Day: July 8, 2025

The second Trump administration has made clear its intention to prioritize an “America First,” “peace through strength” foreign policy that reasserts its idea of a “safer, stronger, and more prosperous America,” ostensibly controls spending, and turns U.S. taxpayer dollars to serve its perception of American interests abroad. Yet, the administration’s abrupt approach and tactical inconsistency raises serious questions about the prospects of fulfilling the goals they have set for themselves and the nation. Plans to cut programs that prevent or secure accountability for mass atrocities — genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity — are among the multiplicity of moves that seem to run counter to the administration’s own objectives.

Most recently, for example, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), run by Russell Vought, the architect of Project 2025, has proposed gutting funding for a range of war crimes accountability efforts in countries such as Colombia, Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, and Myanmar (Burma). And this comes on the heels of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s winding down of the department’s Office of Global Criminal Justice and Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. While Rubio unveiled the department reorganization as a “proposal” in April and notified Congress formally on May 29, some staff have already been laid off or accepted the administration’s Jan. 28 “Fork in the Road” offer to all federal employees to resign and get paid through Sept. 30. The OMB memo about the war crimes accountability cuts sets a date of July 11 to submit arguments for retaining them.  

These cuts move the United States in exactly the opposite direction of its own interests. Funding and programs that support the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of atrocity crimes — from Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine to Assad’s persecution of Christians and other minorities in Syria to the abuses of Myanmar’s brutal military regime — are among the most cost-effective tools available for advancing American power, interests, and influence abroad. Eliminating them is not only legally questionable and diplomatically and morally short-sighted, but also strategically self-defeating.

Let’s be clear: accountability for mass atrocities directly targets regimes and criminal networks that threaten U.S. national security interests. These grave human rights violations destabilize regions, fuel violent extremism, and undermine international norms. U.S. support for the documentation of atrocities and related accountability efforts exert pressure on malign actors in ways that sanctions or military tools simply cannot. These initiatives uncover the truth, support and elevate victims and survivors in recovery efforts, and reinforce the rule of law as a key pillar of global security. Many of them are run by U.S., international, or local nonprofit organizations and are in support of legitimate local government authorities, such as Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office.

Tangible, Strategic Return on Investment

Advancing accountability is not some misguided, feel-good exercise in global liberalism. It is a smart, scalable instrument to confront terrorists, disrupt transnational criminal networks, and deter rogue regimes grounded in the values that have long-elevated America’s global standing because they are embraced by publics the world over, even if resisted by some of their corrupt leaders. And these initiatives have been undertaken in forums the United States helped build, many of which are now also facing serious funding cuts. These efforts send a clear message: those who commit or enable mass atrocities cannot operate with impunity – there will be consequences, however long they might take in systems designed to ensure true justice.

At a fraction of the cost of military intervention, these tools yield a tangible and strategic return on investment. They sharpen the contrast between the United States and its authoritarian competitors, reinforce cooperation with those allies deeply invested in justice, and encourage cost-sharing in pursuit of shared security goals. Just as importantly, however, they offer a platform that amplifies American leadership without putting boots on the ground. 

To put it in perspective, the FY2025 U.S. defense budget stands at approximately $893 billion. In stark contrast, the total U.S. investment in global criminal justice, support for international tribunals, human rights documentation and advocacy, and atrocity prevention through both the State Department and the now-shuttered U.S. Agency for International Development is typically $145 million at most, accounting for less than 0.02 percent of defense spending. Simply put, one week of military operations in a medium-scale conflict like Afghanistan or Iraq, which cost as much as $1.5 to $2 billion at peak, exceeds the entire annual budget for human rights, atrocity prevention, and accountability programming. These have repeatedly proven to be some of the most cost-effective security tools the United States has, and yet the Trump administration is proposing to just throw them away.

There are countless examples of the impact of these initiatives over the years. For instance, in Colombia, U.S. funding and technical assistance to the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) have contributed to more than 230 former Ejército Nacional de Colombia (National Army of Colombia) and Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ejército del Pueblo (FARC-EP) members and their collaborators admitting responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity during Colombia’s internal armed conflict to date. In Cambodia, U.S. support for the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) helped secure the convictions of Kaing Guek Eav (Duch) in 2010 for crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea in 2018 for genocide, crimes against humanity, and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, all of which was accomplished without the need for U.S. troop deployments. In another case with U.S. backing, the Special Court for Sierra Leone’s successful prosecution of former Liberian President Charles Taylor helped dismantle networks that fueled conflict through the blood diamond trade, reduced the risk of West Africa becoming a haven for terrorism and transnational crime, and reinforced U.S. influence in the region. And of course, U.S. support for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) helped secure the convictions of Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić for genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws or customs of war (including unlawful attacks on civilians and hostage-taking) committed during the Bosnian War of the 1990s, alongside the convictions of more than 90 other military and political leaders.

In the United States, courts have expanded accountability for atrocity crimes by prosecuting individuals who committed war crimes abroad and later sought refuge in the United States. For example, Mohammed Jabbateh, a high-ranking commander in the United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy (ULIMO), was convicted in Pennsylvania in October 2017. More recently, Michael Sang Correa, a Gambian death squad member, was convicted in Colorado in April 2025. These cases demonstrate how accountability for atrocity crimes advances justice while strengthening immigration enforcement and national security at little cost and without the need for U.S. combat operations. 

Contradicting Stated Priorities

For a Trump administration that all too often reflexively rejects policies and programs simply because its predecessors supported them, what is even more troubling is that these cuts contradict its own stated priorities for a “safer, stronger, and more prosperous” America.

Safer? Atrocity crimes aren’t someone else’s problem – they’re often a root cause of regional collapse, refugee flows, and ungoverned spaces that fuel instability. Refugees from Venezuela, Haiti, Syria, Myanmar, Afghanistan, the Sahel, Sudan, and beyond are fleeing brutal, systematic violence, not hypothetical conflict – much of which U.S.-backed investigators are helping to expose. Accountability is how the United States holds regimes responsible for the chaos they create – chaos that too often reaches U.S. borders.

Stronger? Want to induce behavior change from a regime? These programs are powerful tools of leverage that offer options for negotiation, without entangling the United States in large-scale commitments or military action. Cutting them erodes U.S. bargaining power. It’s the kind of asymmetrical, low-risk advantage that any savvy, deal-making administration should want to preserve.

More prosperous? China, Russia, and Iran seek to upend an international order that is consonant with U.S. economic strength and global prosperity with one that favors their own interests. They thrive in a world where there are no consequences for State-sponsored violence against civilians. By contrast, U.S. support for atrocity crime documentation and prosecution bolsters legal norms, strengthens allied resolve, and promotes a stable, rules-based system that has enabled American businesses to thrive globally. Eliminating these programs creates a global leadership vacuum, hands a win to U.S. adversaries, and abandons key allies – and all without receiving anything in return. 

In Ukraine, where Russia is already scrambling to whitewash its atrocities from Bucha to Mariupol, cutting funds for groups helping to document international crimes weakens the growing case for prosecution just as momentum builds. It also signals to Ukraine and European allies that the U.S. is stepping out as they are stepping up to do more for their own defense, rather than recommitting to the partnership in return.

Similarly, in the Indo-Pacific, members of Myanmar’s military regime continue to carry out brutal atrocities against civilians, including ethnic-affiliated organizations and pro-democracy forces. Meanwhile, Beijing provides diplomatic cover for the regime, while actively undermining ASEAN-led peace efforts. Pulling U.S. funding from accountability programs in the region cedes strategic ground to China and signals that our talk of competition in the Indo-Pacific is just that: talk. Slashing these programs forecloses future options and weakens the U.S. position, all for savings that are negligible in the context of the broader U.S. budget.

U.S. and International Legal Imperatives

Finally, supporting accountability for atrocities is not only sound strategy, but also a legal imperative. The United States is a party to the Genocide Convention, all four Geneva Conventions, and the Convention Against Torture, each of which carries a clear obligation to prevent and punish atrocity crimes. These commitments have been codified into U.S. law through bipartisan legislation such as the Proxmire Act, the War Crimes Act, the Torture Act, the Torture Victim Protection Act, the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, and the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, all of which passed with overwhelming support. 

Under the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, the United States is also prohibited from funding governments that engage in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights unless extraordinary conditions are met. Likewise, the Leahy Laws restrict U.S. military assistance to foreign security forces credibly implicated in gross violations of human rights. Together, these laws equip U.S. policymakers to demand justice, deter future atrocities, and safeguard taxpayer dollars. Eliminating accountability programming not only dismantles this vital legal and policy framework but also cripples one of America’s most effective tools for promoting its values and securing its interests at home and abroad.

As State and OMB make final budget decisions, there may still be a narrow window to reverse course through internal appeals – Reuters reports that State Department bureaus have until the close of business on July 11 to submit their justifications for retaining war crimes and accountability programs. It’s particularly poignant that the date happens to mark the 30th anniversary of the Bosnian War’s Srebrenica Genocide. Whether or not that window is used, the broader case remains: accountability efforts are not a luxury, a liberal pet project, or a misguided moral crusade out of step with a Trumpian view of foreign policy. They are a core, albeit underappreciated, instrument of U.S. national power. 

The second Trump administration has a chance to prove that “peace through strength” is more than a slogan. Strength includes the ability to hold others accountable. Peace requires consequences for those who commit the most serious international crimes. And American leadership – real leadership – means standing for something, even as it fiercely pursues its own interests.

Accountability for atrocity crimes delivers on both strategy and justice. Cutting it now means surrendering powerful tools of U.S. foreign policy and national security – at exactly the moment that the United States and the world need them the most.

The post Trump Administration’s Proposed Cuts to Accountability for Mass Atrocities Undermine Its Own Strategic Goals appeared first on Just Security.

Copyright law—a byzantine world in which millions ride on whether ‘Ice Ice Baby’ sounds too much like ‘Under Pressure’—rarely has much to say about geopolitics. But two pivotal AI copyright court decisions last week, the first in a slew of prominent lawsuits, will have enormous implications for the U.S. competition with China for technological primacy. Finding a resolution that would satisfy the concerns of both copyright holders and national security experts is difficult enough under ordinary circumstances. But the fact that copyright laws were made for the era of the printing press, rather than the AI revolution, further compounds that challenge. As courts struggle to apply decades-old laws to the world’s fastest-moving technology, hasty judgements risk ceding AI leadership—and future intellectual property (IP) norms—to Beijing.

In late June, federal judges in San Francisco delivered two major rulings in cases against leading AI lab Anthropic and tech giant Meta, respectively. In a major win for AI developers, both judges agreed that the way cutting-edge AI models use copyrighted information they are built on differs enough from the source material to constitute “fair use,” a carve-out that allows the copying of copyrighted material for limited purposes. But both had reservations: one questioned how pirated books were handled in the training process, and the other ominously suggested that future trials may find “most cases” of using copyrighted materials to build AI systems illegal due to market harms the resulting tools might cause.

It  remains unclear whether and how American AI developers will be able to use much of the world’s copyrighted content to help build their models. Tech industry leaders argue that overly restrictive copyright enforcement would stifle U.S. AI innovation, given the material’s centrality to building robust systems and the complexity and costliness of a strict copyright adherence regime. Creative professionals, meanwhile, understandably balk at seeing their life’s work helping to power the world’s hottest investment bonanza without compensation or even consent. Both sides present compelling arguments, but miss the big picture.

Copyright is an outgrowth of the printing press, designed to address the wrongful reproduction of creative works that could suddenly be duplicated easily and at scale. While new copying machines like tape recorders and novel information platforms like the internet have forced its evolution, copyright’s original principles have served as a steady foundation. But how to approach machines that learn from material to produce original—if inspired—content will likely require a new paradigm, one which lawyers are ill-equipped to build now as the technology is still only in its infancy.

Part of the problem is technical: one of the most dynamic areas of AI research today concerns engineering AI tools to achieve more originality from source material. Another is reliably constraining their outputs—like copyrighted work. Shoehorning AI into existing copyright law now, without creating space to experiment with new models of creator compensation, could prematurely quash companies’ ability to experiment with new ways to protect copyright while still using the full corpus of human knowledge to sharpen their tools.

Still more uncertain is how copyrighted works will fit in a new, AI-mediated information ecosystem. If AI systems come to displace Internet search, for instance, writers and artists might regret excluding themselves from training data, diminishing the visibility of their work. AI tools might harm existing markets, but will be more likely to transform them in unpredictable ways.

While AI’s evolution remains murky, stringent copyright enforcement would very clearly damage U.S. geopolitical competitiveness. Beijing and Washington both consider AI competition to be at the heart of their economic and military rivalry, and only one will heed these consequential rulings.

To get a sense of the momentous stakes of the Sino-American AI competition, just look at the launch of Chinese AI lab DeepSeek’s most advanced model in January this year, signalling China’s rising capabilities in the technology. The event precipitated a rapid, trillion dollar plummet in the U.S. stock market, while Beijing took the passports of the DeepSeek’s key engineers to ensure their continued work for  China’s interests.

High-quality data—much of it copyrighted—is the lifeblood of emerging AI systems. And China, a country that already steals several hundreds of billions of dollars a year in U.S. trade secrets and intellectual property, will have no scruples about leveraging U.S. copyrighted material to build its models. As a result, whatever copyright enforcement emerges will directly disadvantage U.S. labs relative to Chinese counterparts.

Ironically, Chinese AI tools benefiting from greater access to copyrighted material would be more likely to win the fierce competition for global AI market share. This could functionally solidify looser creative property norms around the world by making China the standard-bearer for AI generally, including copyright practices.

Courts must proceed cautiously as AI development transforms both economies and geopolitics. Prematurely applying existing copyright paradigms to AI’s early development is a recipe for disaster: not just for the U.S. AI competition with China, but also for the very property rights that proponents seek to protect.

The post AI Copyright Wars Threaten U.S. Technological Primacy in the Face of Rising Chinese Competition appeared first on Just Security.