September 10, 2024
How to Stop Rogue States Like Russia from Interfering in Our Politics
New revelations that Russia has mounted a sophisticated, covert campaign to influence the 2024 U.S. election are shocking but not surprising. They follow recent efforts by Iran to hack the Trump and Harris presidential campaigns and leak internal Trump campaign documents. These latest attacks will not be the last. U.S. adversaries see election interference as a low-cost, potentially high-reward way to damage undesired candidates, shift public sentiment on key policies or simply sow division and distrust.
The U.S. government employed a range of appropriate responses to the new Russian effort, including indictments, sanctions, taking down websites and publicizing Moscow’s activities. But unilateral responses are not enough to stop foreign political interference. Western democracies should coordinate their defenses by creating a formal response mechanism that would bind allies to aid one of their own in the event of attack. The stakes have grown too high and the threats too pervasive to leave every democracy to its own devices.
Democratic governments have done much to protect themselves in recent years. Still missing, however, is a mechanism for collective action.
Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election is well known. Less so are the numerous instances in which foreign governments have since meddled in our democracy. Late last year, a declassified intelligence assessment found that a “diverse and growing group of foreign actors” — including China, Russia, Iran and Cuba — targeted the 2022 U.S. midterm elections.
Such depredations are by no means limited to the United States. Russia meddled in the 2017 French election and China interfered in Australian politics the same year. Two years ago, the State Department estimated that Russia had covertly given $300 million to political actors across more than two dozen countries. According to the German Marshall Fund, China and Russia engaged in information manipulation, cyberattacks, co-opting civil society groups and supporting divisive domestic movements in more than 40 countries since 2000.
Read the full article from The Washington Post.
More from CNAS
-
Balancing Act: Ensuring the National Guard Can Meet Its Missions
Commentary
Taren Dillon Sylvester is a research assistant for the National Security Human Capital Program at the Center for a New American Security. In February 2025, New York Governor K...
By Taren Sylvester
-
Extremist Militias on Federal Duty
Commentary
“Unorganized militia” is a statutory term that even most national security experts have never heard. Yet, in an instant it could go from a cobwebbed corner of the U.S. Code to...
By Dakota S. Rudesill
-
Protecting the Integrity of the National Guard
Commentary
Posse comitatus, which is both a general principle and a criminal statute enshrined in the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA), dictates that there should be a clear separation between ...
By Claire Finkelstein
-
Preventing the Use of the National Guard to Evade the Posse Comitatus Act
Commentary
Limitations on military involvement in civilian affairs have been a central feature of Anglo-American law for centuries. Armies are equipped and trained to vanquish enemies. I...
By Elizabeth Goitein
