DHS in an Evolved Threat Landscape | The Myth of Moderate Jihadists | Who’s Behind Proud Boys

Charting a Strategic Path Forward for DHS in an Evolved Threat Landscape  (Daniel Gerstein, HSToday)
Simply making minor adjustments to the most recent 2014 QHSR or strategic plan would likely fail to account for important changes across all five operational mission areas.

Islamic Terrorists or Chinese Dissidents? U.S. Grapples with Uyghur Dilemma  (Tom O’Connor, Newsweek)
President Joe Biden and his administration are grappling with a new foreign policy dilemma: how to deal with Uyghur separatists seeking to take on the People’s Republic of China and establish an independent Islamic state in the northwestern Xinjiang region at a time when Washington is also increasing pressure on Beijing. The U.S. stance for the last two decades since the “war on terror” was declared after 9/11 has been to view groups such as Uyghurs factions as enemy actors, due to their reported links to Al-Qaeda. One such organization, a Uyghur separatist group known as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), was added to the Terrorist Exclusion List, a Patriot Act measure designed to disallow suspected militant group members from entering the United States. Over the course of the past 20 years, however, Washington’s foreign policy priorities have shifted dramatically, a change marked most notably by Biden’s military exit from Afghanistan. That exit was set in motion by Donald Trump, whose focus throughout his tenure in office was on another national foe, China. In addition to confronting Beijing on trade, political unrest in Hong Kong and tensions over Taiwan, the Trump administration endorsed allegations that China was conducting a “genocide” in Xinjiang, the northwestern province that is home to the Uyghurs.

Pharma Companies Defend Dismissal of Terror Case at D.C. Circuit Hearing  (Mike Scarcella, Reuters)
Major pharmaceutical companies urged a Washington, D.C., federal appeals court on Tuesday to uphold the dismissal of claims that their medical-goods contracts with Iraq’s health ministry helped finance terror activity in the country that injured or killed American service members between 2005 and 2011. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments for nearly two hours over whether the drug companies, represented at the hearing by Kannon Shanmugam of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, can be held liable under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act for certain deliveries of drugs and medical equipment. Tuesday’s hearing raised questions about how and where courts can draw a line around the Anti-Terrorism Act to protect humanitarian aid that benefits people in distressed areas plagued by terror activity. Last year, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., ruled for named defendant AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and other companies, concluding the plaintiffs had not made a viable “aiding and abetting” claim under the Anti-Terrorism Act.