That is pretty scary that interference may have actually played a role in determining Mexico's president. From what I've read, it seems like the Federal Election Tribunal there only recounted a small percentage of the votes, which it seems like would further lower public perception of the results. I am curious to learn more about what the long term impacts of this was, as well as what the US and outer countries can learn from it.

This definitely seems like it has the potential to undermine confidence in our elections. Hopefully the intelligence community will continue to make it clear to the public that there wasn't any direct interference in the vote count. This probably won't be enough to change everybody's mind though.

It is unfortunate to see that foreign forces attempted to interfere in the 2020 elections. What's especially disturbing is that actors like Russia and Iran attempted to directly hack election systems, and would have likely tried to alter the physical vote count if they had ben able do. Thankfully the report concluded that there was no actual alteration of voting data. And while it's difficult to determine the impact that less tangible forms of interference like disinformation campaigns had, I doubt that these substantially altered the results. However, these are still vulnerabilities we need to be aware of. I hope that the US government implements the solutions outened in this report including improving physical and supply chain security, engaging in more interagency cooperation, and educating the public about disinformation campaigns. Leading up to the 2020 election, there was a great deal of concern about potential Chinese interference in the election. However, aside from their usual political maneuvering on social media, most intelligence has found that they did not make a concerted attempt to influence the results. There was some indication that China wanted Biden to win, as they had hoped he would be more predicable then Trump. However, they eventually decided that it was not worth interfering as they both had more negative views of China. This was largely an accurate assessment, as the Biden administration has generally continued his predecessor's policy of being tough on China.

It does seem like knowledge is key in stopping these sorts of attacks. While the government can certainly help, organizations themselves having proper protocols in place seems to me like the best way to prevent espionage from happening in the first place.

I agree that there needs to be a balance between embracing educational trade and protecting national security. While attracting the best researchers has had tremendous benefits for the US, it is important to keep in mind the costs of potential espionage and ensure that reasonable security measures are in place.

It is concerning to see this sort of mistake take place. This would have not only involved a $3.6 million monetary loss, but also could have had grave national security implications. Giving China access to US fighter jet technology would further erode our technological and military edge over them. However, I am glad that he was ultimately caught. It also seems that the FBI learned valuable lessons from this even such as the need for more in-depth background checks and the importance of continuing to monitor behavior. Hopefully the government takes action to help organizations be aware of these sorts of risks. Chinese espionage has long been a concern, as they have often attempted to steal trade secrets and other confidential US technology to advance their own interests. For instance, on May 19, 2014 five People's Liberation Army officers were charged for engaging in cyber-hacking to steal information from US companies. Governmental organizations such as the FBI, CIA, and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement have worked to fight against these sorts of crimes. This has become an especially significant concern in higher education with cases like Charles Lieber's, in which he failed to disclose his work with the Wuhan University of Technology and million he received from the Chinese government while at Harvard. This threat lead to the US canceling the visas of 1,000 students with Chinese military connections, an action which has been criticized by members of academia. However, there is broad agreement on the need to properly screen and monitor foreign students to ensure that their governments do not get ahold of our research data.

I think the Marriott example provides a good framework for businesses operating overseas. Working to help the countries they're going into and portraying themselves as a positive force seems like it would not only reduce terrorism, but also lead to them having more financial success due to local support for their brand. Partnering with these governments to create a more secure environment also seems like good option.

I agree that the government isn't going to be able to stop extremism alone. It seems like we are going to need to take an "all of society" approach to sustainably reduce instances of domestic terrorism.

The pillars discussed in this strategy are worthy goals in the fight against domestic terrorism. Information sharing continues to be vitally important in this area, as government entities will have different pieces of the puzzle depending on their area of focus. Stemming online recruiting efforts is also essential to reducing the spread of violent ideologies. It seems like this approach might be especially effective against foreign groups, as branches like the Department of treasury have a greater ability to prevent American from getting involved with them. It is important to monitor the global exchanges between terrorist networks, as we have seen groups like ISIS and various white supremacists use propaganda to inspire Americans to commit "lone wolf" terrorist attacks. I think one of the most important aspects of this strategy is to create a population that is resilient against terrorist recruiting, as the government will not be able to stop all instances of this happening. Certainly an aspect of this is based in digital literacy and ability to spot propaganda, and I'm glad that the government is pursuing innovative strategies to teach people these skills. However, it also involves addressing the reasons people turn to terrorism in the first place. Extremism most often takes place when people no longer feel confidence in their government, so it is important that we ensure our democracy is functioning and addressing issues people care about. It is also important to reduce political polarization and support more bipartisan unity, as negative perceptions of the other side can often lead people to feel that violence against them is justified. Finally, it is important to reduce racism and other forms of hatred that allow individuals to dehumanize others.

It does seem like we need to work on understanding the motives that many of these domestic terrorists have. This can help us be able to effectively counter these sorts of dangerous ideologies. It can also show us what issues people are experiencing discount about, and possibly help us to address some of the root causes behind this extremism.

I agree that getting ahead of the domestic extremism threat is important here. Many lives can be saved by cracking down on terrorist activity and stopping these attacks before they happen.

Overall, I found this to be an effective and sensible strategy to address the rise in domestic terrorism. I agree with the emphasis on solely going after violence and incitement, as otherwise this could lead to restrictions on free expression. I also think it found a good balance between being politically neutral and still identifying the groups that are playing the biggest role in this violence. In terms of specifics, interrupting terrorist recruiting networks online seems like an important way to stop these movements from gaining influence. Teaching better social media literacy can help, as this can allow people to identify misinformation and other terrorist recruiting activities. Information sharing between different branches of government is also essential, as this is the only way we can gain a complete picture of the threats our nation is facing. As a society, I think addressing the deeper issues like racism and mistrust of government can also go a long way towards stemming the influence of these groups. One thing I found especially interesting was the point that terrorists often thrive on overreaction, as it garners sympathy for their cause and creators anger among their adherents. We have actually seen this concept play out in China. In February 1997, Chinese soldiers attacked peaceful Uyghur protesters in Yining as part of their "Strike Hard Campaign" against Uyghur terrorism. They also arrested many Uyghurs suspected of separatism and held them without trial. However, these crackdowns only lead to an increase in Uyghur violence and separatist terrorism. It also made these separatist groups more cohesive and sophisticated. I would not be surprised if we see a similar uptick in violence due to China's current 'People's War on Terror" against the Uyghurs.