What If These Economic Weapons Fall into Trump’s Hands? – with Abraham Newman

The Biden administration has built an unprecedented machine for economic and technological coercion. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States and its allies cut off Russia’s access to its own central bank reserves held outside Russia. The administration revamped export controls to strangle China’s access to the powerful and specialized semiconductors needed to train A.I., to keep its armed forces lagging on technology.

These economic weapons are far from perfect. As critics have noted, Russia is finding money in other places. China is already working around earlier export controls, although it won’t be able to produce its own cutting-edge semiconductors anytime soon.

But there is another problem, which is getting far less attention: Joe Biden will not always be president. These tools of coercion may work in the hands of the current administration, but they can also be used in far more dangerous ways in another, including one more reckless and unbound.

The Biden administration needs to think deeply about what future administrations can do with this power — particularly if Donald Trump takes up residence again in the White House in 2025 and repurposes Mr. Biden’s tools for his own aggressive purposes.

Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman, “What If These Economic Weapons Fall into Trump’s Hands?,” New York Times, October 1, 2023.

Access the full article here.

Other Writing:

Essay

The Most Damaging Election Disinformation Campaign Came From Donald Trump, Not Russia with Bruce Schneier

On November 4, 2016, the hacker “Guccifer 2.0,” a front for Russia’s military intelligence service, claimed in a blogpost that the Democrats were likely to use vulnerabilities to hack the presidential elections. On November 9, 2018, President Donald Trump started tweeting about the senatorial elections in Florida and Arizona. Without any evidence whatsoever, he said ...
Read Article
Academic ArticleAcademic Writing

AI as Governance

Political scientists have had remarkably little to say about artificial intelligence (AI), perhaps because they are dissuaded by its technical complexity and by current debates about whether AI might emulate, outstrip, or replace individual human intelligence. They ought to consider AI in terms of its relationship with governance. Existing large-scale systems of governance such as ...
Read Article