Friday News Roundup — February 9, 2024
This past week was especially consequential both for U.S. domestic and foreign policy. After Senate Republicans overwhelmingly rejected a negotiated, bipartisan deal that tied increased border security to tens of billions of dollars of support for allies Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, enough GOP Senators voted to advance a standalone bill for allied support to put it over a 60-vote threshold. As of this writing the allied support bill still faces multiple rounds of likely amendment votes before the Senate convenes for a planned two-week recess.
Meanwhile, across the street from the Capitol, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case considering whether Colorado can ban Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump from the ballot based on a provision of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution barring former public officials from serving again in the government if they engaged in insurrection. The tough questioning of Colorado officials from the court’s conservative majority led many observers to predict that they would side with the former president.
Tragically, the U.S. military confirmed that five U.S. Marines who were aboard a transport helicopter that crashed in the mountains outside San Diego during stormy weather this week perished in the accident. The names of the Marines killed were being withheld as of this writing pending notification of their next of kin.
In the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a proposed deal to release Israeli hostages in Gaza in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and an extended ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war. Netanyahu called a Hamas counteroffer “delusional” and promised Israeli forces would keep fighting until they achieved a “complete victory.” Those comments contrasted sharply with those of U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who was in the region conducting shuttle diplomacy and vowed to continue pursuing a ceasefire deal that freed the remaining hostages.
In other regional news, U.S. forces launched an airstrike that killed a militia commander in Baghdad thought to be behind a recent attack on a U.S. base in Jordan that killed three U.S. service members. The second U.S. military strike against a militia leader in the Iraqi capital in recent weeks prompted intensifying calls in Baghdad for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from that country.
Following weeks of speculation, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week fired his top military leader, Army Commander Valery Zaluzhnyi. The shakeup comes at a crucial juncture, with critical U.S. military aid to the embattled country stalled in Congress, and Russian forces reportedly gaining momentum and initiative in recent fighting. The relationship between the two Ukrainian leaders had been increasingly tense after the failure of a summer counteroffensive by Ukrainian forces, and comments by Zaluzhnyi late last year that the conflict had reached a “stalemate.”
In lighter news, Americans are settling down this weekend to watch its most beloved sports spectacle, with the Kansas City Chiefs and San Francisco 49ers set to clash in Sunday’s Super Bowl LVIII. In early betting, it seems doubtful that Taylor Swift will be able to attend to watch the play of her boyfriend, Kansas City Chief Travis Kelce, as she is in Japan this week as part of the international leg of her blockbuster Eras tour.
The U.S.-China Race for “Geotech” Supremacy
Dan Mahaffee
As part of an “economic working group” established last year, U.S. and Chinese officials held talks this week in Beijing to discuss macro-economic relations, investment-screening regimes, and debt coordination. The talks are part of a broader effort by President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping — after they met last November — to lower spiraling tensions in the relationship between the world’s status quo and ascendant superpowers. The goal is to avoid conflict even as the two geopolitical rivals engage in fierce competition, and pursue policies to protect each nation’s economic and national security.
The meeting comes as tensions and serious disagreements remain, however, over the status of Taiwan, China’s bullying tactics in the South China Sea, protectionist measures and tariffs adopted by both countries, and recent reports by the FBI that Chinese cyber-hackers have infiltrated major nodes of U.S. critical infrastructure in preparation for an actual attack if it comes to actual conflict.
As part of our long-standing “Geotech Project” charting the competition between the United States and China for supremacy in the technologies that will shape the future, the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress (CSPC) has closely tracked recent efforts by U.S. policymakers and lawmakers to promote U.S. development and the manufacture of critical strategic technologies, while also raising export barriers to protect U.S. and allied technology from finding its way into authoritarian hands.
A Watershed Moment
Promotion of U.S. technology and innovation leadership was greatly enhanced in recent years with the passage of the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, and the more partisan Inflation Reduction Act. Major questions still remain, however, about the overall impact of these legislative packages, the long-term support needed for domestic high-tech industries, and how these measures fit within the broader ecosystem of American innovation in critical technologies and green energy.
While promoting innovation and domestic manufacturing at home, and “nearshoring” and “friendshoring” to reduce reliance on geopolitically unreliable supply chains in China, U.S. policymakers have also sought to strengthen protections applied to U.S. technology. For instance, efforts are underway to help ensure that U.S. funds are not knowingly or unknowingly financing Chinese technological and military innovation. The U.S. government is thus moving more assertively than at any time in recent memory in the Geotech competition.
The Biden administration’s shift to openly restricting and disrupting Chinese development in critical technologies such as artificial intelligence, facial recognition, and advanced telecommunications systems represent a potential watershed moment. It reflects the fact that U.S. officials and lawmakers no longer see China’s rapid advancement in a host of critical technologies as benign or mutually beneficial, and both countries are now clearly seeking a technological advantage.
This recognition has led to a rare bipartisan consensus among U.S. policymakers and lawmakers on the need to strengthen and harmonize export controls, and push forward with outbound investment reviews. Indeed, a White House Executive Order started that review process, and Congressional pressure and proposals have pushed it forward.
Previously Congress tended to consider outbound investment reviews and enhanced export controls as an “either…or” proposition. The focus was on combining technology protections with manufacturing incentives to steer innovation and production away from China, and towards the United States and its allies and overseas partners.
Congress Hardening Restrictions
However, the fairly recent unveiling of the Huawei Pro Mate 60 phone, which includes a microprocessor more advanced than controls on U.S. and allied technology should have allowed, has shifted opinion in Congress. Lawmakers are now contemplating more stringent controls on U.S. technology and expertise that are being shared with China. Measures to better harmonize export controls and strengthen and institutionalize outbound investment reviews are being considered.
Of course, the devil is in the details. On the one hand, there is considerable unity in views on the importance of these measures, and on the Geotech competition writ large. On the other hand, there are still differences in philosophy regarding the scope and role of the federal government in setting industrial and technology policy. Similarly, some lawmakers are laser focused on the China challenge, while others take a more holistic approach that considers the wider impact of government regulations on U.S. innovation leaders and their business models. There is concern among U.S. and allied technology companies that government regulations, protections and subsidies will create second- and third-order effects that hamper innovation.
With new export controls and regulations already in place and implementation only beginning, it will take time to fully consider their impact. Chinese leaders continue to characterize these actions as U.S. provocations based on unfounded paranoia. Measures to address the risk of China dominating a critical technology sector must thus be well-founded, carefully communicated both to the private sector and to allies and overseas partners, and designed to give policymakers a wide range of effective tools. As the saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Indeed, a lack of flexibility and nuance in the application of economic security tools could significantly harm U.S. industry, and invite retaliation by economic foes and friends alike. Proposed measures will be difficult to implement if the economic pain proves greater than any security benefit. Overly securing or restricting U.S. technology could discourage international cooperation, even in areas where we can work with allies to push back against China’s forced standards. If there is a perception that the U.S. response to China’s technological advances is driven by populism, protectionism, or politics, rather than grounded in valid security concerns, then we are unlikely to marshal the critical support of our allies.
While U.S. officials and lawmakers may believe they are only hamstringing China with their reviews and restrictions, in reality the price of compliance with these regulations will fall on U.S. companies, and the lost opportunity costs will be reflected in U.S. jobs, investment and competitiveness.
Securing our technology advantages cannot come at the cost of American economic and business dynamism. The ultimate goal must be to secure our most sensitive technologies, while also creating an appealing alternative to China’s “geotech” advancements.
Dan Mahaffee is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Geotech Project at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress (CSPC)
Short on new recruits, Air Force seeks old heads instead
Ethan Brown
This week, the Air Force — struggling to address recruiting shortfalls for several consecutive years — has reinstated a program intended to lure commissioned and non-commissioned personnel out of retirement from the military for critically-manned, “Voluntary Retired Return to Active Duty” Program (VRRAD).
Up to 1,000 retired officers and enlisted personnel per year are enabled to return to the ranks of the force under this charter, which the service initiates as a means to “leverage the talents of our highly trained and experienced military retirees to help minimize the services critical manning shortages.” Those recruiting shortages are a serious issue facing the U.S. military writ large, not merely the Air Force (and an issue I’ve covered extensively in recent months). For the first time since 1999, the Air Force missed its recruiting goals across its Active, Guard, and Reserve components, mirroring the struggles across the defense enterprise writ large to attract the next generation of American airmen.
The call for retirees is certainly not a ‘fix’ or ‘solution’, and shouldn’t be perceived as such. However, the measure is a reflection of the dire situation in which the world’s most powerful force (No offense to the U.S. Navy) finds itself: unable to restock the coffers of its human hardware inventory at a time when international instability, potential for confrontation (read: China, the Middle East yet again) and a transformative era in the service’s history make for a challenging confluence of circumstances.
The prevailing question, then, is why does the Air Force, and the DoD writ large, find itself in this struggle to sign new recruits, to the point that they must offer a return-to-service option for those who had already done their time and earned the right to retire, as opposed to those who simply served a single tour of duty and then returned to civilian life?
On the darker, more embittered end of the debate, the military makes acute specialists out of those who join in ranks in many circumstances. For my own unique perspective and experience: as a former Forward Air Controller (TACP) in the Air Force. Ironically, Special Warfare, the exclusive segment of the Air Force to which TACP belongs, is one of those critically-manned, and now undermanned, career fields targeted by the VRRAP. Just like I warned against over a year ago. Briefly, and returning to the thesis, my Air Force occupational specialty was to control airstrikes while embedded with Joint Special Operations teams… not much call for that highly-particular skill set in the civilian world. So many of these career fields who are eligible for the return of staffing-level personnel — Staff Sergeant (E-5) through Senior Master Sergeant (E-8), and lower-grade officers (O-3 through O-5) — which includes pilots, intelligence, weather, cyber, Special warfare, Science/research, Air traffic control, logistics management and many others, are highly sought-after capabilities which, once developed, are tremendous civilian opportunities for those veterans who hung up their boots after honorable service. Those specializations also abuse the personnel to the utmost, by way of overworking and under caring for those individuals by way of competitive pay, healthcare shortfalls, substandard living conditions for lower-ranking personnel, and not to mention the politicization of the military in an increasingly volatile environment post-COVID.
More pragmatically, there are myriad issues that challenge the recruiting offices in the United States that go beyond the simple struggle of convincing young American’s to sell years of their life for taxpayer compensation and the 10% discount at hardware stores. Again, as I’ve previously argued, the last twenty years of failing to align national defense resources against a long-term, viable strategy for our servicemen and women has caused the next generation to question the viability of national service. When our policy makers can’t craft coherent grand strategy for our military to vector its considerable resources, even though the budget for its existence never wanes and only grows, the next generation — those who grew up watching the Post-9/11 wars take their toll on American society — can’t help but wonder “why should I?”
So the startling reality is, when the Air Force is asking retirees to come back to service as a stopgap measure to this crisis, the problem is as pervasive as it is complicated. There are, however, options and alternatives which the defense enterprise can and must consider for redressing the crisis.
A common statistic for recruiting problems cites that less than a quarter of Americans are even eligible for service-entry. Obesity and physical health are a main disqualifier, but prior drug use, misdemeanors, and mental health diagnosis (issues like ADHD or assignment to somewhere on the autism spectrum) are similarly significant barriers to service. Those detractors have obvious merit for specific applications: an overweight American who is unable to achieve peak physical fitness certainly has no place in the Navy SEALs or Army Rangers, for example.
Yet for instances such as mental health diagnosis, those are barriers which have rational explanations: as society has become more aware of mental health (and thus, means and methods to manage it in younger generations), those shouldn’t endure as all-encompassing barriers to service. Ditto for juvenile criminal records. Certainly, serious conditions: violent crime, acute mental instability, or similar significant issues, should continue to disqualify for service. However, if an aspiring applicant admits to being diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder (ADD) as a child, that shouldn’t automatically preclude them from service… This is 100% an actual disqualification for military service. An associate of mine whom I spoke with regarding research on the current recruiting crisis shared a personal account of his recent disqualification to the Air Force reserves… for having admitted to seeking mental health counseling while serving as an Active Duty Army officer.
The Air Force doesn’t need to solicit old heads who have honorably done their time, it and its sister services need to seriously reconsider the existing barriers to service that originated decades ago, and examine means of redressing quality of life for its servicemembers. Combining those initiatives with an emphasis on remaining apolitical and constitutionally-devoted (and thus, avoiding politicization by abusive bureaucrats) will resolve the recruiting crisis at scale and leave short-sighted measures like this in the past where they belong.
Ethan Brown is a Senior Fellow at CSPC
American Immigration Policy Part I: A Brief History
Greyson Hunziker
On January 7, a CBS News and YouGov poll found that 45 percent of Americans view the situation at the southern border as a crisis. The recent failure of the bipartisan immigration and foreign aid bill in the Senate can only have increased concerns. Already, polls suggest that immigration and the southern border will be among the top issues for voters in November. Its prominence as a major issue is likely to grow, and there is widespread, bipartisan agreement that the U.S. immigration system is broken and needs reform, but little agreement on how best to fix it.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to define, but not to regulate, immigration. Initially, Congress set the parameters and states regulated naturalization. For a long time, the United States borders were generally open to immigrants, and immigrants could seek citizenship. Often, immigration restrictions went unenforced. The new nation wanted to rapidly increase its population for economic, security, and longevity reasons.
Over time, however, immigration policy and citizenship requirements became more restrictive. The first act defining naturalization was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which allowed citizenship to free white persons of good character who had resided in the United States for two years and took an oath of allegiance. In 1795, the residency requirement was raised to five years, and citizenship seekers had to declare intent to naturalize three years before doing so.
Congress began indirectly regulating immigration with an 1819 law that limited the number of passengers a ship could carry. This led to increased travel prices and reduced the number of poor immigrants who could afford passage. In the 1860s, a war-stricken United States once again sought to encourage immigration. Congress allowed naturalization-eligible immigrants to receive land grants under the Homestead Act, for instance, and employers were allowed to recruit and pay foreigners. The Lincoln Administration also negotiated a treaty to allow Chinese people to emigrate legally.
The United States later reversed course on encouraging immigration, especially that of Chinese and other Asian people. Even after the 14th Amendment’s passage, the Naturalization Act of 1870 only allowed naturalization to white and black people. The U.S. began enforcing some unenforced laws and imposed a head tax on foreign passengers. The first two proper federal immigration laws — the 1875 Page Act and the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act — effectively banned Chinese women and then Chinese immigration writ large. These acts ended the open borders policy and began an exclusionary immigration policy. Then, throughout the middle of the 19th century a series of Supreme Court decisions expanded Congressional power over immigration. These culminated with Chae Chan Ping v. United States in 1889, which recognized an implied power of Congress to regulate immigration.
Nativism Grows
The era of exclusionary policy reflected a time when nativism and anti-immigration sentiments were widespread and growing. The United States imposed immigration restrictions based on origin, socioeconomic class, disabilities, political ideology like anarchism, and practices like polygamy and prostitution. Just before and after the turn of the century, Congress added to the list of excluded immigrants and expanded the power of deportation. In 1917, Congress overrode President Wilson’s veto of an act imposing literacy tests and measures to limit Asian and African immigration.
After World War I, a wave of immigrants led to more restrictive policies. In 1921, the Emergency Quota Act became law. Before this act, any migrant could enter the United States except those excluded by law. This act transformed the immigration system to one in which no migrant is allowed to enter except those permitted by law. The act only set quotas for the Eastern Hemisphere, favoring Western and Northern Europe to match the existing population’s ancestry, but it excluded immediate family from the quota cap. The 1924 National Origins Act reduced the quota, created a visa system, and required the deportation of migrants who entered illegally. Around 175,000 illegal entries occurred annually. These acts and the Depression contributed to a sharp decline in immigration, which did not help the broken economy.
The next significant change in immigration policy came with the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which abolished the national origin quota system. While the act still set limits, they were not based on origin and aimed at preserving the status quo ancestral makeup of the populace. This act limited both hemispheres, capped any one country at 20,000 immigrants, and favored families and workers. It led to an increase in immigration, including illegal immigration, without a way for lower-skilled workers to legally immigrate and work.
The Modern System
From this point on, the major policy concerns were legalizing illegal immigrants and cracking down on further illegal immigration. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act granted amnesty to illegal immigrants and increased immigration law enforcement, especially concerning employers who hired illegal immigrants. The Immigration Act of 1990 increased the number of green cards and the per-country limits by seven percent. This act led to a 40 percent increase in annual legal immigration, but illegal immigration increased as well, leading to calls for more enforcement. Beginning in 1996, several acts began to increase border patrol and decrease immigrant rights. By 2006, the Secure Fence Act led to 650 miles of fencing on the southern border.
While the need for immigration reform has increased, so has the gridlock in Congress. The Obama administration not only imposed a crackdown on illegal immigration with record numbers of deportations, but it also marked a shift to executive action in immigration policy. Obama took executive action by introducing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which allows deferment of deportation for people who were illegally brought to the United States as children.
The Trump administration also used executive action to restrict immigration. President Trump enacted a ban on several Muslim-majority countries, reduced visas and refugee allowances, and pushed through funding to begin constructing a wall on the southern border. The restrictions were much more severe during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Biden administration largely reversed these policies. In response to record numbers of southern border crossings, President Biden increased the limit for people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to 30,000 per month. President Biden has vowed to increase security at the border and crack down on illegal crossings. However, with an overwhelming backlog of asylum applicants, record numbers of immigrants, and a failed bipartisan Senate bill, Americans are demanding that politicians fix a broken system.
Greyson is an intern at CSPC
News You May Have Missed
Senegal’s President Calls Off National Election. Opponents Call It a “Coup.”
By Kurt Johnston
Senegal is the latest West African country to be struck by civil unrest. On Saturday, February 3rd, President Macky Sall postponed national elections scheduled to take place later this month, citing “a dispute between the legislative and judicial arms of government.” The decision — which reschedules elections for December 15th — was confirmed on Monday by Senegal’s National Assembly. Voting transpired as opposition MPs attempting to retain the February date were forcibly removed by security. The ensuing protests in Dakar led to police shooting tear gas and arresting scores of protesters. The Senegalese government also cut internet access to limit the “dissemination of several hateful and subversive messages.” Opponents argue the cutoff violated Senegalese rights to free expression and a free press.
The delayed elections mean President Sall will exceed his two-term limit. While Sall claims postponement is necessary to resolve electoral corruption, critics have described his decision as a “constitutional coup.” Sall is not expected to compete for a third term, but he may be attempting to influence election results in favor of his party. Senegal has neither postponed elections nor experienced a military coup in its history as an independent nation. Its democratic resilience had been a rarity for an increasingly tumultuous West Africa, where coups in Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso, and Niger have occurred within the last five years.
British and Irish Governments Downplay Sinn Féin’s Call for United Ireland
By Kurt Johnston
Northern Ireland’s government reconvened after a nearly two-year absence, led by new first minister Michelle O’Neill and deputy first minister Emma Little-Pengelly. Northern Ireland had been without a government since May 2022, when the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) left the government over Brexit-related customs checks. O’Neill, a member of the Irish republican political party Sinn Féin, is the first nationalist leader of the Northern Irish government since its creation in 1921. While Sinn Féin’s parliamentary majority has ignited talks of a unification referendum, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Ireland Taoiseach Leo Varadkar focused on day-to-day governance issues in their comments on Monday. The two heads of state both emphasized the public health and infrastructure benefits of a devolved government in Belfast. However, Sinn Féin’s push for a referendum and Brexit’s implications for the Northern Irish market threaten Northern Ireland’s government ahead of expected UK elections this fall.
China and U.S. Hold Talks as Trade Issues Heat Up on Campaign Trail
By Kurt Johnston
China’s finance ministry met with U.S. Treasury officials in Beijing this week, highlighting tariffs and sanctions they say restrict China’s economic growth. Much like President Joe Biden’s meeting with President Xi Jinping in November, reports from the Chinese press this week labeled meetings “positive” and “constructive.” The Biden Administration has made a concerted effort to limit Chinese access to high-performance semiconductors, and export controls established in 2022 and tightened in 2023 continue to restrict sales of “advanced chips” to China. Continued tariffs and tensions over Taiwan have also stunted trade between the US and China. In related news, on Wednesday the New York Times reported imports from Mexico exceeded imports from China for the first time since 2003. Former President Trump has promised to levy further tariffs if elected in November, a policy that investors have argued will cause severe damage to global markets. U.S. and Chinese officials are expected to meet again in April, with some observers predicting a second Beijing trip for Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
Kurt Johnston is an intern at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress
