The National Security Institute hosted an invitation-only lunchtime event for data breach lawyers on May 1. The event featured a fireside chat with NSI Advisory Board Members Matt Olsen, Uber Chief Trust and Security Officer, and Ben Powell, former ODNI General Counsel and NSI Advisory Board member. They spoke about best practices when responding to critical data incidents. The event was sponsored by ForgePoint Capital.
This NSI Law and Policy Paper:
Click here to read the complete paper.
About the Author:
Adam Pearlman is a former Associate Deputy General Counsel of the United States Department of Defense. While at DoD, he was agency counsel for complex civil and criminal national security matters in federal and military courts, and led the Supreme Court and appellate unit of the team dedicated to litigating classified counterterrorism cases.
The National Security Institute is excited to announce NSI’s first episode in our Fault Lines podcast mini-series with Lawfare. This episode focused on the ongoing civil war in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and American policy in the region and featured Fault Lines regulars:
Fault Lines brings together experts with years of experience working on national security issues that divide the political left and right. The series aspires to highlight both the areas of stark contrast and unlikely agreement in foreign policy-making that exist in today’s polarized atmosphere.
Subscribe to the Lawfare Podcast to get this and future episodes of Fault Lines.
Read the complete paper here.
About the Author:
Matthew R. A. Heiman is an NSI Senior Fellow and former lawyer in the National Security Division, U.S. Department of Justice. Previously, Mr. Heiman was the Vice President, Corporate Secretary & Associate General Counsel at Johnson Controls. Prior to its merger with Johnson Controls, Mr. Heiman held a number of positions with Tyco International.
Hazel Hall | Room 225
March 27
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM
Students met NSI Visiting Fellows and learned how to better prepare for a career in national security law and policy. Panelists included:
Visit this page to watch the career panel.
Hazel Hall | Room 225
March 20
12:00 PM – 1:00 PM
NSI hosted a fireside chat with Brent McIntosh, General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury, and NSI Founder Jamil N. Jaffer to discuss Treasury’s role in advancing U.S. national security. In his role, Mr. McIntosh provides legal and policy advice to the Secretary and other senior Departmental officials. Mr. McIntosh spoke on how Treasury has traditionally been viewed as focusing on purely economic and financial topics that do not directly touch foreign policy and national security—the collection of taxes, management of federal debt, payment of federal obligations, and more. Over the past decade, Treasury and its tools has taken an increasingly central role in various foreign policy and national security issues. Watch the firechat below. Visit this page for the photo gallery.
Founders Hall Auditorium
3351 Fairfax Drive
George Mason University
Arlington, Virginia
March 11, 2019 | 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM
The National Security Institute was excited to host a presentation and reception to celebrate the founding of the new Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency sponsored by the Intelligence and National Security Alliance. Attendees heard from CISA Director Chris Krebs, Assistant Director Jeanette Manfra, General Counsel Dan Sutherland, and others about how America’s newest agency is poised to make an impact on the protection of the private sector.
Download the slide deck from the event here.
The National Security Institute and the Federalist Society held a debate on the President’s legal authority to declare a national emergency on the southern border. As legal challenges to this declaration work their way through the courts, watch the potential arguments deployed by each side below. NSI Visiting Fellow and former Associate Deputy General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Defense Adam Pearlman moderated the debate between Antonin Scalia Law School Professor of Law Michael Krauss and the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro.
Today, President Trump finished his second meeting with Kim Jong-Un. NSI’s experts analyzed the impact the Hanoi Summit will have on the effort to denuclearize North Korea.
February 28, 2019
Dmitri Alperovitch – NSI Visiting Fellow; Co-Founder, CrowdStrike
“It was never likely that North Korea would ever voluntarily give up nuclear weapons, their ultimate guarantor of regime security. Having learned from the lessons of what can happen to dictators once they give up on nuclear weapons from the experiences of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, it would be suicidal for Kim Jong Un to ever give up his deterrent.
The unfortunate reality is that we now have to admit to ourselves that a nuclear-armed North Korea is here to stay and focus our efforts on deterring and containing them and, most importantly, preventing further proliferation of nuclear weapons.”
Matthew R. A. Heiman – NSI Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Global Security; Chairman, Cyber & Privacy Working Group, Regulatory Transparency Project
“The summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-Un ended earlier than expected and without an agreement or tangible progress. President Trump’s experience negotiating with the North Korean regime is consistent with the difficulty experienced by past administrations. The North Koreans have two approaches to negotiations – make promises that aren’t kept and refuse to negotiate in good faith. Today’s breakdown is one more link in that chain. The prospects for this summit were not good given the pre-meeting chatter. North Korea was offering to dismantle the Yongbyon nuclear facility, a horse it has sold in previous negotiations. The Trump team hinted that it would not demand a full accounting of North Korean nuclear facilities, which would prevent assurance of total denuclearization. Under these circumstances, no deal was the best deal, and President Trump was right to walk. It’s time to return to the maximum pressure campaign and make life as uncomfortable as possible for the Kim regime.”
Jamil N. Jaffer – NSI Founder and Executive Director; former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush
“While the typical reaction to the outcome of the Hanoi summit has been to call it a failure, that is exactly the wrong analysis. To the contrary, by walking away from a weak offer by the North Koreans, the President has maximized his leverage and has reasserted control over a set of negotiations that ended poorly for the United States after the last round. In my book, the Hanoi summit was a win for U.S. national security.”
Andy Keiser – NSI Fellow; Former Senior Advisor, House Intelligence Committee
“President Trump returns from Vietnam in the same position as when he arrived: still talking to the North Koreans about denuclearization and confidence-building measures but not agreeing on the details.
Though surely a disappointment but likely not a surprise to the U.S. side, it is important to remember that North Korea is currently not testing nuclear weapons or the missiles that could potentially deliver them and biting sanctions remain in place while talks continue.
Give the President credit for showing a willingness to walk away from a deal when he feels the United States is giving up too much. Where we go from here and if the North Koreans are actually committed to an agreement remains an open question.”
Rizwan Ladha – NSI Visiting Fellow; Strategy Lead, Defense, Space & Security, The Boeing Company
“The second summit between Trump and Kim should be cautiously welcomed. Whenever diplomatic progress is made between the leaders of the United States and North Korea, it should be celebrated and encouraged. The fact that no agreement was reached at this meeting is also par for the course — many administrations have expended significant time and political capital to negotiate a verifiable solution to the North Korean nuclear question, and it appears there was no illusion within the Trump administration that they could successfully negotiate an agreement in just a couple of meetings.
Lester Munson – NSI Senior Fellow; Former Staff Director, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
“Expectations for this summit were fairly low, but evidently not low enough. The good news is that the administration demonstrated that it is willing to walk away from the negotiating table when the deal doesn’t materialize. On the other hand, we must now weigh the costs of high-level engagement with a North Korean regime that appears to not be interested in real steps toward denuclearization. It does real harm to America’s global position to continue to promote the character of Kim Jong-Un and his regime while he continues to process uranium and add to his missile forces. The president has a strong team working on these negotiations. He should let them take over the discussions and save himself for when and if there is real progress.”
Bryan Smith – NSI Senior Fellow; former Budget Director, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
“Despite criticism from the national security community, the Singapore summit was generally successful. It defused tensions that had arguably brought the two countries to the brink of war, and established a basic framework committing Kim to denuclearization in exchange for security guarantees, the end of sanctions, and economic development. None of this was described in any concrete way, however. Nor did it hint at how to sequence North Korean denuclearization actions, its verification, and commensurate U.S. rewards.
The Vietnam Summit needed to make the basic framework concrete. Specifically, three things were needed to make this summit a success. First, the parties needed to agree on what exactly was meant by “denuclearization”. Second, they then needed to lay out a pathway of future verifiable steps that would lead to that agreed commitment. Third, the two countries needed to take initial immediate steps, such as a formal freeze in testing and production, met with some concrete and meaningful response from the U.S., well short of lifting core sanctions.
Instead of this business-like approach, Kim Jong-Un pulled a number straight from the North Korean negotiating playbook. Take a Ford Pinto, slap on bondo and a MAACO paint job, and offer to sell it to the U.S. at new model prices. That in essence, was Kim’s offer to dismantle Yongbyon in exchange for full lifting of sanctions. Thank God President Trump wasn’t buying it. Not unlike Reagan at Rekjavik, the President wisely walked away from a bad deal. In a way, it is hard to blame Kim for his gambit, since the decades long history with the U.S., coupled with the President’s highly-personal and transactional diplomatic style, likely convinced him that the U.S. might bite on such a bad deal.
Provided Kim now makes good on his reported intention to President Trump not to resume missile and weapons testing, negotiations can still be put back on a productive track. “
Todd Womack – NSI Visiting Fellow; former Staff Director, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
“What was said during negotiations around the flawed Iran deal is still true: no deal is better than a bad deal. Despite the desire by the Administration to move the process forward, I am glad the President walked away rather than showing progress for progress sake. Sanctions should not be lifted and pressure must be ratcheted up even more as we work to ensure North Korea’s denuclearization.”
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this analysis are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Security Institute or any agency of the U.S. government. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the National Security Institute or any U.S. government entity.
NSI and the Congressional Tech Staff Association held a discussion of the implications of the latest technologies in national security. Read more about the event below:
[embeddoc url=”http://nationalsecurity.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Digital-Defense-Event-Feb.27.19-6.pdf” viewer=”google”]
On February 14th, the National Security Institute hosted an event centered on its recently published Law and Policy Paper Chinese Telecommunications Companies Huawei and ZTE: Countering a Hostile Foreign Threat. Read more about the event below:
[embeddoc url=”http://nationalsecurity.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Copy-of-ZTE-event-Feb.14.19.pdf” viewer=”google”]
Today, the President announced that he would be declaring a national emergency in order to build a wall along the southern border. Our experts weighed in on the wisdom of that decision.
February 15, 2019
Matthew R. A. Heiman – NSI Senior Fellow and Associate Director for Global Security; Chairman, Cyber & Privacy Working Group, Regulatory Transparency Project
“The President’s decision to declare a national emergency in order to redirect funds to build a wall along the U.S. southern border is a mistake for legal, political, and institutional reasons. Like eating junk food, the satisfaction could well be temporary. First, this decision will be the subject of court challenges, and the President may lose. Questions such as whether this is an emergency and why is this an emergency now will feature prominently. Second, the decision is a political mistake. At some point, there will be a Democratic President and a Republican controlled Senate or House, and the Democratic President may decide that climate change or private ownership of firearms is a national emergency that needs to be addressed without congressional authorization. Third, the lack of an obvious national emergency, such as a war or a natural disaster, feeds the notion that the President is exceeding his Article II and statutory authorities. When a branch pushes its powers near or past institutional limits, the reaction of the other branches can leave that branch weaker than before it acted (e.g. the Presidency after Watergate). If President Trump wants more money for border walls, he should use the bully pulpit afforded by his office. This requires marshaling the facts, using compelling imagery and stories, and rallying Americans to pressure Congress for more funding or vote out those legislators that object. That’s the best and most effective way to accomplish lasting change.“
Jamil N. Jaffer – NSI Founder and Executive Director; former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush
“While there is no question that we need to do a better job in addressing illegal immigration as a nation, the fact is that there isn’t a national security emergency on our southern border today. And even if there were such an emergency, a huge new border wall is not the solution. Better, smart enforcement of existing laws is the right approach, as is strengthening our laws and capabilities. The bipartisan legislation passed by Congress is a good step in the right direction of these changes. Going forward, we also need immigration laws that account for the critically important contribution that legal immigrants make to our nation and our economy, including significantly and smartly expanding the scope and nature of legal immigration as well as putting in place additional provisions to limit illegal immigration and enforce existing laws.”
Harold Moss – NSI Visiting Fellow; Senior Director Strategy & Business Development, Web Products, Akamai Technologies
“The utilization of the national emergency power by the President would move us further away from the democratic values America is built upon, and further deepen the partisan divide facing our nation today.
By taken this unprecedented action, the President is effectively rejecting the notion of free government for what our founding fathers found abhorrent which is an absolute monarchy. The powers offered to the executive branch to declare a National emergency, were intended to address the need for timely response to “events” or “emergencies” not to further political commitments. The Presidents own comments, clarify that this is in fact not an emergency but a desire to accelerate his political objectives.
What is particularly concerning was the Presidents assertions about the security of the ports of entry, to which he promptly undermined his own claims by introducing his own request of the Chinese prime minister with respect to Fentanyl as well as referencing the 2017 New York attacker who did not enter the country through our southern border. All of these arguments and many more will certainly be introduced in inevitable legal challenges and further server to divide the nation.”
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this analysis are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Security Institute or any agency of the U.S. government. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the National Security Institute or any U.S. government entity.
Yesterday, the Department of Defense (DoD) released a summary of its 2018 Artificial Intelligence Strategy. Our experts weighed in about the strengths and weaknesses of this strategy.
February 13, 2019
Bryson Bort – NSI Fellow; Founder & CEO, SCYTHE
“The DoD strategy cements the role of the Joint AI Center (JAIC) as the driver for AI development and adoption across all services. Echoing the Administration’s AI directive, the strategy is framed in terms of the Chinese and Russian threats increasing through this technology. In execution, there is a diametric tension between iterating slowly through ethical implications as evidenced by Google employees refusing to support Project Maven (a DoD AI project of imagery analysis) last year and the exhortation for ‘transformative AI technologies’ developed ‘from experiments at the edge.’ DoD has historically struggled with agile development that would support these ‘experiments’ from a contracting, cultural, and technical perspective. The immediate wins look like the use of AI on the mountains of DoD data in various areas such as logistics and maintenance.”
Jamil N. Jaffer – NSI Founder and Executive Director; former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush
“The new Artificial Intelligence Strategy released by the Department of Defense provides some unique insight into DoD’s well thought out plan on AI that it’s already been executing. The specific outlining of the role of the Joint AI Center (JAIC) and the description of the key pilot projects that are ongoing, as well as the commitment to partnerships with leading private companies are key elements of a strategy that is likely to bear fruit in the short-term. While much will be in the implementation, the early steps DoD has already taken are moving them in the right direction.“
Harold Moss – NSI Visiting Fellow; Senior Director Strategy & Business Development, Web Products, Akamai Technologies
“The Department of Defense’s recent strategy is a thoughtful approach to embracing an emerging technology. By introducing Artificial Intelligence as an augmentation technology and building upon the proven techniques and skills used by the DoD, they can rapidly introduce the technology without introducing disruptions to our current national security strategy. Furthermore, by leveraging a number of diverse sectors to usher in the new technology, they reduce the integration challenges found in emerging technologies while enabling the latest information to drive implementation.
I am especially encouraged by the strategies identification of focal areas that not only introduce meaningful impact, but rely on cultivating supporting internal/external resources and infrastructure. By implementing an approach which evolves with the pace of technology, the strategy will be far more sustainable, and at the same time introduce ongoing benefits to national security.
That said, while the strategy has expertly focused on how to introduce AI into the working models of the agency, they will need to establish relationships with foreign and domestic partners to establish the corpus of knowledge essential to AI. As a result, the DoD will need to clearly articulate and enforce privacy and security protocols, which will establish confidence in partners and the program.”
Adam Pearlman – NSI Visiting Fellow; former Associate Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense 
“Beyond the substance of the DoD’s AI strategy, the timing of this document is not to be overlooked. For all the ways in which the White House has been criticized for going off-the-cuff, the issuance of Executive Order 13859 and the release of this document all within a week of the State of the Union, shows not only the importance the President places on this issue, but that efforts are being properly coordinated throughout the government. This shows a maturity in managing the bureaucracy, and vastly increases the likelihood of building an effective capability.
It is also notable that a relatively sizable portion of the strategy emphasizes private-sector partnerships, which will be critical to the success of building the government’s AI capabilities. We are long past the era when DoD had both more money and more information than everyone else. The five most valuable tech companies have a market capitalization of more than three times the defense budget and are sitting on close to $600 billion in cash. They also have incredibly large and diverse data sets that will prove critical to a cutting-edge AI system. Recruiting all the engineering talent in the world is meaningless without having useful data to train an AI system.
Developing this technology while protecting civil liberties is no easy task, but having articulated guiding principles will help the Department and the government navigate these issues in a responsible way.”
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this analysis are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Security Institute or any agency of the U.S. government. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the National Security Institute or any U.S. government entity.
Today, President Trump signed an Executive Order on “Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence”. Our experts weighed in about what this means about America’s future stance towards Artificial Intelligence.
February 11, 2019
Dmitri Alperovitch – NSI Visiting Fellow; Co-Founder/CTO, CrowdStrike
“Today, AI is at the center of most major technological advances in areas as varied as cybersecurity, self-driving cars or development of cancer treatments. In cybersecurity, for example, these technological advances include enabling the defenders to recognize and stop never-before-seen attacks and being faster in detecting and responding to attacks.
It is vital for prosperity and security that the US keeps its leadership position in development and implementation of AI technologies. Government leadership and funding on this topic is crucial.“
Lauren Bedula – NSI Visiting Fellow; Vice President, Beacon Global Strategies
“The Executive Order signals that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a White House priority with the full backing of the President. This has a galvanizing effect and elevates AI as a critical national priority. The Department of Defense and Intelligence Community have recognized the significance of AI through initiatives such as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s Augmenting Intelligence Using Machines program, and DoD’s Joint AI Center. The White House’s push to accelerate national leadership on AI will further stimulate the federal government’s civilian agencies’ efforts, and enhance the U.S. government’s posture on coordinated research and development. The timing of the EO also aligns well with the launch of the National Security Commission on AI, created by the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2019.
Access to and management of data will continue to slow adoption of AI technologies, and migration to the cloud will be key to these efforts. As the U.S. government organizes around the future of AI, the private sector should be consulted as an expert and partner in both technology and workforce development.“
Bryson Bort – NSI Fellow; Founder & CEO, SCYTHE
“The Administration actually does agree with their Intelligence Chiefs on something: Artificial Intelligence. In January, ODNI published the National Intelligence Strategy highlighting both the threat, promise, and need for investment in AI. The primary threat is China who through a combination of outright theft/espionage and state-directed investment to lure foreign scholars has positioned itself to strategically challenge US innovation dominance by 2025. The Administration builds upon these concerns by laying out a (high-level) plan of R&D investment and engagement that vaguely directs agencies to prioritize AI now and in 2020 funding. Contrast that lack of clear funding with just a few examples:
China – $5B fund to grow a $150B industry
France – €1.5B investment
Canada – the first government release a formal AI strategy with C$125M
Priorities mean resources. Or, are we waiting for the computers to tell us how much to invest?“
Zach Graves – NSI Visiting Fellow; Head of Policy, Lincoln Network
“The President’s Executive Order on ‘Accelerating America’s Leadership in AI’ is a monumental action that ties together both public and private sector efforts around artificial intelligence. This includes calling for the development of several strategic plans around standard setting, research spending, and AI governance issues which will help improve coordination and strategic planning in the federal government. Of potential concern is Sec. 8’s call for the creation of an action plan to ‘protect the US advantage in AI… against strategic competitors and adversarial nations.’ While there are legitimate national security concerns around AI, these must not be used as an excuse for premature heavy-handed regulation. For example, the Commerce Department has already been exploring export controls on AI technology – a failed policy approach that was used in the 90s on encryption, and which could put the brakes on AI rather than accelerate its development. “
Kristen Hajduk – NSI Visiting Fellow; Regional Director for the National Capital Region, MD5 – The National Security Technology Accelerator
“The Executive Order on ‘Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence’ takes one step forward in guiding our country towards a vibrant, innovative, and ethical support in the development of AI. The EO rightly acknowledges that effective utilization of AI requires a community of innovators who are given the tools to support the future public and private sector needs of this growing industry. In order for the USG to effectively foster and tap into private sector innovation, it will be necessary and important for all USG organizations to rethink and retool acquisitions processes that may be burdensome or prohibitive for burgeoning startup and venture hubs across the country. The Defense innovation ecosystem has led to several important efforts to support the EO, including the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center and the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. By working together, the USG and US private industry will continue to push the leading edge of technological advancement.”
E. Grant Haver – NSI Policy Program Coordinator
“President Trump’s ‘Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence’ Executive Order is far from the ‘[w]e choose to go to the Moon’ approach which is necessary in this area. He had the prime opportunity to roll out the American Artificial Intelligence Initiative during his State of the Union address, but he chose not to. America needs a whole of government and potentially a whole of society approach to dealing with the ethical, legal, and military questions surrounding AI and the president does not seem to be going all in.
One area that this Executive Order addresses is the need for the government to attract and train personnel on the latest advances in AI. However, it fails to address the issue of retention which is difficult in the best of times because skills in this area are so valuable in the private sector. These issues are made worse when those who choose to take a pay cut to serve their country are not sure whether they will be getting their next paycheck.
Although this Executive Order is far from sufficient to actually maintain American leadership in Artificial Intelligence, it makes nods in the right direction especially around data transparency. AI is powered by large sets of training data and the government is sitting on a wealth of it. If the government can learn how to effectively partner with the private sector to give access to this data while protecting citizens privacy and civil liberties, then the government, industry, and ultimately the American people will benefit.“
Jamil N. Jaffer – NSI Founder; former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and former Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush
“The artificial intelligence Executive Order signed today by the President provides a strong starting point for expanding our government’s commitment to our nation investing and leading in AI. The problem is that we are already behind in this race, with China having committed to creating a $1 trillion AI economy in the next decade. We cannot afford more government examinations of its authorities and priorities; rather, we need specific, detailed plans for providing significant, sustained government funding for basic research and advanced national security applications, as well as the creation of incentives for further private sector investment and leverage. So, while the new EO is certainly a step in the right direction, it is not nearly enough. The President and his team need to stop focusing on small ball issues that keep taking us to the brink of a government shutdown and instead partner with Congress to get something definitive done on AI in the near future.“
Geof Kahn – NSI Visiting Fellow; former Senior Advisor to the Chief Operating Officer at the Central Intelligence Agency
“The Executive Order is an encouraging signal that the White House is using its budget, policy, and convening authority to implement a national AI strategy to empower American competitiveness and innovation. That strategy smartly identifies much needed funding for R&D that will benefit mainstream American industries, while highlighting the jobs, ethics, and privacy implications that come with our rapidly increasing adoption of AI tools. It will be important to see how this EO is reflected in the President’s FY20 Budget Request in March and how the Administration pursues these initiatives in partnership with the private sector.“
Andy Keiser – NSI Fellow; former Senior Advisor, House Intelligence Committee
“In launching the American Artificial Intelligence (AI) Initiative, President Trump signals the right executive emphasis on the type of next-generation technologies that will propel the U.S. economy into the future like AI.
The Order also touches on the critical components of success in AI, including: focus of effort across government, industry and academia; development of standards; promoting technical and math and science education; protecting civil liberties and promoting AI in the right places internationally.
As with any policy, the devil will be in the details as the Order is implemented and federal dollars are appropriated in Fiscal Year 2020 and beyond.“
Dr. Andrea Little Limbago – NSI Senior Fellow; Chief Social Scientist, Virtru
“The U.S. has some catching up to do to simultaneously shape the ethical parameters of AI, including privacy and security implications, while promoting innovation. Today’s Executive Order on AI is a welcome first step at prioritizing AI but is long overdue and lacks any reference to countering advances in adversarial AI. While policy generally does lag behind technology, over the past two years well over a dozen countries introduced national initiatives to promote AI. The U.S. has been noticeably absent from this global discussion. The Executive Order appropriately describes AI as a national security imperative that requires strong U.S. leadership to ensure AI benefits society without compromising American values or privacy. In contrast, authoritarian regimes are quickly progressing AI frameworks that build upon machine learning for offensive attacks such as compromising data, diffusing disinformation, or other interference operations. Given this contrast, the Executive Order should have more specifically addressed the ethical issues, biases, and attacks that can emerge through adversarial AI or abuse. While the Executive Order highlights the potential for benefits, any national strategy would be myopic and detrimental to national security if the the potential for AI misuse and abuse is omitted. Nevertheless, the Executive Order is an encouraging sign that the U.S. government will increasingly prioritize AI and take the steps to incentivize AI investments, grow the workforce to support U.S. dominance in AI, and assert U.S. leadership through international engagement. “
Harold Moss – NSI Visiting Fellow; Senior Director Strategy & Business Development, Web Products, Akamai Technologies
“Artificial Intelligence has penetrated the lives of millions of Americans through connected home devices that influence as well as provide access to personal information. It is essential that America establishes the skills necessary to compete in this space as well as define the working parameters for which this technology is applied.
According to research by IoT News, as may as 90% of the US population have made purchases of a home connected device, and nearly 70% already have a voice controlled system such as Amazon Alexa or Google Home. As artificial intelligence becomes an embedded technology in our personal lives, it offers not only new methods of connecting but also new means of gather information or influencing our population. The recent Executive Order highlights the importance of American leadership in the space, and touches on the role of privacy, as well as the highlighting the need for addressing adoption barriers.
The Executive Order, while light on details is never the less laudable in that it addresses emerging technologies proactively. It will be essential that the security implications are the initial focus, as the path to failure will most certainly fall in the areas of confidence and privacy. It will be imperative that legislators with their private sectors counterparts take up the mantle of defining meaningful guidelines quickly and comprehensively in Order to decrease threats to our population, business innovation, and our future democracy.“
Bryan Smith – NSI Senior Fellow; former Budget Director, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
“The President’s Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence is an impressive ‘plan for the plan’ (or to be precise, a plan for several related plans). This is a thoughtful and well-constructed architecture for all the work the federal government needs to accomplish, in close collaboration with its many partners, domestically and world-wide. The E.O. underscores the critical importance and wide-sweeping nature of artificial intelligence, which is already permeating every business vertical and horizontal, and even our every-day lives. A.I. promises to be just as transformational for national security.
Even so, the seminal developments in A.I. will continue to come from gifted mathematicians and scientists in universities and technology companies in every corner of the globe, supported by investors with foresight, patience, and high tolerance for risk. There is a parallel here with the recent transformation of oil and gas production through hydro-fracture and horizontal drilling. American politicians routinely called for American energy independence, but this dream could only become reality through the genius of a modest number of technical innovators, backed by private investors willing to bet the house on them.“
Glenn Sulmasy – NSI Visiting Fellow; Provost and Chief Academic Officer, Bryant University
“President Trump’s Executive Order today – the American AI Initiative (AAII) – is welcome news to many within national security circles, as well as academics and administrators in higher education. We need bold policy statements, such as this, to be the catalyst for Americans to recognize the importance AI will play in ALL of our lives within the next two-to-three years, and beyond. This ‘call to action’ should be viewed as analogous to Kennedy’s charge for Americans to be the first to put a ‘man on the moon.’
Artificial intelligence is coming at us quicker than workplace revolutions of the past. This so called 4th Industrial Revolution is one that will continue to evolve and will be incredibly disruptive to our workplace. Beyond the call to research and development, there needs to be a consciousness of what AI will do the workplace within American society. While essential for the AAII to emphasize R&D, the document goes further to prioritize fellowship and training programs to help American workers gain AI-relevant skills. The beauty of the document is that it demonstrates the will of the government, and the American need, to place appropriate emphasis on AI, it goes further to recognize and prepare for the disruptive nature of the technology that will accompany the new armies of robots.
Within higher education, it is critical to get ahead of the coming robot revolution. The AAII must continue to support, not just graduate programs, but undergraduate programs that are dedicated to Artificial Intelligence. Universities must adapt quickly to the changing environment to ensure the students matriculating have at least some basic competencies within the AI domain. This baseline knowledge will be required by all students graduating by 2022. As such, my hope is the administration will partner with universities to ensure learning outcomes within all disciplines soon require some form of ‘data literacy.’ To do otherwise, at this juncture in history, would be for academicians to commit malpractice.
While we appropriately race to compete with the EU and China (who are clearly dedicated to making major advances in AI before the US to gain myriad advantages), it remains important to reflect upon the words of the internationally known late genius Stephen Hawking’s warning, ‘The genie is out of the bottle. We need to move forward on artificial intelligence development but we also need to be mindful of its very real dangers. I fear that AI may replace humans altogether. If people design computer viruses, someone will design AI that replicates itself. This will be a new form of life that will outperform humans.’“
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this analysis are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Security Institute or any agency of the U.S. government. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the National Security Institute or any U.S. government entity.
This NSI Law and Policy Paper:
The authors highlight the top considerations for the 116th Congress:
Please see NSI’s full policy paper HERE.
About the authors:
Loren Dealy Maher is a Visiting Fellow at NSI and is the President at Dealy Mahler Strategies. She is a strategic leader with high-level government and private sector experience across national security, strategic communications and crisis management.
Matthew F. Ferraro is a Visiting Fellow at NSI and is a Senior Associate at WilmerHale. He is a former intelligence officer who writes widely on national security and legal issues.
