Developing an Integrated Strategic Counterterrorism Communications Initiative and Establishing a Temporary Organization to Support Certain Government-wide Communications Activities Directed Abroad

Background

Prior to its revocation, the executive order in question played a crucial role in shaping counterterrorism communications strategy across the U.S. government. It established the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC) within the Department of State, which was responsible for coordinating government-wide efforts to counter extremist narratives. This coordination led to improved information sharing and resource allocation across federal agencies, effectively streamlining counterterrorism messaging efforts. By fostering inter-agency collaboration, the order helped establish a more unified front against the propaganda disseminated by terrorist organizations like al-Qa'ida.

The order had indirect implications on regulations concerning foreign communications and public diplomacy. Agencies were encouraged to contribute expertise and personnel to the CSCC, which enhanced the government's capability to craft and disseminate counter-narratives. While the order did not directly create new laws, it facilitated operational changes that resulted in a more aggressive and proactive use of communication tools, such as digital and social media, to counter extremist content online. The broader strategic framework helped to align the narratives pushed by different agencies, from the Department of Defense to international aid programs, under a cohesive counterterrorism initiative.

Socially, the order underscored the importance of public diplomacy as an essential tool in the fight against terrorism. By focusing on narratives and communications directed abroad, it indirectly affirmed the significance of winning "hearts and minds" in combating radicalization. While its effects on domestic policy were minimal, the order had significant implications for how the U.S. engaged with international audiences, leveraging U.S. soft power to undermine the influence of extremist ideologies. The collaborative approach also paved the way for increased partnerships with non-governmental organizations and private sector entities invested in counter-radicalization initiatives.

Reason for Revocation

The revocation of the order in 2016 by President Obama occurred in a changing context of counterterrorism strategy and organizational dynamics. By this time, the Islamic State had emerged as a prominent threat and was highly effective in leveraging digital communication for recruitment and radicalization purposes. This shift in the threat landscape may have necessitated a reevaluation of existing counterterrorism communication strategies to address new challenges posed by a more digitally savvy adversary.

The revocation could signal a strategic pivot towards a more decentralized or streamlined approach to counterterrorism communications, potentially integrating these efforts within broader intelligence and defense strategies. It may also reflect a recognition of the limitations inherent in a centralized, bureaucratic counterterrorism communications model, prompting a shift towards more nimble and innovative solutions that could better keep pace with rapidly evolving online threats.

Another factor likely influencing the decision was the evolving diplomatic strategy of the Obama administration during its final months, when there was a heightened focus on consolidating achievements and ensuring sustainable policies that future administrations could inherit. The order’s revocation might have been part of a broader reorganization to eliminate temporary structures like the Counterterrorism Communications Support Office, which were not intended as permanent solutions, thus allowing incoming leadership to conceptualize and deploy newer approaches.

The administrative motivation for this revocation can also be contextualized within an ideological shift emphasizing greater interagency coherence and the avoidance of institutional redundancies. By realigning responsibilities and eliminating the temporary structures established by the order, the administration aimed to create a more adaptive and forward-thinking framework for responding to extremism globally, potentially paving the way for policy changes that future administrations could build upon.

Winners

With the revocation, private sector technology and cybersecurity firms stand to gain from filling the gap left by the dissolution of the centralized communication efforts. These companies are likely to take on greater roles in countering extremist messaging through digital means, capitalizing on their expertise in online tracking, behavioral analysis, and counter-narrative development. Corporations like Facebook, Twitter, and Google, who manage the platforms where extremist ideologies are often disseminated, likely experienced heightened collaboration and possibly new governmental contracts to assist with counter-radicalization initiatives.

Furthermore, organizations focused on digital innovation in information warfare stand to benefit. The vacuum created by the Center's dissolution could lead to increased demand for flexible, technologically advanced solutions that adapt rapidly to the tactics employed by extremist groups. Startups specializing in artificial intelligence and data analytics that offer novel solutions to anticipate and counter digital threats might find new opportunities for growth and partnerships with government agencies.

Additionally, certain governmental departments, such as the Department of Defense or the National Security Agency, potentially secured more direct involvement in counterterrorism communications. With the abolishment of a centralized civilian agency-led initiative, these military and intelligence bodies could take on a more prominent role, utilizing their extensive resources and networks to enhance offensive and defensive communication strategies against terrorism.

Losers

The most immediate impact of the revocation was felt within the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications and its associated personnel. The dismantling of a unified platform for inter-agency collaboration meant that professionals and experts who had developed specialized knowledge and skills in counterterrorism communications now faced uncertainty regarding the continuity of their work and initiatives. The temporary nature of their appointments could have left these personnel without a clear path forward within government service.

Various non-governmental organizations and think tanks that relied on the executive order's framework for developing counter-narrative strategies also faced setbacks. They benefited from the centralized distribution of insights and coordination that the order provided, and its revocation may have disrupted existing partnerships and collaborative research efforts aimed at combating violent extremism through communications.

The order's termination potentially negatively impacted the financial and operational dynamics of the Department of State as it lost a formal structure that reinforced its leadership role in the U.S.'s international counterterrorism communication efforts. This revocation may have resulted in a dispersion of resources and a weakening of the department's influence over a critical element of national security strategy, challenging its efforts to maintain global counterterrorism narratives and alliances.