INTL613Wk8

Congress Foreign Relations & International Law Terrorism & Extremism

e Senate Examines reats to the Homeland

William Ford

Thursday, November 7, 2019, 5:47 PM

Share On:

On Nov. 5, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

Committee examined three evolving homeland security threats: domestic

terrorism, Chinese cyber and counterintelligence operations, and the risk

new technologies pose to the American public.

FBI Director Christopher Wray (Source: Flickr/Federal Bureau of Investigation)

On Tuesday, Nov. 5, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental

Affairs Committee held a hearing on the evolving threats facing the

United States. The committee heard testimony from several senior

government of�cials: Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI; Russell

Travers, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC);

and David Glawe, the undersecretary of homeland security for

intelligence and analysis.

In their written and opening remarks, the witnesses outlined a dizzyingly

broad array of threats—from domestic and international terrorism to

transnational organized crime, cyber and economic espionage, election

interference, data insecurity, and potential chemical and biological

attacks on the homeland.

But as the hearing wore on, senators’ questions and witness testimony

narrowed in scope, focusing primarily on three aspects of America’s

security challenges: how to optimize information sharing to combat

domestic terrorism; how to counter Chinese cyber and

counterintelligence operations; and how to address the growing

problems posed by new technologies, namely, ransomware,

cryptocurrency and unmanned aerial systems (UASs). Wray testi�ed

repeatedly that homegrown violent extremists (HVEs)—individuals

inspired by the virulent ideology of the Islamic State and al-Qaeda but

not formally af�liated with the groups (the bureau uses HVE to describe

Islamist terrorism, not white nationalist violence)—pose the single

greatest threat to Americans’ lives, but HVEs received less attention in

the hearing than the aforementioned policy concerns.

With the mass shootings of the summer and the recent arrest of a man

plotting to bomb a Colorado synagogue in mind, senators seemed intent

on ensuring that the senior of�cials before them were coordinating an

all-of-government response to domestic terrorism. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema

asked the witnesses how they planned to enhance information sharing

between federal, state, and local law enforcement to ensure that entities

across government have appropriate access to information on threats

and trends in domestic terrorist suspects’ behavior. Wray testi�ed that

the FBI engages daily with state and local law enforcement, most

signi�cantly through its joint terrorism task forces (JTTFs). He explained

that 200 JTTFs exist across the country. And in many cases, task force

of�cers are state and local law enforcement of�cials who work full or

part time on the FBI task forces. The director also noted that the FBI and

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regularly disseminate

bulletins to state and local law enforcement with granular detail on the

agencies’ perception of the threats Americans face, including domestic

terrorism threats. Glawe added that his of�ce hosts the Homeland

Security Information Network, which facilitates the sharing of “sensitive

but unclassi�ed” information compiled by FBI, DHS, state and local

partners, and the private sector on the threats facing American

communities. The undersecretary testi�ed that overall engagement with

the network has risen substantially in the past two years, jumping from

17,000 views in 2017 to more than 90,000 in 2019. He attributed this to

DHS’s efforts to draw attention to the detailed resource.

The witnesses recognized, however, that domestic terrorism, a term

often used to refer to white supremacist violence, is hardly a purely

domestic phenomenon. Indeed, Travers described the concept of

“domestic terrorism” as “a bit of a misnomer” given the transnational

links between these violent extremists. As Wray explained, white

supremacists and neo-Nazis in the U.S. frequently connect with like-

minded individuals from other countries online, and some have even

traveled abroad to train. Accordingly, Wray said, the U.S. is working

extensively with its partners in the Five Eyes Alliance—Australia,

Canada, the U.K. and New Zealand—and with other countries to tackle

this threat. Travers added that NCTC brings both “analytic horsepower”

and extensive collection capabilities to bear on the international side of

the problem, complementing the FBI’s work.

Senators were also acutely concerned with the threat China poses to

American national and economic security. Sen. Mitt Romney, for

instance, decried China’s “hourly” incursions into U.S. corporate and

government databases. He pointedly asked the government’s witnesses

whether there were ways to limit these incursions other than by

adopting a policy he termed “mutually assured disruption”—a reference

to the Cold War nuclear doctrine of mutually assured destruction. A

posture of mutually assured disruption, Romney suggested, would

involve persistent and severe U.S. cyberattacks on Chinese government

and business databases, a move that Romney argued would vastly

increase the costs of China’s incursions into American systems. Wray

countered that offensive cyber operations are effective but not the only

way to push back against Beijing’s aggression. The FBI director

submitted that cybersecurity today is more about detecting and

mitigating incursions than preventing them outright. In particular, the

director highlighted the FBI’s efforts to help the private sector to better

defend itself against foreign incursions, stating that the bureau’s focus,

in tandem with DHS, is to collaborate closely with companies to identify

cyber threats, isolate and con�ne the problems and prevent any damage

from worsening.

Sen. Josh Hawley pressed the witnesses on a related problem he

believes receives too little attention: the practice of U.S. companies

storing large amounts of consumer and corporate data in China. Wray

noted that the bureau is deeply concerned about this practice because

Chinese laws require that the communist government have sweeping

access to data stored in the country.

Senators turned their focus next to the issue of Chinese

counterintelligence operations and theft of American intellectual

property. Pointing to Canada’s arrest of Huawei’s chief �nancial of�cer,

Meng Wanzhou, Sen. Ron Johnson asked whether the U.S. government

should direct law enforcement to deny entry into the U.S. for

management-level of�cials in Chinese companies. While acknowledging

the important role law enforcement plays in countering China and

holding it accountable for intellectual property theft, Wray stressed that

a more effective counterintelligence strategy would integrate trade,

diplomacy and engagement from the private sector and academic

institutions. To minimize the success of Chinese counterintelligence, the

FBI director contended that companies should �re individuals who

violate the terms of their contract by stealing U.S. secrets or intellectual

property, and that universities should terminate researchers who do the

same. The FBI, Wray continued, is “more forward-leaning” now than it

has previously been in providing universities and private sector entities

with detailed information about the Chinese threat. The hope is that

companies and universities will voluntarily begin to protect themselves

from Chinese assets and exploitation. Though universities’ responses

and level of cooperation with the FBI have varied, Wray noted that he

has been “quite encouraged” by a number of universities, which have

agreed to a partnership with the bureau.

When asked whether the bureau has suf�cient resources to combat

Chinese counterintelligence operations, Wray stated that the FBI’s

counterintelligence division is “in need of growth and resources.” He

underscored the division’s need for more linguists and “data analytics” to

make sense of the terabytes of data the FBI receives and collects. The

director did not specify what he meant by “data analytics,” however—

whether more data analysts, new software programs, both, or something

else altogether.

As for the growing threat technology poses to homeland security, Sen.

Maggie Hassan asked Wray to discuss what the FBI is doing to track and

counter ransomware attacks on businesses and healthcare providers.

Wray noted that ransomware attacks have increasingly targeted small

municipalities and involved enterprise-level assaults that infect every

computer in an organization. The FBI director testi�ed that the bureau,

in some cases, has been able to reverse engineer decryption keys that

allowed companies to regain control of their systems. But Wray offered

up little additional information, save a broad comment about the

bureau’s joint efforts with DHS to address the problem.

The hearings revealed that terrorists, too, have become increasingly

adept at using technology to achieve their aims. Sen. Romney asked

whether Congress should take action to address the burgeoning

problem of cryptocurrency, particularly as it relates to terrorism. Wray

agreed that something must be done, but cautioned that he was unsure

whether adding new regulation would be the appropriate response. The

FBI, he continued, approaches the cryptocurrency problem from an

investigative perspective, and accordingly works to �nd ways to

continue to “follow the money” even though cryptocurrency complicates

that task by “anonymizing” terrorists’ transactions. Earlier in the hearing,

Travers testi�ed that terrorists have already turned to cryptocurrency

to fund their operations and will continue to do so in the future.

Finally, senators pressed the witnesses to elaborate on the threat of UAS

attacks on critical infrastructure and large public gatherings. Glawe

remarked that DHS has documented an increase in drone incursions

over critical infrastructure. And while Wray noted that the FBI and DHS

appreciated the drone legislation Congress passed last year—referring

to the Preventing Emerging Threats Act, which gave DHS the authority

to identify, monitor, track, disrupt, seize control of, or use reasonable

force to destroy UAS endangering public safety—he added that state and

local law enforcement hope to obtain similar authorities to confront the

problem and that the bureau will soon send a report to Congress on gaps

it has identi�ed in its existing authorities. Johnson, the committee

chairman, seemed unsurprised to hear this, saying that he always

considered last year’s legislation to be a �rst step in a longer process of

addressing the dangers of drones. Wray concluded by stating that the

FBI continues to work with DHS and the Departments of Justice,

Defense and Transportation to �nd safer means of addressing the threat

that UAS poses to large civilian areas.

While senators asked a number of insightful initial questions, they often

failed to follow up on some of the most important points the witnesses

made in response. When Sen. Thomas Carper asked Wray about

America’s partnership the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, for

instance, Wray responded that the FBI “and others” have conducted

biometric “enrollment” of ISIS �ghters on the battle�eld. That is, the

bureau and its counterparts have �ngerprinted and taken DNA samples

from ISIS insurgents, and made that information available to America

and its allies to advance efforts to capture insurgents who �ee Syria.

Glawe noted that the collection of biometric information is crucial for

DHS given the agency’s responsibility for vetting individuals entering

the U.S. But neither Carper nor any other senator inquired further about

the status of this biometric enrollment. That left several important

questions unasked, particularly about the progress the intelligence

community made in biometric enrollment, how recent upheaval in

northeast Syria has affected enrollment, and how the administration

plans to resume �ghters’ enrollment if instability in the northeast has

disrupted that process.

Earlier in the hearing, senators also failed to follow up on a series of

incisive points that Travers made in his opening statement. The NCTC

director noted that “looking out �ve years, we are particularly

concerned with the growing adverse impact encryption will have on our

counterterrorism efforts.” The director also stressed that military and

law enforcement operations alone will not eliminate terrorism. That

terrorist groups are far more numerous today than they were on 9/11,

he said, is proof enough of the grave threat the groups continue to pose.

To address that threat adequately, Travers contended, the U.S. and its

allies must do more in the “non-kinetic realm to deal with radicalization

and underlying causes.” But senators neither pushed the director to

elaborate on what a better, “non-kinetic” strategy might entail nor

pressed him to speak about the problems encrypted communications

pose, or about potential solutions to those problems. Instead, Travers’s

remarks—some of the most emphatic and astute at the hearing—likely

became passing and forgotten blips on a cluttered Senate radar.

William

Ford

William Ford is an impact associate at Protect Democracy. He

previously was an appellate litigation fellow in the New York

Attorney General's Of�ce and a research intern at Lawfare. He

holds a bachelor's degree with honors from the College of the

Holy Cross. Read More