The CSPC Dispatch - Oct 17, 2025
In this issue, Senior Fellow James Kitfield reports on the London Defense Conference’s inaugural Washington Forum, hosted by CSPC, where experts and policymakers explored how the United States and its allies can sustain technological, industrial, and strategic advantages in an era of great power rivalry. Robert Gerber reflects on the recent disruption of a university forum with Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield to examine the meaning and practice of diplomacy amid growing polarization at home and abroad. Finally, Amarah Din analyzes President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to U.S. cities, raising questions about executive power, the role of the military in civil affairs, and the enduring tension between security and liberty.
Additionally, CSPC published a new report by Keir Giles, "Risk of Contagion," which provides urgent insight into Russia’s growing use of grey zone and hybrid operations in Europe and the potential implications for the United States.
As always, we hope you find the Dispatch engaging and welcome your feedback on how we can continue to improve.
CSPC Hosts London Defense Conference’s Inaugural Washington Forum
By James Kitfield
CSPC President & CEO Glenn Nye gives opening remarks to the London Defense Conference’s Inaugural Washington Forum. (Photo Credit: William Brouillette)
Recently the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress (CSPC) hosted the London Defense Conference’s inaugural Washington Forum, part of our joint commitment to encourage closer alliance cooperation in meeting rapidly growing geopolitical challenges in an era of major power competition. The overriding theme of the conference was “Global Competition: Security from Seabed to Space.”
The Washington Forum brought together senior officials and experts from allied governments, think tanks, media and industry to explore specific realms of major power competition that are increasingly pitting the United States and its democratic allies against an aggressive “axis of autocracies” led by China and Russia. Those expert panels addressed “Securing Allied Technological Advantage,” “Economic Statecraft and Strategic Resource Competition,” “Securing the Seabed,” operations in “The Increasingly Contested High North,” and the need for “In Air and On Orbit Dominance” in space.
To facilitate free and candid discussion the Washington Forum adopted Chatham House Rules of non-attribution, but in each of the panels important themes emerged that CSPC will explore in this and future Dispatches.
Securing Allied Technological Advantage
There was general agreement among expert Washington Forum participants that the United States and its democratic allies enjoy technological and innovation advantages over potential adversaries, but the gap is closing. China has also established an overwhelming manufacturing advantage in a number of important defense sectors, to include shipbuilding. Indeed, as one expert noted, China’s great strength is an industrial capacity and production ability able to produce at massive scale, and in a timeframe that could prove relevant in a potential conflict.
The historical example of World War II was offered to drive home that point. In the late 1930s, Germany enjoyed a clear innovation and technological advantage, for instance, in the production of tanks, aircraft and submarines, and in new warfighting doctrines such as air/ground “Blitzkrieg” and submarine “Wolf Packs” that were designed to capitalize on those advantages. But as the conflict wore on, the United States was eventually able to exploit its unmatched manufacturing and production capacity and logistics capability to turn the tide of war. A major element of that success was the U.S. ability to retrofit auto factories and commercial production lines to produce weapons such as tanks and B-24 bombers, whose designs were kept relatively simple to allow for the transition. That contrasts to today’s defense industry that typically produces exquisitely capable and complex weapons systems that are difficult to mass produce.
As an example of the challenge, one expert participant noted that the United States exhausted much of its stockpile of advanced air defense missiles during Israel’s war with Iran, in some cases shooting down cheap drones with missiles costing millions of dollars. Similarly, he noted, the U.S. Navy decommissioned many more ships in recent years than it produced, at a time when Chinese shipyards boast more than 200 times U.S. shipbuilding capacity.
Citing an example of the kind of innovation now required by the United States and its allies to maintain a technological edge, it was noted that Tesla disrupted the auto industry not by approaching building cars from a traditional hardware perspective, but rather from the mindset of a software company. That led to designs that emphasized flexibility, simplified and automated production lines, and continual and rapid product improvement.
Applying that mindset to the defense industry, noted one industry participant, would require that the Pentagon leverage existing commercial manufacturing lines and supply chains, and harness new software technologies, to build an entirely new class of weapons that are more affordable, more autonomous, and more easily sacrificed on the battlefield.
A recent real-world example of that type of innovation applied to defense was “Operation Spiderweb” last June, when Ukraine used low-cost drones to launch a surprise attack on five Russian airbases that resulted in the destruction of long-range strategic bombers worth hundreds of millions of dollars. “The United States is not looking closely enough at the lessons from today’s battlefields,” said one expert participant. “As a result, we’re too often showing up to 21st-century conflicts with 20th-century military technology.”
There was widespread agreement among forum participants that the most promising technology for exploiting the West’s innovation advantage is Artificial Intelligence (AI). One expert recalled that a relatively cheap AI tool was employed during the allies’ crisis evacuation from Afghanistan in 2021, allowing the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) to rapidly vet tens of thousands of Afghan evacuees.
“By applying AI tools, we were able to vet everyone who got on those airplanes and quickly share that information with some 60 different agencies, and we definitely prevented some bad actors from getting into the United States as a result,” he said. “Seeing firsthand the impact that AI technology had on IC operations in a crisis gives me great optimism about the future.”
James Kitfield is a Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of the Presidency & Congress.
Lessons On Diplomacy
By Robert W. Gerber
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield hosted by USIP in July 2021. (Photo Credit: U.S. Institute of Peace, CC BY 2.0)
Last week, as Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield began her remarks at a University of North Carolina lecture series, a protestor rose from the audience and yelled at the stage. The protestor accused the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations of war crimes for voting against a 2023 UN resolution on Gaza. Security officers carefully removed the disruptor from the auditorium. This happened five times during a one-hour program, which was supposed to be a conversation about Thomas-Greenfield’s lifetime of service in diplomacy. Later in the day, a group called Students for Justice in Palestine posted a video online of the protestors in action.
The UNC forum, which coincided with Model UN Week, was part of the Carolina Diplomacy Initiative, whose mission is to introduce students to “shared global challenges and provide them opportunities to practice skills necessary to address those challenges.” Unfortunately, the students attending the forum that day were denied the full opportunity to learn about current global challenges from the perspective of a seasoned diplomat. That included events in the Middle East, where a ceasefire agreement was unfolding.
The word diplo means “folded in two” in ancient Greek. The term originally referred to a document signed by a person of authority that granted a traveler a permit or privilege. Webster’s dictionary defines diplomacy as “the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations; or skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility.” Encyclopedia Britannica defines diplomacy as “the established method of influencing the decisions and behavior of foreign governments and peoples through dialogue, and other measures short of war or violence.” In essence, diplomacy encompasses all non-hostile engagement undertaken at the international level on behalf of a government. Known for its formal protocols, diplomacy is primarily practiced by professionals accredited by the foreign nation in which they operate. Diplomacy opens a conversation, which intends to spark a dialogue that reveals the counterparties’ positions. Negotiations and persuasion can begin at this stage. Above all else, a diplomat presses his or her nation’s interests abroad, and they can and use incentives and leverage, like development assistance, market access, support for membership in international bodies, or military sales, to affect a desired outcome. Diplomacy is often slow and incremental in its pursuit of a problem solution. The methodical nature of diplomacy can make it tempting for a leader to resort to unilateral coercive measures – like sanctions or financial penalties - which fall outside the parameters of traditional diplomacy. This tactic is not new. When the French government in 1825 required Haiti to pay an indemnity of 150 million francs in return for diplomatic recognition after Haiti declared independence, this was a compact between two nations, but it was no act of diplomacy. Banning the export of rare earth metals to handicap one’s economic competitor is an act of coercion, not leveraged diplomacy. President Trump has famously employed coercive measures against foreign nations as a tool of foreign policy. Time will tell whether the “Liberation Day” tariffs will achieve the President’s purported goal of reducing the U.S. trade deficit. Unsurprisingly, the President’s threats against Greenland, Canada, and Brazil have so far produced public backlash that undermines U.S. standing and influence in these countries.
President of Mexico Claudia Sheinbaum has demonstrated how a foreign leader can use personal diplomacy to respond effectively to Trump’s unconventional approach to foreign relations. A recent American Diplomat podcast explained that Sheinbaum has presented herself as a strong and equal partner in bilateral discussions, acting on certain priority Washington demands like increasing troop presence along the border and expanding inspections of cargo from Mainland China. Her popularity in Mexico remains above 60%.
The Wall Street Journal aptly described President Trump’s strategy to broker a ceasefire and the release of hostages in Gaza as “upside down diplomacy,” meaning that the President announced an agreement before details were settled to try to force action on tough issues. His negotiating team, led by special envoy and presidential friend Steve Witkoff, also moved remarkably fast to build support for the plan among regional governments. Yale University scholar and former Obama White House senior advisor Rob Malley told PBS News Hour that the Gaza deal was “a major achievement by the President… it was achieved because he has opted for a form of unconventional politics, where he exercised raw power, prepared to break convention, and spoke to both sides.” Diplomacy must now continue in earnest because Hamas is still an armed terror group, and the Palestinians’ political future has not been resolved. (Note: one rule of diplomacy is to never criticize your compatriots while representing your country abroad. Trump broke this protocol when, during an address to the Israeli parliament, he stated that presidents Obama and Biden hated Israel.)
Turning back to the forum with Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield - if protestors had not interrupted the discussion, students would have learned how diplomats use dialogue to bridge divides among nations while advancing their own national interests. They would have heard how a skilled diplomat picks his/her battles and presses where they see an opportunity. As a diplomat, you have wins and losses, and you often have to say no. What you say matters: experienced diplomats know that you make limited gains by denigrating your opponent, nor can you achieve lasting results through flattery. Fortitude, patience, trusted relationships, and stamina are job requirements. A diplomat acts on orders from elected leaders in the capital – as Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield did for the UN vote - but they can also influence policy and its implementation through formal and informal means. Diplomats can also dissent, and most know how to do it effectively through official channels without stifling others’ right to be heard within the policymaking process. Former U.S. Ambassador to France Charles Rivkin, speaking on creative dissent, said, “Stepping forward when events demand it... acting with initiative, with keen insights, with knowledge and responsibility - that is the backbone of public service that actually serves the public good.” This is a useful reminder for students and professionals alike in a world where diplomacy is constantly evolving.
Robert W. Gerber is a retired U.S. diplomat and a CSPC Senior Fellow.
U.S. Troops on American Streets: Executive Power or Overreach?
By Amarah Din
U.S. Army Soldiers from the District of Columbia National Guard position vehicles outside Union Station in D.C. as part of the D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force on Aug. 15, 2025. (Photo Credit: Tech Sgt. Andrew Enriquez)
For the past few months, residents of major cities across the United States have seen a growing presence of military troops in their neighborhoods. The phenomenon started last June, when President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles, California, in response to protests against immigration raids. Soon after the commander-in-chief deployed troops in Washington, D.C, and this month they appeared in several more cities, to include Memphis, Chicago, and Portland. Trump claims the deployments will help control crime across the country, but many of the affected cities and states have something else in common – most of the mayors and governors impacted are Democrats and have explicitly opposed the federal troop deployments as an unlawful abuse of power.
Judges have already temporarily blocked the National Guard from being deployed in Chicago and Portland. In the Illinois case, the judge stated that there was no substantial evidence of a “danger of rebellion,” and accused the Trump administration of violating the 10th and 14thAmendments, which grant power to the states and require due process and equal protection under the law, respectively.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the Posse Comitatus Act passed in 1878 prohibits “federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law.” The statute is meant to protect civil liberties and democracy from military interference. Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, however, which gives the president the power to deploy the National Guard, and even active-duty troops, in order to suppress rebellion. The act has been invoked thirty times in its history, which includes several cautionary tales involving use of National Guard troops for law enforcement.
On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard fired a volley of shots at a crowd of student protestors from Kent State University, for instance, resulting in the tragic death of four students and the wounding of nine others. The campus demonstrators were protesting U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, and days earlier the Kent mayor had requested that the Ohio governor deploy the National Guard to curb the disturbances. The campus rally on May 4 was attended by roughly 3,000 people. Confronted by the unarmed crowd, 28 of the 70 Guardsmen present opened fire, claiming they feared for their lives and were acting in self-defense. The tragic killing of American students during an anti-war protest is a stark reminder of the dangers of deploying armed U.S. military troops to conduct law enforcement operations for which they are not trained or properly equipped.
The L.A. riots of 1992 were sparked after a jury acquitted the police officers who brutally beat a Black motorist named Rodney King. The riots lasted several days and resulted in dozens of people being killed, another roughly 2,000 were injured, and thousands more arrested. Property damage resulting from the riots totaled approximately $1 billion. During the riots, the California governor requested military aid from President George H.W. Bush, who invoked the Insurrection Act and deployed the National Guard. This gave Guardsmen law enforcement powers to make arrests and conduct searches: powers that are normally prohibited under the Posse Comitatus Act. The Insurrection Act has not been invoked in the more than thirty years following the L.A. riots.
During the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020 during Trump’s first term, D.C. National Guard helicopters hovered closely above protestors in an attempt to disperse the crowd on the National Mall. The medical evacuation helicopters were granted a waiver by the Secret Service to fly in restricted airspace, but their use to disperse protesters sparked outrage. A later investigation into the tactic determined that the use was “reasonable” at the time, but “there was a systemic lack of understanding about the command and control and employment of those helicopters during civil disturbance operations.” There is now a stricter process for approving the use of aviation assets in the nation’s capital, but fears over the potential misuse of the National Guard in crowd control remain high.
According to former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, at the time of those Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 then-President Trump asked whether the Guard troops could “just shoot” protesters, “just shoot them in the legs or something?” Esper recounted in his memoir “A Sacred Oath.” “I think we were all taken aback by that.”
With National Guard troops now deploying to the streets of more American cities on Trump’s orders, such concerns are naturally spiking. While the National Guard is routinely utilized domestically in response to natural disasters, or deployed during military operations overseas such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, they lack the proper equipment and training to act as law enforcement. The mere presence of armed and uniformed military troops on the streets of America can escalate already tense situations that police officers are trained to de-escalate.
Trump’s threat to break a thirty-year streak of restraint by his predecessors in the White House and invoke the Insurrection Act raises troubling questions about executive power and intent. Is the overriding purpose really to protect local communities, or to intimidate Democratic mayors and jurisdictions that the president labels “the enemy from within.” When asked in a CNN interview about a district court blocking Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Oregon, Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, explicitly stated that the president has “Plenary Authority” in the matter, or “power that is complete, comprehensive, and not subject to significant limitation…[or] requiring additional approval or delegation.”
The Trump administration’s assertion of unchecked power to weaponize the U.S. military as an instrument of domestic law enforcement, and militarize the streets of America, hardly seems designed to establish peace and order. In fact, for many communities they feel more like a threat.
Amarah Din is an intern at CSPC and recent Political Science graduate from Appalachian State University.
CSPC IN THE NEWS
How Trump’s Chip Tariffs Can Onshore Manufacturing And Protect National and Economic Security
Originally published in Real Clear Policy on October 3, 2025:
CSPC Senior Fellow Andy Keiser examines how President Trump’s proposed 100% chip tariffs could help bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the U.S., strengthen national security, and protect American jobs. Keiser outlines concrete steps, from enforcing tariffs to holding companies accountable, that could ensure domestic production grows rather than relying on hollow promises.
James Kitfield on NPR's 1A: Friday News Roundup
CSPC Senior Fellow James Kitfield will appear this morning on NPR’s 1A Program in their Friday News Roundup during the International Hour.
Tune in between 11am-12pm here or your local NPR station.