her goal today is just to pass those seven outstanding spending bills and include a little bit more money for disaster relief. No, big immigration deals are expected to come out of this is that how President Trump would have to sign such a Bill sees it. That's always the open question. Here will the president sign it. He's constantly moving the goalposts. There was a lot of jokes inside the room today that left to their own devices lawmakers what to cut a deal weeks ago, he is and will remain the wildcard just in the few seconds. We have there's talk of a Bill that would prevent these shutdown dramatics from happening every six months or a year and the likelihood of that happening. There is a growing number proposals. Coming from lawmakers up here rub Portman is a Senator from Ohio. He's got a proposal. A lot of senators are jumping on essentially it says if you got up to a funding deadline in congress hadn't passed a stop-gap funding measure one would kick in automatically. It's certainly a popular idea this to end all shutdowns, but I will note that there's a lot of opposition from it from appropriators and from members of congress who say it would give too much of the power way of the purse. So it's not expected to be included in the round of talks NPR congressional correspondent, Susan Davis. Thank you. You're welcome.
How DHS Got This Way
"In. This episode is sponsored by Charles Schwab. Meet Schwab intelligent income a simple modern way to pay yourself from your portfolio. Overcome the complexity of income needs in retirement with automated tax smart withdrawals so that you can start, stop or adjust at any time without penalty plus ongoing monitoring seal always know where you stand, and since lower fees mean more money for you to invest you pay. No advisory FEE available Schwab. Intelligent portfolios. VISIT SCHWAB DOT com slash intelligent income to learn more about their modern approach to wealth management. There's this video. The came out of Portland the other night. Just a forty five seconds snippet of the protests happening there. I've been watching again and again. In it, you see these federal agents, the ones that have been dispatched to guard courthouse downtown. The surround man get him on the ground for some to lie down. And then these clouds of teargas role in. Obscuring the shot. You can see legs, flashlights people in uniform. And then. You hear the man's scream. To me this video, it's a crystallization of the kinds of tactics. The government's been using in this second wave of violence against black lives matter protesters. Overwhelming force sure. But also obfuscation. The officers here reportedly from the Department of Homeland Security. Or faceless, nameless, retreating and reappearing inside a kind of missed. Yeah, I mean there's very little on a good day. Da just operates with very little transparency. Jonathan Blitzer covers homeland security for the New Yorker. He's seen officers like this working along the border, but not an urban centers. Over the years he's gotten used to thinking of the Department of Homeland Security as an agency that operates on a shadow. The present circumstances are are about as scary and bracing as get but D. H.. S has generally felt. Really very little little need or obligation to report its activities to the general public, certainly to open up itself discreetly from journalists. This makes talking about what's happening in Portland difficult. Some journalists have called the people gathering outside the courthouse, agents or officers. Others call them troops raising this question of whether we're at war and if so with him. I. Don't think it's an exaggeration to refer to some of these groups as paramilitary forces I mean that is written into the job. Description is just that job. Description generally is less jarring to people when those agents are doing paramilitary activities along the border when they're ferreting out members of a of a cross-border drug cartel. Did you ever think the ear beat would come to include these agents being on the streets of a city like Portland? My honest answer now. The officials I spoke into over the years all expected the president to ramp up the activity in the lead up to the elections, but I didn't expect it to be. This agreed to soon I think took the wiser answer is for me to say that the activity you're seeing now on the streets of Portland is in many ways written into the DNA of the Department of Homeland Security, and so what we're seeing now arguably was only a matter of time I was only a question of discretion and good judgment that kept previous administrations from deploying department employees in the trump administration has. Today on the show, the inevitability of what's happening in Portland. The Department of Homeland Security was built to protect the country from terrorists, but its mission was always expansive. I'm Mary Harris you're listening to what next stick with us? On this episode is brought to you by Zenda, ask. The, world is pretty weird right now the sudden. In the world in the world of business, they've created challenges, and a lot of companies are struggling to keep up with what matters. Most their customers Zen desk is here to help. They've put together this six-month. Complimentary Remote Support Bundle it helps support teams. Keep up with changing customer demand. They're seeing right now as they deal with the business side effects of covid nineteen. The remote support bundle comes with the essential tools. Your team needs to remain agile and stay connected with customers whether that's by email phone chat, community forum, help center or social media. And with Zen desk it takes hours not weeks to get up and running. Their support sales and customer engagement software is quick to implement an easily scales to meet changing needs. To find out more or to start a free trial head on over to Zen. Desk Dot com slash next. That's Z.. E. N. D. E. S. K., dot, com slash. What next? Over the last sort of week or two as Individual, stories and narratives bubble up about the Department of Homeland Security as seen. What's happening in Portland and the response from people there? One stood out to me and it was this op-ed from the former Senator Barbara Boxer in the Washington Post and she was writing about the Department of Homeland Security which she voted in favor of establishing, she says I regret voting for dhs it stood out to me because first of all it puts in context how young the agency is, but also this sense from someone empower that I should have known better. And I kinda wonder. Were there people early on saying? Known like. Hey, this is a problem and here's why I don't think there were many skeptics out there. A lot of what the Department Homeland Security does. Now it did in different forms. The government did in different forms before. The. The problem was prior to nine eleven a lot of these different sub agencies. Now that make up the of homeland security operated independently, and so after nine eleven there was this broad sense that okay. We need to consolidate our national security infrastructure. There can't be miscommunication between different law enforcement agencies. We need to really centralize our operations, and we need to be on the whole, much more nimble, being able to respond to threats to the homeland. And I have to say when you say that out loud. That sounds completely logical like that makes sense like okay I'll sign. Yeah, I think that at the time I mean granted. That was a crazy time. And there was you know the beginning of the war in Iraq. Still the political discourse just completely been abandoned by the terrorist attacks, nine eleventh, but I think on the whole, the idea of creating a centralized department for all this made intuitive sense to people. The wildcard was going to be in the details and in the authority. This department could end up invoking to do its work. When you say that what's happening now is kind of written into the DNA of the organization. What do you mean by that? The thing that the Department of Homeland Security really did that. was that was so novel and and so dangerous, was it? It combined all of the resources of immigration enforcement. it expanded them. It beat them up and it broadened the authority of the government to do these types of enforcement. Things all under the pretense of national security, and so you kind of the marriage of immigration, enforcement and national security I mean the kind of war on terror, the rhetoric around national security that that grew out of nine eleven. That was a time that really I think empowered law enforcement to take liberties that I think we can all agree now quite problematic, but at the time given what the the apparent threat seemed to be the country that was a pretext that neither Democrats nor Republicans felt comfortable questioning, and so now over the years. What you see is every year. The Department of Homeland. Security's budget essentially gets bigger for me. As someone who studying more of the immigration enforcement side of the equation at DHS. Striking things was to see how in the early days of the creation of the department, the agencies tasked with enforcing immigration law, so immigration customs, enforcement, ice, border, patrol, customs and Border Protection they every year, asked for more money and given a lot more money in a kind of weird feedback loop started to take root in which it didn't matter how much these agents did. In the course of their work, there was always more to be done and Congress has always only too eager to give the resources to do it. When you say that they kept getting more money like how much money compare the budget to like the FBI instance to to to take a snapshot now. DHS has twenty two agencies, but the three agencies inside the H. S that take up forty percent of its budget our. Immigration, customs, enforcement, ice it's customs and Border Protection see BP, and then, if this, through esoteric sounding organization that basically does supplies biometric information to the two other agencies as part of its enforcement re-met you're looking at twenty six billion dollars a year, and that is a larger sum than every other federal law enforcement body in the United States combined. That's bigger than the FBI budget. The US marshals budget a DA budget, alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Budget all of those role together still smaller than three agencies that make up a fraction of the Department of Homeland Security. Wow I. don't I don't feel like? I understood that before I saw you write about it. Just how much money was going to this one agency I think I, think one reason why on the whole smart people who were following the news didn't see this coming or developing over the years is because for the most part agencies under the H.. Are Policing and cracking down on immigrants and generally people at the border and so if it's not something that is. In plain view for most Americans in one of the reasons why I say what we're seeing now on the streets of Portland is written into the DNA of the department. Is that a lot of the tactics that are so shocking to us to see so clearly on the streets of American cities when citizens are protesting for the most part peaceably is that this is how d h s has operated on the margins when policing immigrants, and when policing the border for decades, and because there has been so little oversight and accountability. There's there's really never been a kind of broad reckoning with what it is that DHS does. Early days with the creation of DHS, there were bodies teams advice that were created and tasked with arresting undocumented immigrants, and those teams were literally called fugitive operations were few ops as they were called in the department, which Ari has military ring to it, and the initial idea of fugitive operations was that they were going to go after people living in the US who are undocumented, but who had committed criminal offenses at the. The start of the early you know the the early years of the creation of h s you had the majority of arrests made by fugitive operations be of people who fit that criteria, but over time as these fugitive operations teams, more and more money from Congress leaders at the Department realized. Okay, the only way we can justify to Congress. Asking for and getting more money is to basically give them further proof of. Of all it is that we're doing and so it starts to happen. In two thousand, six, two, thousand seven is that these fugitive operations teams are basically tasked with making a certain number of arrests each year, so they get quotas that had to fulfil, and now that they have make this number of arrests to justify continued funding from Congress the proportion of people they're arresting who have committed crimes in the past starts to? To go down and increasingly what you see over this time is fugitive operations arresting people who don't have criminal records, and so if that kind of mission creep that you could certainly see coming, but which was kind of smothered in the politics of the moment, and as a result, never really checked, and now you fast forward a few decades, and you're seeing it kind of nakedly on the streets of an American city. You've done some reporting on how we got to where we are right now with these. DHS folks on the ground in Portland. Can you just reconstruct that a little bit for me like I mean? It sounds a Kate Brown. The governor of organs had please don't send people. And then the head of the H. said I'm going to send people anyway. The story of DHS over the last four years is a story of a relatively young department that has massive unprecedented resources increasingly coming under the thumb of the president's political agenda, and in the past you've had dhs heads obviously been appointed bipartisan presidents, but who did feel. Feel whether they were appointed by Republican or Democratic presidents, a certain sense of fealty to the institution, and to the independence of the institution of the Department of Homeland Security, but what the trump administration has been all about from day one has been to force the department to do exactly what the president wants and needs from a political perspective, and that goes from demonizing immigrants, enforcing immigration laws in needlessly aggressive way is. To over time, doing increasingly inhumane things separating families You know things like this what you're seeing now kind of just wholesale policing of American cities and I think for the most part every time there's been a head of the department there has been there has been some measure of pushback. From Inside the department against this sort of most over the top partisan directives from the White House, but over time the people who would push-back have either been forced out of resigned fired and what you have now. Is Really. I can't overstate this. You have the dregs. That's harsh language for someone who's to want to get an interview with these folks. I really think at a certain point. We just I. It's just time to call it like it is i. mean the guys now who are in charge that the current acting head of the Department this Guy Chad Wolf first of all technically isn't even raised to be exercising his authority right now because he's only acting in the role meaning, he hasn't been confirmed by the Senate and there's a there's a law on the books which basically says someone can only serve in an acting role in government for two hundred ten days. How long has had serving? He took over in November of twenty, one thousand nine. So we're well north of two hundred ten days but what it also means is that you know he's unconfirmed. Some of his top deputies are unconfirmed. All of the leadership of the department right now is all unconfirmed are all unconfirmed political appointees who have sworn fealty to the White House, and so you have no one really any position in leadership inside the department. Who's exercising any sense of independence? When it comes time to carry out these directives from the White House and I think for people who use to serve in the department. It's really worrisome. It's funny to look back because I feel like a year and change ago. Some Congress people very. Progressive Congress people were embracing the idea of abolishing ice, and it seemed like this kind of wild idea at the time. I guess I wonder you ever expected to be writing the kind of. Articles you're writing now where you're talking about not just abolish ice, but like maybe we need to reconsider the whole agency that is is part of. You know. It's funny when the apologized stuff I started. I as a reporter covering some of these issues, I was wary of it as where wary of waiting into that very very politicized debate, it's probably unrealistic to attempts to abolish ice. What is realistic is. Coming up with mechanisms inside ice to temper how ice agents and officers do their jobs whether that means you know curbing some of the funding that's used on enforcement or detention space. Whether, that means creating priorities like the priorities be solved the end of the Obama era that the trump administration gutted whatever the case may be in order to sell anything a policy level to the rank and file inside these agencies. You can't antagonize them unnecessarily the thing for me that really changed. My own thinking about how to cover, it is the fact that really right now the strongest argument for some sort of reform inside the s even coming from progressive activists. It's not coming from Democratic Congress. People, it's coming from the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security. That's was the line that has been crossed recently that you know when you have right now. People running the department without any sense of scruples about what it means for them to run the department the way they are, then I actually think it's fair. Fair to start questioning the broader issues in structure of the Department of they're running in really at times. I have to say the idea that VHS would go into Portland in the way that it has in the midst of a a an unprecedented national conversation about the need to reevaluate police force really makes you think that to a certain degree whether consciously or unconsciously it really seems like day just wants to be a part of the conversation in which Americans are questioning police force in the need to fund police force. Jonathan, blitzer, thank you so much for joining me thanks. Jonathan Blitzer is a staff writer over at the New Yorker. His most recent article is entitled. Is it time to de Fund the Department of Homeland Security? And that's the show. What next is produced by Daniel. Hewitt Jason Leon and Mary Wilson with help from Daniel. We are led by Lee Montgomery and Allison Benedict a quick note about the shows. The past few Fridays you might have been hearing Henry grew bar hosting. WHAT NEXT TVD? Is doing a whole series on the future of the city and he's talking about everything. He's done episodes on people leaving cities because the pandemic on cities running out of money on whether the current health crisis is going to change New Orleans forever. You should really check him out. Go Binge them like right now. Look for what next DVD every Friday okay. That's everything. Thanks for listening I'm Mary Harris Back in the feet tomorrow.
The Showdown in Portland
"This is Mike. Baker a correspondent for the New York Times based in the northwest. It's two am right now in downtown, Portland. Watching! Some clouds of tear-gas as a group of protesters right now. Feel the tear, gas. I am watching here through. Clouds of tear gas. A group of protesters moving down main street. They've got their umbrellas outs to protect themselves. Just. Down, the street. The line of federal officers, they're firing. Firing tear-gas down at the crowd. The officers are standing. In a long line down the city block. Protecting federal courthouse. From The New York Times I'm Michael, Barbaro. This is daily. Today. Inside the volatile situation in Portland Oregon. And why federal forces are being deployed to American cities? It's Thursday July twenty third. Zone can young's. You covered the Department of Homeland Security for the Times the entire universe of federal law enforcement. So where does the story of what's happening right now? In Portland? Where does it start? So I think we have to go back to late May late May as we know, there were protests sweeping throughout the country mass demonstrations, a majority of those protests involved people who were demonstrating peacefully, but you did also have instances of people damaging property looting as well as acts of violence, and in Oakland you had a situation where an officer with the Federal Protective Service in arm of the Department of Homeland Security who was? was guarding a federal courthouse was actually shot in killed I should say that the person who shot and killed him was actually affiliated with the fringe anti government movement, and wasn't affiliated with the protests, but that killing did prompt good afternoon, Rare Press Conference Department of Homeland. Security's highest priority is to ensure the and security of the American people and the Department's workforce from the top senior officials from the Department of Homeland Security. Any loss in the family impacts, all of us and I want the loved. Ones of these brave officers to know that you have the support of the department behind you. They go out there. And of course they honor the memory of this officer, but they also have a message. They're currently threats by some to attack police stations in federal buildings. That violence not only won't be tolerated. Ensuring that it won't succeed anywhere. Anywhere. and. Let me be clear. They make it clear that they are going to take action against anybody that makes a threat or has any sort of action against federal property. The acting deputy secretary kind of couture Nellie even says that is an act of domestic terrorism. That would be inactive domestic terrorism. Thank you very much. And, why is that free significant domestic terrorism? The reason why this is significant is you have to remember how this department was created in the wake of the September eleventh attacks visit. Department was formed in the Bush administration to have a coordinated effort in the federal government to defend the United States against national security threats directly at that time foreign terrorism threats. This was a department that was going to protect the borders of the United. States, and this signaled that the top officials in that department were turning their attention inward domestically to these protests that are sweeping major cities. So what happens after this news, which from what you're describing feels like more of a statement than set of actions. Right I think at that point. It's a message. The messages were not going to tolerate this right, and it was clear, but then things start to move pretty fast. Within two days on June. First we start to see that the department is going to back up this rhetoric with the concrete action of federal resources I remember early in the day I got a message from a source who sent me an alert that all homeland security investigations special agents around the Washington DC area got and it said. You have to be on standby for any potential unrest later today around the area of Lafayette Park. So that day later on, that's where you saw the images of Secret Service da National Guard Customs and Border Protection Immigration and customs enforcement as well. And of course it was many of those same federal officials in agents who were stationed outside of Lafayette Park and would clear out protesters to make room for the president's photo-op. So we're now seeing the message delivered that news conference put into action on the streets Washington. That's right I mean if you listen to the senior officials with the Department of Homeland Security as well as other officials in the trump administration. They would say look. This federal presence was needed in Washington. Our agents in front of the White House were being threatened, and they would also say we'll look after about a week. The unrest calm down So from their perspective, as controversial as some of these actions were his intimidating an unusual as it felt on the ground, this was working. That's right that's right. It worked. Their deployment worked if you were to ask them. So what happens next? Okay, so over the next few weeks. What really happened is we saw shift. A tense standoff with police as protesters tried to tear down a statue of former president Andrew, Jackson is now. We're starting to see protesters and demonstrators honing in focusing on statues and memorials. Addressing white supremacy finally, and it's just something that we grew up with, and it's just been so normalized that The people on our money would own me. Targeting those statues and memorials, sometimes pulling them down sometimes to facing them, and you also saw a pretty prompt reaction by the federal government. Bad people that will love our country and they're not taking down on monument. I just want him so late June I will have an executive order very shortly. The president then signs an executive order. The gist of it pretty much says that the attorney general as well as the acting. Secretary of Homeland Security should direct their resources to defend statues and monuments and federal property. Just a couple of days later department of Homeland Security then forms task force. What's known as the rapid? Deployment Teams. Those teams involve two thousand officers and agents that are on standby from. Air Marshals with the TSA to tactical agents with customs and Border Protection to special agents with ice, ready on standby to be deployed throughout the US. And how unusual is this kind of rapid deployment that you're? You're describing well. I mean actually the department when it was formed and many former officials with the department would say this as well that flexibility to be able to move different officials around is an advantage right? It was actually an intention as well to be able to have these different agencies support one another, but it's the mission here deploying them for monuments statues, the appearance of these teams in front of the National Mall and Gettysburg. That's where many observers as well as some of the architects of the department raised an eyebrow at this why? This country is grappling with a couple of different national emergencies right now. The Department of Homeland Security also has a huge stake in response to the pandemic. We have an election coming up as well. The Department is the agency tasked with cyber security, so it was a question over priorities. But for the department. It really comes down to this. or any of these people in these crowds committing the federal crime of defaming federal property. The. Acting Secretary has said that he sees it as his job to deploy. If there is any mere violation of that federal law whether it be graffiti on property or some of the more violent acts that we've seen in these demonstrations. And that rationale the department used. That, we get the weekend of July fourth to start deploying these teams to different cities. But primarily. To Portland. Back? How's your home impact? Your health can virtual reality help million suffering from loneliness I'm science journalists Corey S Powell and I'm culture critic Kristen minds. We teamed up with INVESCO. Q. Q. Q. and T. brand at the new. York Times to create innovation uncovered. The world is changing in real time often in ways we can't predict on innovation uncovered. We share stories about the groundbreaking people and technologies that are reshaping our culture right now. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts invesco Distributors Inc... My. Our colleagues Owen. Who explained how this has all unfolded in Washington over the past few weeks, but you are actually on the ground in Portland, so help us understand what it is. Look like they're during that same period. Began with the with a similar sort of seen that we saw around the country. Mass peaceful demonstrations. Thousands of people on the streets are really powerful images here in Portland of crowds, covering the entire burnside bridge over the Willamette River in honor of George Floyd. At the same time you've got what we saw a lot of cities. Window stoddard graffiti everywhere. Smashing windows of businesses. Or the Nike Community Store Darbar got hit. You're looking at some pictures that show the fires that were set the first night of protest. They broke into the Justice Center. Lit Fires. But what's really been different here is the. Of it where now more than fifty consecutive days into the protests? HAPPENING EVERY NIGHT Fifty days nonstop non-stop every night. And what have these nightly confrontations in Portland Look? You know it's it's all over the place you know in some of these confrontations. Many of which you can see in videos online, you could see these standoffs between. Protesters, and police were some protesters will throw water, bottles or or fireworks. Videos than breaking windows of buildings downtown are setting up barricades in the streets. Police claim they've had bricks thrown at them. Rocks thrown at them. There've been videos surfacing online of people shooting guns in the air. One group set fire in the headquarters of the police union the local police union. and. Throughout much of this time, they made it really their nightly routine together downtown right next to the Federal Court House is. This is a civil disturbance in declared it unlawful assembly. Leave the area now, or you'll be subject to use of force to include crowd. Control Munition. Now. Police kept coming. Out arresting, number of people. And responding with so much tear gas that some of these protesters went to court sued and won a judge's order limiting how much this gas could get used. Never seen covered anything like this the damage and the impact in the state and being made. Is Unprecedented. It's it's crazy to see a persistent issue that they haven't really been able to resolve. And who are the people who were involved in these nightly encounters as best you can tell it's a group with a you know a wide range of backgrounds, ideologies strategies tactics that they've brought in Portland has a history of anarchist groups in you can see some of the anarchist symbols. Symbols on the streets. You know you see a lot of people wearing all black clothing, which is pretty common for those who are part of the ANTIFA group, and then you have people who are part of the black lives matter movement, chanting the name of George Floyd and just just until you really have this huge mix mike in your time in Portland I. Imagine talking to people. In the city about this ongoing. Problem what are people? You've talked to in Portland, saying the situation. Yeah you've got. It seems like a pretty broad consensus of people who sympathized with the overall. Message of the protesters, the need for police reform and the need for resolving racial injustices at the same time those same people are. Frustrated by what seems like a line of protests that won't seem to end business people I talked to WHO. Have had their windows boarded up and short their hours for safety reasons and One of them I talked to his considering like. Maybe it's time to just get out of here because there doesn't seem to be a resolution ahead. We're physically emotionally in pain. I have officers that are injured from police. You hear them saying essentially, they're out of ideas. We love our community. We want serve our community and facilitate free speech. Saying that they're exhausted and in pain, and they're trying to show that they're part of the community to that. They aren't some sort of outside force. That's here. We're loss rather solutions right now, and I'm open to any community member who's got ideas rather solutions. We all are have the sense at this point. Correct me if I'm wrong that the police don't quite know how to resolve these nightly encounters and. These nightline counters are still happening, and so is there some sense of resignation that this is just kind of how it is going to be for a while? Yeah I mean there are certainly no deadline that was going to be coming up. There's a a hope that. The things were on a better track that the numbers that were coming out each night were starting to to shrink a little bit in might be on a on a pathway to to finishing this. And that's when a deployment federal officers arrived in town. So. What happens when those federal officials start showing up at the direction of the Department of Homeland Security? Would I mean right away? You can see that they're standing out. They've shown up here in camouflage fatigues and tactical gear so just just visually. It's pretty clear that there's an outside force that has now arrived, and they've come with a pretty aggressive posture. And what are these aggressive tactics from the federal? Forces there look. Some of it. Just you know in the streets you can see a return to a large amount of tear gas because you know. These federal officers were not under the same mandates as local police. But then. There were also tactics that you could see coming out in different videos. In first one you have this protester standing across the street from the Federal Court House. He's he's. He's got A. boombox over his head, and he's cursing at the officers across the street. All of a sudden museum drop to the ground. He's apparently been shot with some sort of less lethal munition, and a really just created a bloody scene right there on the street. Blood all over the sidewalk, and his family says he's had to go to the hospital for more than a week. In these other videos, you have these protesters doing. What is going on? Are you on the streets of Portland and federal officers again in camouflage and tactical gear, approaching them grabbing them, and then pulling them back to. UNMARKED VANS Help Filled with. OFFICERS INTACT CO year. We're act. And, what is the response to these videos? I mean you've got outrage from not just the protesters, but from the same city officials that have been the target of the protesters all along. The tactics that the trump administration are using on the streets Portland or abhorrent. People are being literally scooped off the street into unmarked vans rental cars. Apparently, the mayor has been villa number one for a lot of these protesters as someone who has failed to reform the police department in the ways they want, and and yet here you have him. It's not helping. Helping the situation at all, they're not wanted here. We have an asked them here. In fact, we want them to leave. Ask The federal officers to leave his city that he doesn't want them. Here doesn't want them on the streets. And what they're doing is they are sharply escalating the situation. Their presence here is actually leading to more violence and more vandalism. And you have the cycle here of tear gas and things being thrown back and forth. Standoffs where protesters IRV holding umbrellas and shields made out of. Pool noodles and plywood, and the officers standing on the other side in in their full tactical gear and helmets and gas masks, and a scene of two sides, and not much a pathway to a resolution in the space between. So, as now feels like the very thing, the federal government is in Portland. To try to tamp down. Is actually escalating in response I mean it's been a significant escalation. Now we're seeing thousands of people out there. People out there coming out for the first time. So what was the What was your motivation coming up? At the end of my life and said that didn't do anything big. Caught up with this grandmother from Eugene Oregon who was there and had come up to Portland for the first time told her family that she planned to. Stay on the outskirts skirts to be safe. And then while she was there, she was motivated to to keep moving up and I caught up with her again, and she was right at the front of the federal. Court. She's a little uneasy watching this unfold. Doesn't necessarily agree with the tactics. She's watching, but she's staying there. She feels the need. This is a moment to stand up to do something. And she needs to be there. Mike Baker said that the federal presence in Portland has basically made things worse, not better and has really created a kind of. Violent feedback loop between the protesters and these federal officers and I wonder what you think about that. Well whether you listen to the demonstrators, the local officials there or senior officials with the Department of Homeland Security. It's clear everyone agrees that the federal presence thus far has not succeeded in terms of bringing an end to the violence that we're seeing the unrest that we're seeing at this. So by that measure, the goal has not been accomplished. But there is also a question here for the trump administration. Is that solely their measure of success. Is this solely about bringing an end to this unrest? You know optics do matter and the optics of having agents and camouflage gear and tactical teams in city led by Democrats that does send a message. The radical left. We mobster gender take over our cities. And just a couple of days ago, the president's reelection campaign actually issued a campaign ad and Joe. Biden stands with them with. that. Look a lot like that area around the federal courthouse in Portland, displaying images, unrest and individual acts of violence, violent crime, exploding innocent children fatally shot. Who'll be there to answer the call when your children aren't safe? Ended at the very end of that ad, they actually lay it out in pretty direct terms texts that read you won't be safe in Joe Biden's America. On Donald J trump and I approve this message. A You're actually seeing the white. House kind of double down. They've done a fantastic job. They've been there and say well look. They're doing a great job in Portland. In fact, we'RE NOT GONNA leave New York and Chicago Philadelphia Detroit. And, Baltimore And all of these Oakland is a mess. Not GonNa. Let this happen. All run by Liberal Democrats. Some of these other cities led by Democrats could use the same kind of deployment. This is worse than Afghanistan. By far. This is worse than anything. Anyone's seen all run by the same Liberal Democrats, and you know what Biden got in. That would be true for the country. The. Whole country would go to hell. Susan, where does this leave at this point? So it leaves us in this precarious position. We know that. In Portland, the presence of federal agents and those officers has increased tension, but to the president. He'd like to see a similar presence in other cities. Thank you very much. Thanks for having me here. On Wednesday president trump announced that he would immediately dispatched federal law enforcement officers to Chicago the FBI, ATF Da us, Marshal Service and homeland security will together be sending hundreds of skilled law enforcement officers to Chicago. To help drive down violent crime. In Chicago Mayor Lori. Lightfoot said she would not tolerate the kind of federal deployment that has played out in Portland. What we saw the president. Any attorney general do in Portland is a travesty. And we are not having it in Chicago. We'll talk. Your personal information needs to only in your wallet or a safe deposit box. Now it's under smartphone computer practically everywhere, leaving new vulnerable to cyber threats. Norton, three sixty with lifelock provides all in one protection with device, security, identity, theft, protection, and a VPN for online privacy. No one can prevent all CYBERCRIME, an identity theft, but norton three sixty with lifelock is your ally for Cyber Safety. Sign up today and save twenty five percent off your first year. GO TO NORTON DOT COM slash daily. Here's what else you need, tenor, Tei. Essential that we were mass statewide in Ohio to contain the spread of this virus, and so therefore tomorrow at six o'clock tomorrow night are mask order for people who are out in public will be extended throughout the state of Ohio. As the daily death toll from the corona virus again surpasses one thousand Americans a day. Governors in three more states issued orders requiring masks. Ohio Indiana and Minnesota, the wearing of the mafs plus social distancing makes a huge huge difference. The came a day after president trump, who has long was enlisted wearing masks, and at times even disparaged. made his most forceful call yet for wearing them. and. Now sitting president has ever done this never never never. Now Republican president is. Democratic Chris we've have racist and they've existed. They've tried to get elected president. The first one that has during a campaign event on Wednesday the presumptive Democratic nominee. Joe Biden. Cold President trump the first racist to be elected president way. He deals with with with people based on the color, their scanner national origin where the from is absolutely sickening. In. Response Historians noted that previous presidents owned enslaved people and were openly racist, and during a news conference trump rejected Biden's characterization. SPONSORED JOE BIDEN! WHO's a described? The first racist to be elected persons as his house. His was I've done things that nobody else and I've said this I, said openly, and not a lot of people dispute it. I've done more for black Americans then anybody with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln. Nobody has even been close. That's it for the daily. I'm Michael Barr. Tomorrow. Do. You avoid tough problems in shy away from a debate. Do you think uncertainty limits potential, neither do we of a University of Chicago Booth School of Business? We believe in asking questions and questioning answers with campuses in Chicago, London and Hong Kong the booth. NBA is for people who see challenges as opportunities and want the skills to make positive change in any market anywhere in the world. Ready to find your community search Chicago Booth Dot Edu today to learn more.
Seattle City Light using same software that foreign agents notoriously hacked
"We've learned seattle city. Light was using the computer software. That's been widely infiltrated by suspected hackers from russia but his kyw's page browning reports officials say the utilities network remained secure. Us government officials revealed last week that numerous agencies have been hit by hackers with data being monitored possibly as far back as march agencies impacted include the pentagon and the department of homeland security a spokesperson for the seattle. Mayor's office says the city of seattle is not impacted by these breaches. But they also say that seattle city light did download the software that's been breached a product of the company. Solar winds city light has disconnected solar winds and evaluated their computer logs for suspicious activity. A city spokesperson says. They've found no indications their system was compromised page browning k. u. o. w. news.
CAFE Insider 8/4: Threats Foreign and Domestic
"Hey, folks last Thursday, president trump escalated his long-standing attacks on the legitimacy of absentee voting calling the upcoming November election fraudulent and suggesting that it'd be delayed meanwhile trump along with prominent members of Congress from both parties has threatened to ban TIKTOK, the popular Chinese video sharing. APP, and my friend Ben would is the editor of low-fare joins me and Anne Milgram to discuss the recent reports that the Department of Homeland. Security compiled intelligence reports on the work of journalists covering the Portland protests including bent himself. And and I discussed all this and more on the cafe insider podcast. Today, we're making a clip from the most recent episode available in the stay tuned feed to listen to our full conversation and access all other Catholic insider content including the newly launched United Security podcast with Lisa Monaco and can Weinstein try the membership free for two weeks. You can do that at cafe dot com slash insider that's cafe dot com slash insider. College students with valid dot edu email qualify for a special discount head to cafe dot com slash student and sign up at a special rate. Again, that's cafe dot com slash student. We look forward to having you as a part of the insider community. But something we haven't done awhile, which is have guessed. We were very special guests on. So there has been a lot of discussion and debate and controversy over some of the tactics. Being used. By the Department of Homeland Security with respect to protesters in Portland and other places, and there is yet additional controversy surrounding some of the things that the is doing. and. We have a real life I. Guess you could say. Victim of some of that activity with us. It's our friend. Ben Widows whose the editor in chief of l'affaire senior fellow at Brookings does all sorts of other stuff that we? Crib from. The the we we re to educate ourselves and recommend everything that he does offered to all of our listeners I ben Hey. Thanks for joining us. Sorry you were up at three in the morning. Thanks for having me. Well, you know when I ponder the universe. How are you? Oh, I'm just you know sitting out on my porch making obscene gestures at the DHS surveillance drones that are circling overhead. How many are there? I have lost count are the in some kind of formation you know they're flying they're doing little contrails, dances and. Spelling. Out The letters Da Chess I and hey. So Ben, it seems the. Subdivision of DHS. was targeting you. What did you do? You must have done something. something, Bad ben what did you do? Well. So first of all, they figured out that I am in fact, the secret leader of Antiga and this whole law fair thing has been an elaborate cover where I kind of pretend to be interested in protecting national security to divert attention from my secret role as the. Like scarlet pimpernel thing you know. no, the answer is I've I, really did I guess the best word for it is journalism I received some information from inside of D H s about their surveillance activities with respect to Portland. In the first instance I, analyzed it and wrote about it on l'affaire with my colleague Steve. VLADECK. And in two ladder instances, I, simply screen shotted the. Documents that had come my way and tweeted them with a little description of what they were and some snarky in one case. Some snarky. Commentary on it, and each of these tweets appears to have provoked the creation of what DHS calls an open source intelligence report, which course it being the federal government has to have a acronym which is an Ozier, which always reminds me of the Egyptian God Cyrus I. Think they should figure out two more characters to lead words so that they can get all of. Cyrus in there. Just to just to sort of put this in context for the folks who are listening and may not have followed the underlying documents that were sent to you. They were essentially leaked to you by D. H. S. what was in those documents, the things that you tweeted out and posted. Three relevant documents the first of which I did not tweet out, but we wrote about, which is actually the most significant document is a document that describes the an expansion of DHS's intelligence gathering authority to include from all the things that we think of as traditional homeland security missions to include the protection of federal property, as well as the protection of monuments whether they are state or federal union or confederate, or otherwise, or even privately owned. So this is a document that. DESCRIBES DHS's new authority to collect in intelligence and analyze intelligence in support of the important homeland security mission of protecting monuments. The second document was a internal e mail complaining about the leak of the first document. and. The third document was a internal e mail that described a change of terminology. Regarding the violent actors in Portland and it was a a change from the previously vhs had been calling them violent opportunists but in this document, it was that was changed to. And I'm forgetting the exact language violent and Tika inspired. Something Right Antifa Anarchists Inspire yes and also used some rhetoric that was reminiscent of kind of counterterrorism missions in Iraq particularly referring to kind of dossiers that had been created on possible suspects as baseball cards. which is a terminology directly imported from the Iraq conflict. So those were the three documents and. The latter two of which I tweeted and those two tweets produced these intelligence reports. So even if you don't know anything else. About. What proper policies with proper activities? To gauge whether or not what the was doing was wrong or not. To me, all you have to know is That even though Chad Wolf who is the head of the address at the moment? Let's a lot of stuff. Go allows a lot of activity that gets criticized and I think rightly so and defense it I think ineffectively with respect to this episode relating to you ban another reporter, Mike Baker, The New York Times, he took immediate action. Why was what D- adjusted? So bad I mean they they weren't wire tapping your phone joking aside they were not actually drones surveilling put together report what was so what's so bad about that explained the first of all the no drowns thing that's what they want you to think. I actually don't know what the differences between this and some of the other stuff that they're doing and Mayak. was. Completely First Amendment protected but a lot of protesters activity is completely first amendment protected and so why why Chad Wolf made such a distinction between what they did with respect to me and Mike Baker of the New York Times and a whole lot of other stuff that they're doing is actually a little bit of a head Scratcher to me that said look I think it almost certainly violated several rules and I can identify some of them I'm not sure I can identify all of them but first of all the first most basic rule is that the intelligence community and DHS. Is, part of the intelligence community is not allowed to collect information solely to monitor purely first amendment protected activities right and so this activity that I was engaged in was collecting information that is not classified information from a government agency about its conduct of its responsibilities and making that information available to the public it could not be more molten core first amendment protected activity, and there is no other component of it. Right you're not going to learn about who's threatening to blow up a monumental knock it down by collecting my twitter feed. So. The first component is that. The sudden component is that DHS actually has a set of missions against which it is is allowed to collect and those missions. And I listed a bunch of them on law fair this morning. In fact I think I listed all of them on law fair this morning they include things like counter-terrorism. Preventing Major Homeland Security threats preventing weapons of mass destruction, proliferation, major organized crime, right. These are these are things that justify intelligence collection by ianna leaks are not one of them and a leaks particularly of unclassified information just aren't among them, and even if you believe that maybe leaks are incorporated into some of the because leaking information stopping leaks. Dhs Do these other functions that is not something that the guidelines at least not explicitly contemplate. The final thing that I think is pretty clear that these rules forbid is the dissemination of the material dhs. This intelligence report was authorized to be sent to foreign governments. It was authorized to be sent to tribal governments, state governments, local governments, other agencies of the federal government. None of these entities has a legitimate or lawful need to pursuant to some law enforcement intelligence or counter terrorism objective or homeland security objective to know. What's going what I tweeted? It is pretty clearly in violation of the rules and I think that's why when Chad will found out about it, he stepped in pretty quickly even while tolerating apparently similar activity with respect to protesters. Yeah. I mean I think one of the reactions I had was that I mean, no government department likes leaks rate and we have seen leaks out of the administration and and honestly we always see them. Out of administrations right doesn't we've seen a lot lately but it's common but the reaction to a leak to make that basically opening in intelligence investigation into journalist. Israeli troubling and I think you're it is absolutely against DHS rules and it is against rules because it's not something we do with the First Amendment. It also feels very odd when you read through these tweets band and I don't know if you have a view. On this. But first of all, it feels like they spent more letters on your to tweets. You just attached these documents and you debt. There's something about by by an order of magnitude. Yeah. I mean if we if we did it they like they spent you basically just attached these leaked documents and then they go on to do this in this intelligence product, which again as you said, and I think people should understand this. We used to get a lot of intelligence products when I was ag right, they share them in the intelligence community and they're they're provided as sort of validating in a way that that homeland security thinks it's important to conduct intelligence on this, and so it really is I mean I sort of feel like at first blush it can feel just really in my view at least my first reaction was that so bizarre but my second reaction is this is a really serious infringement on you as a journalist and on the New York Times journalist as well and it's it's just a really bad. It just really troubling to me on that level and I don't know. Do you think I new written a piece about sort of thinking about whether it's incompetence or malevolence or both in where do you? Where do you sort of fall on that? So I, think it's both look at the practical level to me. It's Kinda harmless. In the sense that What did they collect? They collected something that I distributed to four hundred thousand of my closest friends I have a lot of twitter followers not like pre but I have a lot you know and I tweet things in order to make things public and so I have no anxiety at all on my own behalf about government officials sending around my tweets or even studying them for that flatters my vanity. You know if government officials are sitting around pouring over my tweets like they're studying. Talmud or something this is a big win for me So I don't have a problem with people socially passing it around I also don't have a problem with them sending a tweet of mine to the inspector general and saying, Hey, it looks like we had a leak to this witness guy, can you do leak investigation and I also don't have a problem with what I did in that document that I released, which is you know send around a note to staff saying hey. Doing this given this stuff to witness, knock it off. All of that seems to me totally appropriate and I don't think I have any kind of legitimate interest in privacy and something that I broadcasted to four hundred thousand people that said. There is a difference between socially passing something around or even sending it for business purposes within the agency like a press clipping or something, and what they did here, which is casting it as an intelligence collection and you know in the Post Watergate era, we made a judgment as a society that the government has no business. Conducting intelligence activity against the people of the United States, in the absence of some very specific reason to do so and reason enough those reasons are articulated in the off for dhs anyway in the authorized missions against which you're allowed to collect they are big important things and when you exceed that authority and you collect somebody's tweets because it's annoying that people are leaking stuff to him. It's really there's no difference in principle between them doing that and saying, Hey, this widow sky is getting a lot of leaks. Let's see. Let's create a kind of dossier of public record information about him and by the way, let's go to Equifax and by all the public record information that they have. Right if this is if this is appropriate, I'm not sure why that isn't appropriate and That's exactly what Congress in the Privacy Act in the nineteen seventies said, we don't want government to be doing, and so I do think this is comically stupid and it's fun to have a good laugh over. And I am not personally threatened by it at all. That said I think it is very bad that government is doing these things and here's the real point. They, kind of with the wrong marine. On this one, you know, I'm somebody who has a platform that's pretty substantial and I have a network of sources all through the intelligence community and through the national security bureaucracy as a function of what I do in law fair I also have. A lot of potential lawyers at my disposal to Sir my legal rights in this context, and by the way, all of that is true of Mike, Baker as well. Messing with the New York Times on something like this is a bit of a mistake that's a well resources organization that has a very, very long history of protecting and journalists. So you go after people in the press and the press is going to bite back really hard. This is not true of a lot of protesters and if they are doing this kind of thing to protesters in Portland, who who have every much as much of a First Amendment, right to do what they are doing assuming they're not engaged in violence as I. Do with what I am doing those people don't have a network of sources throughout the federal government to leak to the Washington Post the intelligence reports that are being compiled about them. They don't have a platform like law fair or a twitter feed with hundreds of thousands of followers to air the issue, and they may not have large numbers of lawyers at their disposal who want to represent them pro bono to assert their legal rights and so I think what happened to me is mostly funny. But what it represents is not funny at all. Yeah we were talking just a minute before we we jumped on about how dhs the custom and Border Patrol which have been the lead agency that were on the ground in Portland is the largest law enforcement agency in the United States. So I think the potential here for for real challenges and potential Frenchman we shouldn't overlook. Ben Before we let you go. You had said and you just alluded to this again a minute ago. You considering my legal options quick answer are you GonNa Sue? I don't know yet I will if I think there is a suit that I can bring that will shed significant light in discovery on on the programmatic activity that DHS is engaged in I know I have standing to bring something because there's this intelligence product that involves me but frankly, I can find out what they did to me with a foia request. What I really want is to figure out the parameters of the intelligence. Activity that they're involved were engaged in, and so I'm interested in in figuring out a legal theory that gets me that allows a window into that and if I if we configure one of those out, yes, I will bring that case I won't sue for the sake of vanity caption you know witness versus Wolf Ben what is thanks for being with? US keep us posted thanks than if you do we know a few lawyers to I'm I'm about to go have zoom meeting with some. Thank you, tactician. Thank you. Talk you later. It was nice. Having been on as usual. As usual have we done it before? I guess I've had them. I kind of feel like Ben's always on because we're always. Yes sure inform ourselves. So we can inform our listeners look I i. think he's absolutely right and I think he has a very good. Attitude in perspective on it not a big deal for him. Personally, he is a lot of resources. He's a, he's a big boy but what it represents and the kinds of things that may or may not be doing. is of great concern to everyone. Yes and I also think you know this Chad Wolf has sent it for an internal investigation. Within DHS. But I do feel like this has to be a part of a larger public conversation about what they're collecting what they're doing There has to be some oversight mechanism whether it's the Jess Inspector General, but it does it raises very serious questions and now is the time to be asking them not waiting two years for look back even even a year. So other national security news I. Guess. There's a lot of controversy over this thing called TIKTOK. Are you familiar with an for while? So yes, my niece has it and so do a lot of other. Young people sort of teenagers that that we know our voice. But I have to say I had download. I hope you've enjoyed the sample of a cafe insider podcast to listen to the full episode head to cafe. Dot Com slash insider and try out the membership free for two weeks. Interested students with a valid dot edu email can head to cafe dot com slash STU. To the many of you who have chosen to join the inside community. Thank you for supporting our work.
Reports of Chinese seeding attacks on the supply chain. Five Eyes and other allies push back at Russia's GRU. NPPD to become Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
"More on the possibility that China's People's Liberation army engaged in seeding the supply chain with militias chips. All five is denounce Russia's GRU for hacking Russia response on convincingly. Adam Anderson from elements. Security joins us to discuss the role of behavioral science in the fight against cybercrime, and the n. p. p. will become a new agency within the US department of homeland security and the lead civilian agency responsible for cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection. It's time for a message from our sponsor recorded future. You've heard of recorded future. They're the real time threaten tellers company. Their patented technology continuously analyzes the entire web to give Infosec analysts unmatched insight into emerging threats. We subscribe to and read their cyber daily. They do some of the heavy lifting and collection and analysis that frees you to make the best informed decisions possible for your organization. Sign up for the cyber daily Email. And every day you'll receive the top results for trending technical indicators that are crossing the web cyber news. Targeted industries, threat actors, exploited vulnerabilities, malware suspicious IP addresses and much more subscribed today and stay ahead of the cyber attacks. Go to recorded future dot com. Slash Intel and subscribe for free threatened, telling updates from recorded future. It's timely. It's solid and the price is right. It's recorded future dot com, slash Intel, and we thank recorded future for sponsoring our show. Major funding for the cyber wire podcast is provided by silence from the cyber wire studios at data tribe. I'm Dave bittner with your cyber wire summary for Friday, October. Fifth, when he eighteen. Bloomberg's reporting on a Chinese seething attack on motherboards supply chains is still developing. Bloomberg is standing by its story. Amazon and apple both cited in the reporting as having noticed the malicious chips and reported their presence quietly to US authorities, flatly denied the story. The UK's national cyber security center says it has no reason to doubt Amazon and apple. Amazon says the only issues it found with super micro products were some application and firmware issues. Relatively minor and swiftly fixed apple says that they have over the course of Bloomberg's investigation repeatedly and on the record, given them information that refutes the central claim of the story apple thinks may be Bloomberg is confusing. This story with a single incident in which apple found an accidental infected driver on one super micro server. They had in one of their labs. Bloomberg sourced its story to anonymous US officials and industry figures. It's not identifying them. Bloomberg says because of the sensitivity of material they discussed, but it is standing by the story. They report that the evidence points to an attempt to gain long-term access to sensitive government data and valuable intellectual property, both Amazon and apple categorically and unambiguously say that there's nothing to the Bloomberg story and it's unusual for companies to issue that kind of denial casually. But Bloomberg story is difficult to dismiss out of hand. They say that their sources include people within the companies who are denying the incident. However, the story eventually settles concerns about Chinese involvement in the supply chain are unlikely to be resolved quickly, Lenovo and z. t. e. neither of which are mentioned in Bloomberg's report have already seen their stock prices punish today as speculators clearly think the entire. Chinese hardware industry is likely to suffer. The global supply chain is thoroughly international, and it will be difficult to unin tangle, but it seems likely that many countries will try to bring more aspects of hardware manufacturing home. The exposure and denunciation of hacking by Russia's GRU that came this week from several western nations is being regarded as a hard push back at Russia's assertiveness in cyberspace and offers a good example of what imposing consequences can look like it is as Reuters put it a coordinated effort to expose GRU hacking and misconduct. Generally, some of the harshest language came from the United Kingdom, which characterises Russia as a pariah state. The most immediate consequences were imposed by the Netherlands which expelled five GRU officers under conditions that reflected no credit whatsoever on the Russian military intelligence, competence and tradecraft. The most comprehensive response came in the US indictment of seven GRU who are to be sure unlikely to appear in a US court, but we'll now have American teeth in their lives essentially forever. The three other five is joined the US and UK in denouncing the Russian organization, Canada, assessed with high confidence that the Montreal-based World Anti-Doping Agency was among the targets and Australia and New Zealand offered their own condemnations Australia chided that cyberspace wasn't the wild west, which seems unfair to the actual wild west, but we're far enough east that will let that one pass. The GRU techniques have been detailed in US documents may seem to have done quite a bit of brazen ward driving physically parking in front of hotels and other locations where they expected their targets to be using poorly protected WI fi access points pretty brazen stuff. Indeed, it's the stuff that got several of them caught red handed. The informational aspects of this conflict campy lightly, written off, ridicule and embarrassment are among the consequences. Western governments quite wittingly impose the GRU is convincingly portray. But as a crew of vicious stumble bums, they would be hilarious. A times of London op-ed says, if they weren't so sinister and it's no accident, surely that so much commentary has linked today's GRU too. It's even more sinister predecessors in Russian and Soviet history. Russian counter thrusts. In this information, battle include angry dismissal of the accusations, angry and aggrieved, but also mocking the Russian foreign ministry called the whole shebang. A diabolical perfume cocktail emanating from someone's rich imagination. This response seems to be reaching the limits of its usefulness. Soviet propaganda usually had some legs, no matter how preposterous it became in part because of the ideological cult that underpinned the communist regime. It's not clear that President Putin can count on similar reinforcements. There was a communist international. It's not clear that except perhaps in a few tax havens that there's really an oligarch international and weariness with political classes may prove unlikely to sustain any implausible, systematic messaging. And some of the information operations take the form of an elaborate and phony to Kway Moscow has made the fairly preposterous claim that the US is running a secret biowarfare civility in the country of Georgia. There's a certain symmetry with the well-founded British account of the Nova chock attack. But this seems to be overreaching. There is a Georgian, public health and veterinary research center into Blee established in twenty thirteen named an honor of former US Senator Richard Lugar who was instrumental in working to secure the very active biowar- program left behind when the Soviet Union broke up Russia's ministry of defence hopes, Georgia, and the US will come clean and an investigation. The Pentagon calls it all hogwash and international investigation is on likely. The department of homeland security's national protection and programs directorate will become the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency. The US Senate has unanimously passed cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency act of 2017 a Bill that cleared the house also unanimously late last year, this will make the newly named cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency. The lead civilian agency for cyber security and critical infrastructure protection. And finally, Alon musk is unhulled by his encounter with the security and Exchange Commission over his tweets that appeared to speculate about tesla. He's been back on Twitter rolling the SEC as the short seller enrichment commission. Now a moment to tell you about our sponsor, observe it. It's twenty eighteen traditional data loss prevention tools aren't cutting it anymore. They're too difficult to deploy too time consuming to maintain too heavy. On the end point, they are high maintenance and require endless fine tuning. It's time to take a more modern approach with observe it. You can detect insider threats investigate incidents quickly and prevent data loss with its lightweight agent and out of the box insider threat library, observe it is quick to deploy and far more effective at stopping data from leaving your organization. That's because observe it focuses on user behavior. It's built to detect and respond to insider threats, and it's extremely difficult even for the most technical users to bypass bring your data loss prevention strategy into the modern era with observe it, learn more at observant dot com slash cyber wire that's absurd. Dot com slash cyber wire, and we thank observe it for sponsoring our show. And I'm pleased to be joined once again by Malek Ben Salamn. She's the senior RND manager for security at Accenture labs. She's also a new America. Cybersecurity, fellow Malek welcome back over their century. You all recently published some information on pervasive cyber resilience. Take us through what's going on here. We did a survey with a number of cease. We executives, and our goal was to identify how companies are securing the enterprise today, but how are they building cyber resilience in order to secure the future enterprise? As you know, companies are racing to adopt new IT based business models in order to achieve higher growth, but they're not prepared for the new risks that come with those business models. And I'm thinking of the increased connectivity, the increased risk due to the autumn. Of processes and the risks that come from the intelligence being used to derive outta mated decision making through data, an Esa, curated professionals, beekeeper iterating the message that companies off to be cyber resilient, that they need to infuse security into everything they do today, but also into everything they do or they're preparing to do in the future. And so through that survey were we interviewed about fourteen hundred c. suite executives, including CISCO's about how they prioritize security business initiatives, how their security plans address, future business needs, what security capabilities they have and the level of internal and external collaboration that they're working on a security. We found out that only thirty eight percent of companies bring the Cisco into all discussions at the beginning stage off considering new business opportunities. So. So there is a lot of of room for improvement. If companies are serious about building cyber resilience, not just for today, but for the future as they consider new business opportunities, they need to get CISCO's involved into that discussion concert, understand that impulse that we want to get out there. We want to start doing business. We want to beat the competition be first to market and all those sorts of things that you're saying that that might not be a successful long term strategy. Absolutely. I think companies off to be thinking about all the implications of new business initiatives, and we actually duck deeper into what this means for companies, and we asked the survey respondents about individual technologies that they're thinking of adopting in the future and how much they think. There are ready a protected of for those types of technologies. So we asked about things like robotics, virtual work environments. Obviously, I t cloud services. We found out that there was an acknowledgement that for certain technologies, these organizations didn't feel as protected or adequately protected, and that appeared clearly, for instance, for virtual work environment where for two percent of the respondents said that they don't think they're protected. On the other hand, they thought that for the adoption of IOT in IT devices, they think they're much more protected. What's interesting also to me is that for a technologies that was one of the technologies where they survey respondents felt very confident that they're protected, which is which I. Found very interesting and which I think is a blind spot to them. Particularly as we start as a security research community starts being more involved into the issues of AI security and how sheen learning models need to be protected. This is a very nascent field that's being looked at by the research community. So I think they're four for a I in particular, there is an overconfidence that this technology you know is is protected versus what we think of as a research community that this AI technology actually is creating a new attacks turfs for companies. Melik Salaam, thanks for joining us. A few words from our sponsor silence. They're the people who pretend our own end points here at the cyber wire and you might consider seeing what silence can do for you. You probably know all about legacy antivirus protection. It's very good as far as it goes, but guess what? The bad guys know all about it too. It will stop the skids, but to keep the savvier hoods hands off your end points. Silence thanks. You need something better. They've just introduced version two point, three of silence optics. It turns every endpoint into its own security operation center. Silence optics deploys algorithms formed by machine learning offer, not only immediate protection, but security that's quick enough to keep up with the threat by watching learning and acting on systems behavior and resources. Whether you're worried about advanced malware, commodity hacking or malicious insiders. Silence optics can help visit silence dot com to learn more. And we thank silence for sponsoring our show. My guest today is Adam Anderson. He's scholar in residence at Clemson university's center for corporate learning and founder of elements security group. Our conversation focuses on his efforts to integrate behavioral science into the fight against cybercrime of gotten very frustrated with the arms race of we develop new security measures, and they develop ways to get by it. And I constantly felt like I was losing no matter what I did our product I installed and it wasn't until I really started a dressing behavioral science talking to people about what good cyber hygiene as how to act correctly. Then I felt that I was actually having an impact and that really showed in side of small and mid sized businesses. I feel like the enterprise typically does a fantastic job building a cyber fortress and keeping the gates shut, but with supply chains and trusting vendors, I find that. The small business is really the big security risks that I'm most interested in for those guys. You move on needle with behavioral science, not with spending a lot of money on technology. Yeah. I mean, it strikes me that the folks like you say, the small business people are the least prepared certainly budget wise to to build that moat around their business. What? Why do you find that behavioral science gives them the best bang for the buck because they have messed up beliefs. There's not a CSO in the fortune five hundred that's not going to have a voice with executive management staff. They're going to be able to say, cybercrimes, important, and everyone nods their head and says, yes, but for a small business owner, they have three core beliefs that screws everything up. They think they're not important, no one's looking for them. They think they have nothing anyone would want and they think, hey, there's nothing I can do to stop you anyway. So that leads a victim mentality on the table that they put their head in the sands, and they just don't act. So let's walk through those one by one. What? What are the ways to combat those beliefs? The thing is, is there correct? Beliefs are just old beliefs. Small business owner is going to thank I don't have intellectual property or a whole lot of data that a hacker is want to steal and sell on the black market. And so my message to them like, hey, you're absolutely right, but you know what you have gotten money and they're gonna screw with you until they get she to actually pay them something. So the the mind shift that happens on those three beliefs, Lisa, I two is to say, you know, you do have what you want, and if you have low self esteem, good news, you're just with the cybercriminals looking for. So at the end of the day, the first two are all about changing the mindset from. I've got intellectual property or I've got trade secrets that people want versus I've got cash flow and money and I can buy bitcoins incent them. Do you suppose some of this is is sort of. Paralysis. You mentioned you know, thinking that there's nothing they can do about it, and it strikes me that maybe they don't have to build that fortress around around their business. It's kinda that old joke about, you know how to I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun. You. Exactly right. If the business down the street is less secure than I am, they're going to be easier pickings. Yeah, using analogy with them with fly fishing where the hacker walks into a mountain stream has got a fly fishing rod, and to me, that's witchcraft technology have never been able to get that to work. And they are hunting fish individually. And when the catch one fish all the other Fisher safe, but I tell them the things have changed. It's not a guy in a stream anymore. It's a guy on trawler. It's a lower skill person, pulling a giant net behind a boat and catching all of the fish. So the I cannot run the bear thing that doesn't work. You need a new skill set how to avoid nets and then escape them or recover after you've been in them. How do we go about getting this message to sink in without just spewing Fudd at these people? Right? So fud will only take them so far. And I tell folks that especially small business owners, you if you're buying based on fear, then you're buying the allusion of. Security and you're buying based on compliance, you are basically securing someone else. And if you don't think of this as just another business process, like sales marketing, you're going to suffer announce this process. So when I can pull them away from thinking about the technology and say, look at business processes, understand which ones are important, and then find a smart cyber security person to apply the correct security controls to keep your processes running that they're very excited about because they understand business process and I say, don't worry. You don't have to understand the technology. You just have to tell the cyber expert what you need to protect. So that mindset, I mean, it would. It sounds like you're describing is not unlike, you know, a lot of small businesses will hire an outside accountant, take care of their counted on a higher fulltime person, though Hira an outside attorney. They don't have the funds to have someone on staff all the time. Cyber security should be given the. Same approach? Yeah, I tell folks, there's four key things. Small business needs a banker insurance agent, a CPA in a lawyer, and I believe the future for small business is also going to be a fractional chief security officer where you're going to push that person. They're gonna help you build a business continuity plan. They're going to keep it updated, help build your disaster recovery plan, and then they're gonna manage the vendors for you. So very much like you said, we're going to add a fifth key role that every small business is gonna have in the future. The message I give to folks as I say, look, spend somebody else's money, be iota, not Luke Goto the marketing person who makes all of the technology purchases at this point and has the CFO's ear and say, you know that new mobile initiative you're trying to do and make all of our stores point assails are mobile and all that. You know, there are some security stuff that we don't care of your project might stop, but hey, it's not. My call. I'm here just to tell you what's going on, but maybe we should go ahead and ask for another million dollars to fund this project to make sure you don't have a failure in two years. So the idea here is the CIO see, SO needs to partner with the other cease wheats and align the cyber security initiatives up with the stuff that the other sweets are doing. Because when to see x. owes come in and talk to the CFO on. They're on the same page. It's really hard for the CFO to say, no, our thanks to Adam Anderson from element security group for joining us. You can learn more about what he's up to at element security group dot com. And that's the cyber wire thanks to all of our sponsors for making the cyber wire possible, especially to are sustaining sponsor silence find out how silence can help protect you using artificial intelligence, visit silence dot com. And silence is not just a sponsor. We actually use their products to help protect our systems here at the cyber wire, and thanks to our supporting sponsor VM ware, creators of workspace. One intelligence learn more at VM ware dot com. The cyber wire podcast is proudly produced in Maryland out of the startup studios of data tribe with their co building the next generation of cybersecurity teams and technology are cyber wire editor is John Patrick social media editor, Jennifer, Ivan technical editor, Chris Russell executive editor Peter Kilby, and I'm Dave bittner. Thanks for listening.