Coordinating National Resilience to Electromagnetic Pulses

Overview

Objective and Scope

Executive Order 13865, signed by President Donald Trump on March 26, 2019, aims to bolster the United States' resilience against electromagnetic pulses (EMPs), which can disrupt technology and critical infrastructure. The order sets out a comprehensive governmental strategy involving federal agencies to mitigate, inform, and protect against human-made and natural EMP events. By doing so, it emphasizes sustainable, efficient, and cost-effective methods to enhance national security and safeguard economic prosperity.

Policy Design

This executive order calls for integrating efforts between federal, state, local, and private sector stakeholders. It delineates roles for key departments such as State, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, emphasizing research, development, international cooperation, and intelligence-driven assessments. The collaboration seeks to enhance preparedness by encouraging information sharing, developing standards, and instituting preventive measures to limit domestic and international EMP threats.

Impacts on Infrastructure

The focus is on critical infrastructure, specifically networks, systems, and assets integral to national security and the economy. The directive aims to conduct comprehensive risk assessments, simulation tests, and technological advancements to fortify infrastructure against EMP impacts. Prioritizing research, the EO presents a roadmap to understand EMPs and develop practical responses, including engineering solutions and regulatory measures for infrastructure protection.

Geopolitical Considerations

Embedding nuclear non-proliferation and deterrence within its framework, the EO acknowledges the global dimension of EMP threats, advocating diplomatic efforts and strategic foreign relationships to mitigate risks from nuclear detonations leading to EMPs. As part of its strategy, it advises integrating EMP scenarios within defense planning and promotes joint efforts with international partners to manage space-based threats more effectively.

Public and Private Sector Synergy

The order underlines collaboration with private entities, advocating for proactive engagement and innovation. This partnership aims to foster resilience through regulatory and non-regulatory incentives. Highlighting cost-recovery measures and leveraging private sector capabilities, the EO seeks a balanced approach distributing responsibility for national security across both public and private entities.

Legal and Policy Implications

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

EO 13865 relies on the president’s constitutional authority to guide executive functions related to national security. While not introducing new legislation, it leverages existing statutory frameworks governing national security, defense, and energy policy to extend its premise across agency mandates, ensuring federal alignment without overstepping statutory boundaries.

Regulatory Directives

The order mandates reviewing and potentially revising current standards concerning electromagnetic resilience in critical infrastructures. Establishing benchmarks for EMPs serves both regulatory and operational purposes. The standard development might affect future regulations, as agencies work closely to align guidelines with research and pilot program findings.

International Policy Impact

The Secretary of State’s directive to lead international coordination broadens U.S. policy focus on global collaboration for EMP resilience. This implicates international relations and treaties on nuclear threats, strengthening partnerships to reduce EMP attack likelihood through diplomatic and technical cooperation with allies.

Intelligence and National Defense

The elevation of EMP scenarios into national defense planning signifies increased emphasis on this threat within U.S. defense policy. By instructing the Department of Defense to incorporate EMP factors into strategic planning, the EO integrates EMP resilience within national defense priorities, highlighting the strategic importance of safeguarding against such threats.

Cross-sector Collaboration and Policy Development

The EO articulates a whole-of-government approach with public-private partnerships aiming to fortify EMP resilience. By ordering various federal agencies to develop cross-sector plans, it embeds systemic policy dialogue among stakeholders, potentially prompting new interagency protocols refining governmental and private sector mobilization against EMP threats.

Who Benefits

Technology and Energy Sectors

Companies in technology and energy sectors stand to significantly benefit from EO 13865. With streamlined R&D efforts and prioritizing technology to combat EMPs, businesses capable of innovating around grid resilience and EMP-resistant technologies may see heightened demand, effectively promoting investment in related technologies.

Defense Industry

Defense contractors and national security-related industries could experience growth from increased funding and projects tied to the EO’s defense directives. Emphasis on characterizing and mitigating EMP threats correlates to more defense-related contracts and opportunities for vendors specializing in EMP protection technologies and infrastructure hardening.

Federal Agencies

Federal agencies involved in executing the order might benefit from increased budgets and operational scopes. Divisions focusing on research, threat assessments, and intelligence could expand their mandates, requiring more resources and personnel, thereby increasing their governmental significance and operational capabilities.

Private Sector Collaborators

Private entities involved in infrastructure management and national security collaboration could gain from government incentives and partnerships. By forming alliances with federal agencies, these companies can engage in pilot programs and technological advancements, potentially influencing future standards and guidelines.

Academic and Research Institutions

Universities and research organizations focused on EMP-related areas could access increased funding and research opportunities. Collaborating with federal agencies might accelerate academic projects, boosting their contributions to national security agendas and reinforcing their roles as innovation and thought leadership centers.

Who Suffers

Resource-intensive Industries

Industries with high resource consumption could face challenges adjusting to new standards stemming from the EO. Strengthening infrastructure resilience against EMPs may necessitate significant capital investments, raising operational costs short-term. These industries might encounter financial strain seeking to comply with emerging guidelines and adequately protect infrastructure.

Smaller Firms and Startups

Smaller firms and startups lacking financial resources or technical expertise for EMP-resilient solutions might be at a disadvantage. Engineering adaptations and compliance costs with potential new regulations could be prohibitive for entities with limited capital and operational bandwidth.

Public Agencies with Limited Resources

State and local governments with tight budgets might struggle aligning with the EO's mandates. The call for coordination and integration at various governmental levels could strain their resources, especially absent additional funding or assistance to support preparation and resilience-building objectives outlined in the order.

Regulatory Bodies

Agencies responsible for developing and enforcing new standards may find themselves overextended due to ambitious timelines and complex cross-sector coordination required by the EO. Balancing existing responsibilities with new regulatory expectations could pose administrative challenges.

Telecommunications Sector

Critical communications infrastructure prioritization under this EO could put telecom companies under pressure to upgrade and secure networks. Meeting compliance with impending guidelines and participating in pilot tests could entail substantial costs, impacting their operational strategies and financial health.

Historical Context

Policy Trends and Priorities

EO 13865 reflects a broader trend toward enhancing resilience against transnational threats, extending beyond conventional national security boundaries. It exemplifies the Trump administration’s focus on infrastructure security and diversification of defense methods, aligning with efforts to modernize strategies against unconventional threats.

National Security Focus

While EMP threats have long been acknowledged within defense circles, their prioritization in national policy illustrates a shift toward recognizing how technological vulnerabilities impact national security. Resilience against EMPs within defense strategy indicates a move from traditional military threats to encompass evolving warfare modalities and infrastructure disruption.

Precedents and Influences

The EO builds upon policies like Presidential Policy Directive 21, emphasizing resilience within critical infrastructure. It incorporates EMP-specific strategies, addressing gaps in prior initiatives, forming a complex yet essential part of the historical policy trajectory focused on national security enhancements.

International Relations

The EO aligns with historical U.S. approaches to security threats through international partnerships, reinforcing leveraging diplomacy to address global risks. By linking EMP policies with nuclear nonproliferation, it weaves technological resilience into international security, balancing domestic priorities with global coalitions.

Administration Ideology

EO 13865 mirrors broader ideological themes of national security and energy independence within the Trump administration. Emphasizing infrastructure resilience and private collaboration, it aligns with the administration's legislative agenda focusing on sovereign security and economic competitiveness in international contexts.

Potential Controversies or Challenges

Implementation Complexities

The complexity of administering EO 13865 may lead to interagency coordination hurdles. With numerous agencies assuming new roles, challenges related to resource allocation, timely progress, and effective collaboration might arise, potentially causing bureaucratic inertia or conflicting priorities among stakeholders.

Constitutional and Statutory Concerns

The federal government’s expanded role in setting standards and guidelines for the private sector could lead to legal disputes over regulatory overreach or statutory authority. Stakeholders might question if the EO encroaches on legislative domains or stretches executive power, igniting judicial reviews.

Industry Pushback

Industries affected by compliance productivity and financial costs may resist certain measures. Given the EO implies increased scrutiny and anticipated changes, businesses might contest initiatives entailing economic burdens or operational disruptions, potentially delaying implementation.

State and Local Government Challenges

Resistance may arise from state and local governments tasked with broad strategy implementation under constrained budgets. The expectation of federal priority alignment without sufficient fiscal support could provoke pushback, questioning federal directives' feasibility at localized levels.

Political Narratives

The EO could become entangled in wider political discussions surrounding climate change and infrastructure development. Advocates for alternative policy approaches might critique the EMP focus as distracting from critical vulnerabilities, potentially framing the EO within partisan debates.