Title: What More Should the U.S. Do to Prevent Transitional Repression?

Description: Some foreign governments have harassed, abducted,
threatened or even assassinated U.S.-based individuals in an effort to
silence their criticism. Prominent examples of transnational repression
like this include the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by
Saudis, the abduction of Youras Ziankovich (a lawyer and U.S. citizen)
by Russian police in 2021, and the arrest warrants issued by Hong Kong
police against pro-democracy protestors living outside of the city. 
We'll learn more about efforts to combat these attacks from GAO's Chelsa
Kenney.

Related GAO Work: GAO-24-106183, Human Rights: Agency Actions Needed to
Address Harassment of Dissidents and Other Tactics of Transnational
Repression in the U.S.

Released: October 2023

[MUSIC]

[Chelsa Kenney:] Transnational repression can be a threat to democracy,
to human rights, and to national security.

[Holly Hobbs:] Hi and welcome to GAO's Watchdog report. Your source for
fact based, nonpartisan news and information from the U.S. Government
Accountability Office. I'm your host, Holly Hobbs. Some foreign
governments have harassed, abducted, threatened or even assassinated
U.S.-based individuals in an effort to silence their criticism.
Prominent examples of transnational repression like this include the
2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudis, the abduction of
Youras Ziankovich (a lawyer and U.S. citizen) by Russian police in 2021,
and the arrest warrants issued by Hong Kong police against pro-democracy
protestors living outside of the city. How common are these acts of
transnational repression, and what can the U.S. do to prevent them? 
We'll find out more from GAO's Chelsa Kenney--an expert on international
affairs and human rights. Thanks for joining us!

[Chelsa Kenney:] Thanks for having me.

[Holly Hobbs:] So, Chelsa, I just shared some of the headline grabbing
examples of transnational repression. But those are the shocking,
high-profile examples, right. What can you tell us about how common
these events are and what's kind of the range of what these activities
look like?

[Chelsa Kenney:] So we don't know precisely how common it is, but we did
hear a number of different examples of how transnational repression may
occur. So, it can range from things like non-direct tactics--such as
surveillance through spyware--to very direct tactics--like disappearances
or even assassinations. In fact, the rise of digital advances may make
it easier for perpetrators to increasingly reach across borders to harm
their victims. Considering that governments engage in these tactics to
discourage criticism that they consider a threat to their global
standing--it's often exiles, including journalists, human rights
defenders, and political opponents that are among the types of people
who might be targeted by foreign governments, even while here in the
United States.

[Holly Hobbs:] So we don't know necessarily how often this happens, but
do we know who maybe the top perpetrators are?

[Chelsa Kenney:] There is no single list. However, the People's Republic
of China, Iran, Russia, Rwanda, and Turkey were commonly identified as
perpetrators across several government and non-government sources. 

[Holly Hobbs:] And these threats and attacks, even though they involve
U.S.-based individuals, they aren't always happening on U.S. soil. It
seems like that would make it difficult to investigate or even know
about. How does the U.S. government even know who's committing these
attacks?

[Chelsa Kenney:] Transnational repression is very hard to
track--especially when is indirect, like a social media smear campaign.
But victims may also be reluctant to go and report transnational
repression out of fear of retribution. In addition, a lack of awareness
of what transnational repression is and how to look for it makes it
really hard for law enforcement to track and identify problems. For
example, take the FBI. The FBI collects data on transnational repression
against people in the United States when there is a potential violation
of U.S. law or national security threat. But, state and local law
enforcement, who are often the first to encounter victims of
transnational repression, sometimes treat incidents as ordinary crimes.
That's because they may not recognize a foreign aspect that could
indicate it was an act of transnational repression.

[Holly Hobbs:] So assuming the U.S. knows who committed these acts, what
can the federal government do about it?

[Chelsa Kenney:] The Department of Justice has used laws addressing some
repression schemes. For example, those prohibiting harassment and
cyberstalking to investigate and prosecute individual perpetrators. But
when it comes to addressing the source of transnational repression--and
by that I mean the country itself.The Arms Export Control Act has a
specific provision related to this. Under this U.S. law, arms transfers
are prohibited to any country that the president determines to be
involved in a consistent pattern of activities that could be considered
transnational repression against people in the United States.

[Holly Hobbs:] So are there any limits to the Department of Justice's or
U.S. authority in taking these actions?

[Chelsa Kenney:] Yes, actually, most of the existing criminal laws came
before the Internet, and this can make it more difficult to prosecute
individuals who are outside the United States, but that are using the
Internet to harm victims inside the United States. Another limitation is
that U.S. law does not specifically criminalize or define what
constitutes transnational repression.

[Holly Hobbs:] What about this Arms Export Control Act option that
prohibits arms transfers to countries. How has the U.S. used that? 

[Chelsa Kenney:] We found that proposed arms transfers undergo several
review processes. So they look at foreign policy issues, national
security issues, and even human rights issues. But we also found that
the U.S. government has never invoked that prohibition on arms
transfers. In fact, in recent years, the U.S. has approved tens of
billions of dollars in arms transfers to countries that those government
and non-government sources identified as having engaged in transnational
repression.

{MUSIC}

[Holly Hobbs:] Chelsa just told us that the U.S. has taken steps to
discourage acts of transnational repression. But it faces challenges in
identifying when acts take place. And even when the U.S. knows these
events happen, agencies may lack authority to take action. So Chelsa,
what more should agencies be doing to address transnational repression
and hold these perpetrators accountable?

[Chelsa Kenney:] There are a few things that we would suggest to both
the Department of Justice and to the Department of State to address this
issue. First, DOJ should take additional steps to enhance understanding
of transnational reppression, both among federal agencies and also state
and local law enforcement agencies. Second, DOJ should identify any gaps
in the current law for how we address transnational repression and, if
appropriate, propose any changes to that law. And then finally, the
State Department should coordinate with and collect information on
transnational oppression from other agencies to help inform its arms
transfer review efforts.

[Holly Hobbs:] You had also talked about the limits to agency's ability
or authority to take action. Do we think Congress should do something
about this?

[Chelsa Kenney:] You know, one thing we found is that Congress was not
fully aware of how the Arms Export Control Act provision was being
considered. Specifically, Congress doesn't know if and when
administrations have considered a foreign country's engagement in
transnational repression when they were determining whether or not to
approve arms transfers. And this goes back to when the law was first
enacted in 1981. So, if Congress wants more insight into why a
government that has repeatedly engaged in transnational repression still
receives arms from the U.S., Congress should consider an amendment to
the law to ensure they receive that information.

[Holly Hobbs:] And last question, what's the bottom line of this report?

[Chelsa Kenney:] Transnational repression can be a threat to democracy,
to human rights, to national security. It can also have serious, grave,
personal, social, and professional consequences for the lives of
victims. It's important that we take action to deter repressive
governments, promote accountability for perpetrators, and increase
protections for victims.

[Holly Hobbs:] That was Chelsa Kenney talking about GAO's recent report
on transnational repression. Thanks for your time, Chelsa.

[Chelsa Kenney:] Thanks for having me, Holly.

[Holly Hobbs:] And thank you for listening to the Watchdog report. To
hear more podcasts, subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or
wherever you listen and make sure to leave a rating and review to let
others know about the work we're doing. For more from the congressional
watchdog, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, visit us at
GAO.gov.