Feature
Navigating Democracy’s Next Chapter at the “Founding Futures” Conference
Ash Center Fellow Jon Alexander joined a diverse group of speakers at TED Democracy Philadelphia to share bold ideas for revitalizing modern democracy.
Feature
In Appearance Before Congress, Bruce Schneier Raises Concerns about DOGE Data Handling Practices
In a warning to lawmakers, cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sharply criticizing the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) handling of federal data. Describing DOGE’s security protocols as dangerously inadequate, Schneier warned that the agency’s practices have put sensitive government and citizen information at risk of exploitation by foreign adversaries and criminal networks.
In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Harvard Kennedy School’s Bruce Schneier sounded the alarm about the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) data security protocols. He warned that highly sensitive federal data could fall into the hands of hostile nations or criminal groups.
“Data security breaches present significant dangers to everyone in the United States, from private citizens to corporations to government agencies to elected officials,” said Schneier, an internationally recognized security technologist who teaches cybersecurity policy at the Kennedy School. He described DOGE’s approach toward data security as “reckless” and urged Congress to rein in the agency’s attempts to consolidate federal data and remove key privacy and security controls.
“Their actions have weakened security within the federal government by bypassing and disabling critical security measures, exporting sensitive data to environments with less security, and consolidating disparate data streams to create a massively attractive target for any adversary,” Schneier told the committee.
In his testimony, Schneir outlined what he called a “DOGE approach” to data handling, with four distinct features:
- Data consolidation: Exfiltrating and connecting massive U.S. databases to create a single pool of data covering all citizens.
- Reduced security protocols: Removing access controls and audit logs, creating unmonitored copies of data, exposing highly sensitive data to cloud-based tools, seeking maximally permissive data access waivers, and eliminating previously required security protocols for vetting staff.
- AI training and processing: Using AI tools to process data outside of carefully monitored environments.
- Outsourcing: Transferring control over data access to private companies.
Taken together, Schneier argued, these steps have already caused significant damage to the data security of the federal government. “By following the DOGE approach, the current administration has increased both the likelihood and the potential scale of attacks against us and endangered our safety, both individually and collectively. A decisive shift in the administration’s approach to data security can begin to right the ship.”
The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and do not necessarily represent the positions of the Ash Center or its affiliates.
Related Resources
Feature
Reimagining Democracy 2026 Summer Reading List
Tova Wang, director of research projects in democratic practice at the Ash Center, shares her top picks for summer reads focused on making democracy more resilient, responsive, and inclusive.
Podcast
Terms of Engagement – The Battle for the Democratic Party
What does the rise of Democratic Socialists and other progessives mean for the future of American politics? Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a conservative commentator, joins Terms of Engagement hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer to discuss.
Commentary
Work in the Age of AI: Reflections from After Neoliberalism
Allen Lab member Charlie Covit reflects on the After Neoliberalism conference and examines the intersection of artificial intelligence and the future of work, arguing that AI forces a democratic reckoning with the meaning of labor itself and that an economy which generates abundance while stripping citizens of purpose and dignity undermines the very foundation of democratic life.
Media Release
AI models appear to recognize moral complexity — then ignore it, new study by researchers affiliated with Harvard Kennedy School’s Allen Lab finds
New study published in AI and Ethics introduces a new ethical-moral intelligence framework for AI and finds that leading AI models mimic human moral concern while making decisions that reveal a hidden value hierarchy.
Article
Artificial Intelligence and Democracy: Campaigns, Elections, Movements, and Deliberation
A new chapter in APSA Preprints by Archon Fung, Winthrop Laflin McCormack Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government and Director of the Ash Center, Bailey Flanigan, former postdoctoral fellow at the Ash Center and co-authors explores how generative AI is reshaping four dimensions of democratic practice—political campaigns, election administration, social movements, and citizen deliberation. The authors argue that AI’s ultimate democratic impact will depend less on the technology itself, and more on how institutions and leaders implement and regulate it.