Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Former national security officials say transition delay poses big risk

Former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden

Former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden is among 161 former national security officials urging the Trump administration to share information with President-elect Joe Biden.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Thirteen dozen former national security officials, who served President Trump and predecessors of both parties, warned Thursday that a "serious risk to national security" has been created by the administration's refusal to formally recognize Joe Biden as president-elect.

Their declaration was the latest escalation of apprehension about the tenuous state of American democracy on the fifth day since election returns made clear Trump has been defeated.

Biden is on course to win 306 electoral votes and a popular vote margin above 5.3 million — at 51 percent, the biggest share for a candidate challenging an incumbent since Franklin D. Roosevelt defeated Herbert Hoover 88 years ago. Far from conceding defeat, though, Trump is holed up in the White House, helping raise money for a sprawling courthouse campaign in five swing states hoping to stall if not reverse the inevitable — so far, without offering any credible evidence he's a victim of significant election fraud.


Meantime, he has told administration officials to refuse all cooperation with the Biden transition. That has included the head of the General Services Administration, who has declined to follow her predecessors after all previous clearcut elections and sign the paperwork permitting the mechanics of the transfer of power to get started.

The former officials told GSA Administrator Emily Murphy to do so right away so Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris can see information "needed to address pressing national security issues, such as the President's Daily Briefing and pending decisions on possible uses of military force."

The signatories include former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden; retired Gen. Wesley Clark and former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power. Several of Trump's former ambassadors, National Security Council officials and Department of Homeland Security political appointees also signed.

Known colloquially as the PDB, the President's Daily Brief is a classified document compiled each morning for the president and his senior advisers by the director of national intelligence to assess the day's top national security threats and global hot spots. While Biden could not act, for the next 10 weeks, on anything he saw, it would inform his public statements and perhaps his national security appointments — and would allow him to be up to speed as soon as the decision-making falls to him.

The GSA administrator at the end of Bill Clinton's administration, David Barram, similarly declined to "ascertain" the 2000 winner until the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of George W. Bush — but Clinton allowed Bush to read the PDB throughout the six-week standoff over the tiny margin in Florida.

"In this moment of uncertainty, we must put politics aside," the letter to Murphy said. "Further delaying the Biden team's ability to access the President's Daily Briefing and other national security information and resources compromises the continuity and readiness of our national leadership, with immense national security stakes hanging in the balance."

By Thursday afternoon, at least five senior Republican senators had called separately for Biden to be given access to the intelligence briefings even while Trump continues to fight the election: Majority Whip John Thune of South Dakota, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Jim Lankford of Oklahoma

"It's probably the most important part of the transition," said Collins, a member of the Intelligence Committee.


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less