Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Michael Sandel (clockwise from top left), Moshe Halbertal, and Sari Nusseibeh

‘What we really need is just to sit together and face each other’

Jared Kushner.

Jared Kushner speaks from Middle East experience in Kennedy School forum

Steve Kornacki.

Reading tea leaves with Steve Kornacki

Arizona's Lake Powell, the second biggest reservoir in the United States, dropped to record low water levels when drought hit the region this past summer.

Photo by Bill Clark via AP

How climate change will impact national security

Christina Pazzanese

Harvard Staff Writer

Belfer Center research director examines recent assessment from entire U.S. intelligence community

Rising temperatures and intensifying weather due to climate change, along with the unlikelihood of meeting the 2030 emissions goals of the Paris Agreement, will exacerbate geopolitical tensions, social instability, and the need for humanitarian aid, according to a joint report by the U.S intelligence community last month. The National Intelligence Estimate lays out the likely security implications over the next two decades of the mounting climate crisis. Calder Walton is assistant director for research at the Belfer Center’s Intelligence Project , which organized Harvard Kennedy School’s first conference on climate change and national security last spring. He spoke to the Gazette about the report and the important role the intelligence community should play in addressing the crisis. Interview is edited for clarity and length.

Calder Walton

GAZETTE: We hear about the threats posed by climate change from an environmental standpoint, but rarely about the risks and threats it poses to national security. How does the U.S. intelligence community view climate change, and is this a new domain?

WALTON: The purpose of the U.S. intelligence community, established after the Second World War in the wake of Pearl Harbor, was to provide policymakers with decision advantage and forewarning of threats to national security. If the primary purpose is to give decision advantages about national security threats, obviously, by definition, the U.S. intelligence community has to have a role giving key decision-makers their assessments about the greatest existential threat in human civilization: climate change. What is going to be the impact of changing climate on national security, economic society, civil society? And this isn’t just national security; this is international, globalized security. If we look at it like that, clearly, the U.S. intelligence community has to have a role. And they’re very, very late to the game.

GAZETTE: How are other intelligence services responding to climate change? Is any country leading the way?

WALTON: I don’t think anyone is a shining star in terms of taking this seriously. I have yet to find an example of a country that has an intelligence bureaucracy set up to really deal with this and to provide assessments about the national security implications of climate change to policy leaders in a sufficient way.

The overwhelming focus of intelligence communities across the globe is still on post-Cold War structures — stealing other people’s secrets. And we are now in an age of globalized challenges, the primary one being climate change, but also the bio revolution and biosecurity, cyber, and disinformation. Climate change and pandemics are linked; climate change will, scientists tell us, create more new disease outbreaks. And then, add in synthesized biology; we have cyber, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. These are globalized challenges that will affect societies across the world.

We are really at an inflection point in terms of the way that we understand intelligence and national security. U.S. national security and intelligence were built up to deal with blocs of states, first the fascist states and then Soviet communism. Nine-eleven was the first wake-up call about non-state actors, but the U.S. intelligence community still used the same framework of established bureaucracies built up in postwar years to deal with non-state actors. And now, with a pandemic and climate change, we’re seeing truly globalized challenges. It seems to me that we need to rethink how we understand intelligence to deal with it, geared to sharing global intelligence to deal with global challenges we face.

“Scarce resources leading to political violence, terrorism — that’s the kind of secondary threat progression that the U.S. intelligence community will be looking at.” Calder Walton

GAZETTE: What are the most important takeaways from this report?

WALTON: Let’s start with the basics: that climate change does pose a threat to U.S. national security. The National Intelligence Estimate is a joint assessment produced by the entire U.S. intelligence community, 18 agencies. That’s significant. There are no naysayers; there’s no doubt. So that’s a breakthrough. In this extraordinarily polarized and politicized environment, that is a big milestone itself.

There is a series of direct and indirect security threats that the report lays out. First and foremost, it says that it is likely that the temperature will rise by 1.5 degrees by 2030, which is the Paris Agreement target. So, we are unlikely to stop that from happening. And then, the report reveals the direct and indirect consequences of climate change: raising temperature and the inability of, as they see it, our decarbonization efforts to prevent that temperature rise in the U.S. Direct consequences relate to territorial integrity. The U.S. military’s been talking about rising sea levels on bases since the 1970s, if not earlier. Rising sea level, which is affecting how we’re undertaking military operations. And then, the secondary knock-on effects of population displacement, of civil disorder as key essentials become scarce, damage to crops, and economic realignment. Also, refugee crises or population displacement, and radicalization of people angry with their own government or willing to take action against countries that they regard as the big polluters. Scarce resources leading to political violence, terrorism — that’s the kind of secondary threat progression that the U.S. intelligence community will be looking at.

More like this

Robert Stavins.

Separating signal from noise at COP26

Protesters march through Glasgow during COP26.

After world leaders depart, hard talks begin at COP26

GAZETTE: China accounts for 30 percent of the world’s carbon emissions, followed by the U.S. Are the risks from climate change multiplying the existing concerns U.S. intelligence has about China, and does it change their approach?

WALTON: It is. What we’re witnessing is the combination of these global challenges to international security — biosecurity, natural and synthesized biology and pandemics, climate change, disinformation — being fused with great power, geopolitical conflicts. There’s this idea that we can either deal with the international security threats of climate change or China. But in reality, they are not mutually exclusive; they’re all interwoven. Climate change is now fused with geopolitics.

How is the U.S. intelligence community thinking about China and these issues? This is an area firmly within the traditional wheelhouse of what the U.S. intelligence community can do. The absolutely important information will be verification and attribution: whether China is adhering to its public statements about its carbon reduction. Is it being truthful or is it not being truthful? That’s where intelligence collection — human intelligence, signals intelligence, imagery intelligence from satellite, overhead reconnaissance, and open-source intelligence — is going to be absolutely key. Senior policymakers in Washington will say, “I need to know whether China is adhering to what they profess to be doing in terms of decarbonization.” So that will be a requirement set to the U.S. Intelligence Committee, to steal those secrets. That is not that different from what we’ve done in the past, and will be increasingly important.

There is a significant role the U.S. intelligence community could play and really, in my view, must play going forward. It’s disseminating its assessments, particularly from overhead satellite mapping, what the U.S. intelligence community is observing both on the territorial integrity of countries and population displacement. During the Ebola crisis, the U.S. National Geospatial Intelligence agency, through its satellite platforms, collected and then publicly disseminated via its website information about the spread of Ebola in West Africa. That is exactly the direction that we need to go in with climate change.

GAZETTE: What comes after this report? Is there a next step?

WALTON: The next step is for the U.S. intelligence community to say, “This is what we can deliver. We know what we need; we know what policymakers need to know; we know what the public needs to know; and this is how we can contribute to assessments and messaging and help shape public policy.” The worst thing they could do would be to set up a new bureaucracy within a particular agency and say, “We’re now doing climate change.” It’s time for some bold thinking. This is a profound existential crisis for the way we live our lives, and it’s time for profound thinking about intelligence to inform decision-making. Instead of the traditional focus of intelligence agencies to retain information because it is classified, it seems to me that when it comes to climate change the emphasis should be about publicly disseminating that intelligence. In other words, a reversal of tradition.

It’s incumbent for assessments to be as widely read as possible so that we understand this, so that members of the public can hold policymakers’ feet to the coals about making changes. There’s no good if we find out in 50 years’ time, they were being briefed on this. The stakes are too high for that.

You might like

Israeli, Palestinian philosophers exchange tales of personal loss, find points of contention, agreement over war

Jared Kushner.

Ex-Trump adviser criticizes Biden’s pre-Oct. 7 engagement in the region, defends Israel’s actions in Gaza

Steve Kornacki.

NBC, MSNBC analyst sees Democratic potential, but lots of slack, uncertainty ahead for both parties

So what exactly makes Taylor Swift so great?

Experts weigh in on pop superstar's cultural and financial impact as her tours and albums continue to break records.

Looking to rewind the aging clock

Harvard researchers create model that better measures biological age, distinguishes between harmful and adaptive changes during life

What do we do with our loneliness?

‘Harvard Thinking’ podcast explores condition with experts Jeremy Nobel and Milena Batanova

Ulkoministeriö / Utrikesministeriet

Government report discuses changes in Finland’s security environment

13.4.2022 14:08:25 EEST | Ulkoministeriö / Utrikesministeriet

government report on changes in the security environment

The war of aggression started by Russia is a blatant violation of international law and jeopardises the security and stability of the whole of Europe both over the short and long term. Russia's aggression is also a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The report describes this change. Finland will strengthen its preparedness and security in response to the changes in the operating environment.

Minister for Foreign Affairs Pekka Haavisto has led the Government-appointed coordination group and the foreign and security policy group in the preparation of the report. The foreign, security and defence policy section was discussed in meetings with the President of the Republic and the Ministerial Committee on Foreign and Security Policy. In addition, the Ministerial Working Group on Preparedness, the Ministerial Working Group on Internal Security and Strengthening the Rule of Law, and the Ministerial Working Group on the Digital Transformation the Data Economy and Public Administration deliberated other areas of the report.

“The report assesses the consequences of the changed security environment for Finland. The report is intended to provide Parliament the opportunity to engage in a broad and thorough debate on foreign, security and defence policy. Parliament is expected to respond to the report by issuing a parliamentary communication. This means the matter will then be referred back to the Government and the President of the Republic for consideration,” says Minister for Foreign Affairs Haavisto.

Finland is strengthening its security

The changed security environment calls for a reassessment of security policy. “In response to the changed security situation, Finland will continue active and proactive diplomacy, strengthen its security and its defence capability and intensify its long-term cooperation with key partners. Finland makes its foreign and security policy decisions independently,” says Minister for Foreign Affairs Haavisto.

The report examines actions to develop our national defence capability, the European Union as a security policy actor and closer bilateral cooperation with Sweden, Norway and other Nordic countries. It also discusses our relationship with the United States, the United Kingdom, NATO and our multilateral defence cooperation partners. The report describes the opportunities these forms of cooperation and partnerships provide Finland in the current security situation.

The role of the EU as a player in foreign policy, security policy and defence policy has strengthened. The more unified and stronger the EU is, the more secure is Finland’s position.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Finland has further deepened cooperation with NATO. Finland considers it important that NATO has consistently reaffirmed its open door policy. The report also presents an assessment the effects on Finland if Finland were to seek membership and describes the possible accession process. Maintaining national room to manoeuvre and freedom of choice remain integral parts of Finland's foreign, security and defence policy. Finland retains the option of joining a military alliance and applying for NATO membership. Solutions are always examined in real time.

The importance of society’s resilience and preparedness is highlighted

The report also describes preparedness for hybrid and cyber influence activities as well as the effects on and preparedness relating to internal security, civil defence, resilience, the economy, security of supply, the wider functions of society and critical infrastructure. The importance to Finland’s security of maintaining resilience in society, national defence and internal security is highlighted.

The active security policy debate in Finland is likely to be reflected in attempts to exert influence. The threshold for externally exerting influence on Finnish society will be heightened by means of preparedness in different administrative branches in line with the model for comprehensive security and by means of citizens’ resilience to crisis.

The report complements the Government Report on Finnish Foreign and Security Policy , Government Defence Report , Government Report on Internal Security , and Government Report on EU Policy .

Information on the handling of the report in Parliament is available on the Parliament website .

Johanna Sumuvuori, State Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, tel. +358 295 160 983 

Joel Linnainmäki, Special Adviser to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, tel. +358 295 350 466

Esa Pulkkinen, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Defence, tel. +358 295 140 120 (via Director of Communications Niina Hyrsky)

Secretariat for the Government report on changes in the security environment: 

Lauri Hirvonen, Counsellor, tel. +358 295 350 063, [email protected] 

Salla Sammalkivi, Counsellor, tel. +358 295 350 020, [email protected]

Karoliina Honkanen, Defence Policy Adviser, Ministry of Defence, tel. +358 295 140 354, firstname.lastname @gov.fi

Government report on changes in the security environment

government report on changes in the security environment

  • Ministry for Foreign Affairs

About Ulkoministeriö / Utrikesministeriet

Ulkoministeriö / Utrikesministeriet

Subscribe to releases from Ulkoministeriö / Utrikesministeriet

Subscribe to all the latest releases from Ulkoministeriö / Utrikesministeriet by registering your e-mail address below. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Latest releases from Ulkoministeriö / Utrikesministeriet

Ulkoministeriön tiedotteet ja uutiset tilattavissa valtioneuvoston verkkosivuilta 20.10.2023 10:30:25 eest | tiedote.

Ulkoministeriön tiedotteiden jakelu STT Infon kautta päättyy 20. lokakuuta. Ulkoministeriön tiedotteet julkaistaan jatkossa vain ulkoministeriön ja valtioneuvoston verkkosivuilla ja ne voi tilata sähköpostiin valtioneuvoston kautta. Mediakutsut lähetetään jatkossakin STT Infon kautta.

EU:s handelsministrar diskuterar den ekonomiska säkerheten och handelsrelationerna mellan EU och Indien 19.10.2023 10:31:13 EEST | Tiedote

Utrikeshandels- och utvecklingsminister Ville Tavio deltar i handelsministrarnas informella möte i Valencia, Spanien den 19-20 oktober. Ministrarna ska diskutera den ekonomiska säkerheten och handelsrelationerna mellan EU och Indien. Deltagarna får också en översikt över EU:s pågående förhandlingar om handelsavtal.

EU:n kauppaministerit keskustelevat taloudellisesta turvallisuudesta ja EU–Intia-kauppasuhteista 19.10.2023 10:31:13 EEST | Tiedote

Ulkomaankauppa- ja kehitysministeri Ville Tavio osallistuu EU:n kauppaministerien epäviralliseen kokoukseen Valenciassa, Espanjassa 19.–20. lokakuuta. Ministerit keskustelevat taloudellisesta turvallisuudesta sekä EU:n ja Intian välisistä kauppasuhteista. Lisäksi kokouksessa luodaan katsaus EU:n käynnissä oleviin kauppasopimusneuvotteluihin.

EU trade ministers to discuss economic security and EU–India trade relations 19.10.2023 10:31:13 EEST | Press release

Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Ville Tavio will attend an informal meeting of EU trade ministers in Valencia, Spain, on 19–20 October. The ministers will discuss economic security and trade relations between the EU and India. The ministers will also discuss the EU’s ongoing bilateral trade negotiations.

Utrikesministeriets enkätundersökning: ryssarna förhåller sig negativare till Finland, ungdomarna har positivare inställningar 13.10.2023 09:00:00 EEST | Tiedote

Enligt den av Finlands ambassad i Moskva beställda enkätundersökningen förhåller sig en dryg tredjedel av de ryssar som svarade på enkäten positivt till Finland. För ett år sedan uppgav ungefär hälften att de är positiva till Finland. Enligt enkätundersökningen har Finlands rykte försämrats främst av att ryska medier har gett en felaktig och negativ bild av Finlands Natomedlemskap. Ungdomarnas inställningar till Finland är positivare.

In our pressroom you can read all our latest releases, find our press contacts, images, documents and other relevant information about us.

clock This article was published more than  2 years ago

White House, intelligence agencies, Pentagon issue reports warning that climate change threatens global security

As the United States and nations around the world struggle to blunt the effects of rising temperatures and extreme weather, sweeping assessments released Thursday by the White House, the U.S. intelligence community and the Pentagon conclude that climate change will exacerbate long-standing threats to global security.

Together, the reports show a deepening concern within the U.S. security establishment that the shifts unleashed by climate change can reshape U.S. strategic interests, offer new opportunities to rivals such as China , and increase instability in nuclear states such as North Korea and Pakistan.

The reports emerge as world leaders prepare to gather in Glasgow, Scotland, next month for crucial U.N. climate talks. And the assessments suggest that the Biden administration is preparing to take on the national security consequences of global warming after four years of inaction under President Donald Trump. During his presidency, climate-related security assessments were routinely suppressed because they did not match his administration’s skeptical stance toward climate science.

Shortly after President Biden came into office, he ordered that climate change play a far more prominent role in U.S. security strategy.

Russia allows methane leaks at planet’s peril

The Pentagon report in particular marks a shift in how the U.S. military establishment is incorporating climate issues into its security strategy, analysts said. Until now, when the Defense Department has considered climate change, it has tended to focus on how floods and extreme heat can affect military readiness rather than the broader geopolitical consequences of a warming world. Now it is worried that climate change could lead to state failure.

“Climate change is altering the strategic landscape and shaping the security environment, posing complex threats to the United States and nations around the world,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a statement that accompanied the Pentagon report. “To deter war and protect our country, the [Defense] Department must understand the ways climate change affects missions, plans, and capabilities.”

The shift in Washington comes as militaries and security agencies around the world are accounting for global warming in their planning. At NATO, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg earlier this year made climate change a major focus of the defense alliance as it overhauls its strategic plans. The British military this spring unveiled a sustainability report that counsels a top-to-bottom overhaul of military operations to prepare for far more climate-related deployments in the coming decades.

The release of the U.S. assessments “sends a warning message ahead of next month’s U.N. summit of the grave risks that we’re facing and why it’s so critical. These reports are overdue,” said Erin Sikorsky, director of the Center for Climate and Security and a former senior U.S. intelligence official focused on climate issues.

Humanity’s greatest ally against climate change is Earth itself

The new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on climate, a first-of-its kind document by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, builds on other grim warnings from national security officials about how a changing climate could upend societies and topple governments.

“We assess that climate change will increasingly exacerbate risks to U.S. national security interests as the physical impacts increase and geopolitical tensions mount about how to respond to the challenge,” the document states. It also concludes that while momentum to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases is growing, “current policies and pledges are insufficient” to meet the goals that countries laid out in the landmark Paris climate accord .

A former senior intelligence official lauded the document’s contribution to understanding the security implications of climate change.

“This NIE represents a valuable iteration on findings from past intelligence assessments,” said Rod Schoonover , who was director of environment and natural resources at the National Intelligence Council in the Obama and Trump administrations.

“However, the report lacks a singular top-line statement that adequately conveys the seriousness and immediacy of the multifactorial risks associated with ongoing climate-linked stresses, and humanity’s tendency to increase its own vulnerability to these stresses,” Schoonover said in an email.

The NIE offers a dim assessment of the prospects for unified international action.

“Countries are arguing about who should act sooner and competing to control the growing clean energy transition,” it states, concluding that “most countries will face difficult economic choices and probably will count on technological breakthroughs to rapidly reduce their net emissions later.”

As developing and vulnerable nations cope with the effects, they may turn to Washington for help, “creating additional demands on U.S. diplomatic, economic, humanitarian, and military resources,” the report says.

The Pentagon warns that disruption to fisheries could spark conflict over food security. Unpredictable rainfall might increase tensions over access to rivers that cross national boundaries, such as the Nile and the Mekong. Even efforts to combat climate change could lead to unintended consequences, such as conflicts over access to the rare minerals that are needed to build circuitry and wind turbines.

The report says the Defense Department should ready itself to provide humanitarian assistance in climate crises, incorporate climate-related issues into its war-games — and also work on “countering malign actors who seek to exploit climate change to gain influence.” Some of the most specific analyses remained classified.

The White House report on migration, which examines the way climate change is driving human movement around the world, notes that drought and other extreme weather can spark conflicts and force population displacements — and that countries such as China and Russia are poised to take advantage.

“Absent a robust strategy from the United States and Europe to address climate-related migration, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Russia, and other states could seek to gain influence by providing direct support to impacted countries grappling with political unrest related to migration,” the White House report says.

It advocates expanding asylum and refugee programs to better take into account climate-driven migration. And it says that U.S. policymakers need to be ready to direct funding and resources toward regions that are facing influxes of migrants driven to move by extreme weather, droughts and climate-related conflicts. It cites one report that estimates that by 2050, up to 143 million people in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia could move for climate-driven reasons.

“We’re leaving climate-displaced people with valid asylum claims behind,” said Ama Francis, an analyst at the International Refugee Assistance Project.

To a significant degree, China will influence how quickly and how much global temperatures rise. The NIE notes that it accounts for about 30 percent of emissions globally, the largest single source.

But “modest reduction targets” in China’s long-term plans raise doubts about whether it will meet its reduction goals, the NIE finds.

“China has not publicly articulated detailed plans for meeting its 2060 net-zero emissions target; to do so, we assess that Beijing would need to follow through on President Xi Jinping’s pledge at the U.S. Climate Summit in April to phase out coal consumption,” the NIE said.

And that will be hard to do. China, along with India — the world's fourth-largest emitter — are incorporating more renewable and low-carbon sources of energy, the NIE says, “but several factors will limit their displacement of coal.”

The NIE concludes that geopolitical tensions are likely to rise in the coming decades as countries struggle to deal with the physical effects of climate change — which scientists say already is producing more devastating floods, fires and storms — as well as the political ones. Mitigating climate-related disasters may call for solutions that some countries cannot afford and political will that some leaders cannot muster.

The physical effects are likely to be most keenly felt in parts of the world already being reshaped — such as the Arctic — and in regions and countries that are particularly vulnerable because they experience extreme climate events, such as hurricanes or droughts, and because their governments are ill-equipped to manage the fallout.

The NIE identifies 11 countries in that category of acute risk: Afghanistan, Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iraq, Myanmar, North Korea, Nicaragua and Pakistan.

Major new climate study rules out less severe global warming scenarios

An NIE is a unique document in that it reflects the consensus view of all the U.S. intelligence agencies. Traditionally, producing the documents can take months, and they present the most comprehensive analysis of significant national security concerns. The NIE released publicly is unclassified, but a classified version will be provided to policymakers, officials said.

The report’s warnings build on years of intelligence analysis that also painted a bleak picture. Just six months ago, in its quadrennial “ Global Trends ” report, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence forecast that climate change could spawn social upheaval and political instability.

In one scenario, the authors imagined fisheries devastated by rising ocean temperatures and acidity, grain harvests depressed by changes in precipitation and rising food prices conspiring to trigger “widespread hoarding” that leads to a global famine — all by the early 2030s.

A wave of protest over “governments’ inability to meet basic human needs” could bring down leaders and governments, the report warned.

In 2014, the National Intelligence Strategy warned that climate change could spark new wars over water and other vital resources that are likely to become scarce.

The CIA also recently established a center to address what it describes as transnational security threats, including climate change.

government report on changes in the security environment

  • Advisory Board
  • Publications
  • Diplomacy and Development
  • Government Accountability Office
  • Homeland Security
  • Intelligence
  • National Academy of Sciences
  • White House and Interagency
  • Non-U.S. Governments, Regional and Int’l Institutions
  • Academic, Think Tank & NGO
  • Additional Sources

The Center for Climate & Security

Exploring The Security Risks of Climate Change

government report on changes in the security environment

Home » climate and security » RELEASE: Landmark Report from Security Experts Identifies Ecological Disruption as the 21st Century’s Most Underappreciated Security Threat

RELEASE: Landmark Report from Security Experts Identifies Ecological Disruption as the 21st Century’s Most Underappreciated Security Threat

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Report-Cover-Image_The-Security-Threat-That-Binds-Us-790x1024.png

Washington DC, February 9, 2021 – The Converging Risks Lab of the Council on Strategic Risks (CSR) released a landmark report today, The Security Threat That Binds Us , that identifies ecological disruption as a major and underappreciated security threat and calls on the United States to reboot its national security architecture and doctrine to better respond to this evolving threat landscape . Ongoing stresses to critical Earth systems, including to water, food, wildlife, forests and fisheries, heightens the risks of future pandemics, conflict, political instability, loss of social cohesion, economic harm, and other security outcomes.

Dr. Rod Schoonover , lead author of the report, Advisor at the Council on Strategic Risks, and former Director of Environment and Natural Resources at the National Intelligence Council , noted: “The past decade has seen a lot of deserved attention on the security implications of climate change, but the fraying of the ecological networks on which humanity depends, which is both interconnected with and distinct from climate change, poses a commensurate security threat. The U.S. and international security communities need to treat ecological disruption and climate change as conduits of serious security threats, rather than mere environmental concerns.”

The pathbreaking report , “ The Security Threat That Binds Us: The Unraveling of Ecological and Natural Security and What the United States Can Do About It ,” focuses on the security ramifications from large-scale destabilization and transformation of the biosphere, and ecosystems shifting to new baseline states. The report offers recommendations based on three fundamental precepts: heightened action from both the U.S. Congress and the Executive Branch to combat ecological and natural security disruptions; a greater infusion of science and scientific expertise into the national security communities; and a reboot of U.S. national security doctrine and architecture to tackle the modern threats presented by a changing planet and degradation of its embedded socio-ecological systems. Eight pillars of recommended actions by the United States include:

1. Promote International Mechanisms that Aim to Reverse and Reduce the Drivers of Ecological Disruption, which include:

Ratify the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the Law of the Sea; infuse ecological and natural security into climate change efforts; integrate sustainable agriculture and food supply into policy and science; and promote actions that combat overexploitation of natural resources

2. Promote Methods that Protect and Expand Critical Systems and Services, which include:

Counter harmful state actions towards critical resources; expand protected areas; better manage and protect protected areas; protect critical ecosystem services that span geographies

3. Build and Strengthen International Alliances, which include:

Assert global leadership on climate and ecological security; bring together ecological security communities; increase international communication on ecological risks; and develop, share, and collaborate on ecological defense frameworks

4. Treat Environmental Crimes as Serious Crimes, which include:

Prioritize anti-corruption efforts; target criminal markets as well as criminal groups; and move beyond seizures and promote effective prosecutions and deterrent penalties

5. Reduce Pandemic Risk at Point of Origin, which include:

Enhance monitoring, understanding of pathogen space, and pathogen early warning; increase assistance for One Health efforts; and address pandemic risk in the wildlife trade

6. Amplify Ecological and Natural Security Issues in the U.S Government, which include:

Create a Deputy Assistant to the President and an Office of Environmental Security within the National Security Council; infuse ecological and natural security into White House strategic planning; increase capacity for analyzing ecological and natural security issues within the intelligence community; elevate international water security issues (including their climate dimensions) within the foreign policy and national security enterprise, including at the State Department, Department of Defense and National Security Council; add more ecological and natural security issues to military-military and intelligence-intelligence engagements; and augment ecological and natural security in U.S. defense and intelligence academic curricula

7. Initiate an Ecological and Natural Security Research Agenda, which include:

Deepen understanding of linkages between ecological disruption and security; develop early warning indicators for dangerous ecological regime shifts; bring ecological forecasting to maturity; and foster more research on insect declines

8. Engage the Public on Ecological and Natural Security Issues, which include:

Deploy effective security advocates; convene high-level ecological and natural security conferences, with the participation of security, foreign policy and intelligence leaders; and expand the aperture of natural security to include the broader ecological security framework described in this report

Christine Cavallo , contributing author to the report and Fellow at the Council on Strategic Risks , stated:

“Natural security threats have evolved and strengthened within broader security landscapes. But certain drivers of ecological disruption remain as uncalculated or unconsidered risks, despite being fundamental challenges to regional and global stability. It is clear that by failing to recognize these threats, we allow critical regions to destabilize and move our planet closer to irreversible consequences in the near future.”

Isabella Caltabiano, also a contributing author and former Research and Policy Intern at the Center for Climate and Security , said:

“This report elucidates the multifaceted risks that arise from ecological disruption and shape the different dimensions of national security. Calling attention to how natural system destruction and disruption influences the United States’ interests and security is the first step in addressing this growing global issue.”

Direct inquiries to: Francesco Femia, ffemia at csrisks dot org

Read the full report: Here

Further testimonials on the report:

Dr. E. William Colglazier

“Global pandemics and climate change represent potentially catastrophic national security threats to the United States. This report makes abundantly clear that global ecological disruption must be added to that list.”

– Dr. E. William Colglazier, Editor-in-Chief of Science & Diplomacy and Senior Scholar in the Center for Science Diplomacy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Former Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State, Executive Officer of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council.

The Honorable John Conger

“Since the emergence of COVID and the new focus that has been placed on non-nation-state security threats, few reports have made me think so deeply about the complex web of policy issues upon which our own national interests depend.  Climate change is a piece of this story, but the authors illustrate the broader ecological narrative in a way that is both compelling and illuminating.”

-The Honorable John Conger, Director of the Center for Climate and Security, Chair of the Climate and Security Advisory Group, Senior U.S. Advisor to the International Military Council on Climate and Security , former Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) at the U.S. Department of Defense.

Francesco Femia

“As this report highlights, we are facing potentially catastrophic security threats not just from climate change, but from a broad range of ecological disruptions that are unprecedented in human history. However, as also evidenced by the analysis in the report, we have unprecedented foresign about these threats. We can see many of them coming with a degree of awareness and certainty that we could not have imagined in the past. This combination of unprecedented threat and unprecedented foresight underlines a responsibility to prepare for and prevent these disruptions, to the best of our ability. But there’s not a lot of time left. The U.S. security community, including America’s top national security leadership in the White House, should take these issues up now, and with great seriousness.”

– Francesco Femia, Co-Founder and Research Director, The Council on Strategic Risks and the Center for Climate and Security; Co-Founder and Senior Advisor, The International Military Council on Climate and Security; Former CEO of the Center for Climate and Security and the Council on Strategic Risks from 2010-2019.

Dr. Thomas Fingar

The multiple and interactive threats to the biosphere, humanity, and national security summarized in this excellent and timely study are real, intensifying, and accelerating.  Each of the many threats to the ecosystem summarized by the authors should be cause for alarm and a prod to action.  Their most worrisome message is that earlier, albeit less comprehensive, warnings were largely ignored or dismissed.  The threats they describe demand at least the attention and magnitude of effort now devoted to “conventional” threats to national security.

– Dr. Thomas Fingar, Shorenstein APARC Fellow at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Former Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis, Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, and Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research. Oversaw production of and provided Congressional testimony on the 2008 National Intelligence Assessment on the National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030.

Brigadier General Gerald Galloway, US Army (Ret)

“Ecological disruption clearly is underway worldwide and is a threat to both national and natural security. Water is the fabric that holds ecology together and by its presence or absence impacts lives across the globe on a day-to-day basis. It is also an element that is taken for granted, perhaps even ignored, until a crisis arrives that brings its critical position to our attention. Leaders and water experts in international and national organizations find that it is largely neglected and mismanaged. Study after study has reported that water challenges have and will continue to be catalysts for conflict at the local and regional level and a major source among nations of tension that could spill into conflict. The report by Schoonover, Cavallo, and Caltabiano provides a long needed and concise description of the relationships among natural systems, and their ties to security. They make a strong case that continuing neglect of the ecological issues that face the world today creates a risk that cannot be tolerated and places a sword of Damocles over the lives of nations and individuals. The report effectively describes the linkages that exist among natural systems and identifies actions that must be taken to ensure that these natural systems, including water, will be equitably available for future generations. In the face of stark and growing realization of the threats of climate change, it is clear that the time for action is now. The report creates an effective roadmap to guide national and international action and needs to be immediately addressed by US government and national leaders.”

-Brigadier General Gerald E Galloway, US Army (Ret), PE, PHD, Member of the Center for Climate and Security Advisory Board, Glenn L Martin Institute Professor of Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and an Affiliate Professor at the School of Public Policy of the University of Maryland, former Dean of the United States Military Academy and former Dean of the Faculty, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University; National Academy of Engineering.

The Honorable Sherri Goodman

“Security in the 21st century is being fundamentally reshaped by global ecological disruption, from zoonotic disease, to climate change, to declining ocean health.  This report offers a new national narrative in which planetary health is a core element.  This report will enable decision makers in both Congress and the Executive branch to take practical steps to address ecological disruption, including pandemic risks, environmental crime, biosphere degradation, forests and fisheries, as key components of national security strategy, plans and programs.  The Biden Administration has a unique opportunity to elevate ecological security, along with climate security, to the highest levels of attention in diplomacy, development, defense, disaster planning, and scientific research.”

-Sherri Goodman, Senior Strategist and Member of the Center for Climate and Security Advisory Board, Chair of the Board at the Council on Strategic Risks, Secretary General of the International Military Council on Climate and Security, and Senior Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center’s Polar Institute and Environmental Change and Security Program. Former  first Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Environmental Security).

Lukas Haynes

“When politically objective scientists warn us that a sixth mass extinction event is underway, policymakers risk ignoring the metaphorical ‘forest’ and focusing too much on the near-term health of ‘the trees’. This report should be a clarion call to policy research funders and policymakers in every branch of government: the security, development, justice and foreign policy mechanisms of the USG are ill-equipped to deal with unfolding collapse of natural systems that ensure health and prosperity. Now is the time to reinvent them and mobilize government and NGO allies to meet the challenge of the century.”

– Lukas Haynes, Member of the Center for Climate and Security Advisory Board, and Executive Director of the David Rockefeller Fund.

Rear Admiral Len Hering, US Navy (Ret.)

“This is the most comprehensive and well thought out and presented piece I have read in more than 10 years. The detail to which this study outlines and explains the impacts we are to face– should we continue to ignore climate science– is extraordinary.  Methodically linking the forecast ecological disruptions to the components of national security is enlightening, and clearly shows how desperate the consequences will be if we do not act. Without exception, I know of no other piece that captures the totality of the situation we face. I truly believe this piece should be a must read at the Services War Colleges and institutions of higher learning offering courses in foreign and national policy. “

– Rear Admiral L.R. Hering, US Navy (Ret), Member of the Center for Climate and Security Advisory Board, and Executive Director, I Love A Clean San Diego

The Honorable Alice Hill

“This report focuses on the issue that will dominate national security experts for decades to come:  the cascading risks that flow from environmental degradation worsened by climate change. The collision of  accelerating climate extremes with the unsustainable exploitation of the earth’s resources– through practices like overfishing, deforestation, and wildlife trafficking–will fuel transnational crime, undermine  human security, and erode global stability. The Security Threat That Binds Us provides a much-needed policy roadmap for the U.S.government to address these growing threats.”

– The Honorable Alice C. Hill, Member of the Center for Climate and Security Advisory Board, Member of the Council on Strategic Risks’ Board of Directors, and Senior Fellow for Climate Change Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. Former Senior Counselor to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and ex officio member of the Third National Climate Assessment.

General James Jones, US Marine Corps (Ret)

“Our world faces many threats in the 2st century. No longer can we think of threats to our security as being purely military in nature. That type of thinking ended with the 20th century. The United States has been blessed with an abundance of natural wealth and resources not seen anywhere else on the planet. For America to remain at the pinnacle of global influence, it must lead by example and by its willingness to lead in all domains possible. It must also share its knowledge and abundance with other countries that are not so fortunate. From all matters pertaining to energy, climate, food, water, fisheries, and forests, we must dedicate ourselves to helping other countries join in the 21st century revolution towards democracy, prosperity and freedom.”   

– General James Jones, US Marine Corps (Ret), Executive Chairman Emeritus of the Atlantic Council, Founder, Jones Group International, former National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe and COmbatant Commander USEUCOM, and 32nd Commandant of the Marine Corps.

General Ronald Keys, US Air Force (Ret)

“This report is a clarion call to arms for ecological security. The authors have laid out the multifaceted risks to natural, financial, social, and political capital that ecological destruction, disruption, and collapse pose, and it is clear and compelling how ecological and natural security is critical for all of us. The time for more studies is over. The time for choices, action, and responsibility is here.”

– General Ronald Keys, US Air Force (Ret), Member of the Center for Climate and Security Advisory Board, Chairman of the CNA Military Advisory Board, and former Commander of Air Combat Command.

Dr. Marcus King

“Ecological disruptions are responsible for significant changes across numerous Earth systems, yet they remain under-studied and under-discussed. This report addresses the changing security landscape by clarifying the nexus between altering ecosystems and national security risks. Laying the foundation for an exploration of such disruptions, this report outlines tangible steps that policymakers can take to minimize ‘actorless’ security threats, such as resource insecurity and pandemics that result in part from ecological degradation.”

— Dr. Marcus King, Senior Fellow and Member of the Center for Climate and Security Advisory Board, John O Rankin Associate Professor, and Director of the Master of Arts in International Affairs Program (MAIA) at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, and former foreign affairs specialist in environmental security in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Dr. Christopher Kojm

“The Council on Strategic Risks’ ecological security report documents the security ramifications of environmental disruption. In short, we are facing a national security issue of the first order.  Scientific expertise must guide the response of our defense, diplomatic and intelligence communities to this profound threat.  A new national security doctrine–and urgent action by the President and Congress–are needed now to save our planet.”

— Dr. Christopher Kojm, Director of George Washington University Elliott School’s Leadership, Ethics and Practice Initiative and Professor of Practice in International Affairs, Former Chair of the National Intelligence Council, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, and Deputy Director of the 9/11 Commission.

Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, US Navy (Ret)

“ The Security Threat That Binds Us sheds considerable light on the serious security implications presented by the growing threat of significant global ecological disruptions. These real and dangerous threats have been largely neglected in both national and international security doctrine, planning and preparation, and must be addressed with urgency. This report provides valuable insights into the growing threat and provides US and other global leaders and decision makers valuable recommendations on how to better recognize, organize and prepare for the challenges that are coming…soon.”

— Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, US Navy (Ret), Member of the Center for Climate and Security Advisory Board. Previously served as Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa, and NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command.

The Honorable Maria Otero

“This report makes the powerful case that ongoing ecological destruction and disruption need to be considered alongside climate change as critical threats deserving of heightened national security and foreign policy attention. Water insecurity worldwide is already a serious and sometimes acute threat to human and national security.  More than mere environmental concerns, such stresses to water, food, wildlife, forests, and fisheries contribute to conflict and political instability, fuel corruption and crime, and undermine human health and security. The authors effectively argue that biosphere degradation poses wide-ranging security risks, such as heightened pandemic potential, and provide a thoughtful plan for the United States to lead on addressing ecological security.”

–The Honorable Maria Otero,Former Under Secretary of Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights of the U.S. Department of State, former President’s Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, and former President of ACCION International.

Erin Sikorsky

“If there’s one thing the US national security community learns from the COVID-19 pandemic, it should be that its traditional definition of what constitutes a security threat is too narrow. This ground-breaking report on ecological security is a key step toward broadening that definition–it provides concrete examples of the risks posed by ecological disruptions and biosphere changes and clear-eyed solutions that national security practitioners can advance.”

–Erin Sikorsky, Deputy Director of the Center for Climate and Security, Director of the International Military Council on Climate and Security, and former Deputy Director, Strategic Futures Group, National Intelligence Council

Dr. Greg Treverton

“I had the great good fortune to work with Rod Schoonover when I was Chair of the National Intelligence Council.  I was the beneficiary then of his keen mind and careful science, and now the nation will benefit from those qualities of his and his collaborators.  We have known for a long time — but too often not behaved as though we knew — that the two existential threats humans face are pandemics in the short run and the climate crisis in the long.  It is well past time for us to expand our concept of “national security” accordingly, when more Americans die each day from Covid-19 than were killed in the World Trade Center attack. This report is an important benchmark in that redefinition, and it also reminds us that the threat of ecological disruption centers on the climate crisis but runs well beyond it.  With the appointment of John Kerry as the Biden administration’s special envoy for climate, the report has the unique success of having one of its main recommendations accepted before it was even printed!  It will be natural to expand Kerry’s writ — even if “special envoy for ecological disruption” is not a title that falls off the tongue — and to assure that the National Security Council is staffed to support him.”

-Dr. Greg Treverton, Senior Adviser (non-resident) with the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and Professor of the practice of international relations at the University of Southern California. Former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, and Director of the RAND Corporation’s Center for Global Risk and Security.

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Tags: climate security , ecological security , Natural Security

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Featured project.

government report on changes in the security environment

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address

Recent Posts

  • Call for Applications: Youth-Led Visions for a Climate-Secure Pacific
  • Event Summary: Locking In Progress
  • Risks of Response: Climate Security, Climate Policy & Farmer Protests in Europe
  • Security and climate change implications for humanitarian, development and peace-building programmes in Somalia
Like Us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

  • Resource Hub

Discover more from The Center for Climate & Security

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Security Nexus Homepage

Research and Projects

The U.S. Government & Climate Security: History and Prospects

J. Scott Hauger

January 14, 2022

Scott Hauger, Ph.D. [*]

Abstract: In the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Obama Administration recognized climate change as a serious security threat. By 2014, policy documents reflected a “securitization” of climate change, recognizing it as an existential threat to global security. In 2015, the U.S. led in the framing of the Paris Accord.

In 2016, President Trump reversed course, in effect, undertaking a desecuritization of climate change. He declared economic security through energy independence as a security priority. He characterized the Paris Accord as a threat to that security and withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Accord, effective November 2020.

President Joe Biden campaigned on a resecuritization of climate change. Upon taking office he designated climate change as a profound global crisis, ordered federal agencies to address the crisis, re-joined the Paris Accord, and asserted a return of U.S. global leadership in addressing climate change.

There is a timely opportunity to initiate new projects between the U.S. and partner nations to prepare for and manage the impacts of climate change. Proactive American climate policies will continue if Biden is followed by a Democratic successor. With a Republican administration, expect an emphasis on climate adaptation vice mitigation, but not a revival of desecuritization of climate change.

Key Words: Climate change, securitization, environmental security policy

1. The beginnings

Before the current century, the American security sector paid little attention to issues of climate change. Climate change entered the national and global policy arenas not as a security concern, but primarily as a scientific endeavor. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), for example, had its origins in a Committee on Earth Sciences, established in 1987, within the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). [2] The Global Change Research Act of 1990 provided a mandate for this interagency committee to develop and coordinate a comprehensive research program that included issues of climate change. At the international level, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988, with the support of the United States, as a joint project of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. [3]

For the next twenty years, as IPCC worked to characterize the phenomenon of climate change, policy discussions in the U.S. centered on issues of greenhouse gas mitigation. Mitigation was not at first conceived as a security sector issue, but primarily as a concern for the energy, transportation, and economic development sectors.

Climate change entered the domain of the U.S. security sector through the side door of environmental protection. In 1993, President Bill Clinton created within the Department of Defense (DoD) an Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security [DUSD(ES)]. The office was primarily concerned with such environmental issues as remediation of hazardous wastes on military bases and reducing operational pollution. Clinton appointed Sherri Goodman to the post, who would become, in time, a key actor in the securitization of climate change. Seven years later, in November 2000, as the Clinton administration was coming to an end, Goodman released the first DoD document to specifically address climate change. Entitled, U.S. Department of Defense: Climate Change, Energy Efficiency, and Ozone Protection, the document stated that,

“…DoD is working to understand where and under what circumstances environmental issues may contribute to economic, political, and social instability and conflict. DoD’s international environmental cooperation efforts promote democracy, trust, and environmental stewardship while strengthening national defense. DoD works cooperatively with foreign militaries to promote regional stability and integrate environmental goals into defense operations.” [4]

At the end of the Clinton administration, in 2001, Goodman joined CNA, a quasi-governmental think tank, where she established a Military Advisory Board, an elite group of retired three and four-star flag and general officers, to consider the security implications of climate change. The Board’s 2007 report, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change , marked the beginning of an emerging effort to securitize climate change, i.e., to recognize climate change as an existential threat. The report found that “…climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security,” with a potential “…to disrupt our way of life and to force changes in the way we keep ourselves safe and secure.” Its finding that “Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world,” [5] became a catchphrase for future assessments of the security implications of climate change.

2. The Obama Administration and the securitization of climate change

The CNA report recommended that the next Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) should examine the capabilities of the U.S. military to respond to the consequences of climate change. [6] Indeed, the next QDR, released in February 2010, became the first comprehensive American security policy document to recognize climate change as a security threat. [7]

Following the issue of the QDR, a series of policy papers and reports expanded on the theme of climate security. These included the U.S. Navy Climate Change Roadmap which, with reference to the QDR, established a three-phased program to integrate climate change considerations into Naval plans and operations. [8] In 2011, the Defense Science Board offered specific recommendations for improving security policy and practices in the face of climate change in a report addressed to the higher levels of the American security sector, from the White House through the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the geographic combatant commands. [9]

In 2012, the first DoD Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap presented several claims that would provide a basis for the further elaboration of U.S. security policy with respect to climate change: (1) Environmental threats constitute threats to national security; (2) There will be a growing demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions; (3) DoD needs better information and integral planning to address the threat; and (4) “Managing the national security implications of climate change will require DoD to work collaboratively, with both traditional allies and new partners.” [10]

The security sector’s engagement with the threat of climate change had its impetus from the highest level. In November 2014, President Obama and President Xi of China met in Beijing and agreed to work together to promote what became, one year later, the Paris Accord to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Their joint announcement was in the form of a securitization claim, “The United States of America and the People’s Republic of China have a critical role to play in combating global climate change, one of the greatest threats facing humanity. The seriousness of the challenge calls upon the two sides to work constructively together for the common good.” [11]

In February 2015, an updated National Security Strategy reflected this evolution of awareness and promulgated an official policy response to climate change as a security threat. In his cover letter, President Obama characterized the accelerating impacts of climate change as a serious challenge to national security, while calling attention to, “…the groundbreaking commitment we made with China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – to cement an international consensus on arresting climate change.” The document identified climate change as one of eight top strategic risks to American security. [12]

President Obama clearly articulated the concept of climate change as an existential security threat in a speech to the Conference on Global Leadership in the Arctic, in September 2015,

“We know that human activity is changing the climate. That is beyond dispute…. But if those trend lines continue the way they are, there’s not going to be a nation on this Earth that’s not impacted negatively. People will suffer. Economies will suffer. Entire nations will find themselves under severe, severe problems. More drought; more floods; rising sea levels; greater migration; more refugees; more scarcity; more conflict.” [13]

In December 2015, 196 nations agreed to the Paris Accord, and on September 3, 2016, the U.S. and China formally entered into the agreement, which came into effect on November 4, 2016. [14] The President chose not to submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification, so according to U.S. law, the Paris Accord remained an executive agreement, binding only upon the current administration. [15]

During the second term of the Obama administration, then, climate change came to be framed as a security threat or threat multiplier, and policy and plans within the security sector reflected that understanding. This understanding was rejected and reversed under President Trump.

3. The Trump Administration and the desecuritization of climate change 

Even before his campaign for the presidency, Mr. Trump endorsed climate skepticism. Between 2011 and 2015, he posted 115 tweets expressing skepticism or denial of climate change or global warming, [16] a perspective he maintained throughout his presidency. In October 2016, as the Paris Accord was about to go into effect, the Trump campaign called the accord a “bad deal” that would “impose enormous costs on American households through higher electricity prices and higher taxes.” [17]

The Trump administration saw a dramatic shift in U.S. rhetoric and posture relating to climate change, as the President emphasized energy security over environmental security. The precedence of energy security over environmental security was institutionalized in the President’s Executive Order of March 28, 2017. Titled, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” the order sought to unburden federal regulations impacting the development of domestic energy resources with particular attention to fossil fuels. The order noted that prudent development of the nation’s energy resources was essential to geopolitical security. [18] It rescinded Obama’s Presidential Memorandum of September 21, 2016, Climate Change and National Security , which had declared that “Climate change poses a significant and growing threat to national security, both at home and abroad.” [19]

On June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. His core argument was an economic one. He spoke of the cost to the U.S. of participating in the UNFCCC Green Climate Fund and of the “harsh economic restrictions” that the Paris Accord imposed on U.S. citizens. He characterized the Paris agreement as, “…a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.” “It would once have been unthinkable that an international agreement could prevent the United States from conducting its own domestic economic affairs,” he declared, “but this is the new reality we face if we do not leave the agreement or if we do not negotiate a far better deal.” [20]

Trump’s statement turned on its head Obama’s argument that climate change is a security threat. There was a security threat, the new President explained, but it was not climate change. It was the global agreement to combat climate change, made by the Obama administration, that threatened American security. The Trump administration expressed these themes as policy in its December 2017, revision of the U.S. National Security Strategy . [21] That document notably dropped the Obama administration’s high-priority security goal to confront climate change.

These key documents of the Trump administration desecuritized climate change by treating it as less than an existential threat, and by explicitly undoing the securitizing moves of the Obama administration that led to the Paris Accord. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that, as in the Obama administration, Trump’s actions impacting climate change policy and programs were in the form of executive actions and orders that lacked the force of law and are thus readily reversible under subsequent administrations.

President Trump appointed political leaders who agreed with and promoted his climate change policies to domestic cabinet posts including the Departments of the Interior and Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. These agencies de-emphasized or denied the security threats of climate change and crafted their programs accordingly. It is noteworthy that these actions at the federal level were opposed and countered by several state and local governments and by many environmental NGOs. [22]

In the Department of Defense, and in science-based agencies such as NASA and NOAA, the understanding that climate change posed a security threat held strong. For example, in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2017, Secretary of Defense, James Mattis said, “Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today…. It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.” [23]

Maureen Sullivan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health, later observed that Mattis had set the tone on climate change for the Department from the beginning of the Trump administration. [24]

The major effect of White House climate change policies on the security sector were to cause its agencies to reduce the visibility and alter or avoid the vocabulary of climate change, while nonetheless pursuing science-based responses to the threat. For example, in 2017, Jeff Goodell wrote of the threat of rising sea levels to U. S. Naval Station Norfolk:

“But out on the base, nobody wants to talk directly about spending money to deal with sea-level rise, mostly because they are worried about drawing scrutiny from climate deniers in Congress who are happy to redline any expenditure with the word ‘climate’ in it. Instead, many people in the military end up talking about climate in much the way that eighth-graders talk about sex—with code words and winks and suggestive language.” [25]

In 2018, the National Defense Strategy (NDS) replaced the Quadrennial Defense Review . The unclassified NDS summary omitted any mention of climate change. In an advance press briefing, however, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Patrick Shanahan, explained, “We don’t specifically address climate change… There is only so much, you know, depth and breadth… it really reflects the high priorities of the department…. It doesn’t mean that it is not a priority or that it is a priority. What it says is in the national defense strategy, we don’t address it.” [26]

In short, leaders in the security sector sought to lower their agencies’ political visibility with respect to the term “climate change.” At the working level, however, security practitioners in defense, development and diplomatic agencies, under this cover, largely continued to address the issues of climate security and to engage with their international counterparts.

4. The Biden Administration and the resecuritization of climate change

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (Joe Biden) made a commitment to combat climate change a key element in his presidential campaign. On Inauguration Day, January 20, the new President petitioned to re-join the Paris Accord, an action that took effect on February 19. One week after assuming office, on January 27, he issued an “Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” that stated:

“It is the policy of my Administration that climate considerations shall be an essential element of United States foreign policy and national security. The United States will work with other countries and partners, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to put the world on a sustainable climate pathway. The United States will also move quickly to build resilience, both at home and abroad, against the impacts of climate change that are already manifest and will continue to intensify according to current trajectories.” [27]

The order reinstated President Obama’s September 2016 memorandum on “Climate Change and National Security” (see above). It ordered the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a climate risk analysis and to provide an annual update on progress in incorporating the security implications of climate change into defense documents and processes. [28] It also pledged to hold a Leaders’ Climate Summit in advance of the UNFCCC 26 th Conference of the Parties, an important review of the Paris Accord scheduled for November.

In March 2021, the White House issued an Interim National Security Strategic Guidance. The document acknowledged climate change to be an existential risk. [29] It committed the U.S. to, “…move swiftly to earn back our position of leadership in international institutions, joining with the international community to tackle the climate crisis and other shared challenges.” [30]

Executive Branch agencies moved swiftly to implement the executive order and to adopt guidance and procedures to address climate change issues in their activities and programs. Within the security sector, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin immediately endorsed the President’s executive order, noting that DoD had considered climate change a threat since 2010. He committed DoD to implement the President’s orders, stating, “There is little about what the Department does to defend the American people that is not affected by climate change. It is a national security issue, and we must treat it as such.” [31]

Secretary Austin elaborated on this theme when called upon to address the Leaders’ Summit on Climate, where he said, “Today, no nation can find lasting security without addressing the climate crisis. We face all kinds of threats in our line of work, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential. The climate crisis does.… Climate change is making the world more unsafe and we need to act.” [32]

The resecuritization of climate change is being embraced and implemented locally by security practitioners in the field. In the Indo-Pacific region for example, in April 2021, the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) signed a memorandum of understanding with the University of Hawaii to collaborate in innovation and technology development to promote regional stability, sustainability, and resilience to the threat of climate change. [33] In June, the newly-appointed USINDOPACOM commander established a Climate Change Impacts Program within the Center for Excellence for Disaster Management. [34]

Across the United States government, then, the year 2021 has seen a resecuritization of climate change. The President appointed former Secretary of State John Kerry to be his Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, and former EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, to be White House National Climate Advisor. Jane Lubchenko, former Administrator of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration is serving in the new position of Deputy Director for Climate and Environment in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The President replaced senior officials in EPA, Interior, and Energy, and canceled or reversed many Trump-era policies that favored fossil energy over environmental security. The depth and breadth of the new administration’s approach was summed up by Jody Freeman, Harvard University’s Archibald Cox Professor of Law and director of the School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program, as reported in The Harvard Gazette :

“’This is climate change like we’ve never known it in the federal government,…’ Freeman said the White House strategy is new because it takes a ‘whole government’ approach to climate change, enlisting not only agencies with traditional environmental oversight duties, like the EPA and the Interior Department, but every agency, such as the Defense Department, the Treasury, and the Agriculture Department, to consider how their operations may impact climate change and what can be done within their bailiwicks to fight it.” [35]

5. Prospects and ways ahead

In the United States, as globally, there is a strong scientific consensus regarding the phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming and climate change. A political consensus, however, has yet to emerge. The issue is politically polarized between those who emphasize environmental security and the need for action to counter a long-term, existential threat; and those who emphasize energy security with vested interests in the near-term economic advantages of a fossil fuel-based economy.

Over the past twenty years, American political parties and individual and corporate stakeholders have aligned with these polar positions. Consequently, American climate policy has vacillated according to which party has held political power. Thus, at the level of the federal government, we have seen the securitization, then desecuritization, and now resecuritization of climate change. Since it is the federal government that is responsible for national security and foreign relations, U.S. climate policy has shifted with the political and contextual (i.e., scientific, social, ideological) commitments of the President. Moreover, under the last three administrations, U.S. Presidents have largely promulgated climate policy through executive orders. Thus, those policies have been and remain readily reversed or redirected by a new administration.

It is important to note that the U.S. government is not monolithic. Congress has a potential role to play in supporting or constraining the Executive Branch through the power of the purse and through the Senate’s power to approve Presidential appointments and to ratify treaties. In recent years political polarization over climate change has been reflected in the composition of Congress which, in the absence of a conflicting consensus, has generally acceded to Presidential prerogatives. This political balance is subject to change, however, if a political consensus on climate change should emerge.

Political power is also shared among federal, state, and municipal governments, which are politically diverse. Civil sector organizations including universities think tanks, and advocacy groups also influence government policies. Many state and local governments actively dissented from the climate policies of the Trump administration. For example, in 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg launched “America’s Pledge on Climate Change.” The U.N. Climate Change Program noted that,

“Since the White House announcement of its intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, an unprecedented number of U.S. states, cities, businesses, and colleges and universities have reaffirmed their support for the Paris Agreement through collaborations including the “We Are Still In” declaration, the Climate Mayors coalition of cities, the U.S. Climate Alliance group of states, and others.” [36]

State and local governments have little direct impact on international climate policy, nevertheless, they represent a political reservoir of dissent that may achieve power at the federal level in the next election.

The decentralization of governance in the U.S. system makes prediction difficult, but it is certain that under the Biden administration the U.S. is actively pursuing internal efforts and external collaborations to address the issues of climate change. All departments engaged in foreign affairs, including Defense, State, and USAID, are currently reviewing and updating their policies as per the January 27, 2021, Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. They are looking for opportunities to take a leadership position on global and regional issues of climate change. They are looking for opportunities to collaborate with partner nations to address climate mitigation, adaptation, and response, at all levels. There could not be a better time for U.S. allies and partners to reach out with proposals for cooperative ventures. Proactive American climate policies and programs will almost certainly continue for the course of the current administration and beyond if followed by a Democratic successor.

What may happen if the next administration is headed by a Republican President? The major factor will likely be that of public opinion, based upon growing personal exposure to extreme weather events and a potentially growing acceptance of the science-based consensus regarding the future course of climate change and its impacts upon their livelihoods and their children.

There is evidence that recent climate-related phenomena are already shifting public attitudes. For example, in May 2021, the Brookings Institution reported that Republican voters were ahead of their representatives in Congress in their concerns about climate change, reporting that, “A poll just before the 2020 election showed more than three-quarters of Republican voters favor government action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” [37] On September 3, 2021, the New York Times reported that the year’s heatwaves, wildfires, and drought were causing Members of Congress to acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The article noted, however, that these Republicans were typically opposing mitigation strategies based on reducing the consumption of fossil fuels, while favoring increased investments in climate adaptation, and technology innovation, such as carbon scrubbing. [38]

It is also true that the professional civil service and military scientists and engineers provide a level of institutional inertia and continuity between administrations. Professionals in the security sector, for example, during the Trump administration, continued to address the impacts of global warming such as changes in Arctic sea ice, or sea-level rise affecting naval bases, whether or not climate change was acknowledged as a source of the phenomenon and its security threat.

Security sector activities, especially at the level of the combatant command, are more directly concerned with adaptation to climate change impacts (to promote security through resilience), and the ability to respond effectively to meet increasingly complex challenges to disaster management (to restore security and promote stability). Greenhouse gas mitigation is nonetheless important to the security sector because the extent of its success or failure will determine the future level of need for adaptation and response.

If the political trends noted in the New York Times continue, then we can expect American political polarization over the need to address climate change to decrease and to shift from a debate over WHETHER to address climate change to a debate over HOW to address it. An emerging policy emphasis on adaptation and response would increase the importance of the security sector in planning for and managing the impacts of climate change.

These four factors – increasing public concern in the face of extreme weather events, a predicted shift in the political debate from whether to address climate change to how to address it, the diversity of power centers with different perspectives on climate change in a federal system of governance, and the continuity provided by a professional civil service in the Executive Branch of the national government – support a conclusion that there will be a greater level of continuity in American climate policy whenever a political shift in the White House next occurs.

In conclusion, under the Biden administration, the U.S. is undertaking a rapid resecuritization of climate change policy at all levels. This is explicitly the case in international relations, including agencies for defense, development, and diplomacy. There is a timely opportunity therefore for the initiation of new projects and programs with partner nations to prepare for and manage the impacts of climate change. Such partnerships in the security sector will likely have cross-administration longevity, as the public experience of extreme weather events increases, and leads to some level of political agreement on the need to build resilience to the impacts of climate change.

____________________________________________________________________________________

[*] Dr. J. Scott Hauger is a former DKI APCSS faculty member and has written this research paper as an alumnus in his personal capacity. The views expressed in this article are the author’s alone, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the DKI APCSS or the United States Government.

[2] Roger A. Pielke, Jr., Policy History of the US Global Change Research Program: Part I. Administrative Development, Global Environmental Change Vol 10 , 2000, pp. 9-25.

[3] Michael Oppenheimer, “How the IPCC Got Started,” Climate 411 , November 1, 2007. http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/01/ipcc_beginnings/

[4] U.S. Department of Defense, Climate Change, Energy, and Ozone Protection , [2001], https://p2infohouse.org/ref/21/20958.htm

[5] The CNA Corporation, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change,” 2007, p. 6, https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/pdf/National%20Security%20and%20the%20Threat%20of%20Climate%20Change.pdf

[6] Ibid., p. 7.

[7] U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review , Washington, Feb 2010,

[8] Task Force Climate Change / Oceanographer of the Navy. U.S. Navy Climate Change Roadmap, April 2010, https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=8466

[9] U.S. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Trends and Implications of Climate Change on National and International Security (Washington, D.C., October 2011) p. 143, http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA552760 .

[10] U.S. Department of Defense, Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, Section 1, 2012.

[11] The White House. Press release: “U.S. – China Joint Announcement on Climate Change,” Beijing, China, 12 November 2014, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change

[12] U.S Executive Office of the President, National Security Strategy , February 2015. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf

[13] U.S. The White House, Press release: “Remarks by the President at the GLACIER Conference – Anchorage, AK,” 1 September 2015, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/01/remarks-president-glacier-conference-anchorage-ak

[14] The White House, Press release, “President Obama: The United States Formally Enters the Paris Agreement,” Sep 3, 2016. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/09/03/president-obama-united-states-formally-enters-paris-agreement

[15] Josh Busby, “The Paris Agreement: When is a Treaty not a Treaty?” Global Policy , 26 April 2016, https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/26/04/2016/paris-agreement-when-treaty-not-treaty

[16] Dylan Matthews. “Donald Trump has tweeted climate change skepticism 115 times. Here’s all of it,” in Vox , June 1, 2017, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement

[17] Ballotpedia, “Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016/Climate change,” https://ballotpedia.org/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016/Climate_change

[18] Donald J. Trump, Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth , Executive Order 13783 (Washington, D.C., March 28, 2017) https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-promoting-energy-independence-economic-growth/ .

[19] Barack Obama, Presidential Memorandum – Climate Change and National Security (Washington, D.C., September 21, 2016) https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/21/presidential-memorandum-climate-change-and-national-security .

[20] Donald J. Trump, “Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord,” June 1, 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/

[21] Donald J. Trump, National Security Strategy of the United States of America , December, 2017.

[22] Elizabeth Bomberg, The environmental legacy of President Trump, Policy Studies,16 May 202, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01442872.2021.1922660

[23] Andrew Revkin, “Trump’s Defense Secretary Cites Climate Change as National Security Challenge,” ProPublica, March 14, 2017, https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-defense-secretary-cites-climate-change-national-security-challenge .

[24] Dave Mayfield, “”DoD: Mattis Won’t Ignore Climate Change Threats despite White House Pressure,” Task & Purpose, October 29, 2017, https://taskandpurpose.com/mattis-climate-change-trump/ .

[25] Jeff Goodell, The Water Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities, and the Remaking of the Civilized World . New York: Little Brown and Company, 2017, p. 200.

[26] Reuters Staff, “Pentagon Strategy Document Will Not Include Climate Change: Official,” Reuters , December 21, 2017, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-climatechange/pentagon-strategy-document-will-not-include-climate-change-official-idUSKBN1EF2H4 .

[27] Joseph R. Biden, “Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” Jan 27, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/

[29] Joseph R. Biden, Jr., “Interim National Security Strategic Guidance,” March 2021, p. 17. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/NSC-1v2.pdf

[30] Ibid., p. 11.

[31] U.S. Department of Defense, “Statement by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” January 27, 2021, https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2484504/statement-by-secretary-of-defense-lloyd-j-austin-iii-on-tackling-the-climate-cr/

[32] David Vergun, “Defense Secretary Calls Climate Change an Existential Threat,” U.S. Department of Defense News, April 22, 2021, https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2582051/defense-secretary-calls-climate-change-an-existential-threat/

[33] University of Hawai’I News, “Climate change, tech, and workforce development focus of new collaboration,” April 21, 2021, https://www.hawaii.edu/news/2021/04/21/new-uh-indopacom-collaboration/

[34] The author serves as Senior Advisor to the program.

[35] Alvin Powell, “Biden’s reversal of Trump’s environmental legacy swift, far-reaching,” The Harvard Gazette, April 9, 2021, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/04/bidens-reversal-of-trumps-environmental-legacy-swift-far-reaching/

[36] United Nations Climate Change, “Jerry Brown and Michael Bloomberg Launch “America’s Pledge” in Support of Paris,” (29 October 2017, https://cop23.unfccc.int/news/jerry-brown-and-michael-bloomberg-launch-americas-pledge-in-support-of-paris

[37] Samantha Gross, “Republicans in Congress are out of step with the American public on climate,” Brookings, May 10, 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2021/05/10/republicans-in-congress-are-out-of-step-with-the-american-public-on-climate/

[38] Lisa Friedman and Coral Davenport, “Amid Extreme Weather, a Shift Among Republicans on Climate Change,” New York Times, September 3, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/climate/republicans-climate-change.html

©2022 J. Scott Hauger. All rights reserved.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s alone, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the DKI APCSS or the United States Government.

January 2022

Published: January 14, 2022

Category: Research and Projects

Volume: 23 - 2022

Author: J. Scott Hauger

Leave A Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

government report on changes in the security environment

Security Nexus is a peer-reviewed, online journal published by the Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.

The views expressed in the Security Nexus online Journal are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of DKI APCSS, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. The appearance of external hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) of the linked websites or the information, products, or services contained therein. DoD does not exercise any editorial, security, or other control over the information you may find at these sites.

DKI APCSS    |   All Rights Reserved   |    Webmaster    |   808-971-8900

New Courses

government report on changes in the security environment

Contact Info

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway New York WC1 1BA

Phone: 1.800.458.556 / 1.800.532.2112

Fax: 458 761-9562

Email: [email protected]

Web: ThemeFusion

Recent Posts

  • Dr. Alexander Vuving on rapid changes in Vietnam
  • Security Nexus | Webinar Episode 9 and Episode 11 Double Feature
  • New Insight on Maritime Domain Awareness Initiatives in ASEAN Region

Official websites use .gov

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

Logo for U.S. Department of Defense

You have accessed part of a historical collection on defense.gov. Some of the information contained within may be outdated and links may not function. Please contact the DOD Webmaster with any questions.

DOD Releases Report on Security Implications of Climate Change

The “Report on National Security Implications of Climate-Related Risks and a Changing Climate” was provided to Congress yesterday.

The report responds to the request by the Senate Committee on Appropriations for information on the National Security Implications of Climate Change made in the report to accompany H.R. 4870, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015.

Specifically, the committee requested that the undersecretary of defense for policy provide a report that identifies the most serious and likely climate-related security risks for each combatant command and the ways those commands integrate risk mitigation into their planning processes. Further, the report was to provide resources required for effective responses and the timeline of resource needs.

The report reinforces the fact that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the foreseeable future because it will aggravate existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions that threaten domestic stability in a number of countries.

The report finds that climate change is a security risk because it degrades living conditions, human security, and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations. Communities and states that are already fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges.

The Department of Defense's primary responsibility is to protect national security interests around the world. This involves considering all aspects of the global security environment and planning appropriately for potential contingencies and the possibility of unexpected developments both in the near and the longer terms. It is in this context that the department must consider the effects of climate change -- such as sea level rise, shifting climate zones, and more frequent and intense severe weather events -- and how these effects could impact national security.

To reduce the national security implications of climate change, combatant commands are already integrating climate-related impacts into their planning cycles. The ability of the United States and other countries to cope with the risks and implications of climate change requires monitoring, analysis, and integration of those risks into existing overall risk management measures, as appropriate for each combatant command.

The report concludes the department is already observing the impacts of climate change in shocks and stressors to vulnerable nations and communities, including in the United States, the Arctic, Middle East, Africa, Asia, and South America.

The report is posted at  http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/150724-congressional-report-on-national-implications-of-climate-change.pdf .

Subscribe to Defense.gov Products

Choose which Defense.gov products you want delivered to your inbox.

Defense.gov

Helpful links.

  • Live Events
  • Today in DOD
  • For the Media
  • DOD Resources
  • DOD Social Media Policy
  • Help Center
  • DOD / Military Websites
  • Agency Financial Report
  • Value of Service
  • Taking Care of Our People
  • FY 2024 Defense Budget
  • National Defense Strategy

U.S. Department of Defense logo

The Department of Defense provides the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation's security.

'National security threat' is about Russia's plan to put nuclear weapon in space

WASHINGTON ― The U.S. has informed Congress it has new intelligence detailing Russia's desire to put a nuclear weapon in space, according to U.S. officials, in a move that could pose a major threat to international security.

The intelligence, confirmed by two officials not authorized to speak publicly on the matter, will be the subject of a meeting between President Joe Biden's top national security adviser and congressional leaders Thursday.

Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, warned of a "serious national security threat" in an ominously worded statement Wednesday ahead of the planned meeting.

Turner asked Biden to "declassify all information relating to this threat so that Congress, the administration and our allies can openly discuss the actions necessary to respond to this threat.”

Turner, who did not disclose further details, told House colleagues in a letter that the matter is urgent "with regard to a destabilizing foreign military capability." He said his committee voted Tuesday to make certain information related to the threat available to all members of Congress.

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

Biden did not address a reporter's question Wednesday evening about Russia's nuclear capabilities as he walked with first lady Jill Biden out of the White House to admire the north lawn's Valentine's Day decorations. "Happy Valentine's Day," President Biden said.

ABC News reported that Russia's push to put a nuclear weapon in space would be for potentially targeting satellites, not to be dropped on Earth. Thursday marks the two-year anniversary of Russian President Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine.

An attempt by Russia to put a nuclear weapon in space would violate an existing multilateral agreement , said Jon Wolfsthal, Director of Global Risk at the Federation of American Scientists.

He added, however, that Russia doesn't need a nuclear weapon to damage satellites. And the use of a non-nuclear weapon would not violate existing treaties.

Jake Sullivan, the White House national security adviser, would not elaborate on the nature of the threat during a briefing with reporters but confirmed he took the "highly unusual" step of personally reaching out to the "Gang of Eight" members of Congress − including Turner − to invite them to a briefing Thursday.

"We'll have that conversation tomorrow," Sullivan said. "I reached out to see Turner. Turner has gone out publicly. I'm going to go see Turner tomorrow. That's where I want to leave things for today."

Sullivan added: "From there, we will determine how to proceed."

Thursday's meeting with Sullivan will include only the four Democratic and Republican House leaders − Johnson, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Turner and Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee − because the Senate is out of session.

"We have confidence that we believe that we can, and will, and are protecting the national security of the United States and the American people," Sullivan said.

'No need for public alarm,' Speaker Johnson says

Turner was part of a bipartisan delegation of U.S. Congress members who visited Kyiv last week and vowed to help push security funding through Congress to help Ukraine defend itself against Russia.

The Senate voted 70-29 Tuesday to approve a $95 billion foreign aid bill with defense funding for Ukraine and Israel, but Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson has said his chamber won't take the bill up.

Johnson confirmed he will attend the meeting with Sullivan and told reporters he wants to "assure the American people there is no need for public alarm."

"We are going to work together to address this matter as we do all sensitive matters that are classified," Johnson said. "We just want to assure everyone steady hands are at the wheel."

Himes, the committee's Democratic ranking member, said the threat "is a significant one, but it is not a cause for panic."

Rep. Mike Garcia, R-Calif., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told USA TODAY the threat "warrants declassifying and I think it warrants all hands on deck to get knowledgeable about and be aware of it," declining to add specifics.

The committee's Senate counterparts issued a statement saying the Senate Intelligence Committee "has the intelligence in question and has been rigorously tracking this issue from the start."

"We continue to take this matter seriously and are discussing an appropriate response with the administration," Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., the committee's vice chairman, said in a joint statement.

"In the meantime, we must be cautious about potentially disclosing sources and methods that may be key to preserving a range of options for U.S. action," their statement said.

Contributing: Karen Weintraub

Wary of hackers, Biden orders new cybersecurity measures at U.S. ports

A man with gray hair, in a dark suit and tie, walks toward two women, seen from behind on the left

  • Show more sharing options
  • Copy Link URL Copied!

President Biden signed an executive order Wednesday that creates new rules to shore up security at American ports — and commits $20 billion to replace Chinese-made cranes that U.S. officials worry could be vulnerable to hacking and remote control.

The executive order empowers the U.S. Coast Guard to respond to cybersecurity incidents at ports, and lays out a new set of safety regulations that port operators must follow to fend off digital attackers.

“Most critical infrastructure owners and operators have a list of safety regulations they have to comply with,” said Anne Neuberger, deputy national security advisor at the White House. “We want to ensure that there are similar requirements for cyber, when a cyberattack can cause just as much, if not more, damage than a storm or another physical threat.”

Nationwide, roughly 31 million jobs and $5.4 trillion in economic activity are linked to trade that passes through ports, all of which could be disrupted by a ransomware or other type of cyberattack, Neuberger said.

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach constitute the largest container port facility in the hemisphere, handling 9.9 million and 9.1 million TEUs — twenty-foot equivalent units, the standard volume metric in ocean shipping — respectively, in 2022. The San Pedro complex in Los Angeles handles 29% of all container-based trade in the U.S., and nearly 20% of all U.S. seaport trade.

That volume of cargo is loaded on and off of ships by a forest of roughly 150 cranes, most of which are manufactured by one company: Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries Co., or ZPMC. The company says that it controls around 70% of the global market for cranes, and 80% of the U.S. market, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Rear Adm. John Vann, who heads the U.S. Coast Guard’s Cyber Command, confirmed that 80% number to reporters , and added that their computerized control systems leave them vulnerable to attack. Although the San Pedro port complex is owned and administered by public agencies, the terminals are leased to private companies, which purchase and operate their own cranes.

As part of the $20-billion investment in port infrastructure, the White House also announced that a U.S. subsidiary of the Japanese industrial giant Mitsui is “planning to onshore domestic manufacturing capacity for American and Korean production for the first time in 30 years, pending final site and partner selection.” The announcement did not include details of how these new cranes and the money to buy them will reach private port terminal operators in San Pedro and beyond.

The executive order is part of the Biden administration’s focus on protecting critical infrastructure such as power grids, ports and pipelines, most of which are controlled by networked software and therefore vulnerable to hacks. There is no set of nationwide standards that govern how operators should protect against potential attacks online.

The threat continues to grow. Hostile activity in cyberspace — from spying to the planting of malware to infect and disrupt a country’s infrastructure — has become a hallmark of modern geopolitical rivalry.

For example, in 2021, the operator of the nation’s largest fuel pipeline had to temporarily halt operations after it fell victim to a ransomware attack in which hackers held its data hostage in exchange for money. The company, Colonial Pipeline, paid $4.4 million to a Russia-based hacker group, though Justice Department officials later recovered much of the money.

Ports too are vulnerable. In Australia last year, a cyberattack forced one of the country’s largest port operators to suspend operations for three days.

The Port of L.A. was subject to roughly 754 million cyber-intrusion threats in 2023, according to an article by its executive director, Gene Seroka, published this month. The port has been an industry leader in cybersecurity efforts for years, since establishing a dedicated Cyber Security Operations Center in 2014 and adding the Cyber Resilience Center to allow all the various companies and agencies cooperating at the port to coordinate their cybersecurity efforts in 2022.

Late last month, U.S. officials said they had disrupted a state-backed Chinese effort to plant malware that could be used to damage civilian infrastructure. Vann said this type of potential attack was a concern as officials pushed for new standards, but they are also worried about the possibility for criminal activity.

Vann said that Coast Guard cyber protection teams had “assessed cybersecurity or hunted for threats” on nearly half of the Chinese-manufactured cranes in the U.S. to date and will continue to monitor the current stock of cranes across the nation.

The new standards, which will be subject to a public comment period, will be required for any port operator and there will be penalties for failing to comply, though the officials did not outline them. They require port operators to notify authorities when they have been victims of a cyberattack, and give the Coast Guard, which regulates the nation’s ports, the ability to respond to cyberattacks and enforce the new rules.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

More to Read

LOS ANGELES, CALIF. - DEC. 2, 2021. A pleasure boat motors past ships unloading cargo containers in the Port of Los Angeles on Wednesday, Dec. 1, 2021. Port workers are trying to clear a supply chain backlog ahead of the yearend holidays. The activity has resulted in spikes of carbon emmissions in the surrounding communities of San Pedro, Wilmington and Long Beach. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

Cargo traffic jumped at L.A. and Long Beach ports in January, rebounding from labor troubles

Feb. 14, 2024

SAN PEDRO, CA - APRIL 7, 2023 - A tugboat is the only thing moving in an idle Port of Los Angeles Harbor in San Pedro on April 7, 2023. The twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have been closed since Thursday because of a manpower shortage that may have been exacerbated by drawn-out labor talks. The port terminals were shut as of 5 pm local time because of a shortage of labor, according to notices sent to the trucking community that were viewed by Bloomberg News. It's unclear when they will reopen. (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

U.S. strikes Yemen: Are L.A., Long Beach ports ready for cargo surge?

Jan. 12, 2024

FILE - This photo provided by the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa shows the screen of a Unitronics device that was hacked in Aliquippa, Pa., Saturday, Nov. 25, 2023. The hacked device was in a pumping booster station owned by the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa. An electronic calling card left by the hackers suggests they picked their target because it uses components made by an Israeli company. (Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa via AP)

States, Congress wrestle with cybersecurity after Iran hacks small-town water utilities

Jan. 3, 2024

government report on changes in the security environment

Sam Dean is a business reporter for the Los Angeles Times covering the technology industry in Southern California. He has previously worked as a feature writer for a number of publications including Newsweek, the Verge, 538 and Lucky Peach.

More From the Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES, CA - AUGUST 03: Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at a premier of a documentary film called "Midnight at the Border" at the Saban Theater on Thursday, Aug. 3, 2023 in Los Angeles, CA. (Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

Column: Disinformation is a public health crisis. Here’s how scientists and doctors are fighting it

Feb. 22, 2024

BEVERLY HILLS-CA-FEBRUARY 15, 2024: Dr. Kelly Killeen, right, sees patient Jennifer, a 64-year-old woman from Santa Monica who used Ozempic to cut her weight before having a tummy tuck with Dr. Killeen, during her post-op check-up in Beverly Hills on February 15, 2024. (Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

The new beauty regimen: Lose weight with Ozempic, tighten up with cosmetic surgery

FILE - Then-CBS president Leslie Moonves attends the CBS Network 2015 Programming Upfront at The Tent at Lincoln Center on May 13, 2015, in New York. Moonves has agreed to pay a $11,250 fine to settle a complaint that he interfered with a police investigation of a sexual assault case, the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission says. (Evan Agostini/Invision/AP, File)

L.A. ethics panel rejects proposed $11,250 fine for Leslie Moonves as too low

Feb. 21, 2024

FILE - Private jets sit parked at Scottsdale Airport Jan. 27, 2015, in Scottsdale, Ariz. IRS leadership said Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2024, that the agency will start up dozens of audits on businesses' private jets and how they are used personally by executives and written off as a tax deduction — as part of the agency's ongoing mission of going after high-wealth tax cheats who game the tax system at the expense of American taxpayers. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)

IRS goes after executives using business jets for personal travel in new round of audits

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

FACT SHEET: Biden- ⁠ Harris Administration Announces Initiative to Bolster Cybersecurity of U.S.   Ports

Today, the Biden-Harris Administration will issue an Executive Order to bolster the security of the nation’s ports, alongside a series of additional actions that will strengthen maritime cybersecurity, fortify our supply chains and strengthen the United States industrial base. The Administration will also announce its intent to bring domestic onshore manufacturing capacity back to America to provide safe, secure cranes to U.S. ports – thanks to an over $20 billion investment in U.S. port infrastructure under President Biden’s Investing in America Agenda. Today’s actions are clear examples of the President’s work to invest in America, secure the country’s supply chains , and strengthen the cybersecurity of our nation’s critical infrastructure against 21 st century threats – priorities his Administration has focused on relentlessly since taking office.

America’s prosperity is directly linked to maritime trade and the integrated network of ports, terminals, vessels, waterways, and land-side connections that constitute the Nation’s Marine Transportation System (MTS). This complex system supports $5.4 trillion worth of economic activity each year, contributes to the employment of more than 31 million Americans, and supports nearly 95% of cargo entering the U.S.  The security of our critical infrastructure remains a national imperative in an increasingly complex threat environment. MTS owners and operators rely on digital systems to enable their operations, to include ship navigation, the movement of cargo, engineering, safety, and security monitoring. These systems have revolutionized the maritime shipping industry and American supply chains by enhancing the speed and efficiency of moving goods to market, but the increasing digital interconnectedness of our economy and supply chains have also introduced vulnerabilities that, if exploited, could have cascading impacts on America’s ports, the economy, and everyday hard-working Americans.

Today’s actions include:

President Biden will sign an Executive Order to bolster the Department of Homeland Security’s authority to directly address maritime cyber threats, including through cybersecurity standards to ensure that American ports’ networks and systems are secure. Now, the U.S. Coast Guard will have the express authority to respond to malicious cyber activity in the nation’s MTS by requiring vessels and waterfront facilities to mitigate cyber conditions that may endanger the safety of a vessel, facility, or harbor. The Executive Order will also institute mandatory reporting of cyber incidents – or active cyber threats – endangering any vessel, harbor, port, or waterfront facility. Additionally, the Coast Guard will now have the authority to control the movement of vessels that present a known or suspected cyber threat to U.S. maritime infrastructure, and be able to inspect those vessels and facilities that pose a threat to our cybersecurity. 

The U.S. Coast Guard will issue a Maritime Security Directive on cyber risk management actions for ship-to-shore cranes manufactured by the People’s Republic of China located at U.S. Commercial Strategic Seaports. Owners and operators of these cranes must acknowledge the directive and take a series of actions on these cranes and associated Information Technology (IT) and Operational Technology (OT) systems. This action is a vital step to securing our maritime infrastructure’s digital ecosystem and addresses several vulnerabilities that have been identified in the updated U.S. Maritime Advisory, 2024-00X – Worldwide Foreign Adversarial Technological, Physical, and Cyber Influence, that was released today.

The U.S. Coast Guard has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Cybersecurity in the Marine Transportation System.  Every day malicious cyber actors attempt to gain unauthorized access to MTS control systems and networks throughout the nation. The Proposed Rule will strengthen these digital systems by establishing minimum cybersecurity requirements that meet international and industry-recognized standards to best manage cyber threats. These actions build on prior actions by DHS including those taken by the Transportation Security Administration, and reflect the Administration’s commitment to leverage regulatory requirements in pursuit of safeguarding critical infrastructure.

The Administration continues to deliver for the American people by rebuilding the U.S.’s industrial capacity to produce port cranes with trusted partners. The Administration will invest over $20 billion, including through grants, into U.S. port infrastructure over the next 5 years through the President’s Investing in America Agenda, including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. As a result, PACECO Corp., a U.S.-based subsidiary of Mitsui E&S Co., Ltd (Japan), is planning to onshore U.S. manufacturing capacity for its crane production. PACECO has a deep history in the container shipping industry, manufacturing the first dedicated ship-to-shore container crane in 1958 as PACECO Inc., and it continued U.S.-based crane manufacturing until the late 1980s. PACECO intends to partner with other trusted manufacturing companies to bring port crane manufacturing capabilities back to the U.S. for the first time in 30 years, pending final site and partner selection.  The announcement is part of the Biden-Harris Administration’s fourth Investing in America tour, where White House and Administration officials are traveling across the country to highlight the impacts of the President’s Investing in America agenda on communities, families, small businesses and the United States’ economic and national security. It also follows-up on the White House Council on Supply Chain Resilience’s efforts to strengthen America’s supply chains, particularly by addressing supply chain risks resulting from threats and vulnerabilities inside U.S. ports. 

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

  • DoD ready to implement moving contract
  • DHS aggressively recruiting for AI
  • Treasury, IRS set return-to-office target
  • Sports Schedule

Hubbard Radio Washington DC, LLC. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

Sponsored by Maximus

Cybersecurity starts in the security operations center.

government report on changes in the security environment

To understand the functionality of cybersecurity at a federal agency, you might start by looking at the organization’s Security Operations Center (SoC). The SoC is made up of a group of cybersecurity experts that continuously monitor systems and technologies in an effort to prevent or respond to security threats with immediate action. While cybersecurity is the big picture, the SoC is a window into those efforts. SoCs are responsible for keeping the data that government services use to stay in business safe. Over the last several years, there has been an increase in new procedures aimed at protecting the SoCs.

“There’s a lot of federal guidance that addresses what is needed to protect Security Operations Centers. And we actually had a report issued December 2023 that looks at federal agencies’ information and response procedures. And in that, we’re highlighting that there’s a set of guidance from various entities.” Jennifer Franks, director of Information, Technology and Cybersecurity at the Government Accountability Office said on Federal Monthly Insights – Security Operations Centers. “So there was the cybersecurity executive order that really does enhance how government agencies need to secure their cloud-based infrastructures, as well as their agency on premises networks.”

The management of SoCs can also be a bit complicated, like who’s in charge, and what happens in the case of a security incident. The experts behind the Security Operations Centers in the federal government vary by agency, technology and include both federal employees and contractors.

“The chief information officers are usually the leaders of security operations centers, who then directly report the the chief information officers. Some agencies, the CIOs are directly responsible for the SoC. It’ depends on how the agency is structured.” Franks said. “So when an incident or vulnerability occurs, when something needs to be patched, all of the data owners, the system owners, the business owners, were alerted immediately.”

Franks doesn’t manage the GAO security operations center, but she manages some of the networks that reside in the data operations center. “I do a magnitude of things for the agency…I do manage some of the information systems within our network. When that latest vulnerability did impact us last week, I was able to be at the table immediately for what needed to be done with alerting all of the responsible parties.”

Franks admits that protecting critical business services in the federal government requires a menagerie of skills and efforts including securing cloud based infrastructures, managing zero trust operations, security event logging and incidence response efforts.

“This gets complicated when we think about some of the automated processing that would help us be a little bit more timely, incentivize our investigative services.” Franks said. “A lot of the SoCs, they are running short on the skillsets that are needed to withstand their own individualized SoCs across the many agencies. So being able to provide information sharing services across the various agencies, it will help with some of the visibility that is needed as well as some of the investigative services.”

And some solutions come with their own challenges. Information sharing of incident and vulnerability reports between agencies that use the same productivity tools and services would be one solution to decreasing the amount of time it takes to address a vulnerability or breach, but different agencies carry and manage different risks.

“The Department of Defense honestly has its own network and its own set of criteria, because the way it manages, more national security, intel related data and the classification of their data is so much more sensitive than perhaps the Department of Education.” Franks told the Federal Drive with Tom Temin . “There are times where those entities may or may not want to share information, related data about vulnerabilities that are impacting their environments, but we’re looking at ways that we can do that in the near future, so that yes, we’re not sharing sensitive related information, but at least enough vulnerability related data that would help those entities as well as others with similar related vulnerabilities that would just help us remediate vulnerabilities a little faster.”

As with the federal government at large, SoCs have to find the right people, and those people need the right training. The mix of employees at SoCs are both federal and contractual, and they all bring necessary knowledge.

“If an agency has more sensitive data that the contractor may not be used to managing, we need to let that contractor service know the intricacies and the sensitivities about how we need to manage the data.” Franks said. “We need fresh thinking, fresh insights. They might have also seen or even helped to implement security controls and infrastructures in other environments that can then help another agency to upskill their environment.”

Rule number one of the SoCs is understanding that the job of protecting data is continuous.

“It’s no on person’s fault. If it’s connected to the network, it’s not an if, it’s a when.” Franks said. “A cyber incident, a breach, could inevitably happen. So providing those security control assessments, those risk management frameworks and just having that assessment where you identify all of the likelihoods of events and being ready to respond should an event occur, then you have a plan in place.”

Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

  • Go Apple's Website to download the APP
  • Go Google's Website to download the APP

Michele Sandiford is a digital editor at Federal News Network.

Related Stories

government report on changes in the security environment

NIST takes on major vulnerability in cyber guidelines through novel ‘patch release’

Cybersecurity IT engineers are working on protecting networks from cyber attacks from hackers on the Internet. Secure access to online privacy and personal data protection

House bill would require federal contractors to adopt cyber vulnerability disclosure policy

Sexual Assault Military

Pentagon’s vulnerability disclosure program developing expansion plans to cover more contractors

government report on changes in the security environment

  • NIST takes on major vulnerability in cyber guidelines through novel ‘patch release’ Cybersecurity
  • House bill would require federal contractors to adopt cyber vulnerability disclosure policy Cybersecurity
  • Pentagon’s vulnerability disclosure program developing expansion plans to cover more contractors Ask the CIO

Top Stories

  • VHA tells leaders to rescind job offers only as a ‘last resort’ to manage size of health care workforce Top Story
  • Central Command to release new data strategy DEFENSE
  • CISA, Microsoft unveil progress on free logging capabilities for federal agencies CYBERSECURITY
  • CISA’s new plan to better align cybersecurity operations FEDERAL INSIGHTS
  • NTIA seeks feedback on risks, rewards of ‘open-weight’ AI models ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Oh no, you're thinking, yet another cookie pop-up. Well, sorry, it's the law. We measure how many people read us, and ensure you see relevant ads, by storing cookies on your device. If you're cool with that, hit “Accept all Cookies”. For more info and to customize your settings, hit “Customize Settings”.

Review and manage your consent

Here's an overview of our use of cookies, similar technologies and how to manage them. You can also change your choices at any time, by hitting the “Your Consent Options” link on the site's footer.

Manage Cookie Preferences

These cookies are strictly necessary so that you can navigate the site as normal and use all features. Without these cookies we cannot provide you with the service that you expect.

These cookies are used to make advertising messages more relevant to you. They perform functions like preventing the same ad from continuously reappearing, ensuring that ads are properly displayed for advertisers, and in some cases selecting advertisements that are based on your interests.

These cookies collect information in aggregate form to help us understand how our websites are being used. They allow us to count visits and traffic sources so that we can measure and improve the performance of our sites. If people say no to these cookies, we do not know how many people have visited and we cannot monitor performance.

government report on changes in the security environment

Special Features

Vendor voice.

government report on changes in the security environment

Public Sector

comment bubble on white

IT suppliers hacked off with Uncle Sam's demands in aftermath of cyberattacks

Plan says to hand over keys to networks – and report intrusions within eight hours of discovery.

Organizations that sell IT services to Uncle Sam are peeved at proposed changes to procurement rules that would require them to allow US government agencies full access to their systems in the event of a security incident.

The rules were unveiled in a draft update to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that refreshes security reporting standards for government contractors in line with President Biden's 2021 executive order on the topic.

Among the potential incoming requirements are:

  • Contractors would have just eight hours to report a detected incident to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which would have to be updated every 72 hours thereafter;
  • A software bill of materials (SBOM) would need to be maintained;
  • After an incident, contractors would provide "full access" to IT systems and personnel for CISA and federal law enforcement agencies.

The above ideas – developed by Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and NASA – have been suggested in light of the many infosec threats facing the USA.

"SolarWinds, Microsoft Exchange, and the Colonial Pipeline incident are a sobering reminder that US public and private sector entities increasingly face sophisticated malicious cyber activity from both nation-state actors and cyber criminals," the update from the three agencies reads.

  • India's absurd infosec reporting rules get just 15 followers

"These incidents share commonalities, including insufficient cyber security defenses that leave public and private sector entities more vulnerable to incidents," the trio added. "This proposed rule underscores that the compliance with information-sharing and incident-reporting requirements are material to eligibility and payment under government contracts."

Proposed changes are FAR from what industry wants

While you'd think rules to improve government security would be welcomed, industry respondents aren't happy.

Even though they were first proposed in October of last year, the comment period on the FAR reporting requirements has ended after being extended for two months. With more than 80 responses, it's clear many stakeholders wanted to have their say – and all the aforementioned provisions were questioned.

The Cloud Service Providers Advisory Board, (CSP-AB), which counts multiple major US cloud service firms among its members, described the new rules as "burdensome … on information technology companies who are already meeting a high security and compliance bar across the federal marketplace."

government report on changes in the security environment

The CSP-AB took particular umbrage with the FAR update's SBOM requirements, arguing cloud service providers shouldn't be required to submit them since they're so frequently subject to change – sometimes "up to hundreds of times" per day.

  • Future of America's Cyber Safety Review Board hangs in balance amid calls for rethink
  • Ransomware more efficient than ever, and baddies are still after your logs
  • Europe moves closer to stricter cybersecurity standards, reporting regs

The Information Technology Industry Council (ITIC), which represents a laundry list of heavy hitters, expressed dissatisfaction over the proposed reporting rules, describing them as adding "another hue of color to the kaleidoscope of incident reporting regimes" being passed by the US federal government of late.

ITIC said the eight-hour reporting requirement was "unduly burdensome and inconsistent" with other reporting rules, adding that the 72-hour update period "does not reflect the shifting urgency throughout an incident response."

Even bug bounty biz HackerOne weighed in, arguing among other things that the provision requiring access to contractor systems by federal law enforcement in the wake of a security incident "has the potential to expose data and information from the contractor's non-federal customers."

"Non-federal customers may be reluctant to continue working with federal contractors, potentially forcing federal contractors to choose between selling to non-federal customers or the government," HackerOne warned.

Reporting rules are myriad and inconsistent

There's room to debate some of the complaints raised by commenters, but one thing's for certain: Uncle Sam's cyber incident reporting rules are growing in number – and each set of regulations is different.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) implemented a rule last summer requiring victims to report cyberattacks to it within four days when the incident could have a "material" impact on the business or investors. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) followed suit in the fall with its own incident reporting rule, giving non-banking financial organizations 30 days to inform the commission of a successful break-in of their systems.

voltage

Volt Typhoon not the only Chinese crew lurking in US energy, critical networks

CISA, meanwhile, plans to follow suit with its own rules outlined by the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act ( CIRCIA ), signed into law by President Biden in March 2022, with a two-year deadline to propose a rule. Due next month, CIRCIA will give companies in critical infrastructure sectors three days to report an incident.

Congressional representatives have expressed discontent with the SEC's reporting rules and introduced a bill to kill its reporting requirement – citing too short a deadline and the fact that incident reporting should fall under CISA's purview. The proposed FAR updates, as mentioned, give a mere eight hours.

All of these various reporting requirements are likely to lead to what the ITIC describes as "misalignment" among reporting requirements, with the council calling for "the establishment of one authoritative incident reporting process across the federal government and regulated sectors."

"Several incident reporting regimes are potentially suitable candidates," ITIC EVP of public sector policy Gordon Bitko wrote in the org’s submission, suggesting rules set by CIRCIA and the SEC as suitable alternatives.

"The rule should identify one coordinating agency, ideally CISA [which] should be the focal point for all reporting and subsequent investigations," Bitko added, echoing calls from other commenters and representative Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), who introduced a House bill to kill the SEC's reporting requirements.

We've asked NASA, the GSA, and DoD for comment, and have not received a response at the time of publication. ®

  • Cybersecurity
  • Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
  • Federal government of the United States
  • Incident response

Narrower topics

  • Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act
  • Federal Aviation Administration
  • Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
  • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology
  • National Labor Relations Board
  • RSA Conference
  • Telecommunications Act of 1996
  • United States Department of Defense
  • United States Department of Justice
  • US Securities and Exchange Commission

Broader topics

  • United States of America

Send us news

Other stories you might like

Biden asks coast guard to create an infosec port in a stormy sea of cyber threats, biden will veto attempts to kill off sec's security breach reporting rules, prudential financial finds cybercrims lurking inside its it systems, database management the easy – and professional – way.

government report on changes in the security environment

Europe's largest caravan club admits wide array of personal data potentially accessed

Feds post $15 million bounty for info on alphv/blackcat ransomware crew, openai shuts down china, russia, iran, n korea accounts caught doing naughty things, romanian hospital ransomware crisis attributed to third-party breach, southern water cyberattack expected to hit hundreds of thousands of customers, jet engine dealer to major airlines discloses 'unauthorized activity', exploiting the latest max-severity connectwise bug is 'embarrassingly easy', singapore's monetary authority advises banks to get busy protecting against quantum decryption.

icon

  • Advertise with us

Our Websites

  • The Next Platform
  • Blocks and Files

Your Privacy

  • Cookies Policy
  • Your Consent Options
  • Privacy Policy

Situation Publishing

Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024

no-js

COMMENTS

  1. Government report on changes in the security environment

    This Government report to Parliament assesses changes in the operating and security environment and the effects of the changed security situation on the economy, resilience, security of supply, internal security, cyber security, hybrid influence activities and critical infrastructure.

  2. PDF Government report on changes in the security environment

    51 Abstract Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a fundamental change has taken place in the security and operating environment of Finland and Europe. This Government report to Parliament assesses changes in the operating and security environment and the effects of the changed

  3. Government report discusses changes in Finland's security environment

    Press release On Wednesday 13 April, the Government adopted a report on changes in the security environment and submitted it to Parliament for consideration. The report assesses fundamental changes in Finland's foreign and security policy environment following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

  4. Government report discusses changes in Finland's security environment

    The report describes this change. Finland will strengthen its preparedness and security in response to the changes in the operating environment. Minister for Foreign Affairs Pekka Haavisto has led the Government-appointed coordination group and the foreign and security policy group in the preparation of the report.

  5. How climate change will impact national security

    Rising temperatures and intensifying weather due to climate change, along with the unlikelihood of meeting the 2030 emissions goals of the Paris Agreement, will exacerbate geopolitical tensions, social instability, and the need for humanitarian aid, according to a joint report by the U.S intelligence community last month.

  6. DOD Releases 2023 Cyber Strategy Summary

    The cyber strategy is the baseline document for how the DOD is operationalizing the priorities of the 2022 National Security Strategy, 2022 National Defense Strategy and the 2023 National ...

  7. Government report discusses changes in Finland's security environment

    On Wednesday 13 April, the Government adopted a report on changes in the security environment and submitted it to Parliament for consideration. The report assesses fundamental changes...

  8. Government report discuses changes in Finland's security environment

    On Wednesday 13 April, the Government adopted a report on changes in the security environment and submitted it to Parliament for consideration. The report assesses fundamental changes in Finland's foreign and security policy environment following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The report does not include any conclusions or present new security policy guidelines.

  9. PDF Report on Finland's Accession to the North Atlantic ...

    The Government report on changes in the security environment (2022:18) assesses the changes in the security environment and the effects these changes have on Finland in detail. Joining North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a process, which is based on Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

  10. PDF DOD Climate Risk Analysis

    October 2021 To the National Security Council Department of Defense Climate Risk Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Climate change is reshaping the geostrategic, operational, and tactical...

  11. Fact Sheet: Prioritizing Climate in Foreign Policy and National Security

    The National Security Council staff is also establishing a standing interagency working group on climate change and migration to coordinate U.S. Government efforts to mitigate and respond to ...

  12. Document: COVID-19 and the International Security Environment

    The following is the Dec. 3, 2021 Congressional Research Service report, COVID-19: Potential Implications for International Security Environment—Overview of Issues and Further Reading for Congress.

  13. White House, intelligence agencies, Pentagon issue reports warning that

    The Pentagon report in particular marks a shift in how the U.S. military establishment is incorporating climate issues into its security strategy, analysts said.

  14. RELEASE: Landmark Report from Security Experts Identifies Ecological

    Washington DC, February 9, 2021 - The Converging Risks Lab of the Council on Strategic Risks (CSR) released a landmark report today, The Security Threat That Binds Us, that identifies ecological disruption as a major and underappreciated security threat and calls on the United States to reboot its national security architecture and doctrine to b...

  15. COVID-19: Potential Implications for International Security Environment

    profound and long-lasting implications for the international security environment. Other observers are more skeptical that the pandemic will have such effects. In reports issued in March and April 2021, the U.S. intelligence community provided assessments of the potential impact of the pandemic on the international security environment.

  16. Demographics and the Changing National Security Environment

    Demographic trends have three kinds of security implications. First, they can lead to changes in the nature of conflict. Second, they can affect the nature of national power. Third, they may influence the sources of future conflict. Changes in the nature of conflict. Changes in the nature of future conflicts are likely to follow from increasing ...

  17. The U.S. Government & Climate Security: History and Prospects

    At the end of the Clinton administration, in 2001, Goodman joined CNA, a quasi-governmental think tank, where she established a Military Advisory Board, an elite group of retired three and four-star flag and general officers, to consider the security implications of climate change. The Board's 2007 report, National Security and the Threat of ...

  18. PDF Strengthening Our Resilience to Environmental Change Is a National

    By Cathy Pennington The accelerating pace of environmental change has given rise to a challenging array of domestic and global scenarios with high potential to destabilize domestic security and geopolitical equilibrium, threatening U.S. interests at home and abroad.

  19. DoD Releases Report on Security Implications of Climate Change

    The Senate Appropriations Committee requested the report in conjunction with the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015, asking that the undersecretary of defense for policy provide a...

  20. DOD Releases Report on Security Implications of Climate Change

    The report responds to the request by the Senate Committee on Appropriations for information on the National Security Implications of Climate Change made in the report to accompany H.R. 4870, the ...

  21. COVID-19: Potential Implications for International Security Environment

    international security environment. Other observers were more skeptical that the pandemic would have such effects. This report provides a brief overview of some potential implications the pandemic might have for the international security environment, and appendices listing CRS reports and other writings for further reading.

  22. 'National security threat' is about Russia plan to put weapon in space

    WASHINGTON ― The U.S. has informed Congress it has new intelligence detailing Russia's desire to put a nuclear weapon in space, according to U.S. officials, in a move that could pose a major ...

  23. Biden orders new cybersecurity measures at U.S. ports

    WASHINGTON — President Biden signed an executive order Wednesday that creates new rules to shore up security at American ports — and commits $20 billion to replace Chinese-made cranes that U.S ...

  24. FACT SHEET: Biden-

    The U.S. Coast Guard will issue a Maritime Security Directive on cyber risk management actions for ship-to-shore cranes manufactured by the People's Republic of China located at U.S. Commercial ...

  25. Cybersecurity starts in the Security Operations Center

    The SoC is made up of a group of cybersecurity experts that continuously monitor systems and technologies in an effort to prevent or respond to security threats with immediate action. While cybersecurity is the big picture, the SoC is a window into those efforts. SoCs are responsible for keeping the data that government services use to stay in ...

  26. No one's happy with latest US cyber incident reporting plan

    The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) implemented a rule last summer requiring victims to report cyberattacks to it within four days when the incident could have a "material" impact on the business or investors. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) followed suit in the fall with its own incident reporting rule, giving non-banking financial ...

  27. COVID-19: Potential Implications for International Security Environment

    international security environment. Other observers were more skeptical that the pandemic would have such effects. This report provides a brief overview of some potential implications the pandemic might have for the international security environment, and appendices listing CRS reports and other writings for further reading.