The Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee released a mysterious statement Wednesday morning that warned of a “national security threat” facing the United States. And while we’re still not sure of the details, a new report from ABC News includes more information about what everyone might be panicking about.
“Today, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has made available to all Members of Congress information concerning a serious national security threat,” committee chairman Rep. Mike Turner, a Republican from Ohio, wrote on X.
“I am requesting that President Biden declassify all information relating to this threat so that Congress, the Administration, and our allies can openly discuss the actions necessary to respond to this threat,” Turner continued.
That statement was followed a short time later by a letter from Rep. Jim Himes, a Democrat from Connecticut, who called the issue an “urgent matter” about “a destabilizing foreign military capability that should be known by all congressional policymakers.” But, again, Himes didn’t provide any details and only set off hours of speculation on Capitol Hill about what it could involve.
The intelligence reportedly involves “Russians wanting to put a nuclear weapon into space,” according to ABC News. If that seems relatively underwhelming, it gets even weaker when it’s clarified that Russia’s desire for nukes has nothing to do with dropping them from space onto targets on Earth. Apparently, Russia wants to put the nukes in space to “possibly use against satellites.”
Rep. Andy Ogles, a Republican from Tennessee, sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson on Thursday taking major issue with the way Rep. Turner issued a mysteriously vague statement about the national security threat on Wednesday.
“This revelation by the Chairman was done with a reckless disregard of the implications and consequences said information would have on geopolitics, domestic and foreign markets, or the well-being and psyche of the American people,” Ogles wrote in a letter obtained by Politico reporter Olivia Beavers and posted to X Thursday.
Ogles went on to explain that he believed the real purpose of Turner’s statement was to, “ensure additional funding for Ukraine and passage of an unreformed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).”
Turner defended himself in a post on the official account for the House Intelligence Committee, stressing that his language was part of a “bipartisan notification,” cleared by the White House and insisted it was “serious.”
Now, we’re not going to discount the idea that any threat to U.S. satellites should be taken seriously. Our modern telecommunications infrastructure relies heavily on those satellites circling the globe. Nukes in orbit would even pose a challenge to any retaliation against a foreign adversary since it would be harder to track—ICBMs run on a parabolic arch into space to reach halfway around the world, meaning any early warning system in the U.S. would lose the ability to see the missiles as they left their launch sites. But everything about this report seems underwhelming.
As the Washington Post reports, the intelligence on this Russian desire was obtained through Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
From the Post:
Turner, a strong proponent of the surveillance authority, appears to want to use the information about the adversary capability to persuade skeptical colleagues that 702 is an indispensable intelligence tool, one official said.
The latest version of the bill that would reauthorize Section 702 doesn’t require the FBI to obtain a warrant for electronic surveillance of Americans, an issue that has divided members of Congress in both parties, according to Roll Call Tuesday.
Section 702 will expire in April if Congress doesn’t pass a bill reauthorizing its use. But you can probably rest easy about the idea that Russia wants to put nukes in space. As far as we know, it’s simply a desire they want to develop. And it’s not at all clear why nuclear weapons would be necessary to kill American satellites. Why not use conventional non-nuclear missiles? Frankly, using a nuke sounds a little like sandblasting a dandelion.
