Searching for smart, safe news you can TRUST?

Support safe, smart, REAL journalism. Sign up for our Axios AM & PM newsletters and get smarter, faster.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Searching for smart, safe news you can TRUST?

Support safe, smart, REAL journalism. Sign up for our Axios AM & PM newsletters and get smarter, faster.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Minneapolis-St. Paul

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa-St. Petersburg news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa-St. Petersburg

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Marco Rubio, Susan Collins and other Senate Intelligence Committee members during an election security hearing on March 21. Photo: Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images

With the midterm elections less than six weeks away, policymakers are ramping up their focus on election meddling. Earlier this year, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) introduced the Defending Elections from Threats by Establishing Redlines (DETER) Act to deal with foreign interference. The bill is currently pending in the Senate Banking Committee and could get considered before the midterms.

Why it matters: The DETER Act requires the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to determine within one month of a federal election whether any foreign government has interfered. If the DNI were to make such a finding about Russia, the Treasury Department would be required within 10 days to impose a set of severe sanctions on specific individuals and businesses that could not be removed for two presidential election cycles.

It is easy to understand why some members of Congress would want to bypass presidential discretion and impose automatic sanctions on Russia. And this type of action could act as an effective deterrent.

Yes, but: Automatic mechanisms like those proposed in the DETER Act limit the administration's foreign policy flexibility. The act would tie the intelligence community's collection and analysis of information to specific and far-reaching policy actions, the responsibility for which now lies with other agencies, such as State or Treasury.

Moreover, Congress is not best positioned to identify individuals and businesses to be sanctioned. Policymakers in the executive branch have access to broader and more current information, along with the ability to weigh trade-offs of different approaches. Otherwise, the law could end up hurting U.S. businesses more than Russian companies or its economy. And eight years is an eternity in foreign policy. Locking in any policy for that amount of time could prove counterproductive.

The bottom line: There are better ways to send a message to countries using cyber tools to interfere in our elections or economy. Lawmakers could add some greater flexibility into the DETER Act. Or they could consider the Cyber Deterrence and Response Act, which provides a framework for combating cyberattacks, but provides the president more leeway in identifying those threats and imposing sanctions.

Jeffrey Kupfer is an adjunct professor at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College. He previously served in the Treasury Department and the White House.

Go deeper

17 mins ago - Podcasts

Bob Nelsen on AstraZeneca and his plan to revolutionize biotech

AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford on Monday reported promising efficacy data for their COVID-19 vaccine, which has less stringent storage requirements than the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and may be distributed earlier in developing countries.

Axios Re:Cap digs into the state of vaccine and therapeutics manufacturing with Bob Nelsen, a successful biotech investor who on Monday launched Resilience, a giant new pharma production platform that he believes will prepare America for its next major health challenges.

Ben Geman, author of Generate
Updated 23 mins ago - Energy & Environment

Unpacking Joe Biden's decision to tap John Kerry as his climate envoy

Photo: Pablo Blazquez Dominguez/Getty Images

President-elect Joe Biden is naming former Secretary of State John Kerry as a special presidential envoy for climate change.

Why it matters: The transition team's announcement sought to show that it will be an influential role, noting that Kerry — a former Massachusetts senator and the Democrats' 2004 presidential nominee — will be on the National Security Council.

Dave Lawler, author of World
2 hours ago - World

Oxford and AstraZeneca's vaccine won't just go to rich countries

Waiting, in New Delhi. Photo: Jewel Samad/AFP via Getty Images

While the 95% efficacy rates for the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines are great news for the U.S. and Europe, Monday's announcement from Oxford and AstraZeneca may be far more significant for the rest of the world.

Why it matters: Oxford and AstraZeneca plan to distribute their vaccine at cost (around $3-4 per dose), and have already committed to providing over 1 billion doses to the developing world. The price tags are higher for the Pfizer ($20) and Moderna ($32-37) vaccines.