A secretary or Department of Digital?

OPINION:

When America reorganized the country’s national security structure in the wake of World War II, it didn’t just create the CIA and National Security Council — it also formalized the idea that information and its flow across transnational lines must be a core tenant of U.S. foreign policy and national security. These information and intellectual property systems helped America win the Cold War by contributing to superior military technology that may have deterred all-out war and catalyzed national pride as Americans watched their fellow citizens explore the cosmos.

Now, as China fills the gap left by the collapsed Soviet Union and rises as a world power, America needs a holistic approach to combat the many national security threats posed by emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and much more powerful semiconductor chips. One place to start is by creating a formal Cabinet position where an expert is solely charged with guiding America’s tech policy into the 21st century and beyond.

That is a step that many allies, including Japan, Taiwan and Germany, have already taken. The Biden administration should follow suit. The stakes are too great for this massive responsibility to be shared by all but owned by nobody.

A senior U.S. official focused solely on emerging technology would articulate technological advancement’s promise and potential perils to the American people. For example, that person or agency could explain how rapid advancement that has defined the 21st century thus far has presented myriad benefits but has also posed significant challenges to our national security.

While simpler technologies in the postwar period made it easier to identify relevant national security issues and regulate them, governments are often playing catch-up due to the vast commercial network of companies ranging from Google to startups in the artificial intelligence space. This means that tech with serious national security implications may be developed with far less oversight — and accelerate before we can take steps to ensure it isn’t misused.

For example, gene editing technology like CRISPR has obvious medical benefits and may one day eliminate many diseases that currently have no cure. It could also be used to generate a bioweapon the likes of which the world has never seen. This duality presents major challenges for our current regulatory setup, as noted in a Deloitte analysis, and it is not one we are equipped to handle.

Another issue with similar dynamics is the much-publicized debate around the semiconductor industry and the flow of related technologies into and out of China and other adversaries. The U.S. recently established and expanded on export control rules first implemented last year, a slow process highlighting both the stakes on the international chessboard and America’s shortcomings in the game.

As a collection of bipartisan legislators told Reuters for a report earlier this month, that approach has thus far neglected open-source technology, allowing Beijing to exploit “a culture of open collaboration among American companies” and could “erode the current U.S. lead in the chip field.” This would have “very real battlefield implications,” according to retired Navy Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, who noted that chips are powering the use of AI on the battlefield in Ukraine and could be deployed in future engagements with China.

As Reuters noted, meeting this challenge will not be easy. Some detractors have argued that placing any restrictions on open-source technology would limit innovation, hurting American security interests in the long run. Similar arguments could be made about gene editing technology or many other cases with massive risks and rewards.

There is some sense in that argument, but it ultimately falls flat. While nobody wants to see innovation suffer, that is not likely to happen because some Chinese companies would no longer have access to the advanced thinking present in American universities and American industry.

In fact, slowing the rate of innovation ever so slightly would reap national security benefits by allowing the U.S. and its allies to assess the situation properly and implement proactive controls that anticipate and mitigate coming challenges and potential attack vectors — not merely responding to threats as they emerge and after they have already materialized.

These complex issues require genuine care and stewardship, as noted in an alarming but sober analysis by expert Rick Switzer about potential attack vectors to critical infrastructure in an open-source world. It is precisely the task that should be charged to one department or agency accountable to the public and government structure.

A secretary or Department of Digital would be such a solution, and if it were already in place, perhaps the RISC-V risk — or countless other potential issues involving critical infrastructure we haven’t yet considered — would already be solved.

Given the stakes, the American people — and the world that counts on American leadership for security and stability — deserve nothing less.

• Robert V. Jones is CEO of PReSafe Technologies and president of the New York University Tandon School of Engineering alumni association.