Intelligence officials warn foreign adversaries determined to undermine election trust

With less than two weeks before the election, the U.S. intelligence community is warning that Russia, Iran and China will intensify their efforts to divide Americans and undermine confidence in the election. Geoff Bennett discussed more with Graham Brookie, The Atlantic Council’s vice president for technology programs and strategy and the founding director of the Digital Forensic Research Lab.
Geoff Bennett:
The U.S. intelligence community is warning that Russia and Iran are planning to stoke violence in the U.S. from Election Day through inauguration and that, between now and the election, those countries, plus China, will intensify their efforts to divide Americans and undermine confidence in the election.
The intelligence community said Russia was behind this fake video pushing a salacious lie against Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz. That is just one of myriad efforts under way to undermine the already fraught election here.
For perspective on all of this, we turn now to Graham Brookie, the Atlantic Council’s vice president for technology programs and strategy. He’s also the founding director of the Digital Forensic Research Lab.
Thanks for being with us.
So, Russia, Iran and China have conducted influence operations in this country for years. How significant is it that the intel community is now warning that Russia and Iran are set to stoke violence between the Election Day and inauguration?
Graham Brookie, Digital Forensic Research Lab, Atlantic Council:
Well, Geoff, as you have said, the — all of those state adversaries that you just mentioned have been conducting influence operations and interference operations for years and years and years, including past election cycles.
The intelligence community has done a particularly good job preemptively putting out these assessments at the 90-day period ahead of elections, at the 60-day period before elections, and at the 30-day period. And we expect to have more updates like this to their assessment.
Now, what is interesting about this assessment is that it is particularly focused on the information environment in the immediate lead-up to Election Day and in the post-election period, as well as the period in between Election Day and when we know the results of the election.
And what we expect from those state actors is potential October surprises, things like crossing that threshold from broad influence operations to try to change the behavior or perception of the American public to interference, which includes that type of mobilization toward potential for mobilization or encouragement to mobilization towards things like political violence or disrupting electoral processes.
Geoff Bennett:
That fake video targeting Tim Walz, is that the kind of thing that Russia routinely pumps out and tries to promote?
Graham Brookie:
Yes, we expect that type of content. I would rate that type of video as not necessarily a sophisticated deepfake.
I would rate it as a cheapfake, because it has just enough amount of granular bits of truth. The person that is — the person in the video is purporting to be is a real person, but the narratives themselves are false. And so it has just enough truth to be believable. It has just enough truth to be a viable narrative, but it is patently false.
That is something that takes a little bit of research. It takes a little bit of sophistication. And it is something that we expect from sophisticated state actors like Russia.
Geoff Bennett:
Walk us through what Russia, Iran, and China are trying to gain with these influence operations and which candidate each country prefers.
Graham Brookie:
Well, the U.S. government rates each one of those countries that you just listed as adversarial states, meaning they are against the United States and in what the United States is engaging on across — around the world.
They are geopolitical adversaries. Their tactics in information operations or influence operations are a little bit different. What we’re seeing from Russia is persistent activity to — well, I guess one thing that is common across those actors is that each one of those influence operations or approaches to influence activity is designed to drive Americans further away, as opposed to closer together.
They are intended to prey on divisive issues in the United States and drive up ideological differences. That’s the primary through line across all of those state actors, but the tactics that they take are somewhat different.
Russia is very, very engaged in more granular kind of social understanding of what is going on in the United States. China typically with influence operations is trying to paint America as a force for bad or for ill in the world, as well as even more specifically China as a force for good in the world.
And Iran, given the geopolitical events in the Middle East in particular, would be seen as more of a spoiler in their influence activities. They typically as a state actor are more willing to cross that threshold from influence to interference just in terms of their general approach.
Geoff Bennett:
And in the minute we have left, there’s one point I want to underscore, because U.S. officials, as I understand it, say there’s no indication that Russia, China or Iran are plotting significant attacks on election infrastructure as a means of changing the potential outcome of the vote. Is that right?
Graham Brookie:
That’s exactly correct. And that’s an extraordinarily important point.
The voting infrastructure in the United States is safe and secure. It’s very diffuse across many different electorate and basically counties at the state level, at the national level. So the electoral infrastructure is safe and secure, very trustworthy.
The influence operations are more designed to influence public opinion or interference operations would be more designed to influence people to do an action. So there are any number of case studies where those state actors have tried to get American people to do something. They haven’t always been successful, which is another really important point about foreign influence.
The specter of foreign influence is sometimes a lot greater than the impact of foreign influence.
Geoff Bennett:
Graham Brookie, we appreciate your insights. Thank you.
Graham Brookie:
Thank you.