Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

"Never lose a holy curiosity."

– Albert Einstein.

"They who have no central purpose in life, fall an easy prey to petty worries, fears, troubles, and self-pity."

– James Allen.

“While thoughts exist, words are alive and literature becomes an escape, not from, but into living.”

– Cyril Connolly

Apologies for today seeming to be all AI all the time. But this DeepSeek seems to be a game changer.

1. DeepSeek’s Popular AI App Is Explicitly Sending US Data to China

2. The Day DeepSeek Turned Tech and Wall Street Upside Down

3. DeepSeek Undercuts Belief That Chip-Hungry U.S. Players Will Win AI Race

4. What to Know About China’s DeepSeek AI

5. The DeepSeek AI Freakout

6. China’s new face of AI: Who is DeepSeek founder Liang Wenfeng?

7. ‘Made in China’: Pride, pleasant surprise from Chinese netizens as DeepSeek jolts global AI scene

8. Trump says China's DeepSeek AI a 'wake up call' for US

9. Why DeepSeek Could Change What Silicon Valley Believes About A.I.

10. Tom Cotton on Trump and Pompeo, Bolton and Hook

11. New sheriff in town — Hegseth wastes no time bringing change to the Pentagon

12. Air Force reinstates course with Tuskegee Airmen video after outcry

13. Google Maps will rename Gulf of Mexico as Gulf of America in US

14. VA, DOD oversight questioned after Trump inspector general firings

15. The Future of Warfare: Autonomous Technologies in Modern Conflict

16. Intelligence sharing by the US and its allies has saved lives. Trump could test those ties

17. To limit Chinese influence on commercial tech partners, Pentagon plans big changes

18. Hegseth highlights 'Iron Dome for America', other first priorities as new SecDef

19. More than 50 career civil servants at USAID are placed on administrative leave

20. Marine Corps Full Steam Ahead on Integrating Platoon-Level Drill Instructor Roles

21. Art and Arms: 2 Aspects of Resistance in Ukraine's Fight for Freedom

22. Countering Russian Occupation: Strategies for Multinational Resistance

23. a despicable choice - let’s state it up front (PRC and COVID)

24. Trump and the New Age of Nationalism

25. The Case for a Theater Space Operations Command

26. Interview with Deepseek Founder: We're Done Following. It's Time to Lead.

27. Who’s Who on Trump’s China Team

28. Understanding US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's vision for US armed forces

29. DeepSeek hit with large-scale cyberattack, says it's limiting registrations

30. Project Solarium 2.0: Can Eisenhower's Cold War Strategy Work Today? (or Be Like Ike: Bring Back a Real Solarium Project)

1. DeepSeek’s Popular AI App Is Explicitly Sending US Data to China

It is a brave new world.

China will control us all. We are willingly giving them our devices and data. TikTok, RedNote, DeepSeek and what most of us old people do not see or use but the youth do: video games. China now knows the American consumer's mind so well and is giving us the drug we cannot resist - mindless distraction and thinking we have easy access to information and knowledge that requires no critical thinking.

China will sell us the rope we will use to hang ourselves (with no apologies to Lenin's capitalism quote).

DeepSeek’s Popular AI App Is Explicitly Sending US Data to China

Matt Burgess Lily Hay Newman

Security Jan 27, 2025 5:10 PM

Amid ongoing fears over TikTok, Chinese generative AI platform DeepSeek says it’s sending heaps of US user data straight to its home country, potentially setting the stage for greater scrutiny.

https://www.wired.com/story/deepseek-ai-china-privacy-data/

Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

The United States’ recent regulatory action against the Chinese-owned social video platform TikTok prompted mass migration to another Chinese app, the social platform “Rednote.” Now, a generative artificial intelligence platform from the Chinese developer DeepSeek is exploding in popularity, posing a potential threat to US AI dominance and offering the latest evidence that moratoriums like the TikTok ban will not stop Americans from using Chinese-owned digital services.

DeepSeek, an AI research lab created by a prominent Chinese hedge fund, recently gained popularity after releasing its latest open source generative AI model that easily competes with top US platforms like those developed by OpenAI. However, to help avoid US sanctions on hardware and software, DeepSeek created some clever workarounds when building its models. On Monday, DeepSeek’s creators limited new sign-ups after claiming the app had been overrun with a “large-scale malicious attack.”

While DeepSeek has several AI models, some of which can be downloaded and run locally on your laptop, the majority of people will likely access the service through its iOS or Android apps or its web chat interface. Like with other generative AI models, you can ask it questions and get answers; it can search the web; or it can alternatively use a reasoning model to elaborate on answers.

Jen Easterly On The Future of Cybersecurity and Her Agency's Survival

DeepSeek, which does not appear to have established a communications department or press contact yet, did not return a request for comment from WIRED about its user data protections and the extent to which it prioritizes data privacy initiatives.

As people clamor to test out the AI platform, though, the demand brings into focus how the Chinese startup collects user data and sends it home. Users have already reported several examples of DeepSeek censoring content that is critical of China or its policies. The AI setup appears to collect a lot of information—including all your chat messages—and send it back to China. In many ways, it’s likely sending more data back to China than TikTok has in recent years, since the social media company moved to US cloud hosting to try to deflect US security concerns

“It shouldn’t take a panic over Chinese AI to remind people that most companies in the business set the terms for how they use your private data” says John Scott-Railton, a senior researcher at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab. “And that when you use their services, you’re doing work for them, not the other way around.”

What DeepSeek Collects About You

To be clear, DeepSeek is sending your data to China. The English-language DeepSeek privacy policy, which lays out how the company handles user data, is unequivocal: “We store the information we collect in secure servers located in the People's Republic of China.”

In other words, all the conversations and questions you send to DeepSeek, along with the answers that it generates, are being sent to China or can be. DeepSeek’s privacy policies also outline the information it collects about you, which falls into three sweeping categories: information that you share with DeepSeek, information that it automatically collects, and information that it can get from other sources.

The first of these areas includes “user input,” a broad category likely to cover your chats with DeepSeek via its app or website. “We may collect your text or audio input, prompt, uploaded files, feedback, chat history, or other content that you provide to our model and Services,” the privacy policy states. Within DeepSeek’s settings, it is possible to delete your chat history. On mobile, go to the left-hand navigation bar, tap your account name at the bottom of the menu to open settings, and then click “Delete all chats.”

This collection is similar to that of other generative AI platforms that take in user prompts to answer questions. OpenAI’s ChatGPT, for example, has been criticized for its data collection although the company has increased the ways data can be deleted over time. Regardless of these types of protections, privacy advocates emphasize that you should not disclose any sensitive or personal information to AI chat bots.

“I would not input personal or private data in any such an AI assistant,” says Lukasz Olejnik, independent researcher and consultant, affiliated with King's College London Institute for AI. Olejnik notes, though, that if you install models like DeepSeek’s locally and run them on your computer, you can interact with them privately without your data going to the company that made them. Additionally, AI search company Perplexity says it has added DeepSeek to its platforms but claims it is hosting the model in US and EU data centers.

Other personal information that goes to DeepSeek includes data that you use to set up your account, including your email address, phone number, date of birth, username, and more. Likewise, if you get in touch with the company, you’ll be sharing information with it.

Bart Willemsen, a VP analyst focusing on international privacy at Gartner, says that, generally, the construction and operations of generative AI models is not transparent to consumers and other groups. People don’t know exactly how they work or the exact data they have been built upon. For individuals, DeepSeek is largely free, although it has costs for developers using its APIs. “So what do we pay with? What do we usually pay with: data, knowledge, content, information,” Willemsen says.

As with all digital platforms—from websites to apps—there can also be a large amount of data that is collected automatically and silently when you use the services. DeepSeek says it will collect information about what device you are using, your operating system, IP address, and information such as crash reports. It can also record your “keystroke patterns or rhythms,” a type of data more widely collected in software built for character-based languages. Additionally, if you purchase DeepSeek’s premium services, the platform will collect that information. It also uses cookies and other tracking technology to “measure and analyze how you use our services.”

A WIRED review of the DeepSeek website's underlying activity shows the company also appears to send data to both Chinese tech giant Baidu, potentially for web analytics purposes, as well as Volces, a Chinese internet infrastructure firm.

The final category of information DeepSeek reserves the right to collect is data from other sources. If you create a DeepSeek account using Google or Apple sign-on, for instance, it will receive some information from those companies. Advertisers also share information with DeepSeek, its policies say, and this can include “mobile identifiers for advertising, hashed email addresses and phone numbers, and cookie identifiers, which we use to help match you and your actions outside of the service.”

How DeepSeek Uses Information

Huge volumes of data may flow to China from DeepSeek’s international user base, but the company still has power over how it uses the information. DeepSeek’s privacy policy says the company will use data in many typical ways, including keeping its service running, enforcing its terms and conditions, and making improvements.

Crucially, though, the company’s privacy policy suggests that it may harness user prompts in developing new models. The company will “review, improve, and develop the service, including by monitoring interactions and usage across your devices, analyzing how people are using it, and by training and improving our technology,” its policies say.

DeepSeek’s privacy policy also says the company will also use information to “comply with [its] legal obligations”—a blanket clause many companies include in their policies. DeepSeek’s privacy policy says data can be accessed by its “corporate group,” and it will share information with law enforcement agencies, public authorities, and more when it is required to do so.

While all companies have legal obligations, those based in China do have notable responsibilities. Over the past decade, Chinese officials have passed a series of cybersecurity and privacy laws meant to allow state officials to demand data from tech companies. One 2017 law, for instance, says that organizations and citizens should “cooperate with national intelligence efforts.”

These laws, alongside growing trade tensions between the US and China and other geopolitical factors, fueled security fears about TikTok. The app could harvest huge amounts of data and send it back to China, those in favor of the TikTok ban argued, and the app could also be used to push Chinese propaganda. (TikTok has denied sending US user data to China’s government.) Meanwhile, several DeepSeek users have already pointed out that the platform does not provide answers for questions about the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, and it answers some questions in ways that sound like propaganda.

Willemsen says that, compared to users on a social media platform like TikTok, people messaging with a generative AI system are more actively engaged and the content can feel more personal. In short, any influence could be larger. “Risks of subliminal content alteration, conversation direction steering, in active engagement ought by that logic to lead to more concern, not less,” he says, “especially given how the inner workings of the model are widely unknown, its thresholds, borders, controls, censorship rules, and intent/personae largely left unscrutinized, and it being already so popular in its infancy stage.”

Olejnik, of King's College London, says that while the TikTok ban was a specific situation, US law makers or those in other countries could act again on a similar premise. “We can’t rule out that 2025 will bring an expansion: direct action against AI firms,” Olejnik says. “Of course, data collection may again be named as the reason.”

Updated 5:27 pm EST January 27, 2025: Added additional details about the DeepSeek website's activity.

Matt Burgess is a senior writer at WIRED focused on information security, privacy, and data regulation in Europe. He graduated from the University of Sheffield with a degree in journalism and now lives in London. Send tips to Matt_Burgess@wired.com.

Senior writer

Lily Hay Newman is a senior writer at WIRED focused on information security, digital privacy, and hacking. She previously worked as a technology reporter at Slate, and was the staff writer for Future Tense, a publication and partnership between Slate, the New America Foundation, and Arizona State University. Her work... Read more

2. The Day DeepSeek Turned Tech and Wall Street Upside Down

The Day DeepSeek Turned Tech and Wall Street Upside Down

Monday’s bloodbath in Nvidia and other AI stocks wiped out some $1 trillion from the stock market’s value

https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/the-day-deepseek-turned-tech-and-wall-street-upside-down-f2a70b69?st=T7JRA3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

By Gunjan Banerji

, Asa Fitch

and Karen Langley

Updated Jan. 28, 2025 12:19 am ET

Illustration: Rachel Mendelson/WSJ, Bloomberg (3), iStock (3)

For two years, markets’ belief that the rise of artificial intelligence would usher in a new era of productivity growth has fueled trillions of dollars in stock-market gains.

Nvidia NVDA -16.97%decrease; red down pointing triangle, the maker of the computer chips at the heart of the AI boom, has been in the vanguard of this advance. Wall Street has perceived the company to have an almost unbreachable defense against competition with its offerings of high-tech chips. The company’s rapid growth and windfall profit have helped push other technology firms and the Nasdaq Composite Index to record after record, with giddy investors expecting more of the same down the road.

On Monday, the mood turned sour. DeepSeek, a dark-horse power in artificial intelligence, emerged from China. That rattled big tech stocks, led by a plunge of almost $600 billion in Nvidia, which only last week was the world’s most valuable company. Nvidia’s fall marked the largest one-day loss in market value for any public company.

Last week DeepSeek released an AI model that appeared to perform on par with a cutting-edge counterpart from OpenAI, the U.S. firm at the heart of the AI craze. The twist: Creative engineering tricks meant DeepSeek needed far less computing power. The upshot is that the AI models of the future might not require as many high-end Nvidia chips as investors have been counting on.

“This is kind of classic in our industry,” Salesforce Chief Executive Marc Benioff said. “The pioneers are not the ones who end up being the victors.”

The development turned Wall Street upside down. Nvidia’s stock dropped 17% to its lowest level since October. Chip stocks Broadcom and Micron Technology fell more than 10%. The S&P 500’s technology sector lost 5.6%, its worst one-day decline in more than four years. In all, Monday’s bloodbath wiped out some $1 trillion from the stock market’s value, according to Dow Jones Market Data.

Nvidia call options traded, daily

million

2021

’22

’23

’24

’25

Note: Based on the 10-day rolling average.

Source: Cboe Global Markets

Leon Cooperman, the billionaire stock picker who founded Omega Family Office, is one of many investors who says the euphoria surrounding the sector reached unsustainable heights.

“Every third word out of anyone’s mouth was ‘AI,’” Cooperman said. “Everybody was bulled up in the market. If you have a contrarian bone in your body, you have to look the other way.”

The threat to Nvidia is the largest it has faced since sales of its chips skyrocketed during the budding AI boom two years ago. The chip maker booked more than $63 billion in earnings in its last four quarters, making it one of the most profitable companies of all time, and its shares have surged eightfold since the end of 2022.

For its part, Nvidia praised DeepSeek’s advancements and pointed to strong future demand for its products. Deploying AI models “requires significant numbers of Nvidia GPUs and high-performance networking,” the company said.

Many investors had latched on to the notion that AI would unleash a wave of productivity in the economy while powering continued profits in a handful of technology giants. Several said Monday’s swoon exposed a deep vulnerability in the market: Many investors had crowded into the exact same AI trade.

“It is difficult to know exactly how to make money on AI,” said Mike Ogborne, founder of Ogborne Capital Management, a hedge-fund firm in San Francisco that oversees a position in Nvidia. “This could be the first day of a lot more pain.”

Estimated net inflows to technology funds, yearly

$50

billion

–25

2000

’05

’10

’15

’20

Source: Morningstar Direct

What is DeepSeek?

DeepSeek is the brainchild of Liang Wenfeng, a Chinese technologist who runs an $8 billion hedge fund called High-Flyer. Wenfeng plunged headlong into the business of advanced AI systems about two years ago when he established DeepSeek and made it his mission to compete with the biggest and most well-funded AI startups in the world.

Until recently, though, DeepSeek went largely below the radar. Executives attended Nvidia’s annual conference in San Jose, and the company was a big early buyer of Nvidia’s chips in China. Even after U.S. export restrictions clamped down on its ability to import Nvidia’s most advanced chips, it bought less-advanced chips the company made specifically for the Chinese market.

The big moment for DeepSeek came with the recent release of its “R1” model, which dazzled many users of its app with its ability to reason through tough problems in ways that rivaled—and some say, surpassed—OpenAI’s capabilities. The company’s app quickly rose to become the most popular on Apple’s iPhone store.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on Monday called R1 “an impressive model, particularly around what they’re able to deliver for the price,” in a post on X. He also said it was invigorating to have a new competitor and that his company will move up some of its product releases.

Dan Cleary, a New York-based founder of PromptHub, a startup that helps users improve their queries to AI systems, said he ran DeepSeek’s R1 through its paces by giving it a multistep math problem. DeepSeek solved it in about four minutes—three minutes faster than OpenAI’s o1 took. DeepSeek also showed more of the work it needed to get there.

He then asked DeepSeek to produce an image of a pelican riding a bicycle, and to identify an erroneous phrase (“Dan surfs in Portugal”) he inserted in the text of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “Great Gatsby.” It did both well.

“It’s the first really good reasoning model outside of OpenAI” that has been widely released, he said, as well as the first very good model from China. DeepSeek will be made available on PromptHub’s platform in the coming days, he added, tying into the excitement around it.

You may also like

Copy LinkCopy EmbedFacebook Twitter

0:03

Paused

0:04

0:57

Tap For Sound

President Donald Trump said the launch of a low-cost Chinese AI model should be seen as a wake up call for U.S. industries. Trump also announced plans to impose new tariffs on semiconductor imports. Photo: elizabeth frantz/Reuters

Despite the hype, some chip-industry insiders don’t believe DeepSeek will supplant AI’s incumbents, or that its claims of needing small amounts of computing power to create powerful AI models means Nvidia’s business is doomed.

Some estimates have posited that DeepSeek needed only around $5 million worth of chips to train one of its earlier models, but that ignores the cost of the research and experimentation that went into its development, Bernstein Research analyst Stacy Rasgon said in a research note. It wasn’t clear how much computing power DeepSeek used for the more advanced R1 model.

Because DeepSeek made its research and results public, other AI companies can also adopt them, potentially paving the way for other models’ improvement rather than posing a direct threat to them.

If DeepSeek indeed delivered its model on the cheap, the disruption to the incumbent AI trade could be profound. But the advance could be good news more broadly, said Joseph Amato, chief investment officer at Neuberger Berman, which manages more than $500 billion.

“If you can invest less for a powerful model that has wider adoption because the costs are lower, that’s got to be a good thing for the broad-based economy, all the companies that are using AI,” he said.

A snowballing trade

The run-up in Nvidia and other AI stocks has been marked by speculation across markets, where big tech companies have never loomed so large.

Nvidia market value

trillion

2023

’24

’25

Source: FactSet

Since a blockbuster earnings report from Nvidia in early 2023 floored investors, everyday Americans and big institutional investors alike have piled into artificial-intelligence stocks, vying for a slice of the profits.

U.S. technology mutual and exchange-traded funds attracted $23 billion of net inflows in 2024, the largest annual haul since 2000 around the time the dot-com bubble burst, according to Morningstar Direct data.

And the seven largest companies in the S&P 500 recently made up 34% of the index’s market capitalization, the highest figure on record, according to Goldman Sachs data going back to 1980. Nvidia alone made up 6.8% of the S&P 500 on Friday, up from about 1.1% at the end of 2022, according to Dow Jones Market Data. It contributed almost a quarter of the index’s total return in 2024.

Some investors say the exuberance surrounding the AI trade has simply gone too far and was due for an abrupt reversal, such as the one that rocked markets Monday. They are positioning for the tumult to continue and warning that the crowded trade could continue unraveling.

“It’s a disruption of this whole narrative that this small cohort of companies is going to be controlling AI progress for years and years to come,” said Rob Arnott, founder of asset management firm Research Affiliates, who has been warning about over-exuberance surrounding AI.

The outsize influence of a few big stocks has led some professionals to argue that the group is more vulnerable than ever before.

“When you see these types of levels of concentration, the megacaps, the biggest companies, tend to have a target on their back,” said Michael Reynolds, vice president of investment strategy at Glenmede. “Whether it’s a regulatory target, whether it’s creative destruction as other companies try to take the mantle. I think we’re sort of seeing that happen in practice today.”

While the day’s plunge in Nvidia shares and declines in other tech stocks pulled the S&P 500 sharply lower, a majority of stocks in the index rose for the day. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 0.7%, or about 289 points, as blue-chip stocks from Johnson & Johnson to Apple, Coca-Cola to Nike, rallied.

Worries about a market bubble

Two years of nearly unrelenting stock-market gains have spurred numerous calls that markets are on the verge of a bubble.

One reason? The popularity of speculative exchange-traded funds that use leverage, or borrowed money, to amplify the returns of their underlying assets has exploded. Assets in such funds have grown to $100 billion, from about $60 billion at the end of 2022, according to Morningstar.

Monday’s market action highlighted the perils of holding such funds. A $10 billion Direxion ETF that aims to triple the exposure to an index of chip-makers dropped 23%, wiping out all of its gains since late 2023. And a GraniteShares fund that aims to double the daily return of Nvidia shares plunged 34% in its worst day on record.

The growth of leveraged funds has raised concerns that the funds themselves are contributing to the velocity of moves in the underlying stocks they track. In order to maintain their advertised exposure, the funds become sellers of the stocks they track on down days and buyers on up days when they rebalance.

Capital spending, quarterly

$60

billion

DeepSeek Undercuts Belief That Chip-Hungry U.S. Players Will Win AI Race

More AI competition will make it hard for Big Tech to generate the oligopoly-like profit margins that investors hope for

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/deepseek-tech-stocks-a3e83478?mod=latest_headlines

By James Mackintosh

Updated Jan. 28, 2025 12:21 am ET

Stock-market information for Nvidia and other tech companies is displayed at Nasdaq MarketSite in New York. Photo: Yuki Iwamura/Bloomberg News

Anything vaguely related to artificial intelligence was smashed on Monday after investors spent the weekend frantically googling DeepSeek-R1, the low-cost Chinese AI model released last week.

The new generative-AI model, which claims performance on a comparison with OpenAI’s latest, stuck a knife into two beliefs that have come to dominate investment in the past two years. First, that AI needs massive amounts of new infrastructure, energy and microchips, mostly from Nvidia NVDA -16.97%decrease; red down pointing triangle. And second, that the winners of AI will be the dominant American technology companies.

Monday’s AI crash was led by the first part, the “chips and shovels” that supported the development of AI, not the developers of these fancy programs themselves. Nvidia stock was down 17%, losing more than half a trillion dollars of value, nuclear-power stocks Constellation Energy CEG -20.85%decrease; red down pointing triangle, Vistra VST -28.27%decrease; red down pointing triangle, Oklo OKLO -25.61%decrease; red down pointing triangle and NuScale Power SMR -27.53%decrease; red down pointing triangle were down 21%-28%, and data-center supplier Vertiv Holdings was off 30%.

“This is symptomatic of more AI supply coming at a point where AI’s still looking for a problem to solve,” said Robert Almeida, global investment strategist at MFS Investment Management.

Investors should have some questions.

How much was the selloff about fundamentals, and how much about sentiment? The moves in prices appear to show investors focused on fundamental issues of how DeepSeek’s approach will lead to lower power use and less demand for chips and data centers.

Yet, it is hard to believe that prices had run up so much purely on the back of smart investors plugging growth estimates into their spreadsheets and valuing the resulting cash flows. A lot of what’s been going on is similar to when investors discovered the internet. They have grasped that AI is A Big Deal, but can’t yet see exactly how or when it will make money.

In a sentiment-driven market, it is even harder to work out what happens next. I thought the market was overly frothy in mid-December, because prices seemed too far detached from reality. The trouble is that sentiment is hard to predict: Investors can always become even more excited about something, but sentiment becomes more vulnerable to a setback the more enthusiastic investors are. DeepSeek may be just that setback.

What about the AI companies? What are the prospects for Microsoft-backed OpenAI, Alphabet, Amazon-backed Anthropic, Elon Musk’s xAI and all the others to make money when faced with a low-cost competitor? DeepSeek is, after all, available, like Meta’s Llama, to download and tweak free.

On Monday this wasn’t the main concern, with Microsoft off 2.1%, Alphabet 4.2% and Amazon slightly up. They have big, profitable businesses they are using to finance AI development, and will also be able to use the techniques DeepSeek shared to lower their own costs. But they just lost one of the biggest barriers to entry. If a new AI model can be produced for just a few million dollars by the tech arm of a Chinese hedge fund, maybe others can do the same.

The DeepSeek app shown on a phone screen. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

More competition will make it hard for Big Tech to make the oligopoly-like profit margins that investors hope for. If the companies can’t make fat profits, it will be even harder to justify their high valuations. These valuations, remember, rely on the assumption that AI tools will be both widely used and highly profitable, but even the experts have little explanation of how the business model will work. It will also be harder to explain why they are sinking so much money into AI data centers.

Is this just another bump in the road? As the dot-com bubble was building in 1999-2000 there were large price corrections, but they merely attracted people who had missed out to come in and buy what they thought were bargains. On Jan. 4, 2000, the Nasdaq-100 index tumbled 6.5%, double Monday’s fall, yet the tech bubble itself didn’t burst until March. Even then, the S&P 500 almost completely recovered by September, when a brutal selloff began.

What will the economic impact be? Even quite significant market corrections typically have little to no effect on growth. This time, though, a change of market signal might be under way that would affect on-the-ground activity, not just Wall Street.

Investors have been encouraging companies to pour cash into building new data centers, power stations and anything related to the power grid for the past year. Monday’s price drops suggest less appetite for real-world investments and could persuade companies to invest less into such projects. That might be part of the reason that 10-year Treasury yields fell so much on Monday, though it was also a flight to safety by investors.

Will investors now remember the benefits of diversifying their investments? At the start of the year the 10 largest stocks in the S&P 500 made up 37% of the index, and only one, Berkshire Hathaway, was outside Big Tech. The point of buying the S&P or other large market indexes is to gain exposure to a range of stocks with low fees, but the concentration created by the sheer size of the market behemoths mean the market offers less diversification of risk than any time since index funds were invented.

You may also like

Copy LinkCopy EmbedFacebook Twitter

0:04

Paused

0:00

0:57

Tap For Sound

Monday showed the problem: The Magnificent Seven stocks of Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla were down over 3%, weighted by market value. Yet the rest of the S&P 500 was down only 0.4% on the same basis—while the average stock was flat.

Diversification means underperformance when the big get bigger, but offers protection when investors get overenthused by an idea and push prices too far—as seems to have happened with AI.

Write to James Mackintosh at james.mackintosh@wsj.com

4. What to Know About China’s DeepSeek AI

I was behind the powercurve. I lost the bubble. DeepSeek came out of the blue for me. I was totally unaware.

Here is a cheatsheet someone posted on one of the Listservs I belong to.

What to Know About China’s DeepSeek AI

The Chinese upstart says it has trained high-performing AI models cheaply, without using the most advanced chips

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/deepseek-ai-china-tech-stocks-explained-ee6cc80e?mod=latest_headlines

By Sam Schechner

Follow

and Stu Woo

Follow

Updated Jan. 28, 2025 12:17 am ET

DeepSeek, a Chinese AI company, has launched its latest AI model. Photo: Andrey Rudakov/Bloomberg News

DeepSeek has Silicon Valley in awe and stocks in a frenzy.

Tech stocks sank in a broad selloff Monday after the Chinese artificial-intelligence upstart said it had trained high-performing AI models cheaply, without the most advanced chips. Nvidia closed down 17%, losing $589 billion of market value in a single day. That’s the biggest daily decline in dollars ever for a publicly listed company.

DeepSeek later said it was the victim of “large-scale malicious attacks” on its services and was temporarily limiting new registration.

Here’s what you need to know about DeepSeek:

What is DeepSeek and why am I hearing about it now?

DeepSeek is a Chinese AI company, which just a week ago launched its latest AI model, which it calls R1. The company said the model was particularly good at problem solving, performing on par with OpenAI’s o1 reasoning model—but at a fraction of the cost per use. A DeepSeek app is currently top in iPhone download rankings for the U.S.

Why are investors worried about DeepSeek?

The conventional thinking was that AI companies needed expensive, leading-edge computer chips—such as those made by Nvidia—to train the best systems. That has justified huge spending by the biggest U.S. tech companies, such as Alphabet and Meta Platforms, which are sometimes known as hyperscalers.

Just last week, companies including SoftBank, Oracle and OpenAI pledged to spend $500 billion to build new AI infrastructure in a venture they call Stargate.

But DeepSeek didn’t have leading-edge chips—and its models appear to be roughly on par with top U.S. rivals on certain benchmarks that evaluate AI ability. DeepSeek says it uses less-advanced chips, combined with innovative model-training techniques.

In addition, DeepSeek released its R1 model as open source, meaning others can pick up and adapt the model for their own use. That will mean that other companies will be able to build on DeepSeek’s approach and potentially create other cheap AI alternatives.

Why is DeepSeek relying on cheaper technology?

It is hard for DeepSeek to buy cutting-edge chips because of U.S. export controls, intended to hinder Chinese organizations from developing innovative AI for military purposes.

That DeepSeek appears to have been able to achieve state-of-the-art performance suggests that those export controls may be ineffective—either because U.S.-designed chips aren’t necessary to make the best AI models, or because those chips are somehow making it to China in sufficient quantities anyway.

Who is behind DeepSeek?

Chinese hedge-fund manager Liang Wenfeng is behind DeepSeek’s development. The business grew out of the AI research unit of his $8 billion hedge-fund firm, High-Flyer.

How good is DeepSeek?

The researchers behind DeepSeek say that they tested R1 against some of the top AI models from OpenAI—and found that it was very competitive. Those evaluations include one developed by OpenAI itself that includes computer-programming tasks that an AI model must complete on its own, such as patching a bug in a given piece of software. R1 performed on par with a version of OpenAI’s reasoning-focused model, called o1, and outperformed an earlier one called o1-mini.

DeepSeek published costs for using R1 that were an order of magnitude below those charged by U.S.-based companies for their most sophisticated models.

Users on X have said they were impressed with R1’s writing and problem-solving skills but some said that the model performed worse than rivals on specific types of problem solving. In coming weeks, more third-party testing should give a better understanding of how well R1 really performs. And users can test it out themselves, too.

What makes DeepSeek work well?

In a paper published last week, the Chinese researchers behind DeepSeek said their new model would sometimes suddenly stop and realize it should re-evaluate its initial approach to a problem, and allocate more thinking time to do so. They described the behavior as the model having an “Aha!” moment.

“Rather than explicitly teaching the model on how to solve a problem, we simply provide it with the right incentives, and it autonomously develops advanced problem-solving strategies,” the researchers wrote.

Is DeepSeek a disaster for AI stocks?

Not everyone thinks DeepSeek has upended the AI-infrastructure industry. While DeepSeek might have found a way to cut AI training costs, AI demand keeps surging, and tech companies still need more computing power, wrote Stacy Rasgon, a Bernstein semiconductor analyst.

“Is DeepSeek doomsday for AI buildouts?” Rasgon and his colleagues wrote in a report on Monday. “We don’t think so.”

Copy LinkCopy EmbedFacebook

Twitter

0:11

Paused

0:01

/

0:57

Tap For Sound

President Donald Trump said the launch of a low-cost Chinese AI model should be seen as a wake up call for U.S. industries. Trump also announced plans to impose new tariffs on semiconductor imports. Photo: elizabeth frantz/Reuters

Why is Nvidia taking such a big hit?

Nvidia has been one of the biggest winners in the AI boom because its chips have almost exclusively powered the training and in many cases the day-to-day running of the most powerful existing AI models. Nvidia—and its investors—have bet heavily that new generations of those cutting-edge chips will be necessary to develop the most powerful AI models. DeepSeek’s success suggests that Nvidia’s lead on AI chip development may not be as big as thought, or as crucial to developing new AI models.

In a statement, Nvidia called DeepSeek “an excellent AI advancement” and said the work required for it to come up with answers, called inference, “requires significant numbers of Nvidia [chips] and high-performance networking.”

Who might win from the turmoil?

DeepSeek’s success building an AI model could rebalance the global playing field when it comes to AI development—and that has cheered some countries outside the U.S.

Government officials in France, for instance, said Monday that DeepSeek shows that agile companies with clever techniques still compete in the AI race, even if they have less money or limited access to the best AI chips. Opportunities remain not just for China but also for Europe and other parts of the world to catch up to Silicon Valley, they argue.

“The message is that we can compete,” said an official at France’s Élysée Palace, noting that raw computing power may no longer be the determinant of who wins in AI. “There is still a chance for alternatives.”

To be sure, DeepSeek also is a warning to other parts of the world. French startup Mistral AI has made its name on being a smaller, more efficient competitor to U.S. companies like OpenAI. Now it will have to keep up with DeepSeek and others that use its models, too.

This explanatory article may be periodically updated.

Write to Sam Schechner at Sam.Schechner@wsj.com and Stu Woo at Stu.Woo@wsj.com

5. The DeepSeek AI Freakout

Competition should be good. If it can bring a "better" product at lower cost that should be a good thing.

But what is it better at: providing us information or providing our information to China?

The DeepSeek AI Freakout

The Chinese startup’s model stuns Big Tech—and Wall Street—with its capability and cost.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/deepseek-chinese-ai-markets-stargate-donald-trump-big-tech-9bb91f78?mod=latest_headlines

By The Editorial Board

Jan. 27, 2025 6:10 pm ET

Photo: dado ruvic/Reuters

Who saw that coming? Not Wall Street, which sold off tech stocks on Monday after the weekend news that a highly sophisticated Chinese AI model, DeepSeek, rivals Big Tech-built systems but cost a fraction to develop. The implications are likely to be far-reaching, and not merely in equities.

The tech-heavy Nasdaq fell 3.1%, driven by a 16.9% dive in Nvidia shares. Nvidia dominates the market in advanced AI chips. Its stock had surged more than 10-fold since early 2023—achieving a more than $3.3 trillion market valuation until Monday—as tech giants announced hefty outlays on AI.

Enter DeepSeek, which last week released a new R1 model that claims to be as advanced as OpenAI’s on math, code and reasoning tasks. Tech gurus who inspected the model agreed. One economist asked R1 how much Donald Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs will affect Canada’s GDP, and it spit back an answer close to that of a major bank’s estimate in 12 seconds. Along with the detailed steps R1 used to get to the answer.

More startling, DeepSeek required far fewer chips to train than other advanced AI models and thus cost only an estimated $5.6 million to develop. Other advanced models cost in the neighborhood of $1 billion. Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen called it “AI’s Sputnik moment,” and he may be right.

DeepSeek is challenging assumptions about the computing power and spending needed for AI advances. OpenAI, Oracle and SoftBank last week made headlines when they announced a joint venture, Stargate, to invest up to $500 billion in building out AI infrastructure. Microsoft plans to spend $80 billion on AI data centers this year.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Friday said Meta would spend about $65 billion on AI projects this year and build a data center “so large that it would cover a significant part of Manhattan.” Meta expects to have 1.3 million advanced chips by the end of this year. DeepSeek’s model reportedly required as few as 10,000 to develop.

DeepSeek’s breakthrough means these tech giants may not have to spend as much to train their AI models. But it also means these firms, notably Google’s DeepMind, might lose their first-mover, technological edge. Google shares fell 4% on Monday. DeepSeek’s model is open-source, meaning that other developers can inspect and fiddle with its code and build their own applications with it.

This could help give more small businesses access to AI tools at a fraction of the cost of closed-source models like OpenAI and Anthropic, which Amazon has backed. There are advantages to such closed-source systems, especially for privacy and national security. But open-source can foster more collaboration and experimentation.

It’s notable that DeepSeek is a startup founded by Liang Wenfeng, a Chinese hedge fund trader. Americans think of China’s economy as run top-down, and much of it is. But its growth over the last few decades, especially in tech, has been spurred by entrepreneurs. Alibaba, Tencent and ByteDance were all once startups that now rival U.S. tech giants.

This is another reason for the U.S. to avoid the trap of thinking it must imitate Chinese industrial policy to succeed in the AI race. A bipartisan Senate AI report last spring called for Congress to pass $32 billion a year in “emergency” spending for non-defense AI, supposedly to better compete with China. What a waste of money that would be.

***

DeepSeek is vindicating President Trump’s decision to rescind a Biden executive order that gave government far too much control over AI. Companies developing AI models that pose a “serious risk” to national security, economic security, or public health and safety would have had to notify regulators when training their models and share the results of “red-team safety tests.”

Mr. Biden said such tests are needed to eliminate biases, limitations and errors. But open-source models allow the public to review and test systems. Some have pointed out that DeepSeek doesn’t answer questions on subjects that are politically sensitive to Beijing.

DeepSeek should also cause Republicans in Washington to rethink their antitrust obsessions with big tech. Bureaucrats aren’t capable of overseeing thousands of AI models, and more regulation would slow innovation and make it harder for U.S. companies to compete with China. As DeepSeek shows, it’s possible for a David to compete with the Goliaths. Let a thousand American AI flowers bloom.

You may also like

Copy LinkCopy EmbedFacebook Twitter

0:09

Paused

0:01

3:45

Tap For Sound

Review and Outlook: New CIA director John Ratcliffe says the most likely cause of the Covid 19 pandemic was a lab-related incident in Wuhan, a judgment the Biden administration kept secret. Photo: Thomas Peter/Leah Millis/Reuters

Appeared in the January 28, 2025, print edition as 'The DeepSeek AI Freakout'.

6. China’s new face of AI: Who is DeepSeek founder Liang Wenfeng?

Note the photo at the link he. On 20 January he was at a symposium chaired by Chinese Premier Li Qiang. Do we not think this company is connected to China and the Party and that our data is going to China?

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/east-asia/china-deepseek-ai-liang-wenfeng-4900986

Liang Wenfeng may be the ultimate math nerd. But he is showing us that math pays. It is really all about the numbers.

China’s new face of AI: Who is DeepSeek founder Liang Wenfeng?

The low-profile 40-year-old is winning widespread praise for keeping artificial intelligence costs affordable and giving Western firms and tech entrepreneurs a run for their money.

Liang Wenfeng (right), the founder of Chinese AI startup DeepSeek, speaks at a symposium chaired by Chinese Premier Li Qiang on Jan 20, 2025. (Photo: CCTV Plus)

Lakeisha Leo

28 Jan 2025 05:36PM

(Updated: 28 Jan 2025 06:19PM)

channelnewsasia.com

SINGAPORE: While Chinese AI firm DeepSeek drums up excitement as well as competition fears in Silicon Valley with the launch of its breakthrough R1 AI assistant, global attention has turned to founder Liang Wenfeng, a 40-year-old former hedge fund manager with a degree in artificial intelligence (AI).

Little is known about Liang outside of Chinese state media reports but speaking during a national dialogue session held last July, he talked about his vision of keeping costs affordable and challenging the Western artificial intelligence boom.

The wide-ranging interview saw him weighing in on the Hangzhou-based startup’s progress as well as China’s overall AI development.

“China’s AI cannot remain a follower forever,” Liang said, adding that Chinese companies had grown “accustomed to leveraging technological innovations developed elsewhere”.

“China must gradually transition from being a beneficiary to a contributor, rather than continuing to ride on the coattails of others.”

THE “SAM ALTMAN” OF CHINA

Liang hails from the city of Zhanjiang in China’s southern Guangdong province, known for its vast shipyards and engineering works.

Adept at mathematics, Liang enrolled at Zhejiang University, and graduated with a degree in AI, Chinese news outlet CGTN reported.

In 2015, he co-founded High-Flyer, a quantitative hedge fund relying on mathematical modelling, statistical analysis and computer algorithms to incorporate AI into trading strategies - predicting market trends and helping to make data-driven investment decisions.

Under his wing, the company grew its assets more than tenfold over a four-year span - from 1 billion yuan (US$138 million) in 2016 to more than 10 billion yuan by 2019, according to official information provided.

Tellingly, it also bought more than 10,000 Nvidia graphics processing units before US AI chip sanctions on China kicked in.

“Over the years, High-Flyer Quant spent a large portion of profits on AI to build a leading AI infrastructure and conduct large-scale research,” the company said in a statement in 2023.

Writing in a report, CNN’s executive business editor David Goldman described Liang as “an AI evangelist”.

“Liang has become the Sam Altman of China, an evangelist for AI technology and investment in new research. His hedge fund, High-Flyer, focuses on AI development,” Goldman said, referring to OpenAI’s CEO.

“It is one of scores of startups that have popped up in recent years seeking big investment to ride the massive AI wave that has taken the tech industry to new heights.”

American investigative journalist and non-fiction author Gregory Zuckerman recalled how Liang had once contributed a preface for the Chinese translation of his 2019 book about American mathematician Jim Simons, titled ‘The Man Who Solved The Market’.

In it, the DeepSeek founder spoke about how Simons played a pivotal role in shaping his work and beliefs about using math to analyse trade figures and financial data.

“Whenever I encounter difficulties at work, I recall Simons’s words: ‘There must be a way to model prices’,” Liang said.

“The publication of this book unravels many previously unresolved mysteries and brings us a wealth of experiences to learn from.”

KEEPING CHINESE AI AFFORDABLE

AI costs have soared due to the complexity of models, specialised talent and demand for high-performance software. US companies like Microsoft and Meta have announced plans to invest billions in AI this year.

But Liang has been strongly determined to keep costs and prices low and affordable for users.

“Our principle is neither to sell at a loss nor to seek excessive profits. The current pricing allows for a modest profit margin above our costs,” Liang said in comments carried by Chinese state broadcaster CCTV News.

“Grabbing users wasn’t our primary goal. We reduced prices because we believe that both AI and API (application programming interface) services should be affordable and accessible to everyone.”

As the race for global AI domination accelerates, technological challenges continue to persist in China and firms have been scrambling to create their own AI-powered chatbots in the wake of OpenAI’s 2022 ChatGPT release.

Liang has been vocal about China’s potential as an AI giant, and he has shared hopes for Chinese AI innovations.

“Innovation is undoubtedly costly, and our past tendency to adopt existing technologies was tied to China’s earlier developmental stage but today, China’s economic scale and the profits of giants like ByteDance and Tencent are globally significant,” Liang said.

“What we lack isn’t capital but confidence and the ability to organise high-calibre talent for effective innovation. We believe that with economic development, China must gradually transition from being a beneficiary to a contributor, rather than continuing to ride on the coattails of others.”

While sharing his visions for DeepSeek and Chinese AI, he has also identified “gaps” for China in the global technological war, citing “the US embargo” on high-end semiconductor microchips as being a major challenge.

“First, there’s a gap in training efficiency,” Liang said. “We estimate that China’s best models likely require twice the compute power to match top global models due to structural and training dynamics gaps.”

“Data efficiency is also half as effective, meaning we need twice the data and compute for equivalent results. Combined, that’s four times the resources. Our goal is to continuously narrow these gaps.”

“DEEPSEEK AI MASTER”

Liang has yet to make any public statement on DeepSeek’s sudden popularity, but Chinese netizens expressed awe over his achievements and praised his efforts.

“It only goes to show how you don’t need to be (some) tech bro to achieve global AI success,” said one user on the popular microblogging platform Sina Weibo. “Liang Wenfeng shows that China can take something and make it ten times better for a fraction of the cost.”

Another Weibo user with the handle Jianguo, called Liang a “DeepSeek AI master” and talked about how a former hedge fund manager had managed to use his skills and beliefs to “revolutionise” Chinese AI.

Another Weibo user described Liang’s achievements as “akin to a nuclear bomb” in the global science and technology field.

“China’s youths are gradually shining brightly, which is this country’s greatest luck.”

Another user, who shared a video listing Liang’s academic background, called him a “complete genius”.

“(He) came from a normal family, earned achievements in quantitative investments and now his research into AI also resulted in massive success.”

channelnewsasia.com

7. ‘Made in China’: Pride, pleasant surprise from Chinese netizens as DeepSeek jolts global AI scene

Hmmm... not backed by government backed research institutes or state-owned enterprises - it is almost as if China "doth protest too much." They want us to see this as a good thing and that there are independent activities in China. That is probably an accurate statement. But that surely does not mean we should believe that our data is not going to the Chinese government /intelligence services.

Excerpts:

“This breakthrough was achieved not by government-backed research institutes and large state-owned enterprises, but by a hedge fund with no government subsidies. It is a clear example of private sector efficiency,” Zhang Zhiwei, president and chief economist of Pinpoint Asset Management, told CNA.

“The market now realises that innovation in China's private sector is competitive even on a global scale,” he added.

DeepSeek's success has already been noticed in China's top political circles, as Beijing pursues high-tech innovation and self-reliance in the face of American export controls and tariff threats from newly minted US President Donald Trump.

On Jan 20, the day DeepSeek released a new product to the public, company founder Liang attended a closed-door symposium hosted by Chinese Premier Li Qiang, according to Xinhua.

He was among a select group of experts spanning multiple industries that offered Li their opinions and suggestions for a draft government work report.

During the meeting, Li called for a focus on “new growth drivers” through scientific and technological innovation, and intensified efforts to “secure and improve people’s livelihoods”, according to Xinhua.

DeepSeek has become a dark horse in the global AI industry, former Global Times top editor Hu Xijin wrote in a Weibo post on Monday evening.

“What breakthroughs will it make and what will it bring? All of this is probably just beginning,” he wrote.

‘Made in China’: Pride, pleasant surprise from Chinese netizens as DeepSeek jolts global AI scene

“People are proud that genuine innovation is happening in China … and by a founder who’s never received an overseas education,” says an analyst.

Wong Woon Shin

Bong Xin Ying

28 Jan 2025 04:38PM

(Updated: 28 Jan 2025 04:48PM)

channelnewsasia.com

BEIJING/SINGAPORE: Pride and pleasant surprise over its homegrown prowess - Chinese netizens are making their thoughts known over DeepSeek as the Chinese tech startup makes global waves over its latest artificial intelligence (AI) models.

Their emergence has sent shockwaves through Wall Street and Silicon Valley after appearing to match or even exceed the performance of US AI rivals such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT for a fraction of the investment.

The developments have also catapulted to fame Liang Wenfeng, the 40-year-old hedge fund manager behind DeepSeek that is now roiling tech markets.

While DeepSeek’s advances have dominated Western headlines, coverage by Chinese state media has been relatively tame as Chinese New Year stories remain front and centre.

The likes of China Daily and Xinhua have largely just carried straightforward reports on the main developments - such as how DeepSeek has displaced ChatGPT to top the US Apple App Store, as well as the market sell-off that saw AI chip maker Nvidia among the hardest hit.

Much of the chatter has instead been happening on the Chinese web.

DeepSeek's chatbot was the number one product on the Apple App Store in the US, surpassing OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot. (Photo: Reuters/Dado Ruvic)

On microblogging site Weibo, DeepSeek was among the top trending topics on Tuesday (Jan 28). Meanwhile, the phrase “what is DeepSeek” trended sixth on social media platform Xiaohongshu, with 46 million views as of Tuesday afternoon.

Many people expressed pride at DeepSeek’s achievements, pointing out how the firm is homegrown.

“This is made in China! Moreover, it's open-source, super low-priced, and doesn't require a VPN (virtual private network)! Chinese technology has stood up this time!” one Xiaohongshu user remarked.

Another, who claims to be in the environmental engineering field, said: “(DeepSeek’s) AI's feedback is indeed fair, and domestic large models are impressive."

Chinese netizens also expressed pleasant surprise at DeepSeek’s capabilities.

Xiaohongshu user Tata shared how she issued the same command to DeepSeek and two other AI chatbots, Doubao and ChatGPT: "Help me write a modern poem that describes the ambience of me walking on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau."

She wrote that while Doubao and ChatGPT produced lines “reminiscent of high school essays”, DeepSeek's output was poetic and referenced local culture - singling out a line: “In the yak's belly, the entire plateau's twilight brews.”

“This is truly the next level of AI … (DeepSeek’s) capabilities are more than sufficient to handle ordinary people's joys and sorrows. The era of falling in love with robots is truly approaching,” she remarked.

Andy Chen Xinran, an independent China consultant based in Beijing, told CNA that many Chinese are only learning about DeepSeek’s existence in recent days.

“I think in the past 48 hours, I've seen a lot of people coming to realise that this thing exists … that they have this tool they can use,” he added.

“People are proud that genuine innovation is happening in China, in Hangzhou, and by a founder who’s never received an overseas education,” said Chen, noting that most of the developers in Liang’s team are not overseas educated as well.

“That gives people a lot of confidence.”

Liang Wenfeng (right), the founder of Chinese AI startup DeepSeek, speaks at a symposium chaired by Chinese Premier Li Qiang on Jan 20, 2025. (Photo: CCTV Plus)

LATEST ADVANCES

Analysts told CNA DeepSeek’s latest advances reflect the innovation progress made in China’s private sector.

Private companies are a major growth driver in China, responsible for 80 per cent of urban jobs and serving as the long-time backbone of the country’s US$18 trillion economy.

“This breakthrough was achieved not by government-backed research institutes and large state-owned enterprises, but by a hedge fund with no government subsidies. It is a clear example of private sector efficiency,” Zhang Zhiwei, president and chief economist of Pinpoint Asset Management, told CNA.

“The market now realises that innovation in China's private sector is competitive even on a global scale,” he added.

DeepSeek's success has already been noticed in China's top political circles, as Beijing pursues high-tech innovation and self-reliance in the face of American export controls and tariff threats from newly minted US President Donald Trump.

On Jan 20, the day DeepSeek released a new product to the public, company founder Liang attended a closed-door symposium hosted by Chinese Premier Li Qiang, according to Xinhua.

He was among a select group of experts spanning multiple industries that offered Li their opinions and suggestions for a draft government work report.

During the meeting, Li called for a focus on “new growth drivers” through scientific and technological innovation, and intensified efforts to “secure and improve people’s livelihoods”, according to Xinhua.

DeepSeek has become a dark horse in the global AI industry, former Global Times top editor Hu Xijin wrote in a Weibo post on Monday evening.

“What breakthroughs will it make and what will it bring? All of this is probably just beginning,” he wrote.

SEEKING DEEPER USES FOR DEEPSEEK

Chinese netizens have also taken to social media to share their experiences using DeepSeek.

One user on Xiaohongshu described it as sounding human and not “machine-like”.

Another user described her emotional experience when using DeepSeek to brainstorm a story.

In a post that garnered 19,000 likes, the user, Cat and Mouse, shared how she had come up with a story based on her grandmother, but struggled to pen it down due to her limited writing skills. She then asked DeepSeek to do so by feeding it the data.

"I was blown away by the story it wrote, not so much by how well it was written, but by the fact that even a story like that would have taken me a long, long time to write (and not nearly as well as it did), and it only took (DeepSeek) 5 seconds,” the user wrote.

Another user, Bella Ren, described being “extremely surprised” by the quality of the copy provided by DeepSeek, contrasting it with her previous attempts using ChatGPT.

She noted that while the latter offered “precise accuracy” in handling entrepreneurial insights, its output often had a "distinctly human-machine flavour”.

“I can’t help but admire DeepSeek’s proficiency in writing copy,” said Bella Ren, adding that she intends to turn to DeepSeek as her go-to AI tool.

Some user feedback has been more tempered.

A Weibo user underscored DeepSeek’s limitations in handling complex creative tasks that require an understanding of context, nuance, and human emotions. This is a challenge faced by other AI models as well.

“Using DeepSeek to write novels presents significant challenges. It still struggles to imagine human behavioural patterns, resulting in clichéd outlines,” the user wrote.

Even so, observers note that DeepSeek's competitive edge isn’t borne out of such uses as writing novels.

“It’s the developers who are using the underlying technology to develop other applications based on this model - from education, commerce, everything you can develop,” said Chen, the Beijing-based independent consultant.

“I think the most competitive edge DeepSeek has against other AI platforms is that it's relatively cheaper to use. It uses fewer chips to produce its model than other big companies.”

channelnewsasia.com

8. Trump says China's DeepSeek AI a 'wake up call' for US

President Trump is not wrong. We have a lot of waking up to do.

Trump says China's DeepSeek AI a 'wake up call' for US

28 Jan 2025 08:21AM

(Updated: 28 Jan 2025 01:25PM)

channelnewsasia.com

SAN FRANCISCO: Fears of upheaval in the AI gold rush rocked Wall Street on Monday (Jan 27) following the emergence of a popular ChatGPT-like model from China, with US President Donald Trump saying it was a "wake-up call" for Silicon Valley.

Last week's release of the latest DeepSeek model initially received limited attention, overshadowed by the inauguration of Trump on the same day.

However, over the weekend, the Chinese artificial intelligence startup's chatbot surged to become the most downloaded free app on Apple's US App Store, displacing OpenAI's ChatGPT.

What truly rattled the industry was DeepSeek's claim that it developed its latest model, the R1, at a fraction of the cost that major companies are investing in AI development, primarily on expensive Nvidia chips and software.

The development is significant given the AI boom, ignited by ChatGPT's release in late 2022, has propelled Nvidia to become one of the world's most valuable companies.

The news sent shockwaves through the US tech sector, exposing a critical concern: Should tech giants continue to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into AI investment when a Chinese company can apparently produce a comparable model so economically?

DeepSeek's apparent advances were a poke in the eye to Washington and its priority of thwarting China by maintaining American technological dominance.

Trump reacted quickly on Monday, saying the DeepSeek release "should be a wake-up call for our industries that we need to be laser-focused on competing to win".

He argued that it could be a "positive" for US tech giants, adding: "Instead of spending billions and billions, you'll spend less, and you'll come up with hopefully the same solution."

OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman said in a post on X that it was "legit invigorating to have a new competitor".

He called DeepSeek's R1 "an impressive model, particularly around what they're able to deliver for the price", and pledged to speed up some OpenAI releases.

The development also comes against a background of a US government push to ban Chinese-owned TikTok in the United States or force its sale.

David Sacks, Trump's AI advisor and prominent tech investor, said DeepSeek's success justified the White House's decision to reverse executive orders, issued under Joe Biden, that established safety standards for AI development.

The regulations "would have hamstrung American AI companies without any guarantee that China would follow suit", Sacks wrote on X.

Adam Kovacevich, CEO of the tech industry trade group Chamber of Progress, echoed the sentiment: "Now the top AI concern has to be ensuring (the United States) wins."

"If China is catching up quickly to the US in the AI race, then the economics of AI will be turned on its head," warned Kathleen Brooks, research director at XTB, in a note to clients.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella took to social media hours before markets opened to argue less expensive AI was good for everyone.

But last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Nadella warned: "We should take the developments out of China very, very seriously."

Microsoft, an eager adopter of generative AI, plans to invest US$80 billion in AI this year, while Meta announced at least US$60 billion in investments on Friday.

"OUTPLAYED"

Much of that investment goes into the coffers of Nvidia, whose shares plunged a staggering 17 per cent on Monday.

The situation is particularly remarkable since DeepSeek, as a Chinese company, lacks easy access to Nvidia's state-of-the-art chips after the US government placed export restrictions on them.

The esteemed Stratechery tech newsletter and others suggested that DeepSeek's innovations stemmed from necessity, as lacking access to powerful Nvidia-designed chips forced them to develop novel methods.

The export controls are "driving startups like DeepSeek to innovate in ways that prioritize efficiency, resource-pooling, and collaboration", wrote the MIT Technology Review.

Elon Musk, who has invested heavily in Nvidia chips for his company xAI, suspects DeepSeek of secretly accessing banned H100 chips - an accusation also made by the CEO of ScaleAI, a prominent Silicon Valley startup backed by Amazon and Meta.

But such accusations "sound like a rich kids team got outplayed by a poor kids team", wrote Hong Kong-based investor Jen Zhu Scott on X.

In a statement, Nvidia said DeepSeek's technology was "fully export control compliant".

channelnewsasia.com

9. Why DeepSeek Could Change What Silicon Valley Believes About A.I.

Why DeepSeek Could Change What Silicon Valley Believes About A.I.

A new A.I. model, released by a scrappy Chinese upstart, has rocked Silicon Valley and upended several fundamental assumptions about A.I. progress.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/28/technology/why-deepseek-could-change-what-silicon-valley-believes-about-ai.html

Markets panicked after DeepSeek’s breakthrough on cost challenged the “bigger is better” narrative that has driven the A.I. arms race in recent years.Credit...Bryan R. Smith/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

By Kevin Roose

Reporting from San Francisco

Jan. 28, 2025, 5:02 a.m. ET

The artificial intelligence breakthrough that is sending shock waves through stock markets, spooking Silicon Valley giants, and generating breathless takes about the end of America’s technological dominance arrived with an unassuming, wonky title: “Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning.”

The 22-page paper, released last week by a scrappy Chinese A.I. start-up called DeepSeek, didn’t immediately set off alarm bells. It took a few days for researchers to digest the paper’s claims, and the implications of what it described. The company had created a new A.I. model called DeepSeek-R1, built by a team of researchers who claimed to have used a modest number of second-rate A.I. chips to match the performance of leading American A.I. models at a fraction of the cost.

DeepSeek said it had done this by using clever engineering to substitute for raw computing horsepower. And it had done it in China, a country many experts thought was in a distant second place in the global A.I. race.

Some industry watchers initially reacted to DeepSeek’s breakthrough with disbelief. Surely, they thought, DeepSeek had cheated to achieve R1’s results, or fudged their numbers to make their model look more impressive than it was. Maybe the Chinese government was promoting propaganda to undermine the narrative of American A.I. dominance. Maybe DeepSeek was hiding a stash of illicit Nvidia H100 chips, banned under U.S. export controls, and lying about it. Maybe R1 was actually just a clever re-skinning of American A.I. models that didn’t represent much in the way of real progress.

Eventually, as more people dug into the details of DeepSeek-R1 — which, unlike most leading A.I. models, was released as open-source software, allowing outsiders to examine its inner workings more closely — their skepticism morphed into worry.

And late last week, when lots of Americans started to use DeepSeek’s models for themselves, and the DeepSeek mobile app hit the number one spot on Apple’s App Store, it tipped into full-blown panic.

I’m skeptical of the most dramatic takes I’ve seen over the past few days — such as the claim, made by one Silicon Valley investor, that DeepSeek is an elaborate plot by the Chinese government to destroy the American tech industry. I also think it’s plausible that the company’s shoestring budget has been badly exaggerated, or that it piggybacked on advancements made by American A.I. firms in ways it hasn’t disclosed.

But I do think that DeepSeek’s R1 breakthrough was real. Based on conversations I’ve had with industry insiders, and a week’s worth of experts poking around and testing the paper’s findings for themselves, it appears to be throwing into question several major assumptions the American tech industry has been making.

The first is the assumption that in order to build cutting-edge A.I. models, you need to spend huge amounts of money on powerful chips and data centers.

It’s hard to overstate how foundational this dogma has become. Companies like Microsoft, Meta and Google have already spent tens of billions of dollars building out the infrastructure they thought was needed to build and run next-generation A.I. models. They plan to spend tens of billions more — or, in the case of OpenAI, as much as $500 billion through a joint venture with Oracle and SoftBank that was announced last week.

DeepSeek appears to have spent a small fraction of that building R1. We don’t know the exact cost, and there are plenty of caveats to make about the figures they’ve released so far. It’s almost certainly higher than $5.5 million, the number the company claims it spent training a previous model.

But even if R1 cost 10 times more to train than DeepSeek claims, and even if you factor in other costs they may have excluded, like engineer salaries or the costs of doing basic research, it would still be orders of magnitude less than what American A.I. companies are spending to develop their most capable models.

The obvious conclusion to draw is not that American tech giants are wasting their money. It’s still expensive to run powerful A.I. models once they’re trained, and there are reasons to think that spending hundreds of billions of dollars will still make sense for companies like OpenAI and Google, which can afford to pay dearly to stay at the head of the pack.

Kevin Roose and Casey Newton are the hosts of Hard Fork, a podcast that makes sense of the rapidly changing world of technology. Subscribe and listen.

But DeepSeek’s breakthrough on cost challenges the “bigger is better” narrative that has driven the A.I. arms race in recent years by showing that relatively small models, when trained properly, can match or exceed the performance of much bigger models.

That, in turn, means that A.I. companies may be able to achieve very powerful capabilities with far less investment than previously thought. And it suggests that we may soon see a flood of investment into smaller A.I. start-ups, and much more competition for the giants of Silicon Valley. (Which, because of the enormous costs of training their models, have mostly been competing with each other until now.)

There are other, more technical reasons that everyone in Silicon Valley is paying attention to DeepSeek. In the research paper, the company reveals some details about how R1 was actually built, which include some cutting-edge techniques in model distillation. (Basically, that means compressing big A.I. models down into smaller ones, making them cheaper to run without losing much in the way of performance.)

DeepSeek also included details that suggested that it had not been as hard as previously thought to convert a “vanilla” A.I. language model into a more sophisticated reasoning model, by applying a technique known as reinforcement learning on top of it. (Don’t worry if these terms go over your head — what matters is that methods for improving A.I. systems that were previously closely guarded by American tech companies are now out there on the web, free for anyone to take and replicate.)

Even if the stock prices of American tech giants recover in the coming days, the success of DeepSeek raises important questions about their long-term A.I. strategies. If a Chinese company is able to build cheap, open-source models that match the performance of expensive American models, why would anyone pay for ours? And if you’re Meta — the only U.S. tech giant that releases its models as free open-source software — what prevents DeepSeek or another start-up from simply taking your models, which you spent billions of dollars on, and distilling them into smaller, cheaper models that they can offer for pennies?

DeepSeek’s breakthrough also undercuts some of the geopolitical assumptions many American experts had been making about China’s position in the A.I. race.

First, it challenges the narrative that China is meaningfully behind the frontier, when it comes to building powerful A.I. models. For years, many A.I. experts (and the policymakers who listen to them) have assumed that the United States had a lead of at least several years, and that copying the advancements made by American tech firms was prohibitively hard for Chinese companies to do quickly.

But DeepSeek’s results show that China has advanced A.I. capabilities that can match or exceed models from OpenAI and other American A.I. companies, and that breakthroughs made by U.S. firms may be trivially easy for Chinese firms — or, at least, one Chinese firm — to replicate in a matter of weeks.

(The New York Times has sued OpenAI and its partner, Microsoft, accusing them of copyright infringement of news content related to A.I. systems. OpenAI and Microsoft have denied those claims.)

The results also raise questions about whether the steps the U.S. government has been taking to limit the spread of powerful A.I. systems to our adversaries — namely, the export controls used to prevent powerful A.I. chips from falling into China's hands — are working as designed, or whether those regulations need to adapt to take into account new, more efficient ways of training models.

And, of course, there are concerns about what it would mean for privacy and censorship if China took the lead in building powerful A.I. systems used by millions of Americans. Users of DeepSeek’s models have noticed that they routinely refuse to respond to questions about sensitive topics inside China, such as the Tiananmen Square massacre and Uyghur detention camps. If other developers build on top of DeepSeek’s models, as is common with open-source software, those censorship measures may get embedded across the industry.

Privacy experts have also raised concerns about the fact that data shared with DeepSeek models may be accessible by the Chinese government. If you were worried about TikTok being used as an instrument of surveillance and propaganda, the rise of DeepSeek should worry you, too.

I’m still not sure what the full impact of DeepSeek’s breakthrough will be, or whether we will consider the release of R1 a “Sputnik moment” for the A.I. industry, as some have claimed.

But it seems wise to take seriously the possibility that we are in a new era of A.I. brinkmanship now — that the biggest and richest American tech companies may no longer win by default, and that containing the spread of increasingly powerful A.I. systems may be harder than we thought.

At the very least, DeepSeek has shown that the A.I. arms race is truly on, and that after several years of dizzying progress, there are still more surprises left in store.

Kevin Roose is a Times technology columnist and a host of the podcast "Hard Fork." More about Kevin Roose

See more on: OpenAI

Share full article

Explore Our Coverage of Artificial Intelligence

News and Analysis

The Chinese start-up DeepSeek built a cheaper, competitive chatbot with fewer high-end computer chips than Google and OpenAI used, showing the limits of chip export control.
OpenAI unveiled a tool called Operator that can go out onto the internet and perform tasks autonomously, like shopping for groceries or booking a restaurant reservation.
President Trump announced a joint venture between OpenAI, SoftBank and Oracle to create at least $100 billion in computing infrastructure to power A.I. But Elon Musk, a close adviser to Trump, has cast doubt on the venture.

The Age of A.I.

Religious leaders are experimenting with A.I. in their work, spurring an industry of faith-based tech companies that offer A.I. tools, from assistants that can do theological research to chatbots that can help write sermons.
As A.I. is widely adopted, some once-struggling midsize U.S. cities in the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic and South may benefit, new research predicts.
Coding boot camps once looked like the golden ticket to an economically secure future. But do they make sense in an A.I. world?

Tom Cotton on Trump and Pompeo, Bolton and Hook

The GOP Senator says the President would be wise to reverse his denial of security to his former Iran advisers.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/tom-cotton-donald-trump-security-protection-john-bolton-mike-pompeo-iran-8e6206f9?mod=Searchresults_pos2&page=1

By The Editorial Board

Jan. 27, 2025 6:10 pm ET

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) on January 21. Photo: Mattie Neretin/Zuma Press

President Trump doesn’t like to admit a mistake, but sometimes he changes his mind. One early decision he would be wise to reverse is his withdrawal of security protection to former advisers Mike Pompeo, Brian Hook and John Bolton.

All three men advised Mr. Trump on Iran in his first term, and in 2020 he ordered the assassination of Iran’s leading terrorist, Qassem Soleimani. Iran has been plotting revenge against the trio as well as Mr. Trump ever since, and the threats are more than idle.

Here’s how Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, put it on Sunday when Shannon Bream of Fox News asked him about our criticism of Mr. Trump’s decision: “Yeah, I would encourage the President to revisit the decision for those people who are being targeted by Iran, as the President was targeted for assassination by Iran.

“As the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I’ve reviewed the intelligence in the last few days. The threat to anyone involved in President Trump’s strike on Qassem Soleimani is persistent. It’s real. Iran is committed to vengeance against all of these people.”

Mr. Cotton went on to say that “it’s not just about these men who helped President Trump carry out his policy in his first term. It’s about their family and friends, innocent bystanders every time they’re in public. It’s also about the President being able to get good people and get good advice.

“If people are, say, going to work for the President now on Iran or China or North Korea or the Mexican drug cartels, they might hesitate to do so, or they might hesitate if they’re in office to give him the advice he needs or carry out the policies that he decides upon.”

Excellent points all. Mr. Trump hasn’t explained his denial of security except to say it can’t last forever. But it should last as long as there are real threats to those who did their duty and are marked for death by an adversary because of it.

You may also like

Copy LinkCopy EmbedFacebook Twitter

1:41

Paused

0:03

5:59

Tap For Sound

Journal Editorial Report: Trump and Biden set a questionable precedent. Photo: Matt Rourke/AP/Michael Brochstein/Zuma Press/Jose Luis Magana/AP

Appeared in the January 28, 2025, print edition as 'Tom Cotton on Trump and Pompeo, Et Al.'.

11. New sheriff in town — Hegseth wastes no time bringing change to the Pentagon

Now is the time to lead. But leadership must be positive. It should not be built on anti-DEI rhetoric. Implement the new anti-DEI policies but start executing positive leadership of the Department.

New sheriff in town — Hegseth wastes no time bringing change to the Pentagon

Defense secretary vows military will back Trump strongly on agenda

washingtontimes.com · by Mike Glenn

Video

By - The Washington Times - Monday, January 27, 2025

A flurry of military-focused executive orders from the White House on Monday meant Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s first day on the job would be anything but leisurely.

The newly confirmed Pentagon chief arrived at work on the same day President Trump was preparing to sign off on a string of military executive orders — reinstating troops kicked out of the military for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, slashing diversity programs from the armed forces, and ordering the services to assess whether transgender personnel should remain in uniform.

But when Mr. Hegseth strode into the Pentagon, it was clear that a priority mission of the organization he now leads would be to support the Trump administration’s policy to seal the southern U.S. border and use military aircraft to deport immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally.

“This is happening quickly, and as secretary of defense, it’s an honor to salute smartly — as I did as a junior officer and now the secretary of defense — to ensure these orders are complied with promptly,” Mr. Hegseth said shortly after he was greeted at the Pentagon by Air Force General Charles Q. Brown, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. “Lawful orders of the president of the United States will be executed swiftly and without excuse.”

After Mr. Trump formally declared that illegal immigration was a national emergency, the Defense Department last week rushed 1,500 Army soldiers and Marines to the border where they joined some 2,500 military personnel.

“This Pentagon ‘snapped to’ last week. We helped move forward troops, put in more barriers, and also ensured mass deportations in support of the president’s objectives,” Mr. Hegseth told reporters. “The protection of the sovereign territory of the United States is the job of the Defense Department, and the cartels are foreign terrorist organizations.”

Before taking office, both Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Trump had called for the removal of Gen. Brown from his job before the election, saying he was too “woke” to be part of the incoming administration. However, the president warmed to the general while they sat next to each other at this year’s Army-Navy football game.

On Monday, his new defense secretary also seemed to set a more conciliatory tone toward Gen. Brown. “I’m standing with him right now. I’m looking forward to working with him,” Mr. Hegseth said.

Many at the Pentagon seem to be taking a “wait-and-see” attitude about their new boss, a military officer said Monday, adding that they hope he’s successful simply because of how it will impact on their own daily lives.

The new Pentagon chief, a onetime Fox News host who was barely confirmed after a notably bitter nomination debate, acknowledged that his plan of attack isn’t quite how business was done in the past.

“The Defense Department will support the defense of the territorial integrity of the United States at the southern border to include reservists, National Guard, and active duty [personnel] in compliance with the Constitution, with the laws of our land, and the directives of the commander in chief,” Mr. Hegseth said.

Vice President J.D. Vance cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate to confirm Mr. Hegseth as defense secretary. He called Mr. Hegseth a “disrupter” and said it was a characteristic needed within the defense establishment.

“If you think about all of those bipartisan massive votes, we have to ask ourselves: ’What did they get us?’ They got us a country where we fought many wars over the last 40 years but haven’t won a war about as long as I have been alive,” the vice president said Sunday on “Face the Nation.”

Even as Mr. Hegseth and his team grappled with domestic concerns like security at the southern border, the Defense Department continued to monitor pressing international issues such as Ukraine’s war with Russia and Israel’s ceasefire agreements with Iran-backed militants from Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Standing on the steps of the Pentagon’s River Entrance, Mr. Hegseth said the Defense Department would pursue an “Iron Dome”-style missile defense system similar to the one used by the Israel Defense Forces.

“We will be no better friend to our allies and no stronger adversary to those who want to test us and try us,” he said.

Mr. Hegseth showed reporters a metal band on his wrist honoring Jorge M. Oliveira, a soldier he served with at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba who was later killed in Afghanistan.

“It’s for these guys we do this for, those who have given the ultimate sacrifice,” he said. “Every moment that I’m here, I’m thinking about the guys and gals in Guam, Germany, Fort Benning, and Fort Bragg, on missile defense sites and aircraft carriers,” he said. “Our job is lethality and readiness and war fighting.”

Notably, Mr. Hegseth referenced the prior names for the two Army posts originally named for Confederate generals that were changed during the Biden administration to Fort Moore and Fort Liberty. Mr. Trump criticized the change.

• Mike Glenn can be reached at mglenn@washingtontimes.com.

washingtontimes.com · by Mike Glenn

12. Air Force reinstates course with Tuskegee Airmen video after outcry

The tweet from the SECDEF on this.

https://x.com/PeteHegseth/status/1883693934310002815

Air Force reinstates course with Tuskegee Airmen video after outcry

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-air-force/2025/01/27/air-force-reinstates-course-with-tuskegee-airmen-video-after-outcry/?utm

By Stephen Losey

Jan 27, 2025, 10:43 AM

The Air Force quickly moved to reinstate a course for new recruits, which includes videos on the World War II-era Tuskegee Airmen and Women's Airforce Service Pilots, after the class was pulled for review following the Trump administration's sweeping order barring diversity, equity and inclusion programs. (Air Force)

The Air Force is reinstating a basic training class Monday that was suspended last week for revisions, with its materials on World War II-era Black and female pilots intact but diversity, equity and inclusion components removed.

The Air Force originally halted its basic military training course on “airmindedness” on Jan. 23, days after President Donald Trump issued a sweeping order barring DEI programs from the federal government and military. That class included videos on the Tuskegee Airmen and Women’s Airforce Service Pilots, or WASPs, who were the first Black and female pilots, respectively, to fly for the military.

An internal message leaked online Friday indicated videos on the Tuskegee Airmen and WASPs were pulled immediately from the class to comply with Trump’s DEI orders. The Air Force clarified Saturday that the videos themselves were not targeted for removal, but that BMT classes including diversity-related materials were temporarily suspended for review.

A revised class on “airmindedness” is going into place Monday, Lt. Gen. Brian Robinson, head of Air Education and Training Command, said in a Sunday statement. That class will include material on the Tuskegee and WASP pilots.

“No curriculum or content highlighting the honor and valor of the Tuskegee Airmen or Women Airforce Service Pilots has been removed from basic military training,” Robinson said. “The block in which these lessons were taught included DEI material which was directed to be removed. We believe this adjustment to curriculum to be fully aligned with the direction given in the DEI executive order.”

Air Force pulls class with Tuskegee Airmen video after DEI orderThe military and other agencies have scrambled to comply with President Trump's sweeping executive order barring DEI programs.

By Stephen Losey

No Air Force or Space Force recruits will miss the training, he said, although the training was delayed for one group of trainees.

Robinson said the revised training “focuses on the documented historic legacy and decorated valor with which these units and airmen fought for our nation in World War II and beyond.”

“The Air Force has not removed these airmen’s incredible heritage from any training,” Robinson added. “Their personal examples of service, sacrifice and combat effectiveness are illustrative of the core values, character and warrior ethos necessary to be an airman and [Space Force] guardian.”

The news about the course’s removal created an uproar over the weekend.

Tuskegee Airmen Inc., a nonprofit formed by some of the members of the “Red Tails” that focuses on preserving their legacy, said in a Saturday night statement that the group was “disappointed and strongly opposed” to the removal of the videos, and called on Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to take immediate action to restore them.

The Tuskegee Airmen flew P-51 Mustangs, pictured, and P-47 Thunderbolts to escort U.S. bombers over Europe as they pounded Nazi Germany. (Air Force)

“The service and sacrifice of the Tuskegee Airmen and the Women Airforce Service Pilots … are an essential part of American history and carried significant weight in the World War II veteran community,” Tuskegee Airmen Inc. said. “We believe the content of these courses does not promote one category of service member or citizen over another. They are simply a part of American military history that all service members should be made aware of.”

After the Air Force stated its intention to restore the course, Tuskegee Airmen Inc. national president Leon Butler on Sunday praised the service for acting quickly.

“We look forward to the training courses being restored to their original state so that airmen and guardians can continue to learn about the important legacy of the Tuskegee Airmen and the Women Airforce Service Pilots,” Butler said.

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Alabama, praised the Tuskegee Airmen and called the removal of the materials “malicious compliance” in a Sunday post on X, formerly Twitter. Hegseth soon responded, “Amen! We’re all over it Senator. This will not stand.”

Hegseth posted about the class again a few hours later, thanking Britt and saying “This has been immediately reversed.”

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin issued a statement Monday afternoon in which he reiterated that no content related to the Tuskegee Airmen and WASPs was removed from basic training, and their achievements will continue to be taught to airmen.

“The historic legacy and decorated valor these airmen embodied during World War II and beyond will continue to guide our newest recruits and all who serve in our ranks,” Allvin said.

Allvin also stressed the service would “faithfully execut[e]” all orders from the president, including those related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

“From day one, I directed our Air Force to implement all directives outlined in the executive orders issued by the president swiftly and professionally — no equivocation, no slow-rolling no foot-dragging,” Allvin said. “When policies change, it is everyone’s responsibility to be diligent and ensure all remnants of the outdated policies are appropriately removed, and the new ones are clearly put into place.”

“Disguising and renaming are not compliance, and I’ve made this clear,” Allvin said. “If there are instances of less-than-full compliance, we will hold those responsible accountable.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated with comment from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin.

13. Google Maps will rename Gulf of Mexico as Gulf of America in US

Perhaps Mexico's action in retaliation will be to ban Google from Mexico (note sarcasm).

Google Maps will rename Gulf of Mexico as Gulf of America in US

Tech firm to make change in line with Trump’s executive order, using both names in world outside US and Mexico

The Guardian · by Dan Milmo · January 28, 2025

Google has confirmed it will rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America on Google Maps in the US, after an executive order from Donald Trump.

It will remain the Gulf of Mexico in Mexico, while users outside of the US and Mexico will see both names on Google Maps. The Alaskan peak Denali, the tallest mountain in North America, will also be changed to Mount McKinley in the US in line with Trump’s executive order on 20 January.

“We have a longstanding practice of applying name changes when they have been updated in official government,” said Google in a post on X.

Explaining the different labels for the gulf in the US, Mexico and the rest of the word, Google added: “When official names vary between countries, Maps users see their official local name. Everyone in the rest of the world sees both names. That applies here too.”

The US president ordered the name changes as part of a flurry of executive actions hours after taking office, making good on a campaign promise.

“As directed by the president, the Gulf of Mexico will now officially be known as the Gulf of America and North America’s highest peak will once again bear the name Mount McKinley,” the interior department said in a statement last week.

Google said it would update its Maps service once the names were updated in the US government’s geographic names information system.

Reacting to Trump’s pledge shortly before his inauguration to rename the Gulf of Mexico, the Mexican president, Claudia Sheinbaum, jokingly suggested this month that North America, including the US, should be renamed as well. She suggested “América Mexicana”, or “Mexican America”, because an 1814 founding document that preceded Mexico’s constitution used that name.

Free newsletter

Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

after newsletter promotion

Trump condemned over ‘blatantly illegal’ firings of watchdog chiefs

Trump said this month that the name Gulf of America had a “beautiful ring”.

“It’s appropriate. And Mexico has to stop allowing millions of people to pour into our country,” he said.

Google has applied the same locale-based labelling conventions to other locations subject to naming disputes. Outside of Japan and South Korea, the body of water bordering both nations is listed as the “Sea of Japan (East Sea)”.

In 2012, Iran threatened to take legal action against Google over its decision to drop the name Persian Gulf from Google Maps and leave the waterway between Iran and the Arabian peninsula nameless. The body of water is now labelled “Persian Gulf (Arabian Gulf)” in other countries.

Reuters contributed to this report

The Guardian · by Dan Milmo · January 28, 2025

14. VA, DOD oversight questioned after Trump inspector general firings

What is the plan for proper oversight? Inspectors General always get a bad rap but this is one of the characteristics of American exceptionalism that makes America great. We correct our mistakes. Whether we like it or not, IGs are critical to identifying and correcting mistakes to ensure "a more just and equitable future."

This commitment to equality was not without its paradoxes and imperfections—slavery still tainted the landscape, and Indigenous peoples were mistreated and displaced—but the relentless drive toward equality was unmistakable. For de Tocqueville, this was the essence of America’s greatness and its unique spirit: a society striving toward a more just and equitable future, even if it stumbled and stuttered along the way.

https://rabbidunner.com/lessons-from-alexis-de-tocqueville/

VA, DOD oversight questioned after Trump inspector general firings

militarytimes.com · by Leo Shane III · January 27, 2025

President Donald Trump’s Friday night firing of 17 inspectors general — including the top watchdogs for the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs — has left the future work of the offices uncertain and outside advocates fearing a lack of accountability at key government agencies in months to come.

Officials from the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency have questioned the legality of the moves, given that Congress has mandated 30 days notice before the dismissal of any inspector general.

“IGs are not immune from removal,” council chairman Hannibal Ware said in a statement over the weekend. “However, the law must be followed to protect independent government oversight for America.”

VA leaders in New York accused of delaying critical medical visits

In one case, a veteran with esophageal cancer had radiation therapy incorrectly denied for several months before dying from the illness.

The group promised legal challenges to the moves. But in a CNN interview on Monday morning, Department of the Interior Inspector General Mark Greenblatt said all access to his office is being blocked.

“My email has been cut off and I don’t know what’s going to happen with my things,” he said. “I was there for five and a half years. And so, we’ll see.”

Trump defended the actions over the weekend, telling reporters flying with him on Air Force One Saturday that it was his prerogative to put new personnel in place to help enact administration priorities. He claimed the move was “a very common thing to do.”

Members of Congress disagreed. Several noted that VA Inspector General Mike Missal had served in the post since 2016, working as a watchdog for three different administrations. Under his leadership, the office released numerous reports critical of VA officials during Trump’s first administration and former President Joe Biden’s term in office.

“President Trump is gearing up to install an Inspector General at VA who will lack independence and will wield the authority of the position to retaliate against the president’s perceived political opponents, or to conceal any wrongdoing that may implicate Trump and his allies over the next four years,” House Veterans’ Affairs Committee ranking member Mark Takano, D-Calf., said in a statement. “These actions will directly harm veterans.”

Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee ranking member Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., echoed that sentiment.

“Purging the VA’s Inspector General puts veterans at risk of a surge in corruption and abuse of power,” he said in a statement. “The Inspector General is the most important internal watchdog that protects veterans from waste and wrongdoing. Firing him and eliminating his independent oversight is a betrayal of trust as well as violation of law.”

During former Rep. Doug Collins’ confirmation hearing last week to serve as the next VA Secretary, Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, praised the Inspector General’s office as important to department operations.

“We work closely with the inspector general at VA,” he said. “I find him valuable both to me and to this committee, and he should be valuable to the Department of Veterans Affairs.”

A group of 21 Democratic lawmakers on Saturday wrote a letter demanding a reversal of the firings, saying the move is “antithetical to good government, undermines the proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and degrades the federal government’s ability to function effectively and efficiently.”

The Defense Department Inspector General’s Office was without a Senate-confirmed leader from 2016 to 2022, the entirety of Trump’s first term in office. That had been a point of contention among lawmakers who said office oversight was not as strong under acting officials, and lacked the independence mandated for the post.

Robert Storch was confirmed as the permanent defense inspector general in December 2022, and held the post until last week’s firings.

From April to October last year, Storch’s office released 68 oversight reports, which included 325 recommendations for improvement across the military services. They included examinations of U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, efforts to boost U.S. military power in the Indo-Pacific region, and recommendations on acquisition improvement.

The VA Inspector General’s office released 180 reports and memos over that same period, and assisted in 137 arrests related to veterans benefits fraud and abuse. That work also resulted in more than 500 administrative actions against VA workers found to be abusing or misusing their posts.

Officials from both offices did not respond to requests about the impact the firings would have on current and future investigations. Trump did not say when replacements for the fired inspectors general would be announced.

About Leo Shane III

Leo covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He has covered Washington, D.C. since 2004, focusing on military personnel and veterans policies. His work has earned numerous honors, including a 2009 Polk award, a 2010 National Headliner Award, the IAVA Leadership in Journalism award and the VFW News Media award.

15. The Future of Warfare: Autonomous Technologies in Modern Conflict

Short but useful article given all our attention on China and AI today. Small Wars Journal remains timely and relevant (yes I am biased)

Excerpts:

Unmanned, autonomous technologies are reshaping modern warfare, offering both unparalleled advantages and significant risks. The innovations seen in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and China’s AI-driven advancements illustrate the transformative potential of these systems. However, they also underscore the urgent need for countermeasures, ethical standards, and strategic foresight.

As these tools evolve, they will continue to blur the boundaries between conventional and unconventional warfare, compelling militaries worldwide to adapt rapidly. Failing to address these challenges could usher in a new era of conflict, where the line between human and machine becomes increasingly indistinct. By fostering international collaboration and innovation, we can navigate this perilous landscape and ensure a balance between technological progress and global security.

The Future of Warfare: Autonomous Technologies in Modern Conflict

https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/01/28/the-future-of-warfare-autonomous-technologies-in-modern-conflict/

by Brandon Schingh

01.28.2025 at 06:00am

The emergence of unmanned, autonomous technologies has fundamentally transformed modern warfare, pushing the boundaries of conventional and irregular military tactics. The integration of these technologies with artificial intelligence (AI) has amplified their impact, enhancing precision, adaptability, and strategic insight. This fusion not only redefines conflict but reshapes military doctrines, demanding new approaches to rules of engagement, surveillance, and precision-targeted strikes. As we grapple with these advancements, their implications echo across the global military landscape, creating opportunities and challenges in equal measure.

Evolution of Unmanned Systems

Over the last two decades, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), autonomous land vehicles, and unmanned maritime systems have transitioned from experimental concepts to essential tools of warfare. Their affordability, accessibility, and sophistication have driven widespread adoption by both state and non-state actors. This evolution reflects a paradigm shift where technological innovation and battlefield ingenuity intersect, redefining combat operations.

For example, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) once dominated unconventional tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, inexpensive commercial drones have taken center stage, exemplified by their extensive use in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Ukrainian forces have repurposed these devices for reconnaissance, precision strikes, and direct engagement. In July 2024, a Ukrainian operator successfully used a commercial drone to destroy a Russian Mi-8 helicopter, highlighting the rapid evolution of these tools in asymmetric warfare.

Advanced Threats: Integrated Autonomous Systems

The proliferation of drones has led to even more alarming possibilities: integrated autonomous systems. These systems combine drones, robotics, and AI to execute complex, coordinated operations. Robotic kits, such as those from ELECFREAKS, can be weaponized with relative ease, while British companies have provided Ukraine with robot dogs capable of reconnaissance and booby-trap detection. Russian and Chinese forces, along with the U.S. Marine Corps, have experimented with arming these robots with sniper rifles and rocket launchers.

China’s advancements in AI-driven reconnaissance drones further underline the growing sophistication of these systems. Bird-shaped drones, reported in 2024, demonstrate their ability to bypass traditional security measures. These tools could support intelligence gathering or clandestine operations in irregular warfare, such as a hypothetical conflict involving Taiwan. While mounting weapons on such devices raises ethical concerns, their potential utility in asymmetric conflicts is undeniable.

Near-Peer Competition

China’s rapid progress in autonomous technologies highlights a critical aspect of modern warfare – near-peer competition – something China is aggressively moving forward with its comprehensive UAV modernization program. China’s Academy of Sciences has achieved breakthroughs in autonomous vehicle perception and navigation, enhancing both military and civilian applications. These advancements align with China’s strategic aim to lead the global race for technological dominance.

This competition is reshaping warfare, with implications far beyond the battlefield. Autonomous vehicles—airborne, ground-based, and maritime—offer unprecedented speed, precision, and reduced reliance on human operators. Such capabilities challenge traditional defense strategies and necessitate a reevaluation of military doctrines.

Escalating Threats: Drone Swarms

Drone swarms represent one of the most significant challenges in modern warfare. These AI-guided systems can overwhelm defenses, execute coordinated strikes, and disrupt vital infrastructure. Their potential to operate autonomously with minimal oversight magnifies their impact. In 2024, the U.S. Army tested countermeasures against swarms of up to 40 drones, illustrating the urgency of developing effective defenses.

China’s advancements extend this threat. Reports in 2022 revealed a Chinese military contractor deploying a robot dog armed with a machine gun via drone. Such innovations foreshadow a future where drones deliver autonomous vehicles across domains—air-to-sea, ground-to-air, or sea-to-land—blurring the lines between science fiction and battlefield reality.

Ethical and Tactical Considerations

The rise of unmanned and autonomous systems presents complex ethical and tactical challenges. While these technologies reduce human risk and enhance operational efficiency, their accessibility enables non-state actors to exploit them for devastating effects. The weaponization of commercial off-the-shelf technology exemplifies how easily accessible tools can be repurposed for military use.

Moreover, integrating AI into these systems raises concerns about accountability and decision-making. Autonomous networks capable of executing missions with minimal human intervention challenge traditional notions of command and control. These developments demand rigorous oversight, international regulation, and ethical guidelines to prevent misuse and escalation.

Conclusion

Unmanned, autonomous technologies are reshaping modern warfare, offering both unparalleled advantages and significant risks. The innovations seen in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and China’s AI-driven advancements illustrate the transformative potential of these systems. However, they also underscore the urgent need for countermeasures, ethical standards, and strategic foresight.

As these tools evolve, they will continue to blur the boundaries between conventional and unconventional warfare, compelling militaries worldwide to adapt rapidly. Failing to address these challenges could usher in a new era of conflict, where the line between human and machine becomes increasingly indistinct. By fostering international collaboration and innovation, we can navigate this perilous landscape and ensure a balance between technological progress and global security.

Tags: drone swarms, drone warfare, Future of War, Unconventional Warfare

About The Author

Brandon Schingh
Brandon Schingh holds master’s degrees from Boston University and Arizona State University, where he focused on unconventional warfare in the Global Security program. His career spans military, law enforcement, intelligence, and private sectors. Mr. Schingh served as a noncommissioned officer in the US Army Airborne Infantry. He later worked as a Federal Air Marshal and as a CIA security contractor and has previously published articles on unconventional warfare and national security.

16. Intelligence sharing by the US and its allies has saved lives. Trump could test those ties

Intelligence sharing by the US and its allies has saved lives. Trump could test those ties

This combination photo shows National Intelligence Director nominee Tulsi Gabbard, left, Oct. 27, 2024, in New York and FBI Director nominee Kash Patel, in Washington, Monday, Jan. 20, 2025. (AP Photo)

By EMMA BURROWS and DAVID KLEPPER

AP · by EMMA BURROWS · January 27, 2025

LONDON (AP) — As Russia moved closer to invading Ukraine nearly three years ago, the United States and its allies took the extraordinary step of declassifying and sharing intelligence to expose Moscow’s plans.

Information flew across the Atlantic from U.S. spy agencies to NATO and Western partners showing that Russia was poised to launch the biggest attack on a European country since World War II.

It was designed to muster support for Kyiv, and on the strength of the U.S. warning, some nations sent weapons to Ukraine, which moved some equipment out of the range of Russian strikes.

Now, officials are bracing for a potentially changed security landscape under President Donald Trump. He has criticized America’s allies and lambasted its intelligence agencies. He’s been accused of disregarding secrecy rules and hoarding classified documents.

Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence, has parroted Russian propaganda while his nominee to lead the FBI, Kash Patel, has promised changes that could significantly curtail the flow of intelligence to America’s friends. Both are expected to face sharp questioning from lawmakers during confirmation hearings Thursday.

The Associated Press spoke with 18 current and former senior European and U.S. officials who worked in NATO, defense, diplomacy or intelligence. Many raised questions and concerns about Trump’s past relationship with America’s spies and their ability to share information at a time of heightened terror threats and signs of greater cooperation between U.S. adversaries.

The importance of trust

The U.S. and its allies routinely share top-secret information, be it about potential terror threats, Chinese cyberattacks or Russian troop movements. America’s closest intelligence partners are New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Britain, and it often shares with other nations or sometimes even adversaries when lives are at stake.

In July, the U.S. helped foil a Russian plot to assassinate the head of a German arms manufacturer that produced weapons for Ukraine. In August, the CIA said it provided intelligence to Austrian authorities that allowed them to disrupt a plan, allegedly inspired by the Islamic State group, to attack a Taylor Swift concert in Vienna.

Cooperation particularly between the U.S. and the U.K. is “strong and robust enough to withstand some turbulence at the political level,” said Lord Peter Ricketts, former U.K. national security adviser and current chair of the European Affairs Committee of the upper chamber of the British Parliament.

However, any strong intelligence relationship is underpinned by trust, and what if “trust isn’t there?” Ricketts said.

There was some skepticism about U.S. intelligence ahead of the invasion of Ukraine due to the faulty American information that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2001, said Oana Lungescu, a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London and formerly NATO’s longest-serving spokesperson.

But when combined with information from its security partners, America’s “remarkable intelligence” enabled the NATO alliance to raise the alert about Russia, Lungescu said.

European leaders are working to convince Trump’s administration that threats on the continent also are relevant for the United States.

There shouldn’t be much debate, said former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, Mike McFaul, who said there’s a direct relationship between U.S. intelligence sharing and national security. He noted that U.S. authorities have warned of escalating terror threats.

“One of our great advantages is that we have incredible intelligence capabilities and we have allies that we share that with — it’s a force multiplier for us,” said McFaul, who now teaches at Stanford University. “We’ll lose that if we’re no longer considered trustworthy.”

The Trump team has an “open mind and is in a listening mode,” Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said, adding that was a good sign because “when you come in with a new administration in a very eventful, rapidly changing environment, getting on the same footing is a challenge.”

Predicting Trump’s moves, however, is difficult. He has criticized NATO allies for not spending enough on defense. He even suggested he would encourage Russia to invade countries that didn’t pay what he thought they should. But he didn’t follow through on the threat.

“Last time it didn’t turn out so badly: He was going to throw NATO under the bus, but he didn’t do that,” former U.S. Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte said. “The rhetoric turned out to be transactional.”

Spokespeople for the White House and Gabbard did not respond to questions about Trump and his nominees or how they planned to handle intelligence sharing with America’s allies.

NATO members have hiked their defense spending — as Trump has demanded — and the alliance is now bigger than before, with Sweden and Finland joining after Russia invaded Ukraine.

“There is a big risk of continuing to take American support for European, NATO countries ... and defense of Ukraine for granted,” said Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson.

But it would also be risky to assume “the U.S. is simply leaving.” On that question, Kristersson said, “the jury is very much out.”

Concerns about Trump’s intel picks

Trump’s choice of Gabbard to oversee more than a dozen intelligence agencies has alarmed lawmakers from both parties and many current and former intelligence officials. Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman who later became a Trump ally, met since-deposed Syrian President Bashar Assad in 2017 in Damascus and has promoted Russian propaganda about its invasion of Ukraine.

If confirmed, Gabbard would have the power to declassify information and direct some intelligence sharing with allies.

A European intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said that while there is concern around some of Trump’s nominations, there is “no reason to think we can’t trust them because of who is in power.”

The official suggested nominees like Gabbard and Patel “haven’t heard all the facts yet” and could “grow and learn” when presented with the full picture.

With thousands of professionals working in a multitude of agencies, the day-to-day operations of America’s spy services may look very similar under the Trump administration. And there are safeguards, current and former officials told the AP, that include agencies sharing intelligence but not sources.

But those in top positions will have a huge impact if they lead to staff departures, curtail longstanding surveillance programs as Patel has suggested or politicize their offices in ways that can be exploited by Moscow and other adversaries.

The task for Europe is to convince everybody to focus on Russia, ”the real troublemaker,” the intelligence official said.

Alongside Gabbard, Patel has rattled intelligence insiders in the U.S. and elsewhere because he’s criticized surveillance programs like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which U.S. authorities use to keep tabs on suspected spies and terrorists overseas.

The United States shared intelligence gathered through that law with Russia when public safety was at stake, passing along a warning before a deadly concert attack in Moscow in March that killed 145 people. It is not clear if Moscow tried to act on the warning.

Allies heavily depend on US intelligence

The European Union must be realistic that “if the U.S. is reducing its participation in Europe, European members have to be ready to fill any gap,” said former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö, who has called for the 27-nation bloc to create its own intelligence agency.

Many global tech and communication firms such as Google, Apple and Microsoft as well as Elon Musk’s X are based in the U.S., giving American law enforcement and spy agencies an advantage over their foreign counterparts, which may lack the political or legal means to obtain information.

Niinistö hosted a summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2018, in which Trump openly questioned his own intelligence agencies’ finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. election to his benefit, restating Putin’s claim that Moscow was not involved.

Niinistö, whose country borders Russia, described his discussions with Trump while in office as clear, open and frank.

“I tried to tell him: ‘We need you, but you need us, too,’” Niinistö said.

___

Klepper reported from Washington.

AP · by EMMA BURROWS · January 27, 2025

17. To limit Chinese influence on commercial tech partners, Pentagon plans big changes

Who is our American "Liang Wenfeng" and where is our "DeepSeek startup?"

Let's just outcompete Chinese startups.

And our friends, partners, and allies can be of immense help to all of us.

Excerpts:

But DARPA’s solution is not the only option. Lisa Sanders, the director of science and technology at U.S. Special Operations Command, suggested another possibility, based on SOCOM’s experience.

Because special operators spend a lot of time working with partner militaries that don’t have access to classified information, SOCOM has found ways to share important information in unclassified environments. She described a 2022 workshop led by SOCOM with members of the Norwegian military who had unique data and insight on the way the electromagnetic spectrum works in the Arctic Circle—information that’s relevant to operating in other places where Russia conducts a lot of information warfare.

To limit Chinese influence on commercial tech partners, Pentagon plans big changes

Working with startups promises big innovation gains—and big security risks—for the Defense Department.

By Patrick Tucker

Science & Technology Editor

January 28, 2025 12:12 AM ET

defenseone.com · by Patrick Tucker

New rules aimed at exposing foreign influence over companies the Pentagon does business with are at odds with Defense Department efforts to work with more startups, but there could be a way to do both—if the DOD changes the way it approaches risk, security experts say.

U.S. efforts to secure classified weapons information have worked so well that China is devoting more and more time to scouring unclassified information to gather intelligence on new potential capabilities, Matthew Redding, the assistant director for industrial security at the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, said last week at a Potomac Officer’s Club event in Virginia.

“They're moving away from [searching for intelligence] behind the classified castle walls, which are very secure under the National Industrial Security Program. While the classified world is very secure, what about that unclassified storefront? What about that unclassified research outside of your classified research areas, right?” he said. His office will collect information on defense contractors in order to evaluate whether some issue related to foreign influence might prohibit that contractor from doing classified work.

The 2020 National Defense Authorization Act mandated a lot more vetting and scrutiny of defense contractors to detect possible Chinese influence. Any Defense Department contract over $5 million will be subject to increased vetting by Redding’s agency, once the policy is reviewed thoroughly.

That means that any company with even a small contract to do classified work will need to submit a form essentially outlining any possible foreign influence or investment. “I've been in the federal government for 35 years. This is the largest defense acquisition reform I have seen in 35 years,” Redding said.

A delicate balance

Declaring possible foreign investment exposure is pretty simple for an established defense contractor. But for the new class of tech companies that also sell to consumer markets, it’s much more complicated, because Chinese investment in Silicon Valley startups is high and Chinese researchers are very active in fields like AI and quantum computing.

That means that the Pentagon runs the risk of pushing out exactly the sorts of companies and new tech players it wants to engage. But a little-known DARPA program shows a potential way forward.

DARPA’s Countering Foreign Influence Program takes a data-centered approach to illuminate not just the existence of possible Chinese influence in a given company’s investor board, products, or research, but also the level of security risk posed by that investor, researcher or product. DARPA applies it to its own process of awarding research grants in several high-tech areas.

Scott Myers, who leads the DARPA program, said research partners in academia resisted the idea when DARPA first implemented it in 2022, calling it McCarthyism. “There was a massive outcry even from the scientists in my own building, saying we're having a chilling effect on science, we're having a chilling effect on research.”

But Myers, who also spoke at the Potomac Officer Club conference, said research partners warmed to the idea when they learned the model wasn’t intended to prohibit them from working with, say, top researchers who happened to be foreign. Instead, it aims to enable them to do that safely—even if that means creating special boundaries or rules on a case-by-case basis.

“We believe that we can get to ‘yes’ even if the risks are very, very high. We do everything in our power to mitigate those risks. The way we do that is we make sure that our partners have skin in the game.”

In one example he cited, a university that was partnering with DARPA on a program wanted the pre-eminent expert in the field on their team, but that person had studied at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, where all research findings belong to the Chinese government. The PRC also uses a variety of tactics to coerce Chinese researchers living abroad to share information and secrets with them.

The university came back with a proposal to allow the researcher to work on the program by isolating them—physically and in terms of communication and information—from other parts of the research, he said.

“Their proposal was that ‘We can, we can do this. The individual will be escorted into a room where they're by themselves. They will be on their own network, completely air-gapped from everyone else. They will only receive information for their portion of the work. Once they complete their work for the day, they leave for the day they will leave out a door that nobody else has walked out of. They will get no results from any other parts of the program. They will get no final results until the final paper is published, thus preventing them from getting a patent for the information in foreign country’,” Redding said.

But DARPA’s solution is not the only option. Lisa Sanders, the director of science and technology at U.S. Special Operations Command, suggested another possibility, based on SOCOM’s experience.

Because special operators spend a lot of time working with partner militaries that don’t have access to classified information, SOCOM has found ways to share important information in unclassified environments. She described a 2022 workshop led by SOCOM with members of the Norwegian military who had unique data and insight on the way the electromagnetic spectrum works in the Arctic Circle—information that’s relevant to operating in other places where Russia conducts a lot of information warfare.

So though the military treats that topic as one of the most sensitive, SOCOM led a three-day forum she described as a “completely open, notional, unclassified conversation” —and it produced useful results.

That approach opens the possibility of the information getting to adversaries, who could develop the same capability later. But, Sanders said, in some instances, it’s better to risk Russia, China or another adversary stealing a piece of research or breakthrough rather than not getting it to operators quickly. Then, the trick is staying ahead of the innovation that comes after.

defenseone.com · by Patrick Tucker

18. Hegseth highlights 'Iron Dome for America', other first priorities as new SecDef

Will we see Fort Bragg and Fort Benning again?

Signmakers are hoping so I am sure.

Excerpts:

“And today, there are more executive orders coming that we fully support on removing [diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives] inside the Pentagon, reinstating troops who were pushed out because of [Covid-19] mandates, and an Iron Dome for America,” he said.

He didn’t elaborate much more on that soon-to-be-published guidance.

However, one promise Trump made to voters while on the campaign trail involved creating an American version of Israel’s Iron Dome to protect the U.S. homeland from next-generation air- and space-based threats.

Israel’s Iron Dome capability is designed to defend against short-range weapons, while the system that Trump wants would likely be focused on shielding against longer-range missiles or other platforms. The Defense Department currently operates Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Space Force Base in California that were originally set up to defend against limited ballistic missile launches from countries such as North Korea. Trump could potentially move to expand the GMD architecture, or take other steps, as part of the “Iron Dome for America” initiative.

It’s unclear at this point whether the president’s envisioned system would be totally separate from or a complement to the Space Development Agency’s in-the-making Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture.

“We are reoriented. This is a shift. This is not the way business has been done in the past,” Hegseth said.

“Every moment that I’m here, I’m thinking about the guys and gals in Guam, in Germany, Fort Benning and Fort Bragg, on missile defense sites and aircraft carriers,” he added.

Hegseth highlights 'Iron Dome for America', other first priorities as new SecDef

defensescoop.com · by Brandi Vincent · January 27, 2025

Kicking off his first Monday in the office as the new secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth briefly spotlighted his team’s earliest leadership priorities — including executing on President Trump’s new vision to institute a powerful U.S. missile defense system.

“Our job is lethality, and readiness and warfighting,” Hegseth told a small group of reporters on the steps outside the Pentagon’s River Entrance.

After narrowly winning Senate confirmation late Friday, Hegseth was officially sworn in on Saturday at a ceremony attended by his family and close colleagues. That day, he released a message directly to U.S. military personnel articulating his aims to help them rapidly field emerging technological capabilities to deter China and other competitors.

When his motorcade arrived at the Pentagon on Monday, Hegseth was greeted by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown and media.

“In talking to the chairman and so many other folks here, [I know] we’re in capable hands. The warfighters are ready to go,” Hegseth said.

(Video by DefenseScoop’s Brandi Vincent)

Pointing to a slew of executive orders President Donald Trump signed last week — and specifically those regarding military-involved mass deportations and U.S.-Mexico border security operations — the new SecDef noted how the administration is “hitting the ground running” to carry out the commander-in-chief’s major mandates.

“The lawful orders of the president of the United States will be executed inside this Defense Department swiftly and without excuse. We will be no better friend to our allies, and no stronger adversary to those who want to test us and try us so,” Hegseth told reporters.

“And today, there are more executive orders coming that we fully support on removing [diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives] inside the Pentagon, reinstating troops who were pushed out because of [Covid-19] mandates, and an Iron Dome for America,” he said.

He didn’t elaborate much more on that soon-to-be-published guidance.

However, one promise Trump made to voters while on the campaign trail involved creating an American version of Israel’s Iron Dome to protect the U.S. homeland from next-generation air- and space-based threats.

Israel’s Iron Dome capability is designed to defend against short-range weapons, while the system that Trump wants would likely be focused on shielding against longer-range missiles or other platforms. The Defense Department currently operates Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Space Force Base in California that were originally set up to defend against limited ballistic missile launches from countries such as North Korea. Trump could potentially move to expand the GMD architecture, or take other steps, as part of the “Iron Dome for America” initiative.

It’s unclear at this point whether the president’s envisioned system would be totally separate from or a complement to the Space Development Agency’s in-the-making Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture.

“We are reoriented. This is a shift. This is not the way business has been done in the past,” Hegseth said.

“Every moment that I’m here, I’m thinking about the guys and gals in Guam, in Germany, Fort Benning and Fort Bragg, on missile defense sites and aircraft carriers,” he added.

Fort Moore in Georgia was previously known as Fort Benning before being renamed in 2023. Fort Liberty in North Carolina was previously called Fort Bragg.

Responding to questions from reporters, Hegseth also said that “more rapid fielding [of capabilities and] more rapid opportunity to train as we fight will be something we want our units to do across the spectrum.”

Written by Brandi Vincent

Brandi Vincent is DefenseScoop’s Pentagon correspondent. She reports on emerging and disruptive technologies, and associated policies, impacting the Defense Department and its personnel. Prior to joining Scoop News Group, Brandi produced a long-form documentary and worked as a journalist at Nextgov, Snapchat and NBC Network. She grew up in Louisiana and received a master’s degree in journalism from the University of Maryland.

defensescoop.com · by Brandi Vincent · January 27, 2025

19. More than 50 career civil servants at USAID are placed on administrative leave

It seems USAID is in for a tough time with the new administration.

Sadly one of the most overlooked elements of USAID is its Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance.

https://www.usaid.gov/democracy

If you examine closely (and read between the lines) this is a government agency that has the capability to effectively support foreign internal defense (FID) as well as unconventional warfare (UW) (and most importantly political warfare in the gray zone of strategic competition).

Democratic Governance – Building open, responsive, and accountable institutions and processes that serve the needs and preferences of the public.
Participation – Ensuring all have the opportunity to participate and have a voice in how they will be governed.
Enabling Credible, Free and Fair, and Peaceful Elections and Transition of Power – Promoting credible and transparent political competition and periodic elections for citizens to participate in their country’s governance and have their preferences represented.
Boosting Independent Media – Defending freedom of expression and helping journalists defend themselves against digital surveillance, and repression; partnering with countries to promote a free and open internet, and to infuse democratic values and human rights principles into the adoption of major new technologies.
Advancing Civic Engagement – Helping countries develop and sustain effective institutions and citizen-responsive governance that can fulfill their obligations toward citizens.
Promoting Justice and the Rule of Law – Strengthening justice and security institutions, justice and security reforms, holding institutions and people accountable to the rule of law, and providing access to justice mechanisms.
Advancing Respect for Human Rights – Supporting efforts to prevent human rights abuses, protect human rights defenders, and respond to human rights abuses.
Countering Resurgent Authoritarian Influence – Strengthening democratic and institutional resilience to tackle malign authoritarian influence, disinformation and digital authoritarianism.
Addressing and Fighting Corruption – Mobilizing broad-based coalitions and partnerships; galvanizing collective action across sectors; elevating anti-corruption considerations in policy making; and catalyzing innovation and experimentation to provide cutting-edge and responsive technical leadership and programming that focuses on prevention, detection, mitigation, and accountability.

This is of course complementary to the work the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

https://www.state.gov/bureaus-offices/under-secretary-for-civilian-security-democracy-and-human-rights/bureau-of-democracy-human-rights-and-labor/

The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) champions American values, including the rule of law and individual rights, that bring about safer, stronger, and more prosperous states. We advance American security by promoting respect for human rights, bolstering democratic institutions, empowering civil society, promoting and protecting freedom of expression, and upholding internationally recognized worker rights.

Together these two organizations along with USSOCOM should be the main agencies supporting FID and UW. If I were king for a day I would have these three organizations joined at the hip.

Give an Office of Strategic Disparition a mandate and these 3 organisations could bring about significant change in support of US national security objectives. If JFK had lived long enough he would have envisioned these three organizations forming relevant task forces around the world.

Seizing the Initiative in the Gray Zone: The Case for a US Office of Strategic Disruption

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/01/seizing-the-initiative-in-the-gray-zone-the-case-for-a-us-office-of-strategic-disruption/

More than 50 career civil servants at USAID are placed on administrative leave

The action targeted senior leadership across the agency, including top lawyers, three sources told NBC News.

NBC News · by Abigail Williams, Vaughn Hillyard and Raquel Coronell Uribe · January 28, 2025

More than 50 civil career servants and foreign service officers at the U.S. Agency for International Development were placed on administrative leave Monday afternoon effective immediately, two former USAID officials, a current agency official and a source directly familiar with the decision told NBC News.

In addition to striking at senior leadership in bureaus across the agency, the action specifically targeted senior attorneys, according to the two former USAID officials and a current official.

Follow live politics coverage

USAID employees were informed of the decision late Monday afternoon.

“We have identified several actions within USAID that appear to be designed to circumvent the President’s Executive Orders and the mandate from the American people,” said the email from acting USAID Administrator Jason Gray, which was obtained by NBC News. “As a result, we have placed a number of USAID employees on administrative leave with full pay and benefits until further notice while we complete our analysis of these actions.”

USAID did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday evening.

USAID works to coordinate foreign aid and humanitarian development. Though it is an independent federal agency, it collaborates and receives policy guidance from the secretary of state.

Some of the agency’s responsibilities include providing humanitarian relief in response to conflicts and natural disasters, as well as promoting global health, environmental sustainability and education.

Former USAID official Jeremy Konyndyk said the decision by the Trump administration was a fundamental misread of what career staff exist to do.

“In my experience, they always do work in good faith as intermediaries between the political guidance that they get from the leadership of their building and from the White House, and turn that into development policy,” said Konyndyk who is now president of Refugees International.

He added that the sweeping action seemed like an attempt to intimidate and instill fear throughout the building.

“This is a destroying the village in order to save it approach to governing,” he said.

We’re looking to hear from federal government workers. If you’re willing to talk with us, please email us at tips@nbcuni.com or contact us through one of these methods.

The Trump administration froze almost all U.S. foreign assistance last week, in compliance with an executive order by President Donald Trump pending a 90-day review.

The order paused new obligations and disbursements of foreign aid pending reviews “for programmatic efficiency and consistency” with U.S. foreign policy.

Trump has made a series of other moves to restructure components of the government.

Last week, he made a late-night, legally murky move to fire 18 inspectors general in the federal government, sent home dozens of national security officials from White House jobs, said he was considering shutting down the Federal Emergency Management Agency, revoked 50 security clearances for former intelligence officials and gave the green light to terminate federal employees in diversity, equity and inclusion roles.

NBC News · by Abigail Williams, Vaughn Hillyard and Raquel Coronell Uribe · January 28, 2025

20. Marine Corps Full Steam Ahead on Integrating Platoon-Level Drill Instructor Roles

Marine Corps Full Steam Ahead on Integrating Platoon-Level Drill Instructor Roles

military.com · by Drew F. Lawrence · January 27, 2025

The Marine Corps quietly directed its recruit depots to integrate male and female drill instructor teams at the platoon level in late 2023, and now the service is full steam ahead with the effort, according to several Marine officials who spoke to Military.com last week.

Between the Marine Corps' two recruit depots at San Diego and Parris Island, South Carolina, recruits from all over the country arrive on the famous yellow footprints to be trained by upward of 1,300 drill instructors, or DIs, charged with molding them into Marines over a 13-week boot camp.

Of those 1,300 drill instructors currently training recruits, roughly 15% are women -- and leaders at the depots and the service's education entity said that integrating that relatively limited number of women with their male counterparts at the lowest training level has gone smoothly over the last year-plus, with few adjustments required to make it happen.

The depots currently have seven gender-integrated drill instructor teams at the platoon level, though that number can fluctuate week to week depending on the number of companies that graduate and assemble for training, service leaders from the San Diego and Parris Island recruit depots said.

"This is not a pilot program," Col. Misty Posey, chief of staff of the Marine Corps' Training and Education Command, or TECOM, said Wednesday. Posey was previously a commander of Parris Island's now-shuttered 4th Recruit Training Battalion, an all-female unit that closed in 2023 amid the service's efforts to gender-integrate training.

"This is what we're doing, and there was never a doubt that we could integrate platoon-level DI teams," Posey said. "There was never a doubt in the value in doing it. There was never a doubt in the fact that it would be successful."

While the Marine Corps has consistently had the lowest percentage of women compared to its sister branches, the number of women putting on the Eagle, Globe and Anchor has slowly increased by two percentage points since 2016, with the Pentagon reporting that women made up nearly 10% of the Corps in 2023.

And as that number steadily increased, Posey said that "one battalion was no longer sufficient or appropriate to train all female recruits" in terms of the space that was once allotted to them, "which meant more female DIs and staff were needed to train them."

"It really gave us a lot of flexibility," she added.

Posey said that the effort to integrate women into drill instructor roles during boot camp harkens back to 1996, when initial training for men and women began to mirror each other. She said that drill instructors could have been integrated at that point, but given the small number of female recruits and drill instructors in the Marine Corps, the service felt it was "more efficient" to train women in a separate unit.

In December 2023, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, a Pentagon entity, recommended that the Marine Corps integrate its platoon-level drill instructors. The committee said that it "believes mixed-gender drill instructor teams are essential to providing recruits training and mentorship from opposite-gender role models as they prepare to enter an integrated operational environment," according to the report.

That same month, retired Lt. Gen. Kevin Iiams, then-commanding general of TECOM, gave verbal guidance to both depots to provide a proof of concept for integrating platoon-level drill instructors within gender-segregated companies, as Marine Corps Times first reported earlier this year.

Part of the impetus to integrate drill instructors at the platoon level, the officials told Military.com, was to get all Marines used to seeing both men and women in leadership roles before heading to the operational fleet, which is mixed-gender.

"We had to make very few changes overall, because honestly, integration at the depots is not that much different from integration in any Marine Corps unit, and we've been doing that to various degrees over the past few decades and it worked great," said Col. Peter Rummler, the commander of the Recruit Training Regiment at San Diego.

"The Marines thought of it just as a continuation of what they've experienced during their tours in the fleet," he added.

Col. Christopher McArthur, commander of the Recruit Training Regiment at Parris Island, said that each integrated training team will always include at least two drill instructors who are the same gender of the platoon they are training. An all-male platoon will have a drill instructor team made up of two women and two men, for example, though numbers can fluctuate due to manning.

Posey, the TECOM chief of staff, said teams that instructed martial arts, marksmanship and rapelling, for example, have been gender-integrated "for quite some time," but added that the service wanted to take a "deliberate approach" to integrating platoon-level drill instructors to establish procedures for drill instructor rest plans and recruit privacy during hygiene time.

While women have been enlisting in the Marine Corps for more than a century, to include more recently playing critical roles in Female Engagement and Lioness Teams during the Global War on Terrorism, the service has been slower to integrate them into training or combat roles compared to its counterparts.

After the Pentagon lifted the ban on women in direct combat jobs in 2013, for example, the Marine Corps was the only branch to request an exception, which was rejected. As of November, nearly 700 women were serving in combat roles in the Marine Corps.

Platoons are still segregated by gender at the depots, and it was not until 2019 that the Marine Corps graduated its first coed company of Marines at Parris Island. By comparison, the Army began integrating women at the platoon level in the 1990s. Female recruits did not start training at Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego until 2021, roughly 100 years after the West Coast unit was established.

"I get asked often by older, former retired Marines, and I would just reassure folks that even though we're generally integrated, boot camp is still challenging. It's conducted to the same level of standard expectation it's always been," said McArthur, the commander of the Recruit Training Regiment at Parris Island.

"It's enhanced just [by] the mere fact that now that recruits get to see leaders of both genders, and that's a positive for them, as well as a positive opportunity for our Marines to lead both genders," he added.

A University of Pittsburgh study cited staff shortages as contributing "burnout" factors for the disproportionately fewer female drill instructors, among other takeaways in the 738-page report.

Maj. Hector Infante, a TECOM spokesperson, said insights from that study "have been instrumental in enhancing opportunities for integrated training, especially as personnel and resources became available for pilot programs and execution."

"Female drill instructors have the same work requirements as their male counterparts, but their smaller population size can lead to disproportionately heavier workloads and increased burnout," the study said. "The inflexibility of single-gender drill instructor teams combined with personnel shortages necessitate female drill instructors shortening their between-cycle breaks to ensure sufficient coverage for every female platoon."

Depot leaders said they did not see any challenges in terms of managing work-rest cycles amid the integration of drill instructor teams at the platoon level -- a historically demanding job for drill instructors overall, but especially for women who had to shoulder greater responsibilities given their fewer numbers, the study said.

Before, "women were always considered sort of second-class citizens, whether they were recruits or drill instructors, and part of that was because the leaders had historically created distance in terms of space and time to keep the women so separate that they were automatically assumed not to be able to keep up," former Marine Lt. Col. Kate Germano, who led the all-female 4th Recruit Training Battalion, told Military.com.

"Because there were female drill instructors who were allowed only to train the women, it caused a lot of burnout, a lot of exhaustion, a lot of divorce," she said.

Germano said that the integration of female drill instructors at the platoon level was a long time coming, and that because they were allowed only to train women in the drill instructor capacity for so long, the new change could lighten the load in terms of time off, giving women in those roles more time to recover.

Germano was relieved of command in 2015 despite improving metrics for female Marines under her leadership, such as shooting qualifications. The firing by the Corps sparked years of controversy over the way women are perceived in the military. She said that, for her, the integration of female drill instructors at the platoon level is indicative of an overall generational shift that wasn't around when she was serving.

"Ten years ago, we had individuals in top leadership positions who had never served side by side with women in combat and had never really understood what women were capable of," she said of the service's moves to integrate women into key roles. "And now we're seeing that that's the norm."

Both Germano and the current Marine Corps leadership said that the move to integrate women in platoon-level drill instructor roles makes it easier for the depots to manage their recruit shipping models amid a difficult recruiting environment for all branches.

"In the old days, women were only trained in one place, which limited the throughput of recruits, which limited the mission of the recruiters," Germano said. "And so now what we're seeing is, because training has been open to more than one location and there's more than one squad bay available, more women can be recruited, more women can be trained."

"And this ties back into this idea of integrating the teams, because the less you have to worry about only having women train women, the more people there are available to fill those company leadership slots," she added. "So it's all related. It's all connective tissue, and this is just sort of the cherry on top of the ice cream."

military.com · by Drew F. Lawrence · January 27, 2025

21. Art and Arms: 2 Aspects of Resistance in Ukraine's Fight for Freedom

I try not to miss anything related to resistance.

Art and Arms: 2 Aspects of Resistance in Ukraine's Fight for Freedom

military.com · by Military.com | By Slava Leontyev Published January 27, 2025 at 9:52am ET · January 27, 2025

The opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Military.com. If you would like to submit your own commentary, please send your article to opinions@military.com for consideration.

Through a drone above a farm destroyed by shelling near my home city of Kharkiv, I watched the grainy smoke and flames spreading like fingers through golden, burning wheat. The fire stretched outward, squeezing red and black from the vibrant gold until it clenched into a fist and disappeared into ash. As an artist, I was struck by the brutal beauty. It felt like a metaphor for war -- gripping, consuming, and annihilating everything it touches.

The soldier in me knew this was no ordinary attack. The Russian shelling was deliberate, an effort to destroy our food supply before what promised to be another brutal winter. Even though we survived the barrage, others would perish from hunger.

War's true essence lies in its smells and sounds: the cries of wounded animals and people, the suffocating heat, the incessant flies that settle on your face and hands. It is the weight of exhaustion and the awareness that some of the best people you know have died while you are still alive.

I have lost so many friends -- brothers in arms who volunteered to stand between danger and their people. Brilliant, vibrant individuals: a lawyer turned commander, a beloved teacher, a gifted student. All gone. They didn't seek glory or riches. Their reward was the simple honor of fighting for what they believed in: our independence, our culture, and our right to exist.

In Ukraine, everyone has a war story. It may not be combat, but it is the constant burden of destruction. We see our enemies' intentions clearly, every day, as stark as the air after a storm.

Their goal is not just to take our land; it is to destroy our identity, our freedom, and our democracy. Ukraine's attackers see our freedom, independence and democracy as threats, and these values have become their primary targets. Their aim is not merely to destroy our resources but to erase our identity.

This is why we fight. We resist not because we seek conflict, but because the alternative is annihilation not just of our nation, but of our very soul.

As an artist, I understand the power of culture. It is both a target for our enemies and a source of our resilience. Ukraine has long been a battlefield, and this history has paradoxically made us inclined toward peace. Our culture, shaped by generations of survivors, teaches us the value of life and the futility of war.

This war, the one started via an invasion in 2022, has claimed countless artists, writers, teachers and social activists. These are the very people who were building the future of our culture. Their loss is immeasurable, but it compels us to work harder to create, rebuild and preserve.

Russia is using kill lists to target not only our soldiers but also our teachers, artists, scientists and social activists. These lists aim to destroy Ukrainian culture by eliminating those who contribute to its growth and preservation. Teachers of the Ukrainian language, cultural leaders, and the parents of our future artists and scientists have been systematically killed in occupied territories. By extinguishing these lives, the Russian army is killing the future of our culture.

Our resistance, both military and cultural, is also inspired by history, especially the sacrifices of American soldiers. We have long admired how American troops fought with unwavering bravery during World War II. My father, like almost all young men in the Soviet Union, had to serve in the Soviet army. He was in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. He always believed that the world was saved by the determination of the United States.

We understand the responsibility you feel: the duty to defend freedom everywhere even when it may not seem like your own fight. It is a humbling and powerful example for us. As volunteers, we all came to the Ukrainian army because we felt our own responsibility in the face of history.

Your example inspires us to stand firm. You have not fought on your own soil in a long time, but your battles around the world show us what it means to protect democracy and freedom wherever they are threatened.

The war in Ukraine is not just our fight; it is a defense of values shared by people across the world. Freedom, democracy and cultural identity are not abstract concepts -- they are the essence of who we are. In this fight, art is our resistance. By continuing to create, we assert our right to exist and preserve the culture that has long been a target of those who seek to erase it.

Those who can stand and protect these ideals have no choice but to do so, for the alternative is unthinkable.

This is why we fight. This is why we create. This is why we endure.

-- Slava Leontyev is a veteran of the Ukrainian special forces and a highly regarded weapons instructor for civilians defending their country. He is the first-time co-director of the documentary

"Porcelain War," which won the Sundance Festival Grand Jury Prize: U.S. Documentary. As a debut director, he has also been nominated for an Academy Award in Documentary Feature film and by the Directors Guild of America for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Documentary. Together with his wife and longtime collaborator, Anya Stasenko, Leontyev creates the porcelain figurines featured in the film.

military.com · by Military.com | By Slava Leontyev Published January 27, 2025 at 9:52am ET · January 27, 2025

22. Countering Russian Occupation: Strategies for Multinational Resistance

Long live the resistance. We can learn a lot from Finland and Norway.

I highly recommend the film about Norwegian resistance in WWII on Netflix: "Number 24."

https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/news/number-24-netflix-sets-premiere-for-norwegian-wwii-film/

Excerpts:

Nations along NATO’s eastern flank contain vulnerabilities in their strategic depth. This situation inhibits force generation and operational employment of a resistance headquarters temporarily situated in one of these states. Collocation and formalized agreements would enable operational synchronization among neighboring countries, thereby increasing their collective security. Identifying predesignated headquarters locations for potential exiled resistance leadership in nearby nations can act as a counter to Russia’s suppression of legitimate national leaders and detention of locals in occupied areas. NATO’s enlargement provides additional opportunities for this kind of cooperation among states.

NATO’s newest members in the Scandinavian High North could provide strategic depth and additional collocation options for exiled resistance leaders forced out of occupied territories in the Baltic states. Key leaders gain operational flexibility during an occupation event if predetermined locations and governing authorities are already in place between concerned states. Deliberate planning of this nature can mitigate perceptions that exiled leaders are fleeing persecution or abandoning their people. These exiled political and military leaders can leverage predetermined areas and agreements to organize, train, and equip forces while coordinating logistics and launching clandestine operations.

The keys to successfully employing this expanded resistance concept against Russian occupation are mutual support, shared responsibility, and, above all, establishing resistance infrastructure well ahead of the onset of occupation. Modern commercial and military technologies enable decentralized command and control over resistance forces from a distance and at scale. These technologies also provide opportunities to integrate information operations in a multinational context to actively illuminate misinformation, disinformation, human rights violations, sexual violence, and other hallmarks of Russian occupation. Collocation at the military headquarters of other NATO member states will help exiled resistance leaders synchronize information operations and leverage regional resolve rather than being forced to face the fate of the Forest Brothers of decades past.

Countering Russian Occupation: Strategies for Multinational Resistance

irregularwarfare.org · by Tim Soderlund · January 28, 2025

The resurgence of Russian aggression has reignited the importance of preparing for occupation and resistance, particularly for nations on NATO’s eastern flank. History shows that Russian occupation consistently involves at least three key elements: forced deportations, population control, and the systematic dismantling of leadership to suppress resistance movements. Drawing lessons from past efforts, such as the Forest Brothers’ guerrilla war in the Baltics, and integrating modern tools like publicly available secure digital technologies, NATO and its allies can better prepare resistance networks to counter these tactics. This article explores historical lessons from resistance movements, examines contemporary challenges posed by Russian occupation, and proposes solutions that emphasize pre-crisis planning, technological innovation, and multinational coordination.

Lessons from History

As the Second World War concluded, bands of partisan groups maneuvered through Europe, determined to end foreign occupation. Among these, the Forest Brothers waged a decade-long guerrilla war in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia against Soviet forces. Through raids, ambushes, and covert operations, these guerrilla forces imposed significant costs on the occupiers. However, the Forest Brothers ultimate collapse highlights three critical lessons: the indispensability of external support, the importance of pre-crisis planning, and the devastating impact of Russian population control measures.

Across Europe, Soviet occupation frequently meant brutal population control measures aimed principally at breaking the common will to resist. The Baltic states are a case in point. The onslaught of mass deportations, rapid repopulation, and forced industrialization suffocated resistance forces just as external support began drying up. Soviet loyalists were appointed to local government offices in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Institutional opposition weakened considerably as foreign special operators and intelligence agents gradually reduced assistance to the resistance forces. It was in this context of Soviet occupation and reprioritization of Western military aid elsewhere during the Cold War that the Forest Brothers were eventually forced to capitulate. Their demise was due more to those restrictive protocols and lack of support rather than any tactical errors in the swamps and forests. This case of resistance against Soviet occupation in the Baltics sheds light on the difficulties nations face in resisting more recent Russian occupations.

For irregular warfare practitioners, the example of the Forest Brothers is instructive. These forces countered Soviet efforts at reoccupation throughout the Baltic states in the 1940s. This followed a pattern common to other Russian occupation efforts since the end of the Second World War. In the years following Germany’s surrender, Soviet forces annexed and occupied the Baltic states. A cycle of cultural repression and economic collectivization began, quickly followed by insurrection. In response, the Soviets stepped up their oppressive population control measures culminating with Operation Priboi.

Launched in March 1949, Operation Priboi was the largest of many attempts at forced emigration designed to deflate local capacity to resist. Logistically complex, the operation entailed the arrest and deportation of almost one hundred thousand people who were transported via nearly five thousand boxcars across the Baltic states. This deportation scheme was meticulously coordinated at more than a hundred train stations in designated areas. Nearly three percent of the Baltic population was displaced or otherwise removed in just under one month.

Operations like Priboi took their toll on the resistance. By 1959, the Forest Brothers movement was forced to capitulate after more than a decade of resisting Soviet occupation. In retrospect, their collapse seems almost inevitable. External support evaporated after the Second World War ended, leaving groups like the Forest Brothers to fend for themselves against the centralized and well-resourced Soviet military behemoth. Without allied or partner support to those Baltic resistance groups, Russia’s deportation campaign eventually achieved its goals. But mass deportations were just one component of Soviet occupation measures exercised throughout the Baltic states.

Soviet occupation forces instituted additional population control measures to deny inhabitants the basic resources necessary to comprehensively resist. The Soviet-era secret police known as the KGB kept informants on the payroll to identify the slightest indications of resistance activities. The KGB implemented passport and language control to force Russification upon local populations. Meanwhile, independent leaders and their parties were swiftly pushed aside and replaced with apparatchiks loyal to Russia.

Indications of this strategy were already apparent shortly after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Act. In 1940, Latvia’s president Karlis Ulmanis was forced to resign and Soviet loyalist Augusts Kirhensteins quickly replaced him. Soviet officials denied Ulmanis’s application to emigrate to Switzerland and then deported him to Stavropol in southeastern Russia where he died of dysentery in 1942 while still in Russian captivity. Future efforts were constrained without robust external support from beyond the occupation area. This lack of support inhibited the resistance from gaining legitimacy despite living among a population deeply dissatisfied with Soviet occupation. In contrast, Russia’s operations in Ukraine since 2022 demonstrate the effectiveness of foreign allied and partner engagement with the resistance, both in terms of tangible logistical support and political legitimacy.

Contemporary Challenges in Russian Occupation

Ukrainian resistance efforts have come up against a Russian occupation cycle reminiscent of that which groups like the Forest Brothers experienced eight decades earlier. Russian occupation in Ukraine prompted ethnic Ukrainians to either flee occupation zones or be displaced by imported ethnic Russian populations. Following the same playbook as the 1940s, political appointees favorable to Russia replaced existing Ukrainian leaders. Eastern Ukrainian territories were emptied through operations informed by Operation Priboi. Indeed, Russia does not attempt to conceal these occupation methods. Russia’s Commissioner for Children’s Rights reported that more than 700,000 children from Ukraine were removed to Russia, claiming the move was for humanitarian purposes. Beneath this façade, Russia’s deportation of Ukrainians and repopulation with ethnic Russians exemplifies the Russian model for occupying foreign areas. As Russia’s efforts to forcibly remove Ukrainians in occupied areas increases, the methodologies outlined in the resistance operating concept grow untenable without further innovation.

The Forest Brothers vignette combined with lessons from the current war in Ukraine are instructive for irregular warfare practitioners as they shape pre-crisis resistance plans. More precisely, these lessons inform the planning process in developing, supporting, and employing resistance networks against potential Russian aggression in the future. History is rife with examples of cycles of Russian occupation eschewing international norms and the rule of law. In their place, one finds programs designed to decapitate domestic leadership structures and appoint civil authorities loyal to Russian interests. Worse, Russian occupation often entails forced deportations. Occupying forces import ethnic Russians while employing rigid population control measures and enforcing a security apparatus designed to reduce the will to resist. Civilians able to flee often travel abroad to avoid persecution under Russian occupation. The remaining populations are less resilient and more malleable, further hamstringing the formation of effective resistance networks.

Historically, organized resistance against Russian occupation has failed in part due to a paucity of coordinated support from neighbors and sympathetic nations. Without sufficient strategic depth, eastern European states require comprehensive plans backed by allies and partners to support the formation of resistance elements prior to occupation forces digging in. A comprehensive framework recognizing and legitimizing exiled governments can streamline future resistance efforts. Such a framework would enumerate necessary logistical support, security, and communication mechanisms for exiled resistance leaders while also supporting their legitimacy.

Networks to counter these occupation techniques are not completely out of reach to planners. Joint Special Operations University published the Resistance Operating Concept in 2020, offering solutions for a whole-of-government resistance planning framework. The concept focuses on strengthening social resilience. That resilience is a key deterrent against occupying adversaries like Russia. A cohesively resilient nation mobilizing its entire government to resist is better prepared to disrupt occupation forces upon arrival and during the conflict. Without this cohesion and resilience, resistance movements are denied freedom of action in a suffocating occupation environment. Synchronizing a multinational resistance architecture before a crisis begins is a necessary ingredient for later success. But this goes beyond the framework outlined in the resistance operating concept and requires finesse with emerging technologies.

Additionally, increased awareness has spurred like-minded states to support resistance movements against Russian occupation. This support has come in the form of advanced training programs, intelligence sharing, and information operations. Innovative recruitment and training methods combined with allied and partner resources can help sustain and even grow resistance operations despite Russia’s suffocating tactics. Resistance forces are realizing the power of information warfare as they leverage social media and independent journalists to expose Russian atrocities. The resulting international pressure influences Russia’s choices, creating international public support and breathing room for resistance groups. The information space invites a dynamic and adaptable approach with multinational support that can bolster resistance against Russia in places where that resistance can be most effective.

Successful multinational pre-crisis resistance planning for states bordering Russia will hinge on leveraging emerging secure commercial digital technologies to support states without strategic depth. Critically, these technologies can facilitate remote coordination and oversight for decentralized operations from safe positions beyond the occupied areas. This depth adds a layer of protection and anonymity for leaders in the resistance hierarchy while also enabling better coordination between the resistance group and friendly states. Broad coordination of this kind has eluded resistance movements in the past.

From Romania and Moldova to Finland and Estonia, predesignated international resistance support mechanisms could increase security along NATO’s eastern flank. States along this boundary can incorporate mechanisms into their own national security and defense strategies, further coupling their objectives with those of their neighbors. Operational depth across the region could be enhanced through formal agreements between these states. Such an environment of regional cooperation and support creates a space for exiled governments to maintain legitimacy and continue supporting resistance efforts from outside an occupied area.

Nations along NATO’s eastern flank contain vulnerabilities in their strategic depth. This situation inhibits force generation and operational employment of a resistance headquarters temporarily situated in one of these states. Collocation and formalized agreements would enable operational synchronization among neighboring countries, thereby increasing their collective security. Identifying predesignated headquarters locations for potential exiled resistance leadership in nearby nations can act as a counter to Russia’s suppression of legitimate national leaders and detention of locals in occupied areas. NATO’s enlargement provides additional opportunities for this kind of cooperation among states.

NATO’s newest members in the Scandinavian High North could provide strategic depth and additional collocation options for exiled resistance leaders forced out of occupied territories in the Baltic states. Key leaders gain operational flexibility during an occupation event if predetermined locations and governing authorities are already in place between concerned states. Deliberate planning of this nature can mitigate perceptions that exiled leaders are fleeing persecution or abandoning their people. These exiled political and military leaders can leverage predetermined areas and agreements to organize, train, and equip forces while coordinating logistics and launching clandestine operations.

The keys to successfully employing this expanded resistance concept against Russian occupation are mutual support, shared responsibility, and, above all, establishing resistance infrastructure well ahead of the onset of occupation. Modern commercial and military technologies enable decentralized command and control over resistance forces from a distance and at scale. These technologies also provide opportunities to integrate information operations in a multinational context to actively illuminate misinformation, disinformation, human rights violations, sexual violence, and other hallmarks of Russian occupation. Collocation at the military headquarters of other NATO member states will help exiled resistance leaders synchronize information operations and leverage regional resolve rather than being forced to face the fate of the Forest Brothers of decades past.

Tim Soderlund is a Special Forces Detachment Commander in 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), based at Fort Carson, Colorado. He has deployed twice with US Army Special Operations Forces to Eastern Europe and works closely with allies and partners on irregular warfare and resistance planning.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official position of the Irregular Warfare Initiative, Princeton University’s Empirical Studies of Conflict Project, the Modern War Institute at West Point, or the United States Government.

Main Image: Forest Brothers relaxing and cleaning their weapons after a shooting exercise in Veskiaru, Estonia, 1953. (Photo via Wikimedia)

If you value reading the Irregular Warfare Initiative, please consider supporting our work. And for the best gear, check out the IWI store for mugs, coasters, apparel, and other items.

23. a despicable choice - let’s state it up front (PRC and COVID)

Powerful analysis and critique

Excerpts:

While I know the government in Beijing maintains archives on many things, I am dubious anyone knows the true death count because Xi Jinping’s penchant for only wanting to hear good news prevents honest reporting. Accountability through transparency is vital to good governance in any country but insecure leaders almost inevitably discourage those who work for them from bringing truth when it upsets the preferred narrative.

China wants to be a global leader but with leadership comes responsibility for actions taken—or not pursued.

Perhaps we will ultimately find out beyond any doubt what the source of the virus was but I remain deeply angry that Beijing knew as much as it did, then would not take common sense steps to address it. It’s quite a lesson for all of us.

Millions of people died and those who survived often still feel effects. Perhaps this was not entirely avoidable but it certainly could have been handled better.

a despicable choice

let’s state it up front

Cynthia Watson

Jan 28, 2025

Five years ago today, the world was only beginning to absorb the reality of a global health emergency comparable to one that so few people alive had ever faced. Virtually all of us resisted recognizing its magnitude but the corona virus was already on the move but some decisions are inexplicable to me.

Debate within the United States over the origins of the virus still reverberate—and likely always will as I strongly doubt we will ever know for certain whether it was a natural phenomenon known as spillage from bats to humans or whether alternate, more nefarious actions led to the pandemic. The Central Intelligence Agency assessed repeatedly over these years that the bats-to-human transmission was far more likely but less than twenty-four hours after John Ratcliffe’s confirmation as Director of Central Intelligence, his agency reversed that assessment, albeit with “low confidence”, to blame the CCP for malfeasance in its Wuhan laboratory facility.

I don’t know where the virus began any more than anyone else. I prefer following the science, that replicable evidence-based process to validate hypotheses, but I don’t have perfect knowledge. Too many seem to stake assessments based on beliefs about China’s motives, about perfidy of the head of the Centers for Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci, or the phases of the moon. While it may be a wonderful historic study, I am not sure it matters as much as others do but perhaps I will be convinced down the line.

What most clearly is demonstrable, despicable, and never forgivable is that the CCP, by evidence we now have, did not cancel the 2020 Spring Festival travel. China’s deliberate choice to maintain social stability by allowing the traditional travel by hundreds of millions of people, obviously dramatically expanding the virus’ reach, was an unconscionable act.

I remember commenting to my husband as the event approached that allowing the massive internal migration sounded crazy because this illness (as we still called it) could spread like wildfire by people coming in contact with others previously unexposed. Pandemics interest me, particularly since reading John Barry’s, The Great Influenza: the Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History, because of the medical mysteries they present and policies they force us to enact. But this just sounded so weird that any hint of such a risk would go forward.

I read somewhere in late 2019 the many China sources I come across that an unsettling illness was popping up in Wuhan. According to the Centers for Disease Control, my memory must have been associated with reports, on about 12 December, of a number of citizens of Hubei province with a novel type of flu. I have no idea where exactly I saw these reports but I vividly recall not being totally surprised when the number of cases began climbing early January. The PRC notified the World Health Organization on new year’s eve of this abnormal illness, thus providing documented evidence that PRC health authorities knew something was amiss or they never would have contacted the WHO. We now know that doctors in Wuhan tried to raise alarms about the contagion but Xi Jinping’s determined efforts over the years, unsurprisingly for a head of any government, focus on accentuating the positive rather than the negative for his country. Bringing attention to global heath authorities meant the Chinese health community recognized this was both new and potentially quite dangerous.

Social stability, however, remains the supreme concern in China under this or any other administration. Fear of luan or societal chaos is as ingrained in that culture as “freedom” is in our own. Social stability relies on several mechanisms. Some are state-imposed, such as controlling materials on the internet or assuring that popular assembly does not morph into criticizing the government. Alternatively, allowing the population now living in urban areas to fulfill their family obligations and desires to celebrate the new year in rural ancestral areas is another way. In 2008, peculiarly heavy snowfall prevented millions from making their way home in the southern part of the country. Chinese government concern about the implication of that tragedy led to a personal appearance at an absolutely overflowing but snowed in train station by the Premier Wen Xiaobao as evidence of how seriously this mattered. Beijing needs Chinese to believe the government prioritizes everything possible to assure they meet their family obligations, for fear of blowback towards the Party.

This deliberate choice to allow normal migration that strikes me as supremely and unquestionably irresponsible. The Lunar New Year celebrations began on 25 January 2020, traditionally the single largest annual migration anywhere. Perhaps 170 million people travelled home for the Spring Festival that year, meaning vectors of the disease expanding within China (much less around the globe) were astronomical. And government officials knew the virus was dangerous because they had notified the WHO.

China’s officials could have chosen to abort travel under extenuating circumstances, had they chosen. The CCP regularly takes draconian steps (Tian’anmen in 1989 certainly was) where it deems a threat high enough but they did not in 2020.

The CDC website makes clear that health officials elsewhere were already detecting coronavirus cases well before late January, though the numbers were low. But to not prevent further contamination by any regime was inexcusable.

Wuhan, the vast city of 11 million which is the eight largest in the country, went into lockdown on 23 January. Surely travel was already underway but the decision to isolate 11 million people in a political system like China’s, with its stove-piped, hierarchical system was hardly made over a fifteen minute tea break. Beijing knew it had a problem, notified the WHO (and surely through informal internet conversations with scientists around the globe), and yet they did not prevent the spread of the virus by curbing the migration that winter.

Evidence is, of course, that coronavirus was already appearing in Italy, Thailand, and even the United States by the Spring Festival. I don’t pretend to be qualified to judge how much of what became the global scourge was already abroad versus how much the millions of migrants exacerbated the problem. But common sense tells me that a society so anxious about maintaining control over so many aspects of personal lives ought to have focused on that probable threat. Instead, things went blithely along.

Eventually, Beijing imposed lockdowns of entire cities but not before the Festival.

Coronavirus formally became a worldwide health emergency on 11 March 2020 following 118,000 infections, 4291 of which were deaths, according to the WHO.

China reluctantly discusses Covid, even today. As early as April 2020, the death statistics for Hubei province containing Wuhan doubled to 3800; it seems likely those numbers underestimate the truth. Infections in the Middle Kingdom in that same month were again suspiciously low at 84,000. The health emergency and rolling lockdowns of entire cities of multimillions of people only ended in late 2022.

As of May 2023, the world formally recorded 6.866 million deaths resulting from the virus. The largest number acknowledged in any country was in the United States where 1.161 million perished, followed by Brazil, India, and Russia. China, curiously, gave 5272 deaths, a seeming preposterously low number.

While I know the government in Beijing maintains archives on many things, I am dubious anyone knows the true death count because Xi Jinping’s penchant for only wanting to hear good news prevents honest reporting. Accountability through transparency is vital to good governance in any country but insecure leaders almost inevitably discourage those who work for them from bringing truth when it upsets the preferred narrative.

China wants to be a global leader but with leadership comes responsibility for actions taken—or not pursued.

Perhaps we will ultimately find out beyond any doubt what the source of the virus was but I remain deeply angry that Beijing knew as much as it did, then would not take common sense steps to address it. It’s quite a lesson for all of us.

Millions of people died and those who survived often still feel effects. Perhaps this was not entirely avoidable but it certainly could have been handled better.

I welcome your thoughts, observations, and questions. Please feel free to circulate this column if you find it valuable. Thank you for your time. I also deeply appreciate the subscribers who fund this newsletter.

Be well and be safe. FIN

John Barry, The Great Influenza: the Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History. New York: Penguin, 2003.

“Chinese New Year—statistics and facts”, statista.com, retrieved at https://www.statista.com/topics/5156/chinese-new-year-in-china/#topicOverview

“Coronavirus: China outbreak city Wuhan raises death toll by 50% “, bbcnews.com, 17 April 2020, retrieved at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52321529

“David J. Sencer Museum CDC Covid Timeline”, CDC.org, retrieved at https://www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/covid19.html

“Number of novel coronavirus (Covid-19) deaths worldwide, by country and territory“, statistica.com, 23 May 2023, retrieved at https://www.statista.com/statistics/1093256/novel-coronavirus-2019ncov-deaths-worldwide-by-country/

24. Trump and the New Age of Nationalism

Conclusion:

It is time for the United States to move past the obsolete zero-sum logic of great-power competition. Instead of squandering more resources in the counterproductive pursuit of primacy, Washington should renew its commitment to strengthening economies and advancing human rights around the world. The national interest does not reside in outmaneuvering China in every domain—it resides in an internationalist vision that emphasizes cooperation over competition.

Trump and the New Age of Nationalism

Foreign Affairs · by More by Michael Brenes · January 28, 2025

A Dangerous Combination for America and the World

Michael Brenes and Van Jackson

January 28, 2025

An American flag fluttering behind barbed wire, El Paso, Texas, June 2024 Jose Luis Gonzalez / Reuters

Michael Brenes is Co-Director of the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy and Lecturer in History at Yale University.

Van Jackson is Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Victoria University of Wellington.

They are the authors of The Rivalry Peril: How Great-Power Competition Threatens Peace and Weakens Democracy.

More by Van Jackson

Print Subscribe to unlock this feature or Sign in.

Save Sign in and save to read later

As it did in 2016, Donald Trump’s presidency has prompted commentators in and outside of Washington to reflect on the direction of U.S. foreign policy. Questions abound over how Trump will deal with China and Russia, as well as India and emerging powers in the global South. U.S. foreign policy is headed into a period of uncertainty, even if Trump’s first term provides a stark reference point for how he might manage the United States’ role in the world in the coming years.

Trump’s return to the White House cements his place in history as a transformational figure. Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan shaped distinct “ages” of U.S. history—they redefined the role of government in Americans’ lives and remade U.S. foreign policy in enduring ways. Roosevelt’s presidency, which engendered a multilateral order led by the United States, heralded the dawn of “the American Century.” Reagan sought to maximize U.S. military and economic power; his was a time of “peace through strength.” PostCold War administrations have oscillated between these two visions, often taking on elements of both. Trump inherits the remnants of these ages, but he also represents a new one: the age of nationalism.

Washington’s traditional impulse to divide the world into democracies and autocracies obscures a global turn toward nationalism that began with the 2008 financial crisis and led to protectionism, hardening borders, and shrinking growth in many parts of the world. Indeed, a resurgence of nationalism—particularly economic nationalism and ethnonationalism—has characterized global affairs since the mid-2010s, when the world saw a rise in popularity of nationalist figures, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, the French far-right leader Marine Le Pen in France, and Trump.

Instead of questioning or challenging this new age of nationalism, Washington has contributed to it. In the administrations of both Trump and President Joe Biden, the United States has been preoccupied with consolidating U.S. power while restraining Chinese advancements. Rather than prioritizing job creation or economic growth globally, Washington has deployed tariffs and export controls to weaken China’s economic power relative to the United States. A global green-energy transition that addresses the roots of the climate crisis has given way to a politically contentious and fleeting bid to expand U.S. electric vehicle production. Supply-chain resilience has overtaken economic interdependence, as the logic of a “rising tide that lifts all boats” has been supplanted by a race to claim a greater share of a shrinking global economic pie. And by failing to see instability, violence, and debt distress in the global South as related to the problems of higher-income countries, the United States exacerbates the spread of nationalism abroad.

This new nationalist era can be discerned in the pivot to “great-power competition”—a vague phrase that frames U.S. grand strategy toward China. But great-power competition forecloses on the potential of the United States to build a new internationalist age in the tradition of Roosevelt following World War II. It also sustains an anachronistic status quo, premised on U.S. primacy, that no longer exists and limits the political imagination needed to generate a more peaceful, stable world. A decade-long preoccupation with great-power competition has cost the United States valuable time and momentum to build a new international order in ways that limit conflicts and incentivize nations to reject Beijing’s economic and military influence.

To be sure, Beijing does pose threats to democracies, human rights, and cybersecurity around the world. But viewing those threats through the prism of great-power competition has led some observers to present China as an existential danger on par with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This aggressive, zero-sum approach toward Beijing has compounded the risks of the age of nationalism.

If American policymakers are to reinvigorate the United States’ role in the world and contribute to peace and stability for countries suffering from human rights abuses, inequality, and oppression, they must broaden their horizons and eschew this age of nationalism. The pressing problems of climate change, democratic backsliding, economic inequality, and unsustainable levels of sovereign debt will not be solved by strengthening U.S. power to the detriment of the broader world.

NATIONALISM RESURRECTED

When the United States and its allies defeated the Axis powers in 1945, American leaders realized that the old imperial order no longer served the interests of global peace. The League of Nations proved feckless as the great powers turned to autarky and protectionism in the 1920s and 1930s, fomenting the nationalism that drove the autocratic regimes in Germany, Italy, and Japan to war.

In 1945, Roosevelt feared that when the shooting stopped, the Allies would seek to protect their respective interests by turning inward, as they did after World War I. In his State of the Union address that year, he said that the United States must work toward “establishing an international order which will be capable of maintaining peace and realizing through the years more perfect justice between Nations.” This new order, as Roosevelt saw it, depended on multilateral institutions that enlisted U.S. economic and military might on behalf of global partners that needed security and prosperity in the wake of World War II.

Roosevelt defined the national interest in global terms—in the preservation of a multilateral order that made the world safe for capitalism and liberal democracy. Although large portions of the postcolonial world remained underdeveloped, and multilateral institutions disproportionately benefited the richest nations, there was space for reemerging noncommunist economies in Asia and Africa to assert their interests in the postwar order. In 1948, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade eliminated trade barriers that strengthened the Japanese economy. In 1964, decolonizing countries organized themselves within the United Nations into a grouping they called the G-77, with an eye to challenging the West’s neglect of African and Asian nations. Today, global South nations continue to turn to the UN to achieve climate justice, uphold international law, and hold private corporations accountable for violating labor and environmental laws.

A volatile, unequal economic order fuels nationalist politics.

When the Cold War ended in 1991, the United States subordinated international institutions to the pursuit of primacy in a unipolar era. With the Soviet Union defeated, there appeared to be no viable alternative to the U.S.-led liberal world order. As a result, multilateral institutions became adjuncts of U.S. power, as the United States and Europe assumed that liberal democratic ideals would flourish around the world, including in Russia and China. The war on terror after 2001 further eroded internationalism, with the United States using its preeminence to coerce, cajole, or flatter nations into joining its military campaigns, with little consideration for how Washington’s actions would damage U.S. relations with the non-Western world.

Then came the 2008 financial crisis. As global growth stagnated, the United States offered bank bailouts and protections to consumers to stabilize U.S. markets, and China launched a massive infrastructure project to employ its workers and sustain its growth rates. But most nations climbed out of the Great Recession by accumulating unsustainable levels of sovereign debt. And as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank imposed terms on its borrowers that were politically unpopular, the governments of developing economies turned to Beijing as the lender of choice.

This setting—a volatile, unequal economic order—created opportunities for nationalist politics and politicians. When globalization failed to pay the same dividends that it had in the 1990s, demagogues blamed undocumented immigrants and the elites who presided over a corrupt, unfair system. Economic nationalism took hold in many countries. Populist rhetoric surged in the 2010s, as leaders told their populations to look for answers to global problems within their borders, not beyond them. Figures such as Orban rose to power by lambasting the IMF and the European Union. In 2017, as prime minister, Orban claimed that the “main threat to the future of Europe is not those who want to come here to live but our own political, economic, and intellectual elites bent on transforming Europe against the clear will of the European people.” Anti-immigration rhetoric proliferated, as leaders around the world blamed immigrants for their countries’ problems.

Governments around the world turned to industrial policy and state-led capitalism to protect their economies from globalization—a trend that China led and the United States now follows with measures such as the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act. In Russia, the autocratic leader Vladimir Putin has embraced an ideology of nationalist imperialism, consolidating economic resources through state expansionism; Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has corroded the global norm against territorial conquest. Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, once an advocate of free markets, has presided over a new era of state capitalism, centralizing the banking industry and exerting state control over foreign investment. And countries in the Middle East, in their efforts to deter U.S. primacy, now look to statist China as a model to partner with and potentially emulate. The age of great-power competition is an age of nation-states consolidating elite economic power through nationalist policies.

A NEW COLD WAR

In his first term, Trump embraced and profited from the resurrection of nationalism and great-power competition. Whereas President Barack Obama downplayed great-power competition, on the belief that cooperation with Beijing served the economic interests of the United States, Trump’s 2017 National Security Strategy adopted an “America first” foreign policy that emphasized U.S. prosperity over the global good. The United States, the administration wrote, will “compete and lead in multilateral organizations so that American interests and principles are protected.” This translated to the United States leaving, even if temporarily, organizations such as the UN Human Rights Council and UNESCO, which promotes international cooperation in education, science, and much else. Trump also withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty—a Reagan-era arms control treaty with Moscow—and the Paris agreement, the global pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A fixation on great-power competition also led Trump to institute tariffs on Chinese imports valued at $200 billion, launching a trade war that escalated tensions between Washington and Beijing and increased the cost of living for U.S. consumers by as much as 7.1 percent in parts of the country.

Biden promised a pivot away from “America first,” but he, too, ultimately succumbed to the age of nationalism. In early 2021, he pledged “to begin reforming the habits of cooperation and rebuilding the muscle of democratic alliances that have atrophied over the past few years of neglect.” But this rhetoric failed to translate into cooperation outside of a framework of great-power competition. To maintain the United States’ rivalry with China, Biden expanded upon Trump’s protectionist policies. Although Biden departed from Trump in his emphasis on alliances and partnerships, he, like Trump, believed that the primary purpose of America’s economic statecraft was to constrain China’s power while maximizing the power of the United States. As the historian Adam Tooze argued in the London Review of Books last November, Biden sought “to ensure by any means necessary, including forceful interventions in private business trade and investment decisions, that China is held back and the US preserves its decisive edge.”

To that aim, Biden dramatically strengthened the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which monitors and restricts foreign investment on national security grounds; expanded the number of Chinese firms blacklisted for associations with the Chinese military; preserved Trump’s initial tariffs targeting China; imposed new tariffs on Chinese semiconductor and renewable energy technology; introduced new restrictions on Chinese investment in the United States; and made new tax credits available to U.S. technology firms conditional on their divestment from Chinese firms. What Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, initially dubbed a “small yard, high fence” approach became an economic strategy to contain China and unravel U.S.-Chinese interdependence in high-technology sectors of the global economy.

Washington undermines its alliances by rejecting international institutions.

The nationalist turn in U.S. foreign policy under Biden empowered the very corporations that have contributed to the inequality that fuels nationalism. Within Washington’s emergent nationalist framework, Tesla’s business in China has benefited from tariffs on electric vehicles, not only because it enjoys a dominant position in the United States’ electric vehicle market but also because its CEO, Elon Musk, has secured an exemption on European tariffs for Tesla’s Chinese-made electric vehicles (nine percent instead of 20 percent). Meanwhile, these same tariffs have punished consumers and cut off U.S. green-technology manufacturers from much-needed collaboration with Chinese firms. Silicon Valley defense startups and venture capital firms have plowed tens of billions of dollars into artificial intelligence, which they now seek to sell to the Pentagon, the sole buyer for their products.

Biden’s gestures toward multilateralism were a significant departure from the fervid nationalism of the first Trump administration, but they fell short of genuine internationalism. His efforts at alliance building reflected not the beginning of a multipolar era but an ideological contest between democracy and autocracy in a new cold war with China. The Atlantic Partnership, a Biden-era alliance of coastal nations, provides a telling example. Although ostensibly designed to ameliorate climate change in countries bordering the Atlantic coastline, the organization is ultimately an effort to constrain China’s illegal fishing industry and entice African nations away from Chinese capital.

The age of nationalism is a punitive one for lower-income countries, as it limits opportunities for the United States to establish goodwill and allegiances with African and Asian nations. Before even taking office, Trump, in an effort to buoy dollar supremacy, targeted the BRICS nations (which constitute more than 40 percent of the world’s population) with currency tariffs. Actions such as these promise to cut off the United States from global supply chains while increasing the cost of consumption for the American consumer. Using coercion to preserve the primacy of the U.S. dollar may benefit Wall Street, but it also enlarges the U.S. trade deficit and undercuts the United States’ export sectors by raising the relative price of U.S.-made goods in foreign markets.

Finally, Washington has at times undermined its alliances by rejecting international institutions when they do not serve U.S. national interests. By sending both cluster munitions and antipersonnel mines to Ukraine, the United States continues to be an outlier undermining international treaties to which it refuses to fully accede, such as the Convention on Cluster Munitions (which has 111 state parties) and the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty (which has 164 state parties, including the United States). Trump and Biden both also eroded the authority of the World Trade Organization, refusing its dispute-settlement mechanism, blocking new appellate judge appointments, and ignoring complaints filed against it for U.S. industrial policy’s various rule infractions, including exorbitant tariffs and corporate subsidies to thwart China’s and India’s economic growth. And in November, Biden issued a White House statement denying the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court on all matters pertaining to the Israeli government’s war in Gaza.

COOPERATION OVER COMPETITION

Unfortunately, Trump is likely to reinvigorate a nationalist foreign policy. His administration is primed to view the crisis in the Middle East as a civilizational conflict to be dealt with through military force rather than diplomacy. Alliances in East Asia will function as useful proxies for constraining Beijing’s influence. Washington will see competition with China as an existential struggle that heightens anti-immigrant sentiment at home, potentially leading to hate crimes and greater violence against Asian Americans, as occurred during Trump’s first term. And with respect to Latin America, Trump will remain myopically fixated on securitizing the U.S.-Mexico border, forgoing the opportunity to collaborate on issues of mutual concern, such as transnational crime and climate change.

But if the United States is to address the world’s problems in a meaningful way, U.S. grand strategy must break free from the age of nationalism. A broader internationalist vision that works to the betterment of the global South, or the global majority, is a far better foundation for world order than competition with China, which will benefit only a few. Rather than treating African and Asian nations as pawns in a great-power competition with Beijing, Washington must come to terms with how the marginalization of lower-income countries inhibits growth that can further the interests of the United States and its allies. Working with the IMF and the World Bank, the United States can bring debt relief to African nations and restructure struggling economies to minimize corruption and further democratic rights. Instead of allowing the BRICS to operate as a counter to the West, Washington must recognize the validity of their concerns and welcome new approaches that prioritize Africa and Asian nations. A stronger global South will also rein in ethnonationalism and anti-immigrant politics, as resilient economies make it hard to sustain the argument that immigrants are “stealing” jobs and draining state resources.

It is time for the United States to move past the obsolete zero-sum logic of great-power competition. Instead of squandering more resources in the counterproductive pursuit of primacy, Washington should renew its commitment to strengthening economies and advancing human rights around the world. The national interest does not reside in outmaneuvering China in every domain—it resides in an internationalist vision that emphasizes cooperation over competition.

Michael Brenes is Co-Director of the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy and Lecturer in History at Yale University.

Van Jackson is Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Victoria University of Wellington.

They are the authors of The Rivalry Peril: How Great-Power Competition Threatens Peace and Weakens Democracy.

Foreign Affairs · by More by Michael Brenes · January 28, 2025

25. The Case for a Theater Space Operations Command

Pronounce that acronym: TSpOC - "T Spock". (Chuckle) (Did the acronym control officer [my dream job at DOD - me and an E4 from every service] check that acronym for pronunciation acceptability?

Space is appropriating from SOF and SF - USSF was long informally known as US Special Forces and it is now the US Space Force (note attempt at humor).

But seriously:

Excerpts:

Finally, TSpOCs could promote joint and combined security cooperation for all space capabilities within their geographic areas of responsibility. In the terrestrial domains, TSpOCs would work closely with conventional military forces and partner nations to achieve mission objectives and meet joint force readiness goals. This same level of cooperation would be crucial in space, one hundred kilometers above the earth, where operations often involve multiple branches of the military as well as civilian and commercial entities. Space is a shared domain, and conflicts in space could affect global communications, navigation, and commerce. Therefore, the ability to coordinate efforts across different organizations and with allied nations is essential for mission success.

Joint space capabilities must keep one foot in geographic combatant commands’ areas of responsibility and one foot in that of USSPACECOM. To eliminate delays and blurred lines of communication, a single theater space operations command provides a geographic combatant commander the ability to manage joint space effects to and from space while USSPACECOM focuses on its area of responsibility one hundred kilometers above. As space continues to evolve as a critical warfighting domain, establishing TSpOCs offers a way to enhance the US military’s agility, interoperability, and mission effectiveness in space. The TSpOC would provide a centralized command structure that enhances situational awareness and promotes joint and allied cooperation. In an era where space assets are essential to national security and global stability, the ability to rapidly and effectively respond to threats in space is critical. TSpOCs would position the United States to maintain its strategic advantage in this increasingly contested domain.

The Case for a Theater Space Operations Command - Modern War Institute

Ted Hanger and Ryan Kertis | 01.28.25

mwi.westpoint.edu · by Ted Hanger · January 28, 2025

Share on LinkedIn

Send email

Space as a warfighting domain is increasingly congested, contested, and competitive. Space as a warfighting domain is also difficult: the question of how to organize, train, equip, and exercise command and control in a domain wherein nearly all warfighters will never set foot grows ever more urgent. The United States, as well as other global powers, continue to emphasize the significance of space as a military domain. Despite these advances, interservice disputes about future space capabilities, the joint application of space power, and the confusion between the United States Space Force and United States Space Command continues to confound most national security practitioners. In this context, DoD should consider creating a theater space operations command (TSpOC) to integrate space units and capabilities across the joint force within geographic combatant commands. Space requirements transcend service-specific command and control and require joint integration at the theater level. Joint TSpOCs could potentially address this challenge by alleviating the burden for US Space Force to man additional headquarters, creating a centralized command-and-control structure, and facilitating joint and combined cooperation.

A Crowded Space

The US Space Force and US Space Command (USSPACECOM), both established in 2019, represent an essential step in addressing the challenges in the space domain. However, the existence of both a service to organize, train, and equip space forces and a combatant command responsible for space operations one hundred kilometers above the earth further complicates the space domain. The Untied States needs a more nuanced and validated approach to organizing and commanding joint space forces. Traditionally, the military services align with their respective domain functions to provide command of forces in that domain. For example, the US Army maintains a service component headquarters for command and control of land forces in each geographic combatant command, with the ability to surge as the joint force land component command if designated as such by the combatant commander until a time in which the combatant command can establish the appropriate joint force command headquarters. However, it is also well accepted that the services have cross-domain functions, as codified in the 1948 Key West Agreement, and that the services share certain aspects of each domain. That is why the Navy continues to have maintain a premier fleet of fighter aircraft.

Currently, the Space Force is undergoing a transformation that creates two new service component field commands like those of the other services. In light of this, ostensibly a Space Force component field command would serve as the joint force space component command, as component commands of other services do for their respective domains. However, this does not account for the similar function of the Space Force component to USSPACECOM, Space Forces–Space. As a result, both USSPACECOM and a terrestrial geographic combatant command could establish joint force space component commands, thus blurring the lines of command and control of space capabilities considering that USSPACECOM is responsible for space operations above one hundred kilometers from the earth’s surface. A TSpOC could alleviate this confusion, providing terrestrial geographic combatant command with a joint force headquarters to synchronize space effects within the combatant command’s area of responsibility while permitting USSPACECOM to focus on operations on orbit. Further, the Space Force is currently unable to meet its requirements to fulfill critical functions in support of other DoD agencies. TSpOCs would provide streamlined force structure that would be filled by space professionals from all services, thereby reducing the burden on the Space Force to man service components within each geographic combatant command.

Joint Command and Control in the Space Domain

Unity of command is critical to ensuring mission success and can reduce the confusion created by multiple Space Force component headquarters. The theater special operations command (TSOC) model, with a TSOC operating as both a component of US Special Operations Command and a subordinate unified command to a geographic command, offers several advantages that can be leveraged in the space domain. Born in the late 1980s, TSOCs provide a command structure that integrates joint special operations forces (SOF) from across the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps within a geographic theater under the geographic combatant commanders. The TSOC ensures unity of command and enhances the responsiveness of special operations forces across the traditional domains. It also facilitates close coordination and interoperability with conventional military forces and allied nations, access to partner nations through security cooperation, and joint command and control through its ability to serve as a joint task force headquarters.

The transformation of space from a relatively peaceful domain into a contested and competitive warfighting domain signals the need for a joint warfighting vision and broad coordination of capabilities in, from, and to space. In other words, space operations can originate, influence, or terminate on earth, in space, or in between. Therefore, the Space Force does not have a monopoly on space operations and all space operations should be approached with a joint mindset. TSpOCs would serve as the joint force command for all services’ space capabilities. This differs significantly from the traditional model of service component commands assigned to support both geographic and functional combatant commands and would preclude the requirement for the Space Force to establish independent component commands. A single command for delivering space capabilities would provide enhanced situational awareness in complex and dynamic environments and ensure synchronization and deconfliction of joint space power in support of joint force commanders.

Advancing the SOF-Space-Cyber Triad

A single TSpOC aligned to each geographic combatant command could provide the single coordinating point between SOF and space enablers. In a bid to establish and reinforce a triad of capabilities, the US Army and joint force are advancing SOF-space-cyber doctrine and warfighting concepts, and broader adoption by joint commands will quickly follow. Alternatively, some authors already contend that SOF could influence, deceive, or degrade adversary space-enabling infrastructure. With joint SOF providing terrestrial effects for space-based capabilities, coordinating these operations with a single joint space command in the geographic combatant command is essential to ensuring success and reducing redundancy.

Finally, TSpOCs could promote joint and combined security cooperation for all space capabilities within their geographic areas of responsibility. In the terrestrial domains, TSpOCs would work closely with conventional military forces and partner nations to achieve mission objectives and meet joint force readiness goals. This same level of cooperation would be crucial in space, one hundred kilometers above the earth, where operations often involve multiple branches of the military as well as civilian and commercial entities. Space is a shared domain, and conflicts in space could affect global communications, navigation, and commerce. Therefore, the ability to coordinate efforts across different organizations and with allied nations is essential for mission success.

Joint space capabilities must keep one foot in geographic combatant commands’ areas of responsibility and one foot in that of USSPACECOM. To eliminate delays and blurred lines of communication, a single theater space operations command provides a geographic combatant commander the ability to manage joint space effects to and from space while USSPACECOM focuses on its area of responsibility one hundred kilometers above. As space continues to evolve as a critical warfighting domain, establishing TSpOCs offers a way to enhance the US military’s agility, interoperability, and mission effectiveness in space. The TSpOC would provide a centralized command structure that enhances situational awareness and promotes joint and allied cooperation. In an era where space assets are essential to national security and global stability, the ability to rapidly and effectively respond to threats in space is critical. TSpOCs would position the United States to maintain its strategic advantage in this increasingly contested domain.

Ted Hanger is a US Army colonel and currently the director for strategic engagements within the Strategy, Plans, and Policy Directorate (J5) for United States Space Command.

Ryan Kertis is a US Army lieutenant colonel and foreign area officer. He currently serves in United States Space Command in the Strategy, Plans, and Policy Directorate (J5). Ryan’s previous articles have been published by Military Review, the Irregular Warfare Initiative, and the US Army War College War Room.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, United States Space Command, or Department of Defense.

Image credit: John Ayre, US Space Command

Share on LinkedIn

Send email

mwi.westpoint.edu · by Ted Hanger · January 28, 2025

26. Interview with Deepseek Founder: We're Done Following. It's Time to Lead.

From China.

Liang Wenfeng seems to be providing his blueprint for success.

Interview with Deepseek Founder: We're Done Following. It's Time to Lead.

DeepSeek-R1 is shaking Silicon Valley. Founder Liang Wenfeng: "We're done following. It's time to lead."

January 27, 2025

thechinaacademy.org · by Anonymous · January 26, 2025

Editor’s Note:

Silicon Valley is reeling. A seismic shift in AI dominance is underway, and all eyes are on China. In January 2025, DeepSeek-R1—an open-source inference model from Chinese AI firm DeepSeek—sent shockwaves through the tech world by matching OpenAI’s top-tier performance at 1/30th the API cost, all while embracing full openness.

With just $6 million, China built one of the world’s finest AI models, dwarfing the billions spent by Meta, Google, and Microsoft. Already, global users—especially individuals and SMEs—are flocking to DeepSeek-R1, retraining it as their foundational model.

This Eastern-led revolution is forcing a global reckoning: What if AI’s future isn’t forged in Silicon Valley?

Translated from a July 2024 interview with DeepSeek founder Liang Wenfeng—conducted shortly after the company’s open-source V2 model catapulted it to fame—this rare dialogue unveils how a Chinese startup dared to leapfrog giants and redefine innovation’s rules.

This post-85s entrepreneur appeared on Xinwen Lianbo (CCTV News) as the founder of the AI startup DeepSeek, participating in a high-level national symposium and delivering a speech.

How Was the First Shot in the Price War Fired?

An Yong (Interviewer): After the release of the DeepSeek V2 model, it quickly triggered a fierce price war in the large model industry. Some say you are a disruptor in the market.

Liang Wenfeng (DeepSeek Founder): We never intended to be a disruptor; it just happened by accident.

An Yong: Were you surprised by this outcome?

Liang Wenfeng: Very surprised. We didn’t expect pricing to be such a sensitive issue. We were simply following our own pace, calculating costs, and setting prices accordingly. Our principle is neither to sell at a loss nor to seek excessive profits. The current pricing allows for a modest profit margin above our costs.

An Yong: Five days later, Zhipu AI followed suit, and soon after, ByteDance, Alibaba, Baidu, and Tencent joined the race.

Liang Wenfeng: Zhipu AI lowered prices for an entry-level product, while their flagship models remain expensive. ByteDance was the first to truly match our price for a flagship model, which then pressured others to follow. Since large companies have much higher model costs than us, we never imagined anyone would operate at a loss. It ended up mirroring the internet era’s subsidy-driven logic.

An Yong: From an outsider’s perspective, price cuts seem like a tactic to grab users—typical of internet-era competition.

Liang Wenfeng: Grabing users wasn’t our primary goal. We reduced prices because, first, while exploring next-generation model structures, our costs decreased; second, we believe that both AI and API services should be affordable and accessible to everyone.

An Yong: Before this, most Chinese companies simply copied the Llama model structure to develop applications. Why did you choose to focus on model structure instead?

Liang Wenfeng: If the goal is to develop applications, adopting Llama’s structure to quickly launch a product is a reasonable choice. However, our goal is AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), which requires us to explore new model structures to achieve superior capabilities within limited resources. This is foundational research for scaling up. Beyond architecture, we’ve studied data curation and human-like reasoning—all reflected in our models. Also, Llama’s training efficiency and inference costs lag behind cutting-edge global standards by about two generations.

An Yong: Where does this generational gap come from?

Liang Wenfeng: First, there’s a gap in training efficiency. We estimate that China’s best models likely require twice the compute power to match top global models due to structural and training dynamics gaps. Data efficiency is also half as effective, meaning we need twice the data and compute for equivalent results. Combined, that’s four times the resources. Our goal is to continuously narrow these gaps.

An Yong: Most Chinese firms pursue both models and applications. Why is DeepSeek focusing solely on research?

Liang Wenfeng: Because we believe the most important thing right now is to participate global innovation. For years, Chinese companies have been accustomed to leveraging technological innovations developed elsewhere and monetizing them through applications. But this isn’t sustainable. This time, our goal isn’t quick profits but advancing the technological frontier to drive ecosystem growth.

An Yong: The prevailing belief from the internet and mobile internet eras is that the U.S. leads in innovation, while China excels at applications.

Liang Wenfeng: We believe that with economic development, China must gradually transition from being a beneficiary to a contributor, rather than continuing to ride on the coattails of others. Over the past 30 years of the IT revolution, we barely participated in core tech innovation.

We’ve grown accustomed to Moore’s Law “falling from the sky”—waiting 18 months for better hardware and software. Scaling Law is treated similarly. However, these advancements are the result of generations of relentless effort by Western-led technology communities. Because we haven’t been actively involved in this process, we’ve come to overlook its significance.

The Real Gap Lies in Originality, Not Just Time

An Yong: Why did DeepSeek V2 surprise many in Silicon Valley?

Liang Wenfeng: Among the daily innovations in the U.S., this is quite ordinary. Their surprise stems from seeing a Chinese company join their game as an innovator, not just a follower—which is what most Chinese firms are accustomed to.

An Yong: But in China’s context, prioritizing pure innovation seems almost a luxury. Developing large models is capital-intensive. Not every company can afford to focus solely on research without commercializing first.

Liang Wenfeng: Innovation is undoubtedly costly, and our past tendency to adopt existing technologies was tied to China’s earlier developmental stage. But today, China’s economic scale and the profits of giants like ByteDance and Tencent are globally significant. What we lack isn’t capital but confidence and the ability to organize high-caliber talent for effective innovation.

An Yong: Why do Chinese companies, even well-funded giants, often prioritize rapid commercialization?

Liang Wenfeng: For three decades, we’ve emphasized profit over innovation. Innovation isn’t purely business-driven; it requires curiosity and creative ambition. We’re shackled by old habits, but this is a phase.

An Yong: But DeepSeek is a business, not a nonprofit research lab. If you innovate and open-source your breakthroughs—like the MLA architecture innovation releasing in May—won’t competitors quickly copy them? Where’s your moat?

Liang Wenfeng: In disruptive tech, closed-source moats are fleeting. Even OpenAI’s closed-source model can’t prevent others from catching up.

Therefore, our real moat lies in our team’s growth—accumulating know-how, fostering an innovative culture. Open-sourcing and publishing papers don’t result in significant losses. For technologists, being followed is rewarding. Open-source is cultural, not just commercial. Giving back is an honor, and it attracts talent.

An Yong: How do you respond to market-driven views like those of Zhu Xiaohu (who advocates prioritizing immediate commercialization over foundational AI research, dismisses AGI as impractical)?

Liang Wenfeng: Zhu’s logic suits short-term profit ventures, but the most enduringly profitable U.S. companies are tech giants built on long-term R&D.

An Yong: But in AI, pure technical lead isn’t enough. What larger goal is DeepSeek betting on?

Liang Wenfeng: We believe that China’s AI cannot remain a follower forever. Often, we say there’s a one- or two-year gap between Chinese and American AI, but the real gap is between originality and imitation. If this doesn’t change, China will always be a follower. Some explorations are unavoidable.

NVIDIA’s dominance isn’t just its effort—it’s the result of Western tech ecosystems collaborating on roadmaps for next-gen tech. China needs similar ecosystems. Many domestic chips fail because they lack supportive tech communities and rely on secondhand insights. Someone must step onto the frontier.

More Investment Doesn’t Always Fuel More Innovation

An Yong: DeepSeek currently exudes an idealistic vibe reminiscent of OpenAI’s early days, and you’re open-source. Do you plan to transition to a closed-source model in the future, as OpenAI and Mistral have done?

Liang Wenfeng: We won’t go closed-source. We believe that establishing a robust technology ecosystem matters more.

An Yong: Are there fundraising plans? Media reports suggest Huanfang aims to spin off DeepSeek for an IPO. Silicon Valley AI startups inevitably align with big players—will you follow?.

Liang Wenfeng: No short-term plans. Our challenge has never been money; it’s the embargo on high-end chips.

An Yong: Many argue AGI requires bold alliances and visibility, unlike quantitative investing, which thrives in secrecy. Do you agree?

Liang Wenfeng: More investment doesn’t necessarily result in more innovation. If that were the case, big tech companies would have monopolized all innovation.

An Yong: Are you avoiding applications because DeepSeek lacks operational expertise?

Liang Wenfeng: We believe that the current stage is a period of technological innovation, not application explosion. In the long term, we aim to establish an ecosystem where the industry directly uses our technologies and outputs. Others develop B2B/B2C services on our models while we focus on foundational research. If a complete industry chain forms, there’s no need for us to develop applications ourselves. That said, if necessary, we are fully capable of doing so. However, research and innovation will always remain our top priority.

An Yong: Why would clients choose DeepSeek’s API over big players’?

Liang Wenfeng: The future world will likely be one of specialized division of labor. Foundational AI models require continuous innovation, and big companies have their limits—they may not always be the best fit for this role.

An Yong: But can technology alone create a significant competitive gap? You’ve said there are no absolute “secrets.”

Liang Wenfeng: Secrets don’t exist, but replication takes time and cost. NVIDIA GPUs have no hidden magic—yet catching up requires rebuilding teams and chasing their next-gen tech. That’s the real moat.

An Yong: After your price cuts, ByteDance was the first to follow, suggesting they felt threatened. How do you view the new competitive landscape between startups and giants?

Liang Wenfeng: To be honest, we don’t really care about it. Lowering prices was just something we did along the way. Providing cloud services isn’t our main goal—achieving AGI is. So far, we haven’t seen any groundbreaking solutions. Giants have users, but their cash cows also shackle them, making them ripe for disruption.

An Yong: What do you think the endgame looks like for the six other major AI startups in China?

Liang Wenfeng: Maybe 2-3 survive. All are burning cash now. Those with clear focus and operational discipline will endure. Others will pivot. Value never vanishes; they will take on new forms.

An Yong: What’s your core philosophy when it comes to competition?

Liang Wenfeng: I focus on whether something elevates societal efficiency and whether we can find our strength in the industry value chain. As long as the ultimate goal boosts efficiency, it’s valid. Many aspects are just temporary phases—over-focusing on them will only lead to confusion.

V2 Model: Built Entirely by Homegrown Talent

An Yong: ack Clark, former policy lead at OpenAI and co-founder of Anthropic, remarked that DeepSeek has hired “some of those inscrutable wizards” who built DeepSeek V2. What defines these people?

Liang Wenfeng: No “inscrutable wizards” here—just fresh graduates from top universities, PhD candidates (even fourth- or fifth-year interns), and young talents with a few years of experience.

An Yong: Many major AI companies are keen on recruiting talent from overseas. Some believe that the top 50 AI talents globally are unlikely to be working for Chinese companies. Where does your team come from?

Liang Wenfeng: V2 was built entirely by domestic talent. The global top 50 might not be in China today, but we aim to cultivate our own.

An Yong: How did the MLA innovation emerge? We heard that the idea initially stemmed from a young researcher’s personal interest.

Liang Wenfeng: After summarizing the key evolutionary patterns of the mainstream Attention architecture, he had a sudden inspiration to design an alternative. However, turning an idea into reality is a long journey. We assembled a team and spent months validating it.

An Yong: This kind of organic creativity seems tied to your flat organizational structure. In Huanfang, you avoided top-down mandates. But for AGI—a high-uncertainty frontier—do you impose more management?

Liang Wenfeng: DeepSeek remains entirely bottom-up. We also do not preassign roles; natural division of labor emerges. Everyone brings unique experiences and ideas, and they don’t need to be pushed. When they encounter challenges, they naturally pull others in for discussions. However, once an idea shows potential, we do allocate resources from the top down.

An Yong: We’ve heard that DeepSeek operates with remarkable flexibility in allocating computing resources and personnel.

Liang Wenfeng: There are no limits on accessing compute resources or team members. If someone has an idea, they can tap into our training clusters anytime without approval. Additionally, since we don’t have rigid hierarchical structures or departmental barriers, people can collaborate freely as long as there’s mutual interest.

An Yong: Such loose management relies on hiring intensely driven individuals. It’s said that DeepSeek excels at identifying exceptional talent based on non-traditional criteria.

Liang Wenfeng: Our hiring standards have always been based on passion and curiosity. Many of our team members have unique and interesting backgrounds. Their hunger for research far outweighs monetary concerns.

An Yong: Transformer was born in Google’s AI Lab, and ChatGPT emerged from OpenAI. In your opinion, how do corporate AI labs differ from startups in fostering innovation?

Liang Wenfeng: Whether it’s Google’s labs, OpenAI, or even AI labs at Chinese tech giants, they all provide significant value. The fact that OpenAI eventually delivered breakthroughs was partly historical chance.

An Yong: So is innovation largely a matter of chance? Your office layout includes meeting rooms with doors that can be easily opened on both sides. Your colleagues mentioned that this design allows for “serendipity,” reminiscent of the Transformer story—where a passerby overheard a discussion and helped shape it into a universal framework.

Liang Wenfeng: I believe innovation is, first and foremost, a matter of belief. Why is Silicon Valley so innovative? Because they dare to try. When ChatGPT debuted, China lacked confidence in frontier research. From investors to major tech firms, many felt the gap was too wide and focused instead on applications. But innovation requires confidence, and young people tend to have more of it.

An Yong: Unlike other AI companies that actively seek funding and media attention, DeepSeek remains relatively quiet. How do you ensure that DeepSeek becomes the top choice for people looking to work in AI?

Liang Wenfeng: Because we are tackling the hardest problems. The most attractive thing for top-tier talent is the opportunity to solve the world’s toughest challenges. In fact, top talent in China is often underestimated because hardcore innovation is rare, which means they rarely get recognized. We offer what they crave.

An Yong: The recent OpenAI event did not feature GPT-5, leading many to believe that the industry’s technological curve is slowing down, and some have begun questioning Scaling Law. What’s your perspective?

Liang Wenfeng: We remain optimistic. The industry’s progress is still in line with expectations. OpenAI isn’t divine; they can’t lead forever.

An Yong: How long do you think it will take to achieve AGI? Before V2, you released code/math models and switched from dense to MoE . What’s your roadmap?

Liang Wenfeng: It could take two years, five years, or ten years—but it will happen within our lifetime. As for our roadmap, there’s no consensus even within our company. However, we are placing our bets on three directions:

1. Mathematics and code, which serve as a natural testbed for AGI—much like Go, they are enclosed, verifiable systems where self-learning could lead to high intelligence.

2. Multimodality, where the AI engages with the real world to learn.

3. Natural language itself, which is fundamental to human-like intelligence.

We are open to all possibilities.

An Yong: What do you envision as the endgame for large AI models?

Liang Wenfeng: There will be specialized companies providing foundational models and services, forming a long value chain of specialized divisions. More players will emerge to meet society’s diverse needs on top of these foundations.

All Strategies Are Products of the Past

An Yong: Over the past year, China’s large model startup landscape has seen many changes. For instance, Wang Huiwen , who was highly active early on, exited midway, while newer entrants are beginning to differentiate themselves.

Liang Wenfeng: Wang Huiwen took on all the losses himself, allowing others to exit unscathed. He made a decision that was most unfavorable to himself but beneficial to everyone else. I truly admire his integrity.

An Yong: Where do you currently focus most of your energy?

Liang Wenfeng: My main focus is on researching the next generation of large models. There are still many unresolved challenges.

An Yong: Many other AI startups insist on balancing both model development and applications, since technical leads aren’t permanent. Why is DeepSeek confident in focusing solely on research? Is it because your models still lag?

Liang Wenfeng: All strategies are products of the past generation and may not hold true in the future. Discussing AI’s future profitability using the commercial logic of the internet era is like comparing Tencent’s early days to General Electric or Coca-Cola—it’s essentially carving a boat to mark a sword’s position, an outdated approach.

An Yong: Huanfang had strong technological and innovative genes, and its growth seemed relatively smooth. Is this why you remain optimistic?

Liang Wenfeng: Huanfang, to some extent, strengthened our confidence in technology-driven innovation, but it wasn’t all smooth sailing. We went through a long accumulation process. People only saw what happened after 2015, but in reality, we had been working on it for 16 years.

An Yong: Returning to original innovation: With the economy slowing and capital cooling, will this stifle groundbreaking R&D?

Liang Wenfeng: Not necessarily. The restructuring of China’s industrial landscape will increasingly rely on deep-tech innovation. As quick-profit opportunities vanish, more will embrace real innovation.

An Yong: So you’re optimistic about this?

Liang Wenfeng: I grew up in the 1980s in a fifth-tier city in Guangdong. My father was a primary school teacher. In the 1990s, there were plenty of opportunities to make money in Guangdong. Many parents would come to our home and argue that studying was useless. But looking back now, perspectives have changed. Making money isn’t as easy as it used to be—not even driving a taxi is a viable option anymore. Within just one generation, things have shifted.

Hardcore innovation will only increase in the future. It’s not widely understood now because society as a whole needs to learn from reality. When this society starts celebrating the success of deep-tech innovators, collective perceptions will change. We just need more real-world examples and time to allow that process to unfold.

References

【1】Huanfang: A quantitative investment firm and early DeepSeek backer.

【2】MoE: Mixture of Experts, an architecture that improves model efficiency by activating specialized subnetworks.

【3】 Wang Huiwen: Co-founder of Meituan, who briefly entered the AI race in 2023 before exiting.

thechinaacademy.org · by Anonymous · January 26, 2025

27. Who’s Who on Trump’s China Team

Who’s Who on Trump’s China Team

The Trump administration contains a mix of longtime China hawks and businessmen who built their fortunes partly upon U.S.-China relations.

https://www.thewirechina.com/2025/01/22/whos-who-on-trumps-china-team/

By Noah Berman — January 22, 2025Politics

U.S. Vice President JD Vance applauds as President Donald Trump holds a signed Executive Order during the 60th Presidential Inauguration Parade at the Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C., January 20, 2025. Credit: Anna Moneymaker/Bloomberg via Getty Images

President Donald Trump took office on Monday, with a full stack of appointees for top posts ready to begin confronting what many of them have described as the most important challenge facing the United States: the rise of China.

His appointees come in three broad flavors:

Establishment hawks, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio or National Security Advisor Michael Waltz;
Pro-business executives from the private sector, including presumptive Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent;
and wild cards, like Tulsi Gabbard, nominated for Director of National Intelligence, or Elon Musk, the Tesla, Twitter, and SpaceX owner now tasked with running the Department of Government Efficiency.

How the differences between these three camps play out will have a huge influence on China policy under Trump 2.0, from tariffs to Taiwan. So too could intra-camp divisions between institutionalists like Rubio and hardcore loyalists like Peter Navarro, who served four months in jail for not complying with a congressional probe into the January 6 U.S. Capitol attack.

The Wire has put together a resource highlighting the presumptive members of the Trump administration likely to contribute to this debate. Around half of the officials listed below served in the previous Trump administration, and one-fifth served in the military.

Asterisks appear next to the picks that require and have not yet received Senate confirmation, with hearings now underway. Daggers appear next to staff positions that have been widely reported but not yet publicly confirmed. This list will be updated as additional appointments are made.

Please allow a moment for the image to fully load.

Trump’s China Team: Who’s Who

Graphic by Ella ApostoaieDOWNLOAD CHART

Office of the Vice President

JD Vance, Vice President

Vance criticized China heavily on the campaign trail, calling it the “greatest threat” to the United States. As the junior Senator in Ohio from January 2023 to now, his China focus was on economic issues. Last year, he introduced a bill to restrict China’s access to U.S. capital markets if it does not comply with international financial norms. A lawyer, Vance rose to prominence in 2016 after writing a book about his upbringing in the white working class.

Return to Top

State Department

Marco Rubio, Secretary of State

Rubio was a 14-year senator from Florida and longtime China hawk who was confirmed as secretary of state on January 20. He has spearheaded several tough-on-China congressional efforts, having told The Wire in 2020 that “the twenty-first century is going to be defined by the relationship between the U.S. and China” — a comment he repeated in his confirmation hearing. Rubio has introduced bills to reduce dependence on imports of Chinese pharmaceutical products, publicly reaffirmed U.S. commitments to Taiwan, and cosponsored legislation opposing human rights abuses against the minority Uyghur population in Xinjiang. China sanctioned Rubio twice in 2020.

Return to Top

David Perdue, Ambassador to China*

Perdue represented Georgia in the Senate for six years, leaving office in 2021. He previously worked as a corporate executive and management consultant, including as the chief executive of apparel firm Reebok and discount chain Dollar General. While in the private sector, he lived in Hong Kong and Singapore and defended outsourcing jobs to China as a sound business practice. He has called for investing more in the Navy to keep up with China’s growing fleet, but has also said that disengaging with China “would be a tremendous mistake.” The U.S.-China Business Council has applauded his nomination, calling him a “thoughtful advocate for trade with China.”

Return to Top

Michael Needham, Counselor

Needham is a former chief of staff to Secretary of State Rubio and a long-time executive at conservative think tanks. He is a harsh critic of China, which he has accused of “using slave labor to make products.” Needham, who has called TikTok “China’s addictive propaganda and espionage app,” most recently served as chairman of American Compass and worked at the Heritage Foundation for more than a decade.

Return to Top

Elise Stefanik, Ambassador to the United Nations*

Stefanik is a congresswoman from northern New York who has been in office since 2015. In the House of Representatives, she led the passage of legislation to prevent drones made by Chinese company DJI from operating on U.S. communications infrastructure and to require disclosures of foreign ownership for telecommunications companies licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. She previously worked on domestic policy in the George W. Bush administration. If confirmed, she will lead the U.S. delegation to the United Nations, where previous U.S. ambassadors have sought to hold China accountable for its treatment of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities.

Return to Top

Jacob Helberg, Undersecretary Of State For Economic Growth, Energy And The Environment*

Helberg is an advisor to big data firm and military contractor Palantir Technologies, which was cofounded by Peter Thiel, and a former congressionally appointed commissioner on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Helberg has been among the most vocal proponents of banning TikTok if Chinese owner Bytedance does not sell it. He has sought to put together a group of Silicon Valley executives concerned about China’s threat to U.S. national security. If confirmed, he will oversee seven State Department offices, with responsibilities for areas such as managing scientific cooperation and foreign investment.

Return to Top

Michael Anton, Director of Policy Planning

During the first Trump administration, from 2017 to 2018, Anton was deputy assistant to the president for strategic communications as part of the National Security Council. He published an essay in 2021 called “Why It’s Clearly Not In America’s Interest To Go To War Over Taiwan,” in which he argued that defending the island is not worth risking a potential nuclear war. He previously worked as a spokesperson for high-profile Republicans, including at the National Security Council under Condoleeza Rice and for Rudy Giuliani when he was mayor of New York. He has also worked in communications at financial firms Citi and Blackrock.

Return to Top

Michael DeSombre, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs*†

DeSombre has been a lawyer at Sullivan and Cromwell where he led the Asia mergers and acquisitions practice and advised companies on doing business in China. During his post as U.S. Ambassador to Thailand during the first Trump administration, he criticized China’s conduct in the South China Sea, writing that it reflects the country’s “complete disregard for the sovereign rights of other nations.” During the COVID-19 pandemic, he wrote that “the Chinese people know their government is to blame.”

Return to Top

Kevin Kim, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Kim was most recently a professional staff member for the Senate Armed Forces Committee. He was previously a longtime analyst at the State Department, including in the Office of Analysis for East Asia and the Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control.

Return to Top

Department of Government Efficiency

Elon Musk, Department of Government Efficiency

Musk, the leader of at least three of the most influential companies in the United States, has taken on a new role as head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency. He will be tasked with slashing government spending, though his broader remit is unclear. He has no previous government experience but his company Tesla has significant business in China, where it makes about half its cars.

Return to Top

Department of Commerce

Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce*

Lutnick is the chief executive of Wall Street investment bank Cantor Fitzgerald and brokerage firm BGC Group. He has long-standing business relationships with Chinese firms, having helped to take a smattering of them public while at the helm of Cantor Fitzgerald, including the biotech company Adlai Nortye in 2023. At BGC, Lutnick launched a brokerage joint venture with China Credit Trust Company, which is 75 percent owned by government entities, according to WireScreen. Lutnick co-chaired Trump’s transition and has no previous government experience. He has said he will divest from his businesses if he is confirmed.

Return to Top

Jeffrey Kessler , Undersecretary of Commerce for Industry and Security*†

Kessler, a trade lawyer, was the Commerce Department’s assistant secretary for enforcement and compliance during the first Trump administration. He oversaw enforcement of U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing tariff laws. In the private sector, he has advised American companies seeking to navigate China’s barriers to trade and investment.

Return to Top

National Security Council

Michael Waltz, National Security Advisor

Waltz was first elected to the House of Representatives in 2018, representing northern Florida, and is known for hawkish positions on China: He has written that the United States should seek to quickly resolve the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine to free up resources for potential confrontation with China. In Congress, he cosponsored legislation to reshore critical minerals supply chains, reaffirm support for Taiwan, and require federally funded researchers to disclose foreign funding. He also called for a U.S. boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics over the Chinese Communist Party’s “acts of genocide” in Xinjiang. Before running for office, he ran a defense contracting firm and served in the U.S. Army and Department of Defense, including as a counterterrorism advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney. He was the first Green Beret to serve in Congress.

Return to Top

Alex Wong, Deputy National Security Advisor

Wong most recently served as chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan panel of congressional appointees. He was deputy assistant secretary for North Korea in the State Department’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs during the first Trump Administration and his appointment to the NSC this time around has been praised across the aisle. Previously, Wong, was a foreign policy advisor to Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) and to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, and worked as a lawyer covering international trade. His parents immigrated to the United States from Guangdong, according to Chinese media reports.

Return to Top

Ivan Kanapathy, Senior Director for Asia

Kanapathy is a former military and White House official. He was the NSC’s deputy senior director for Asian affairs and director for China, Taiwan, and Mongolia during the first Trump administration. Before that, he was a military attaché at the American Institute in Taiwan and a fighter pilot instructor. He has pushed Washington to “invest more in hard deterrence” to maintain the status quo between China and Taiwan, and urged U.S. officials to reconsider their messaging around “non-support” for Taiwan’s independence. In September, he told The Wire that the U.S. has been “too deferential” toward allies on China policy and that an incoming Trump administration would revisit China’s response to the outbreak of the COVID-19. He wrote two chapters in former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger’s book The Boiling Moat, on “Countering China’s Use of Force” and “Countering China’s Gray-Zone Activities.”

Return to Top

David Feith, Senior Director for Tech and National Security†

Feith was deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs during the first Trump administration. He has written that the United States should reset its economic relationship with China to reduce national security risks associated with “insufficiently controlled flows of technology, capital, and data,” adding that the U.S. should strengthen its ability to deter an invasion of Taiwan. He was previously an editorial writer at The Wall Street Journal in Hong Kong. His father, Doug Feith, was undersecretary of defense for policy under President George W. Bush.

Return to Top

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

Jamieson Greer, U.S. Trade Representative*

Greer was the chief of staff to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer during the first Trump administration, when he was involved in crafting the tariffs that came to serve as a hallmark of Trump’s China policy. Last May, he said in testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission that he views China “as a generational challenge for the United States,” adding that the United States should revoke permanent normal trade relations with China and that Congress should pass legislation to screen outbound U.S. investment into China, among other recommendations. After leaving the U.S. Air Force’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps in 2012, he worked as an international trade lawyer.

Return to Top

National Economic Council

Kevin Hassett, Director of the National Economic Council

Hassett, a trained economist, filled the same role during the first Trump administration, after which he worked as a distinguished fellow at the Hoover Institution. He holds traditional views on economics, arguing that tariffs are harmful to U.S. businesses. But he says levies on China are necessary to provide leverage for a deal that will ultimately enhance free trade. He is a longtime economic advisor to Republican presidential candidates, including John McCain in 2000 and 2008, George W. Bush in 2004, and Mitt Romney in 2012.

Return to Top

Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence*

Gabbard served as a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii from 2013–2021. She joined the Republican party this year and endorsed Trump. While running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2019, Gabbard decried the “destructive tariff war with China.” After being named by Trump, she has faced criticism from some China hawks, who see her as insufficiently tough on Beijing and questioned her views toward Russia and Syria. Gabbard served in the Hawaii Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserves, including during her time in Congress.

Return to Top

Department of the Treasury

Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury*

Bessent is a financier who made his fortune at Soros Fund Management, the firm founded by George Soros. He advocates a “3-3-3” economic policy, based on Japan’s “Three Arrows” strategy under former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The proposal calls for increasing economic growth to 3 percent annually, decreasing the budget deficit to 3 percent of GDP, and raising oil production to 3 million barrels a day. During his confirmation hearing, he said the United States needs to take greater steps to reduce supply-chain reliance on China, which he described as “the most imbalanced, unbalanced economy in the history of the world.” He has no previous government experience, and donated to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama; he gave more than $1 million to the Trump election campaign.

Return to Top

Department of Defense

Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense

Hegseth is a Fox News host and former officer in the Army National Guard. He faces a rocky road to confirmation after being accused of sexual assault and alcohol abuse, allegations he denies. During his confirmation hearing, he said that he would seek to ensure that the Department of Defense views the Chinese Communist Party as a “front and center” threat. Two days after Trump won the election, Hegseth said on a podcast that “China is building an army specifically dedicated to defeating the United States of America.” He has no previous government experience outside of his military service.

Return to Top

Elbridge Colby, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy*

Colby is the director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank. He called China “by far the biggest threat to the U.S.” in a post on X last May. He has suggested that the United States should defend Taiwan in the case of an invasion by China, including by blowing up the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. Colby previously served as an assistant secretary of defense during the first Trump administration.

Return to Top

John Noh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia

Noh will help lead the Department of Defense’s policymaking toward China, Taiwan and East Asia. A lawyer and U.S. Army veteran, he most recently served as deputy general counsel for the Republican majority in the U.S. House Select Committee on China. He previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Texas.

Return to Top

Department of Agriculture

Brooke Rollins, Secretary of Agriculture*

Rollins is the president of the Trump-aligned think tank America First Policy Institute, which has called for increasing scrutiny on Chinese purchases of U.S. farmland near military bases. She served as the head of the White House Office of American Innovation during the first Trump administration, a post Trump created. She previously served as an advisor to former Texas Governor Rick Perry and as the longtime president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Return to Top

Stephen Vaden, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture*

Vaden is a Trump-nominated judge on the U.S. Court of International Trade. Last June, he said that while U.S. trade policy has benefitted agriculture, its costs to other sectors have been too high. Vaden was principal deputy general counsel of the Department of Agriculture during the first Trump administration.

Return to Top

Luke Lindberg, Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs*

Lindberg will oversee trade missions for the Department of Agriculture, seeking to promote the sale of American agricultural products abroad. More U.S. agricultural exports went to China than anywhere else in 2023, the most recent year with data available. During the first Trump administration, Lindberg served as chief of staff and chief strategy officer at the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

Return to Top

Department of Homeland Security

Sean Plankey, Director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency*†

Plankey is a cybersecurity executive who served as an official on the National Security Council and in the Department of Energy during the first Trump administration. He said last June that “there is more work to be done” in restricting companies tied to the Chinese Communist Party from U.S. telecom supply chains.

Return to Top

Advisors

Peter Navarro, Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing

Navarro advised Trump on several roles related to trade and economic policy during his first administration. Navarro supports high tariffs and has been particularly critical of China, which sanctioned him the day after President Joe Biden took office in 2021.

Return to Top

This is a preliminary and incomplete list of officials who might engage with China. It does not include, for the most part, civil servants. The color coding is based on public writings and statements about China. Also, the positioning of officials does not always show who a person reports to directly.

Noah Berman is a staff writer for The Wire based in New York. He previously wrote about economics and technology at the Council on Foreign Relations. His work has appeared in the Boston Globe and PBS News. He graduated from Georgetown University.

28. Understanding US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's vision for US armed forces

Understanding US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's vision for US armed forces

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announces that his focus for the US armed forces would involve restoring warrior ethos, rebuilding the military, and reestablishing deterrence

https://www.theweek.in/news/defence/2025/01/27/understanding-us-secretary-of-defense-pete-hegseths-vision-for-us-armed-forces.html

By The Week News Desk Updated: January 27, 2025 14:39 IST

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has outlined his vision for the US armed forces and the department, saying he is focusing on a culture of accountability, high standards, performance, readiness, rapid innovation and merit even as he announced the US plans to counter an aggressive China.

During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hegseth, an experienced infantryman who had led troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and guarded detainees at Guantanamo Bay, said his focus is on building a " ready, lethal military," and a strong and secure America.

He said President Donald Trump too wants a Pentagon laser-focused on lethality, meritocracy, warfighting, accountability and readiness and listed restoring the warrior ethos, rebuilding the military and reestablishing deterrence as the ingredients needed to bring back warfighting.

He backed Trump's mission of achieving 'Peace through Strength' and said this will be done by restoring warrior ethos, rebuilding the US military, and reestablishing deterrence.

Vowing to make the military standards high, uncompromising, and clear, he said the strength of the US military is its unity and the shared purpose.

ALSO READ: President Donald Trump's first message as US Commander in Chief: 'America will be stronger, far more exceptional'

"We will rebuild our military by matching threats to capabilities. This means reviving our defence industrial base, reforming our acquisition process, passing a financial audit, and rapidly fielding emerging technologies. We will remain the strongest and most lethal force in the world."

Taking an aggressive stance against China, he said the US will work with its allies to deter aggression in the Indo-Pacific by China. "We will reestablish deterrence by defending our homeland — on the ground and in the sky," he added.

Further, Hegseth, who called himself "a change agent", announced his intention to trim bureaucracy and reallocate resources to the warfighters.

Pointing out that the US won World War with seven four-star generals, he said, "Today we have 44. … There is an inverse relationship between the size of staffs and victory on the battlefield. We do not need more bureaucracy at the top. We need more warfighters empowered at the bottom. So, it is going to be my job … to identify those places where fat can be cut, so it can go toward lethality," according to a relese from the Department of Defence.

Hegseth, a recipient of two Bronze Star Medals, the Joint Commendation Medal, two Army Commendation Medals, the Combat Infantryman Badge and the Expert Infantryman Badge, called his appointment as the secretary of defence "the most important deployment" of his life.

29. DeepSeek hit with large-scale cyberattack, says it's limiting registrations

So who perpetrated this attack?

Nvidia, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google or a state actor?

DeepSeek hit with large-scale cyberattack, says it's limiting registrations

Published Mon, Jan 27 202511:26 AM ESTUpdated Mon, Jan 27 202512:45 PM EST

Hayden Field

@haydenfield

Share Article via Facebook

Share Article via Twitter

Share Article via LinkedIn

Share Article via Email

Key Points

DeepSeek on Monday said it would temporarily limit user registrations “due to large-scale malicious attacks” on its services.
The Chinese AI startup recently toppled OpenAI’s ChatGPT from its title of most-downloaded free app in Apple’s App Store.

CNBC · by Hayden Field · January 27, 2025

Dado Ruvic | Reuters

DeepSeek on Monday said it would temporarily limit user registrations "due to large-scale malicious attacks" on its services, though existing users will be able to log in as usual.

The Chinese artificial intelligence startup has generated a lot of buzz in recent weeks as a fast-growing rival to OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini and other leading AI tools.

Earlier on Monday, DeepSeek took over rival OpenAI's coveted spot as the most-downloaded free app in the U.S. on Apple's App Store, dethroning ChatGPT for DeepSeek's own AI Assistant. It helped inspire a significant sell-off in global tech stocks.

Buzz about the company, which was founded in 2023 and released its R1 model last week, has spread to tech analysts, investors and developers, who say that the hype — and ensuing fear of falling behind in the ever-changing AI hype cycle — may be warranted. Especially in the era of the generative AI arms race, where tech giants and startups alike are racing to ensure they don't fall behind in a market predicted to top $1 trillion in revenue within a decade.

DeepSeek reportedly grew out of a Chinese hedge fund's AI research unit in April 2023 to focus on large language models and reaching artificial general intelligence, or AGI — a branch of AI that equals or surpasses human intellect on a wide range of tasks, which OpenAI and its rivals say they're fast pursuing.

The buzz around DeepSeek especially began to spread last week, when the startup released R1, its reasoning model that rivals OpenAI's o1. It's open-source, meaning that any AI developer can use it, and has rocketed to the top of app stores and industry leaderboards, with users praising its performance and reasoning capabilities.

The startup's models were notably built despite the U.S. curbing chip exports to China three times in three years. Estimates differ on exactly how much DeepSeek's R1 costs, or how many graphics processing units went into it. Jefferies analysts estimated that a recent version had a "training cost of only US$5.6m (assuming US$2/H800 hour rental cost). That is less than 10% of the cost of Meta's Llama."

But regardless of the specific numbers, reports agree that the model was developed at a fraction of the cost of rival models by OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and others.

As a result, the AI sector is awash with questions, including whether the industry's increasing number of astronomical funding rounds and billion-dollar valuations is necessary — and whether a bubble is about to burst.

CNBC · by Hayden Field · January 27, 2025

30. Project Solarium 2.0: Can Eisenhower's Cold War Strategy Work Today? (or Be Like Ike: Bring Back a Real Solarium Project)

My latest thoughts. The editors at 1945 did not like my proposed title. I am not after Ike's Cold War strategy but a new relevant process based on his. Here was my original title: "Be Like Ike: Bring Back a Real Solarium Project" https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/01/project-solarium-2-0-can-eisenhowers-cold-war-strategy-work-today/

Project Solarium 2.0: Can Eisenhower's Cold War Strategy Work Today?

19fortyfive.com · by David Maxwell · January 28, 2025

The term “Solarium Project” has been used so frequently in recent years that its original purpose and power have been diluted. Today, it’s often invoked as a generic term for strategic brainstorming.

However, the roots of the original Project Solarium – initiated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 – represent something far more profound and disciplined. It was a process that provided the foundation for a coherent, enduring strategy that ultimately helped the United States win the Cold War. To address the complexities of today’s global challenges, we should return to the original intent and rigor of Project Solarium and institutionalize it as a standard process to support the President in developing a National Security Strategy.

This new Solarium Project would synchronize all elements of national power and provide continuity of strategy, ensuring the safeguarding of US interests over the long term. It should be the foundation for an America First National Security Strategy.

Eisenhower’s Vision

President Eisenhower’s original Solarium Project was more than just an exercise in strategic thinking. It was a disciplined process aimed at addressing a critical problem: how to contain the Soviet Union’s global ambitions. Eisenhower convened a select group of experts at the National War College in Fort McNair, Washington, D.C. Three teams comprised the project: academics, policymakers, and practitioners, each tasked with developing a distinct approach to countering the Soviet threat. This rigorous and collaborative effort culminated in the adoption of a coherent strategy that guided US policy throughout the Cold War.

Eisenhower’s approach demonstrated the value of long-term strategic thinking and the necessity of integrating various elements of national power. In an era marked by technological change, economic competition, and political instability, we face challenges no less daunting than those of the Cold War. We need a modern Solarium Project that builds on Eisenhower’s vision to address these challenges.

While many national security thinkers have recommended establishing a modern Solarium Project the following is possible actionable process.

Institutionalizing the Solarium Process

To institutionalize the Solarium Project, we propose a two-year cycle designed to align with the presidential term and ensure continuity of strategy. This process would provide disciplined strategic planning and a structured way to adapt to evolving global conditions.

Year One: Presidential Inauguration Year

In July and August of the President’s first year in office, a group of selected experts would convene at the National War College. These experts would include academics, policymakers, strategists, and practitioners, representing diverse perspectives and areas of expertise.

Their task would be to:

-Conduct a strategic review of the current National Security Strategy.

-Review and validate US national security interests.

-Revise strategic assumptions as necessary.

-Update national security objectives.

The group would determine one of three courses of action:

-Develop an entirely new National Security Strategy.

-Revise the existing strategy as needed.

-Validate the current strategy and leave it intact.

By October 1 of the President’s first year, a new or revised National Security Strategy would be published, providing clear guidance for the administration and ensuring alignment across government agencies.

Year Three: Post-Midterm Review

In July and August, following the midterm elections, the process would repeat. The same group of experts, or a similarly qualified cohort, would reconvene at the National War College. This review would:

-Validate the current strategy.

-Revise the strategy based on updated assessments of global conditions, strategic assumptions, and political guidance.

-Develop a new strategy if necessary.

The updated or validated strategy would be published on October 1st, providing continuity and adaptability as the administration enters its second half.

Continuity Across Administrations

This cycle would repeat after each presidential election, ensuring that the incoming administration benefits from a disciplined, long-term approach to strategic planning. By institutionalizing this process, the United States would achieve greater consistency and coherence in its national security strategy, regardless of political transitions.

F-22 Raptor. Image Credit: Creative Commons.

Benefits of a Modern Solarium Project

Institutionalizing the Solarium Project offers several key benefits:

Continuity of Strategy: By revisiting and updating the strategy every two years, the US can ensure that its national security policies remain relevant and effective, even as administrations change.
Adaptability: Regular reviews allow for timely adjustments to the strategy based on changing global conditions and emerging threats.
Integrated Expertise: Bringing together a diverse group of experts fosters creative thinking and ensures that all elements of national power—diplomatic, informational, military, and economic—are considered.
Disciplined Process: The structured approach of the Solarium Project provides a clear framework for developing and evaluating strategy, reducing the risk of ad hoc or reactionary policymaking.
Long-Term Perspective: The process encourages a focus on enduring US interests and strategic objectives rather than short-term political or tactical considerations.
Enhanced Presidential Support: By institutionalizing this process, the President would have access to a comprehensive, rigorously developed strategy supported by the nation’s top experts.

Conclusion

The original Project Solarium was a testament to the power of disciplined, long-term strategic thinking. In an era of rapid change and mounting global challenges, we must bring back the rigor and vision of Eisenhower’s approach. Institutionalizing a modern Solarium Project on a two-year cycle would provide the United States with a process to develop and sustain a coherent National Security Strategy. By synchronizing all elements of national power and ensuring continuity of strategy, this initiative would strengthen US leadership and advance the nation’s interests in an increasingly complex world. It’s time to be like Ike—and bring back a real Solarium Project.

President Donald J. Trump speaks with armed services personnel Thursday, Nov. 26, 2020, during a Thanksgiving video teleconference call from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

About the Author: David Maxwell

David Maxwell is a retired US Army Special Forces Colonel who has spent more than 30 years in the Asia Pacific region (primarily Korea, Japan, and the Philippines) as a practitioner, specializing in Northeast Asian Security Affairs and irregular, unconventional, and political warfare. He is the Vice President of the Center for Asia Pacific Strategy and a Senior Fellow at the Global Peace Foundation, where he focuses on a free and unified Korea. Following retirement, he was the Associate Director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University. He is a member of the board of directors of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and the OSS Society and is a contributing editor to Small Wars Journal. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

19fortyfive.com · by David Maxwell · January 28, 2025

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

Phone: 202-573-8647

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

De Oppresso Liber,

David Maxwell

Vice President, Center for Asia Pacific Strategy

Senior Fellow, Global Peace Foundation

Editor, Small Wars Journal

Twitter: @davidmaxwell161

email: david.maxwell161@gmail.com

If you do not read anything else in the 2017 National Security Strategy read this on page 14:

"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."

Access NSS HERE

Company Name | Website

DeepSeek’s Popular AI App Is Explicitly Sending US Data to China

What DeepSeek Collects About You

How DeepSeek Uses Information

The Day DeepSeek Turned Tech and Wall Street Upside Down

Monday’s bloodbath in Nvidia and other AI stocks wiped out some $1 trillion from the stock market’s value

What is DeepSeek?

A snowballing trade

Worries about a market bubble

DeepSeek Undercuts Belief That Chip-Hungry U.S. Players Will Win AI Race

More AI competition will make it hard for Big Tech to generate the oligopoly-like profit margins that investors hope for

What to Know About China’s DeepSeek AI

The Chinese upstart says it has trained high-performing AI models cheaply, without using the most advanced chips

By Sam Schechner

Follow

and Stu Woo

Follow

Updated Jan. 28, 2025 12:17 am ET

DeepSeek, a Chinese AI company, has launched its latest AI model. Photo: Andrey Rudakov/Bloomberg News

DeepSeek has Silicon Valley in awe and stocks in a frenzy.

DeepSeek later said it was the victim of “large-scale malicious attacks” on its services and was temporarily limiting new registration.

Here’s what you need to know about DeepSeek:

What is DeepSeek and why am I hearing about it now?

Why are investors worried about DeepSeek?

Just last week, companies including SoftBank, Oracle and OpenAI pledged to spend $500 billion to build new AI infrastructure in a venture they call Stargate.

But DeepSeek didn’t have leading-edge chips—and its models appear to be roughly on par with top U.S. rivals on certain benchmarks that evaluate AI ability. DeepSeek says it uses less-advanced chips, combined with innovative model-training techniques.

In addition, DeepSeek released its R1 model as open source, meaning others can pick up and adapt the model for their own use. That will mean that other companies will be able to build on DeepSeek’s approach and potentially create other cheap AI alternatives.

Why is DeepSeek relying on cheaper technology?

It is hard for DeepSeek to buy cutting-edge chips because of U.S. export controls, intended to hinder Chinese organizations from developing innovative AI for military purposes.

Who is behind DeepSeek?

Chinese hedge-fund manager Liang Wenfeng is behind DeepSeek’s development. The business grew out of the AI research unit of his $8 billion hedge-fund firm, High-Flyer.

How good is DeepSeek?

DeepSeek published costs for using R1 that were an order of magnitude below those charged by U.S.-based companies for their most sophisticated models.

What makes DeepSeek work well?

“Rather than explicitly teaching the model on how to solve a problem, we simply provide it with the right incentives, and it autonomously develops advanced problem-solving strategies,” the researchers wrote.

Is DeepSeek a disaster for AI stocks?

Not everyone thinks DeepSeek has upended the AI-infrastructure industry. While DeepSeek might have found a way to cut AI training costs, AI demand keeps surging, and tech companies still need more computing power, wrote Stacy Rasgon, a Bernstein semiconductor analyst.

“Is DeepSeek doomsday for AI buildouts?” Rasgon and his colleagues wrote in a report on Monday. “We don’t think so.”

You may also like

Copy LinkCopy EmbedFacebook

Twitter

0:11

Paused

0:01

/

0:57

Tap For Sound

President Donald Trump said the launch of a low-cost Chinese AI model should be seen as a wake up call for U.S. industries. Trump also announced plans to impose new tariffs on semiconductor imports. Photo: elizabeth frantz/Reuters

Why is Nvidia taking such a big hit?

In a statement, Nvidia called DeepSeek “an excellent AI advancement” and said the work required for it to come up with answers, called inference, “requires significant numbers of Nvidia [chips] and high-performance networking.”

Who might win from the turmoil?

DeepSeek’s success building an AI model could rebalance the global playing field when it comes to AI development—and that has cheered some countries outside the U.S.

“The message is that we can compete,” said an official at France’s Élysée Palace, noting that raw computing power may no longer be the determinant of who wins in AI. “There is still a chance for alternatives.”

To be sure, DeepSeek also is a warning to other parts of the world. French startup Mistral AI has made its name on being a smaller, more efficient competitor to U.S. companies like OpenAI. Now it will have to keep up with DeepSeek and others that use its models, too.

This explanatory article may be periodically updated.

Write to Sam Schechner at Sam.Schechner@wsj.com and Stu Woo at Stu.Woo@wsj.com

The DeepSeek AI Freakout

The Chinese startup’s model stuns Big Tech—and Wall Street—with its capability and cost.

China’s new face of AI: Who is DeepSeek founder Liang Wenfeng?​

THE “SAM ALTMAN” OF CHINA

KEEPING CHINESE AI AFFORDABLE

“DEEPSEEK AI MASTER”

‘Made in China’: Pride, pleasant surprise from Chinese netizens as DeepSeek jolts global AI scene

LATEST ADVANCES

SEEKING DEEPER USES FOR DEEPSEEK

Trump says China's DeepSeek AI a 'wake up call' for US

"OUTPLAYED"

Why DeepSeek Could Change What Silicon Valley Believes About A.I.

Explore Our Coverage of Artificial Intelligence

Related Content

Tom Cotton on Trump and Pompeo, Bolton and Hook

The GOP Senator says the President would be wise to reverse his denial of security to his former Iran advisers.

New sheriff in town — Hegseth wastes no time bringing change to the Pentagon

Air Force reinstates course with Tuskegee Airmen video after outcry

Google Maps will rename Gulf of Mexico as Gulf of America in US

VA, DOD oversight questioned after Trump inspector general firings

The Future of Warfare: Autonomous Technologies in Modern Conflict

Evolution of Unmanned Systems

Advanced Threats: Integrated Autonomous Systems

Near-Peer Competition

Escalating Threats: Drone Swarms

China’s new face of AI: Who is DeepSeek founder Liang Wenfeng?