«Данное сообщение (материал) создано и (или) распространено иностранным средством массовой информации, выполняющим функции иностранного агента, и (или) российским юридическим лицом, выполняющим функции иностранного агента»
Topic: Artificial Intelligence (AI), Critical Infrastructure, and Cybersecurity Blog Brand: Techland Region: Americas, Asia, and Europe Tags: China, North America, Taiwan, and United States What the 2026 Intelligence Assessment Gets Right—and Wrong April 6, 2026 By: Mark Montgomery, and Johanna Yang
Share
The US intelligence assessment identifies key threats but understates cyber risks and China’s Taiwan strategy, leaving US policymakers ill-prepared for emerging conflicts.
America’s adversaries are counting on one thing: that the United States and its national security apparatus will continue underestimating the threat they pose. This year’s Annual Threat Assessment does just that.
The Intelligence Community released its 2026 Annual Threat Assessment (ATA) in March. It is sharper and more strategically sound than the intelligence analysis included in the National Security Strategy (NSS) and National Defense Strategy (NDS) produced earlier this year. Its analysis of the cyber landscape and its focus on threats from the “Axis of Aggressors”—China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—to the United States and its partners and allies earns a strong grade.
The document hedges on the most pressing threats: specific ongoing adversarial cyber operations, the most likely scenario in a Taiwan crisis, and a European situation report that ignores positive trends and intelligence gathering opportunities.
Cyber and Technology Competition
The ATA’s technological challenges section rightly addresses artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing as force multipliers for adversary operations and connects them to the corresponding effects on critical infrastructure defense.
The section explains the critical need for the United States to stay ahead in AI, further develop domestic chip manufacturing, and earn the first-mover advantage in quantum computing. It also identifies China’s economic and geopolitical prioritization of the same. Unfortunately, the administration’s cuts to federal technology R&D do not match this assessment.
The cyber section provides specifics on the threats posed by China, Iran, and North Korea, noting that these global actors can “pre-position or execute disruptive and destructive attacks” against US critical infrastructure. Unfortunately, it omits naming China’s most dangerous operations, Volt and Salt Typhoon, which put the United States’ water supply, electricity generation, and telecommunications at risk. Naming these operations is crucial because it places corresponding urgency on the most persistent threats to Americans’ daily lives. Neither the NDS nor the NSS identifies these threats as paramount to US national security, and unfortunately, the ATA missed it yet again.
The cyber section also hedges on the threat posed by Russia, whose cyber activities are the most operationally mature among the Axis of Aggressors. Malign cyber operations, such as its systematic cyberattacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and ongoing cyber campaigns against key NATO allies, do not get their own paragraph but are instead briefly addressed in a mere two sentences grouping both China and Russia.
The ATA Is Half Right on Taiwan
The ATA takes the cross-strait military scenario seriously, expressing Beijing’s continued desire to set conditions for its eventual reunification with Taiwan. It notes that the inevitable domestic effects of US intervention in a Taiwan contingency, such as cyberattacks, would be “recoverable.” But this framing misses the mark. China is pre-positioning assets within US critical infrastructure to undermine the widespread provision of essential services such as clean water, energy, and communications. In a crisis over Taiwan, the United States can expect these cyber assets to be activated, disrupting essential services and causing cascading effects on healthcare and reliable telecommunications. While isolated incidents may be resolved, the assessment minimizes the threat.
It additionally does not describe the most likely scenario: an extended cyber-enabled economic warfare campaign by China against Taiwan. Beijing has spent a decade developing and rehearsing the tools it needs to hold Taipei under siege—cognitive warfare against the public, economic strangulation, energy starvation, and coordinated cyberattacks against Taiwan’s critical infrastructure. This is not the prelude to China’s military strategy, as the ATA indicates. It is the strategy, and failing to recognize it as such will prevent American policymakers from taking meaningful action.
Europe: Described but Not Diagnosed by the ATA
The Europe section includes a precise analysis of the Balkans and employs the Ukraine case study to describe Russian hybrid tactics. But the section reads more like a scathing critique of European countries’ security affairs rather than an analysis of how Europe’s problems will impact the United States’ interests. Russian offensive cyber operations—Moscow’s most-used tool against its NATO-member neighbors—go nearly unaddressed, compounding the silence in the cyber section.
Europe is investing in its own security, reaching post-Cold War highs in defense spending and increasing its capacity for hybrid-threat mitigation and attribution. The United States can use this to its intelligence-gathering advantage, gaining greater insight into threats facing the homeland before they reach our shores.
Some would consider just describing the threat countries pose good enough, but good enough cannot be the standard if the United States wants to continue to secure American interests at home and abroad. The IC has done strong work distilling the many threats against US-led global stability. The question now is whether policymakers will notice what the document did not say and act quickly enough to preserve and protect US and allied interests worldwide.
About the Authors: Mark Montgomery and Johanna Yang
Mark Montgomery is a senior fellow and the senior director of the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation (CCTI) at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Mark served for more than three decades in the US Navy, held senior leadership roles in Congress, and is a recognized expert on cyber and technology policy. Follow Mark on X: @MarkCMontgomery.
Johanna (Jo) Yang is a policy analyst at the Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where she works on issues related to nation-state cyber threats, allied cybersecurity posture, critical infrastructure protection, and US cyber and national security policy. Johanna is an MA candidate in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service. Follow Jo on X: @JohannaYang_.
The post What the 2026 Intelligence Assessment Gets Right—and Wrong appeared first on The National Interest.
Источник: nationalinterest.org