Assessing the Terror Threat Landscape in South and Central Asia and Examining Opportunities for Cooperation

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Sorry, the Subcommittee on South and Central Asia will come to order. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the current terror threat landscape in South and Central Asia and examine potential opportunities for U.S. action and regional cooperation to address the terrorist threat. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Today, we will discuss the current terror threats and the landscape throughout South and Central Asia and potential opportunities for the Trump administration to enhance our regional counterterrorism strategy. Since the Biden administration's ill-conceived and executed withdrawal from Afghanistan and the subsequent Taliban takeover, the terror threat landscape in South and Central Asia has changed dramatically. Despite the Taliban's Doha Agreement commitments, Afghanistan has once again become a hotbed for terrorists looking for safe harbor as they grow their ranks and abilities to project attacks across the region and frankly, the world. Threats from groups such as ISIS-K and the TTP, also known as the Pakistan Taliban, are higher than any time in recorded history. And internally, Pakistan has seen the highest rates of terror attacks in many years. And, of course, the recent attack in Pahalgam reminded us all that the militant threat in Kashmir has not subsided. For decades, the United States has remained the global leader in the fight against terrorism, and we have engaged our international partners through bilateral agreements and multilateral mechanisms that have supplied our allies with training and equipment to ensure that they are able to stop the spread of terrorism from further poisoning our world. However, the threat has persisted since the 2021 ISIS-K bombing at Abbey Gate, which killed 13 American servicemen and 170 Afghan civilians and wounded many others, including one of my constituents from Southwest Michigan. The Taliban claims to be doing their best to eliminate the ISIS-K threat. However, while the Taliban claim victory, ISIS-K continues to wreak havoc, conducting attacks that target everyone from innocent civilians to Taliban officials, all while continuing its effort to radicalize and recruit from diaspora communities across and even outside of Central Asia. Last year, we saw the growing ISIS-K threat manifest as hundreds were killed in attacks in both Moscow and Tehran and through the foiled plot to attack the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris. Nevertheless, the United States continues to display strong leadership, working closely with our partners, such as the Pakistanis, who recently arrested a key planner in the Abbey Gate attacks. That individual has since been brought to the United States to stand trial for his crimes. The Pakistanis themselves are no strangers to the terrorist threat that festers within their own borders. 2024 was one of the most violent years in over a decade for Pakistan. Groups such as Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and the Balochistan Liberation Army threaten civilians and Pakistani security forces alike. Rising violence from such militant groups and others pose a significant threat to Pakistan's internal security and has been the source of much friction between Pakistan and its neighbors in the region. Most recently, we saw the devastating attack on the Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir where 26 individuals, primarily tourists, were brutally and deliberately killed in cold blood by militants. The attack led to a military conflict between 2 major nuclear powers, the first of its kind in years. I want to be clear, I respect India's sovereign right to defend itself against rogue actors seeking to sow instability in the volatile region, but I support and encourage both sides to work earnestly to resolve the areas of conflict. As we discuss the challenges emanating from the region, it's essential to assess the tools that we have at our disposal to continue the fight against terrorism. The Trump administration has a unique opportunity to find new ways to engage our regional partners and find a new path to stability and security. So, I want to say thank you to our witnesses, Ms. Curtis, Ms. Todd, for being here today, and I look forward to a robust conversation. With that, I yield back, and I recognize Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

Ranking Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_02

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses today, I know one of whom just got in last night from the other side of the globe. I am glad that this subcommittee is having our first regional hearing on such a critical bipartisan issue. And just off-script, counterterrorism is not a Republican or a Democratic issue, and nor should it be, and it shouldn't be subjected to the partisanship that we are seeing in these halls. And I know that there are so many hearings that are put on for the culture wars and the clickbaits, and this is not one of them. And I applaud the chair for working to get this back on the schedule. Though I believe there are many reasons why we should be invested in the future of South and Central Asia, being an effective and credible partner on counterterrorism is particularly important. Just 2 months ago, we witnessed a terrible attack targeting civilians in Pahalgam, which set off a crisis between two nuclear powers. The threat remains serious. The world's largest concentration of U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations is in Central and South Asia. I want to focus in on particularly ISIS-K, the terrorist group that increasingly poses the greatest direct threat to the United States. ISIS-K is the most lethal branch of ISIS and is internationalizing its recruitment to carry out attacks beyond the region. Successful, high-profile operations in Russia and Iran in 2024 demonstrated the group's growing ability to direct and inspire atrocities around the world. ISIS-K has increasingly targeted Europe, with plots foiled in Germany, Austria, Turkey, and France. I think we should all take seriously the U.S. intelligence community's warnings that the group's ultimate goal could include striking the U.S. homeland. Although ISIS-K's operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan remain a serious concern, an important enabler of the group's expanding global reach is its ability to recruit and radicalize individuals from Central Asian states. Political repression, lack of economic opportunity, community fragmentation from mass labor migration, and governance failures and corruption all create grievances among Central Asian nationals that ISIS-K is quick to weaponize. Added to that, a lack of education and poor media literacy increases people's vulnerability to online propaganda that ISIS-K is aggressively disseminating. Like many of the foreign policy challenges we face, addressing and preventing the threat of ISIS-K from ever reaching our shores requires the U.S. to be engaged and proactive, not isolationist and retreating. And dealing with a challenge as complex and persistent as terrorism requires a multifaceted and well-resourced foreign policy toolbox, including security cooperation, public diplomacy, economic support, development, and intelligence. Unfortunately, I'm concerned that this administration has eliminated many of the tools we have used to address the terrorist threat in the region, removing lines of defense we have had in place for decades. In fact, it's hard to imagine what resources will be left if U.S. foreign assistance is cut by 84%. How much of the remaining funds will even be devoted to South and Central Asia Asia if it's all merged into an America First opportunity slush fund, or whatever that is? Or what personnel will be available to support counterterrorism efforts if we're firing entire chunks of the department, including RIFs supposedly going out tomorrow to the counterterrorism unit? But even if we ignore all of that, the administration has already taken actions that I'm worried have sabotaged our ability to combat terrorism in the region: illegally dismantling the U.S. Institute of Peace, which was supporting the repatriation and reintegration of ISIS fighters to their home countries and breaking the cycle of extremism; and canceling U.S. assistance to civilians in Afghanistan, contributing to a worsening humanitarian crisis; terminating USAID's Countering Violent Extremism and Economic Development programs that were critical to addressing the drivers of radicalization in Central Asia; and then shutting down RFE/RL, including its local Tajik network, Radio Ozodi. If this committee is serious about countering terrorism, and we should be, and I believe this chair is, it is essential that we not only maintain hard capabilities, but deploy the tools that help our partners address the root causes of terrorism and radicalization. It is time for us to stand up and talk about these issues. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important bipartisan issue. And with that, I yield back.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Gentlelady's time has expired. We are pleased to have our distinguished witnesses with us here today. First, we have Lisa Curtis, Senior Fellow and Director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, and a former NSC Senior Director for South and Central Asia in the first Trump administration. We also welcome Brianne Todd, Professor of the Practice of Central Ameri— Asia— I'm sorry, Central Asian Studies at the National Defense University. So, thank you both for being here today. Your full statements will be made part of our record, and I request that each of you keep your oral remarks to 5 minutes so that we might have time for questions from our from our members. And with that, I now recognize Ms. Curtis for 5 minutes for your opening statement. And please turn your mic on, make sure that that red light is on.

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Thank you. Chairman Huizenga, Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to testify before you today, and I will briefly summarize my written remarks. The terrorism landscape in South and Central Asia is complex, and it requires the focused attention of the United States to monitor and contain threats that impact the security of the U.S. homeland, as well as broader U.S. national security interest. The presence of ISIS-K in Afghanistan has become an increasingly global concern, especially since it claimed two major attacks last year in Russia and Iran. ISIS-K operatives plotting attacks in the West have also been arrested in Europe and the United States, and U.S. officials have raised concerns about ISIS-K's capabilities and intent to target the United States. While U.S. and Taliban interests converge on the need to counter ISIS-K, the two sides differ considerably on how to contain the overall terrorist threat in the region, as well as on human rights and women's issues. The Taliban can never be viewed as a counterterrorism partner. This is for several reasons: First, the Taliban remains allied with al-Qaeda, with whom it fought side by side for 30 years. Second, the Taliban have opened tens of thousands of religious schools, which are inculcating a new generation of young Afghans with their extremist ideologies. Third, the Taliban has increasingly cracked down on the rights of women and girls. Afghanistan is the only nation in the world that forbids girls from going to school. Now, let me turn to India and Pakistan. The recent India-Pakistan conflict was precipitated by the April 22nd terrorist attack in Indian Kashmir, which New Delhi has blamed on the U.S.-designated Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba. India retaliated on May 7th by striking the LeT, Lashkar-e-Taiba, headquarters in Muridke in the Punjab province of Pakistan, as well as at several other sites in Pakistan. What transpired afterward was arguably the most serious conflict between India and Pakistan since their 1971 war. Following four days of Indian and Pakistani missile and drone strikes on each other's military installations, U.S. officials intervened to broker a ceasefire on May 10th. Pakistan has long hosted terrorist groups that attack India. It's even backed groups like the Haqqani network that conducted some of the most brutal attacks on U.S. forces in Afghanistan. More recently, however, we have seen tensions between Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban over their harboring of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, or the TTP, which now conducts regular attacks inside Pakistan. So, how should the U.S. deal with this volatile mix of terrorist threats and conflict? First, Washington should implement tailored counterterrorism cooperation with each nation of the region, especially Tajikistan, given the increasing number of Tajikistani citizens susceptible to ISIS-K recruitment. Second, Washington must continue to invest in the strategic partnership with India and improve counterterrorism cooperation with New Delhi, while avoiding trying to mediate a solution to the vexed Kashmir dispute. Third, the U.S. should increase counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan on mutual threats like ISIS-K, but press Islamabad to crack down on U.S.-designated terrorist organizations like the Lashkar-e-Taiba that attack India. Pakistan's dual policies on terrorism requires a delicate policy approach from the United States that makes careful distinctions between helpful and harmful Pakistani actions regarding terrorism. Fourth, while it may be necessary to engage with the Taliban on ISIS-K, the U.S. must condition any movement toward recognizing or legitimizing the Taliban on their improving the rights of women and girls. Additionally, the United States must continue assistance for online education, as well as scholarships for Afghan women and girls to study abroad. These are inexpensive programs that help blunt extremist ideologies that fuel terrorism. And that completes my opening remarks. Thank you very much.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

yields back. With that, Ms. Todd, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

Chairman Huizenga, Ranking Member Kamlager-Dove, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee: Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to speak with you today. As the ranking member noted, I just returned last night from a counterterrorism seminar in Uzbekistan, so I'm delighted to be here with you today, and I would underscore that all of the opinions and views expressed are my own. You've received my written testimony, so today I will focus on three main points about the evolving terror threat in Central Asia and why U.S. leadership remains crucial. First, the terror threat in Central Asia is reaching an inflection point. Central Asia has not historically been a center of terrorist activity, but we are now witnessing some troubling trends. The Islamic State Khorasan Province, also known as ISIS-K, is expanding its influence and exploiting regional vulnerabilities. Central Asians were involved in several high-profile attacks last year, including the deadly Crocus City Hall attack in Moscow. To attract recruits, ISIS-K and its related affiliates have become more agile, more globalized, and more ideologically seductive to the marginalized. Today, they are radicalizing, recruiting, and directing attacks with unprecedented speed and precision. ISIS-K has leveraged encrypted messaging apps, cryptocurrency platforms, and AI-generated content to coordinate attacks and disseminate propaganda, as seen in its recruitment efforts following the Crocus City Hall attack. Second, U.S. engagement in Central Asia is essential for our national security. I've asked them to project a map, and if you can see the map, the region sits at a strategic crossroads bordered by Russia, China, Afghanistan, and Iran. For over 30 years, the United States has supported the sovereignty, stability, and security of these countries. Stable partners in Central Asia work with us to share intelligence, disrupt terror financing, intercept returning foreign terrorist fighters, and support the rehabilitation and reintegration of returning fighters' family members. They are key to preventing attacks against the United States and our allies. Third, U.S. assistance has made a difference, but if the United States steps back, then the region's needs will go unmet, or others will fill the gap. USAID programs, like the Resilient Communities Activity and Employment and Enterprise Development Activity, addressed some of the root causes of extremism by supporting rural economic development, youth opportunities, and civil society. These modest investments produced real results. However, as these programs conclude, our ability to bolster Central Asia's resilience is at risk. Some may argue that U.S. resources are better spent elsewhere. However, the cost of inaction could be greater in the long term. The Central Asian states have sought deeper ties with the United States because they value our partnership on security and development issues. A vacuum left by the United States could embolden extremist groups, as local governments may lack the capacity to counter evolving threats without our support. Russia and China are also poised to expand their influence. China's Belt and Road projects have already increased Beijing's economic leverage, and Russia's security agreements could limit our access to intelligence and regional cooperation. Let me close by emphasizing that now is not the time to abandon our Central Asian partners. Sustained, strategic U.S. engagement in Central Asia can advance our national security interests by working with the region toward long-term stability and preventing future terrorist attacks at home and abroad. Thank you for your attention and your continued commitment to our security.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Gentleman yields back, and I on a personal level, I hope you had a layback seat and were able to get a little rest. But what I what it does underscore is I think the importance of the issue, but your dedication to it, and I would just want to say thank you on behalf of everybody for for your commitment to that. So, Ms. Curtis, under the Doha Agreement of February 2020, negotiated in good faith by the Trump administration that you were a part of last go-around, the Taliban pledged to prevent terror groups from using Afghanistan's soil to threaten U.S. security and that of its allies. Subsequently, the Taliban has claimed that it is fulfilling those counterterrorism commitments, successfully fighting ISIS-K. As I wrote this down, I think you you had said something along the lines of the Taliban can never be a counterterrorism partner, but I'd like you to clarify that. And how do you assess these claims? Based on that, I'm I think it's dubious, your your view on that, and is the Taliban upholding its counterterrorism commitments?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Well, thank you for that question. You rightly talked about the U.S. and the Taliban both wanting to counter ISIS-K. And so I think it's reasonable to consider that kind of cooperation, whether it's information sharing, where we have mutual goals. However, I think the point I wanted to make was that while we haven't seen any indication that al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is actively planning an attack on the United States, they could at any time. And the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee has reported that al-Qaeda has established new training camps inside Afghanistan, which would be a direct violation of the Doha Agreement.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

despite their claims, correct? The Taliban still claims that that their the terrorist groups are not operating on their soil?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Well, they claim they're not allowing terrorist groups to actively plan attacks against the United

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

States So, is this a distinction without a difference having having planning and training camps, yet not allowing the actual execution of the plans happen? Are you making that distinction? I mean, either way, it seems it would violate certainly the spirit, if not the letter, of the deal. Well,

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

I think it violates the letter of the agreement, because if you read closely the agreement, the agreement says that they will prevent training, training, recruiting, and fundraising. And so clearly, if there are training camps, there's training going on. So I think it is—

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

And who's operating those? Is it the Taliban government themselves, or are they just turning a blind eye and allowing another? Is it ISIS-K, or who is it that would be operating?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

al-Qaeda. So, I think it's it's a matter of the Taliban turning a blind eye and allowing this to happen. So, I would say that that is a violation of the Doha Agreement.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

And longtime old friends.

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

That's right. In fact, some al-Qaeda members were at times part of the Taliban regime. They've held positions such as provincial governors. So, I think it's clear that they still have a close symbiotic relationship, and we know that al-Qaeda still considers the United States an enemy and could decide to conduct an attack against the United States at any time. And I would argue that al-Qaeda's very existence poses a threat to the United States. Unfortunately, I think the Doha agreement you know, what didn't had some loopholes and was a bit weak on these counterterrorism commitments. So I think the Taliban is exploiting some of the weaknesses in the agreement, but as I said, I also think they are directly violating it.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Okay. We're going to do some follow-up on that. In my remaining little over a minute, I want you to comment on—after the Pahalgam attack, India claimed that some in the Pakistani military and government supporting such groups as TRF and LeT, which you had referenced earlier.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

you

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

As I noted in my opening remarks, I believe India has the right to defend itself and that the Pakistanis should make every effort to end any sanctioned or unsanctioned support for terrorist groups. Do you believe that Pakistan is supporting, or rather tacitly supporting, militant groups operating in Indian-controlled territory?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Well, of course, the Resistance Front, TRF, is an offshoot of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, a U.S.-designated terrorist group that is based inside Pakistan.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

And TRF has not been designated as such.

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

yet? I think the U.S. government is in the process of designating them. Okay. You know, these offshoots come up and then you have to actually designate that group. So I think they're in the process of doing it.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Last 10 seconds. What steps should Pakistan take to condemn terrorism and end its support for these military groups?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

So first of all, they should throw terrorist leaders in jail. Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Tayyaba is only under house arrest. He's not in jail. The leader of Jaish-e-Mohammed, Masood Azhar, is not in jail. He operates freely inside Pakistan. The Muridke complex for Lashkar-e-Taiba is still open. This is one of the sites that India attacked. So there's a lot that Pakistan could do that it hasn't done yet to crack down on terrorists that attack India.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Okay, my time has expired. With that, I recognize the ranking member, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, for 5 minutes and 30 seconds.

Ranking Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_02

Thank you, Mr. Chair. He is so kind. So, Ms. Todd, USIP was supporting the repatriation and rehabilitation of ISIS fighters to their home countries in Central Asia. So why why are repatriation and rehabilitation efforts so critical to counterterrorism in the region, and how will they suffer from the dismantlement of USIP?

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

Thank you for that question, Ranking Member. So first of all, I think USIP— I'm not entirely sure what their current status is right now. It seems like they may be back operating, but the point is they did have a program where they were working extensively with partners in the region on rehabilitation and reintegration of foreign terrorist fighters, but more specific— more specifically, their family members. A lot of these individuals were in camps in Syria. That is not a place that we want them to stay. The conditions there are terrible. But also, by having these individuals in a camp in Syria, we are increasing the risk that they will be radicalized there. Thus, we wanted to work with our partners in Central Asia to bring them home, help them get treatment, help them be reintegrated back into their communities. And that was a large part of what USIP was doing with their programs, working with local partners on the ground, both governments, but also civil society organizations, but also doing it with support from the U.S. government, specifically USAID. A lot of these programs require just material support in terms of when these individuals return home, many of them do not have jobs, do not have homes to return to. So helping them get settled, find their footing essentially in their local communities, and help them reestablish their lives.

Ranking Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_02

So that's a good segue to my next question, because the president's budget request would zero out the existing accounts used to provide assistance to Central Asia and South Asia and redirect resources into one large America First Opportunity Fund, which would have actually no visibility from Congress, no guardrails. When I was young, people called it mad money. And, you know, so I'm But both of your testimonies suggest that we should be looking at Central and South Asia and really doing what we can to support our partners. And you just also mentioned material support and other forms of assistance. So can you talk about the risk that now we will have if we are not designating support to this region?

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

Yeah, I will admit I have a lot of concerns about the America First Opportunity Fund. I think in theory it's a good idea, but I think how it ends up being executed in practice is something I'm concerned about because $2 billion sounds like a lot of money, but it really isn't. And then when you open it up to global emerging priorities, I think that there will be a lot of competition among countries, among issues in terms of what does the U.S. government fund. One of the things that we are always emphasizing to our partners is that we do not fund one-off things, that we are looking to achieve long-term goals that require sustained engagement. I think if we don't have dedicated funding for engagement with South and Central Asia, we risk having funds diverted to other countries, other issues as more emerging priorities come up. So that is something that I'm very concerned about. I think, too, as you pointed out earlier, with restrictions or reductions in personnel at the State Department, I'm a little concerned about how that funding will be executed in terms of individuals being qualified to do some of these programs. If these are just not people who have been working in the region, who don't have experience in things like public health, education, civil society, do we have the experts that we need to use these funds most effectively?

Ranking Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_02

Thank you for that. Ms. Curtis, I have a question for you. Interestingly enough, the chair and I probably took the same note from your opening remarks. The U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, but we continued to provide educational assistance, and then those programs were terminated by this administration. And we know that women and girls are vulnerable. In the last few seconds, if we're terminating education programs that are even online, forcing women to go to madrasas where we know radicalization is happening, how vulnerable are these folks to the radicalization that is coming out from the Taliban and their partners, al-Qaeda?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Well, I'm glad you raised this point because I think this is a crucial point, that if we stop providing education programs for the women and girls in Afghanistan, it's not only a humanitarian cost to those women, it also will help to fuel extremist ideologies in the country. There will be no way that these women can get educated, and it will make it easier for the Taliban to inculcate their extremist ideologies throughout the population. So I think this is a national security interest, and my hope is that the Trump administration will continue the programs that we have. American University of Afghanistan, which is educating women now in Doha—that campus is now in Doha, in Qatar. 200 Afghans, including many women, were scheduled to start classes in the fall at the Doha campus. And I've heard that that funding may be canceled. So my hope is that the Trump administration will maintain these programs because they're important to protecting U.S. national security interest. And I also would like to make the point, you raised Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. In the interest of full disclosure, I am the board chair of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. These programs also are helping to fight extremism in the region. We can talk about Central Asia, where RFE/RL broadcasts in all five of the Central Asian languages. They report on extremist—extremism, terrorism. They report on trends in the region, and they help to promote deradicalization and to fight extremist trends in the region. And in Afghanistan I'm ,

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

so sorry, ladies' time is well expired, uh, by now, so we'll be able to continue that in, in written form,

Ranking Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_02

add it into another answer. Thank you.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

At your discretion. Yeah, the gentlelady's time has definitely expired. So with that, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Scott Perry, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_00

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies, thank you for your presence here today. Pakistan's been playing a game for a long time now, harboring terrorists and supporting terrorism funding, or being supportive funding of terrorism, playing both sides of the same coin. At what time— at what point do we consider putting them back on the Financial Action Task Force grey list? Is there a time? Is there any action they could take would would prompt you to believe that that should take place?

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Okay.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_00

Either one.

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Okay, sure, I'll take it. Yes, I think this is something that should be considered. I think we should be looking at the links of the April 22nd attack in Indian Kashmir to Pakistan-based groups, and if those are indeed found— I will note that the Indian media has reported that, in Indian investigations, they have found that three of the perpetrators of the April 22nd attacks are Pakistani nationals, one with direct links to Lashkar-e-Taiba. So I think

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_00

surprise. So, again, look, we've got a limited amount of time to ask questions here. American tax dollars are at stake. I think you're marginally, or at least I could characterize you as somewhat critical of the president's agenda to curtail some of this funding to this region. I think that's a reasonable discussion to have with a rising China and their involvement there. However, Americans don't want their tax dollars to be taken from them to support terrorism. So is there— that's a horrific attack, and it's tied directly to Pakistan. What's the point? When do we say we've had enough, we're not going to spend American tax dollars on a country that supports, materially supports terrorism?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Yes, well, I think the U.S. should demand that Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, two U.S.-designated terrorist groups, be completely shut down in Pakistan. This is

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_00

If they're not, then you would suggest put Pakistan on the gray list or the blacklist?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

I think that is a reasonable policy to pursue.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_00

We don't want to—and I think you might agree with this—we don't want to destabilize the region, but is there something that we can do? Many Pakistani, the elite in Pakistan—the military's running the show there, has been for a long time—enjoy sending their students to America or the West. Visas are included in that, assets of course, tuition. Do you recommend using any of the control that we have in that regard to kind of encourage them to start doing the right thing regarding terrorism, down to the person?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Yeah, I would not encourage restricting visas for Pakistanis, Pakistani students, etc., because I think that the relationship is still important for the United States, that we need to have a nuanced partnership where we work together, where we have mutual interests such as ISIS-K. President Trump acknowledged Pakistan's role in helping to capture and extradite one of the perpetrators of the Abbey Gate bombings. So there are areas where the U.S. and Pakistan can work together. We also don't want to see Pakistan wholly reliant on China. You mentioned China.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_00

I would agree with that, but I feel like a targeted approach, if you'll pardon the term, individual by individual, that had been known to be in material support of some of the groups that you previously mentioned, or terrorism in general, might be an inducement to help them see the way and the path out of that. We don't want China. Obviously, we're concerned about the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and what that portends. We'd like to see more regarding India and SAARC. But let me, in the remaining time, Modi's statements seem to depart from their traditionally pacifist—his recent statement—their traditionally pacifist stance. What can the United States be doing to encourage more of a collaborative and reliable partnership with the biggest democracy on the planet, which is, of course, India, given the careful balance that we're trying to strike? India used to be a Warsaw Pact nation. There's some history there. What can we be doing now to encourage a better, stronger relationship as the United States vis-à-vis Pakistan and China?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Well, on India, we should be investing in that strategic partnership across the board. India is one of the most important countries when it comes to countering China. We have mutual interest in working together. And India, fastest-growing economy, fifth-largest economy, fourth most powerful military.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_00

And my time has expired. I appreciate it. Thank you. I yield.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Gentleman yields back. With that, the congressman from California, Mr. Bera, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, this hearing comes at a very timely moment. The issue of terrorism in South Asia was brought back into focus by the deadly Pahalgam attack in which 26 innocent civilians were killed in April of this year. I want to join my colleagues in condemning terror wherever it originates from and whatever it targets. I also want to commend both the governments of India and Pakistan. It was tenuous in May, and a lot of us were worried about an escalation between two nuclear powers. I'm encouraged that both governments started a dialogue, found the ability to come together in a tenuous ceasefire, and I think it is important for the United States to play a supporting role as this tenuous ceasefire hopefully moves into something more productive. Also, when I think about these two countries, these are two very different countries on two very different trajectories. You see India, Ms. Curtis, you just pointed out, fastest-growing economy in the world, the importance of the US-India relationship,

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

you

Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

from the Quad to strategic geopolitical security in the region to countering the threat of China in the region. This is a trajectory that is moving in a very positive direction. You contrast that with Pakistan, a struggling democracy, the highest terror threat in the world in terms of domestic terror, and certainly a cross-border terror threat to India, struggling economy. You see climate change impacting Pakistan. So both countries have two very different reasons for not wanting a return to war. And again, I think the United States has an important, critical role supporting the dialogue between these two countries, but it is a dialogue discussion between the governments of India and the governments of Pakistan. Ms. Curtis, you alluded to this in your opening statement, but in an article you authored in Foreign Affairs in May, you wrote that Trump, a self-styled dealmaker, may be tempted to try to permanently resolve the status of Kashmir. But he should resist the urge. Any effort by Washington to strike a final deal could encourage Pakistan to fuel further terrorist attacks against India. It will needlessly strain the US-India relations, and it will almost certainly not work. Would you care to elaborate on that?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Well, thank you. Yeah, first, let me start by saying the Trump administration played an enormously important role in getting a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. This was a very dangerous conflict between two nuclear-armed adversaries. And I think the Trump administration deserves credit for working to get that ceasefire and prevent what could have been a nuclear catastrophe in the region. The point that I wanted to make in my Foreign Affairs article is that there's a difference between the US getting the two countries to back away from the brink of war and the idea that somehow the US might be able to get the two sides to resolve this 80-year-old territorial dispute, which I don't think is possible. I've been following India-Pakistan relations for 30 years, and it is not possible for the US to be able to mediate a solution. I know we're Americans, we have this can-do attitude, but this is something that only the two countries themselves can resolve. That was my point.

Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Right. And as I think about next steps, you pointed out the identification of some of the folks that led some of these attacks in terms of cross-border threats. It does seem, you know, from the Indian perspective, if Pakistan were to address and arrest some of these individuals, that may be a necessary next step to, you know, thinking about further dialogue. Again, I don't know what peace in this region looks like, and I fully agree with you that it's going to take the 2 countries. I do think that America has a role in supporting that conversation. What do you think those next steps should be, both from Congress but also as we try to support a dialogue between these 2 countries?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

I think that's right. I think the US does have a role in encouraging the two sides to get back into a dialogue, because if they're not in a dialogue, we're apt to have another crisis very soon. But I would say that India is probably unlikely to agree to go back to a broad-based dialogue until Pakistan takes active steps to crack down on terrorists on its own territory. So I think we need to, as we're encouraging dialogue, we also need to press Pakistan to take tangible, concrete steps that show they are cracking down on terrorists that attack India.

Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Great. And I'm out of time.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Gentleman's time has expired. The delegate from Guam, Mr. Moylan, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Rep. James Moylan (R-GU)SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although the threat of terrorism from global actors has diminished from its peak, it remains a clear risk to the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests abroad and regional stability. Major terrorist groups continue to operate mainly in the Middle East. However, according to the Homeland Threat Assessment 2025 by the Department of Homeland Security, ISIS regional branches in Afghanistan and Pakistan have been increasingly active beyond Afghanistan and now pose a growing threat to the broader region. The recent example in India illustrates that terrorism and related military actions remain real threats to peace and stability in the region, and that could impact global security. The President's announcement that the U.S. mediate the ceasefire here demonstrates that the U.S. has vested interests in Central Asia and highlights the need to develop comprehensive plan to contribute to the regional stability. The U.S. has been engaging in counterterrorism cooperation with major regional player India through the Quad framework. These four countries have been deepening their collaboration on information sharing and countermeasures against the use of emerging technologies by terrorist groups. And since global terrorism needs to be addressed through multinational efforts, the Quad framework has great potential to counter terrorism threats in the region. So, Ms. Curtis, during your service—and thank you for your service at NSC—you contributed to expanding cooperation within the Quad and advancing the South Asia strategy. Based on those experiences, how do you assess current administration strategies for engaging with the Quad? Also, how can Quad enhance its collaboration to address terrorist activities in the region?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Well, thank you for that question. I'm very proud of what I did in the first Trump administration and what President Trump himself did to revive the Quad after a 10-year hiatus. And it's now become a focal point for U.S. engagement in the Indo-Pacific region. And President Trump has committed to attending the Quad Leaders' Summit in New Delhi this fall. So I think we can expect to continue to see the Quad expand and deepen its cooperation, and this will be critical to meeting the challenge of a rising China. And so I think that we'll, we can expect to see expansion in technology cooperation, energy security, maritime security, across the board. It will never be a military pact. That is not something that India wants to be a part of, a military alliance. But it can be everything just short of that. It could be these four democratic maritime powers working together to shape a free and open Indo-Pacific region. And it's a critical grouping. And I think we can expect to see President Trump continue to grow and deepen the cooperation with these three other countries.

Rep. James Moylan (R-GU)SPEAKER_03

Thank you for your push on that, appreciate it. Ms. Todd, you served at at NSC as well, and as the Central Asia expert managing U.S. policies for the region across diplomatic, economic, defense, and intelligence domains. From your perspective, what's the most serious recent development related to terrorism in Central Asia, and how might it impact global security?

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

I think the most important development is there is a perception, particularly here in the United States, that China is only active in Central Asia in the economic realm. I'm here to say that that is not true. There is a lot of military cooperation going on between China and the countries in Central Asia. And I think, particularly in terms of counterterrorism, that's important to note, because increasingly, if we are not present, if we are not working with our partners in Central Asia on counterterrorism, they will be looking for other partners to assist them in those efforts, and it is predominantly going to be China that is there, ready and able to assist. Russia has been very distracted by its war in Ukraine; otherwise, it would be there and be doing more with the countries in the region. Many of them are members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, but in the absence of Russia, they will turn to China. So, I think that is something we need to be very cognizant of, and I think that is the most important development in terms of counterterrorism in the region today.

Rep. James Moylan (R-GU)SPEAKER_03

Thank you to the witnesses. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Gentleman yields back. With that, the representative from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Rep. Julie Johnson (D-TX)SPEAKER_09

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you both for being here and for the candor of your testimony. I agree with my colleagues that counterterrorism continue— must be a priority because we never know when it's going to rear its ugly head, and so we must constantly prevent and prepare wherever we can. As both of you highlighted in your testimonies, not addressing the root causes of radicalization can have tragic consequences. Ms. Curtis, you referenced, for example, how ending education and scholarship opportunities for Afghan girls could encourage radicalization, and I couldn't agree with you more. Ms. Todd, you listed high unemployment and weak governance and religious political repression as determinants as well, and I also agree with you. So I'm presuming that we can all agree that it is fundamental for the United States' national security that we continue to tackle the underlying drivers of radicalization and continue to use the soft power of the United States in this region, and it's critically important. Is that correct?

Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Yes.

Rep. Julie Johnson (D-TX)SPEAKER_09

And so I presume that you all both also agree fundamentally that the administration's reckless dismantling of USAID and these programs in there is a is a complete compromise of our national security and it's making us vulnerable. Is that true as well?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Yes.

Rep. Julie Johnson (D-TX)SPEAKER_09

Yes. And I appreciate that, because the thing is, is that we've had lots of hearings in Foreign Affairs, and you are not the first two witnesses to come before this committee and say that the reckless dismantling of USAID by this administration is putting our nation at risk. But yet, the Republicans in Congress consistently fail to do anything. I would love to see, Mr. Chairman, a bipartisan letter from this committee to the administration to tell them how important USAID programs in Afghanistan are to educate women and girls, for our national security. I would love for the bipartisan area of this of this committee to tell this and make this move this forward. But instead, we have hearing after hearing where witnesses as highly educated and trained as yourselves come before us to say, These programs are harming America if we cut them. And yet, the administration is still recklessly cutting them, making our nation less safe. And you brought up something that was that was really important to me also, was Radio Free Europe. You agree, don't you, that it is critically important that the United States have Free Europe, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, all these programs that disseminate the values of democracy in these in this part of the world, don't you?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Yes, I do.

Rep. Julie Johnson (D-TX)SPEAKER_09

Yeah. And I really appreciate that because yesterday we had to endure Kari Lake coming to our committee to tell us how they are dismantling the entire program. But it is a valuable program, you're intimately involved with it, and it is not a program that solely disseminates Chinese propaganda, is it?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Absolutely not.

Rep. Julie Johnson (D-TX)SPEAKER_09

Yeah. So her testimony yesterday was completely false when she comes to this committee and says that Voice of America and American investment in these programs is not effective. That's wrong because you are on the ground and you were part of the Trump administration. And you've come to this committee honestly, with accurate candor, to tell us just how important these programs are in keeping America safe. And it is so troubling to me that this administration has so recklessly abandoned U.S. role. And I really appreciated both of your comments when you implied that if we leave the space, who's coming in? When we abandon our partners, we abandon these programs of education and economic opportunity, of creating people the ability to grow their own food. I mean, these programs are vital to keeping people out of a radicalized, militarized, terroristic bent of their mind frame. Isn't that right?

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Yes.

Rep. Julie Johnson (D-TX)SPEAKER_09

Would either one of you care to elaborate?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Yeah, if I could just expound on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's work, they also still broadcast to Afghanistan through Radio Azadi, and half the Afghanistan population listens to this reporting, which provides a U.S. perspective on global developments. Also, Radio Azadi reaches Afghan women. It has a call-in show where Afghan women's voices can be heard, their concerns can be heard. That

Rep. Julie Johnson (D-TX)SPEAKER_09

is so important. It is so important to have these perspectives and these ideas and these values broadcast and communicated to these countries, because if they don't hear from us, they're not hearing it from anywhere, right? They're just hearing the opposition. They're hearing the voices of anti-American propaganda if they don't hear these programs?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Russia and China invest billions in getting their propaganda and disinformation out, and the US does not have international broadcasting.

Rep. Julie Johnson (D-TX)SPEAKER_09

I really appreciate you

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

both

Rep. Julie Johnson (D-TX)SPEAKER_09

being here. Thank you so very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

The gentlelady's time has expired. With that, the congressman from Indiana, Mr. Shreve, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Rep. Jefferson Shreve (R-IN)SPEAKER_05

Thank you, Chairman Huizenga. And I would just lead off by saying that I appreciated the remarks that the ranking member led off with. I don't think this is a bipartisan or messaging hearing. I think we all care about stability in the region authentically. I'm not trying to lead Ms. Curtis in this question. But in your view or the view of your centers, how would you characterize the difference in the approach of the Trump administration as it relates to its approach to security in the region relative to that of the Biden administration? In broad strokes, that characterization of the difference here.

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Well, I think the Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan was a disaster. It was a chaotic disaster, completely unplanned, and resulted in the horrific terrorist attack at Abbey Gate, where we lost 13 US service members and almost 200 Afghans. So I think that a major difference that I have seen is more thought given to protecting United States interests by the Trump administration and thinking about the security of our service members as well as Americans on the ground. So I think that's one difference. And in terms of I think that the Trump administration also showed that it could calm down tensions between India and Pakistan and that it was capable of intervening in a positive way to get a ceasefire between the two countries. Even though we didn't see such an India-Pakistan crisis during the previous administration, the Biden administration, I'm not sure that they would have had the sort of ability to get the two sides to pull back from the brink.

Rep. Jefferson Shreve (R-IN)SPEAKER_05

I appreciate that. The intervention that resulted in a quelling of the tensions that came to a crescendo just recently there in the region, was that a consequence of the president leaning in between the two parties at nearly the level that he did just recently with Iran and Israel? Although we clearly didn't take a military interventionist role there, did you see that direct intervention from the chief executive in quelling the peak of tension just recently in India and Pakistan?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

I think, are you asking about the resolve of President Trump in trying to bring a solution to a problem in the region? Is that your question?

Rep. Jefferson Shreve (R-IN)SPEAKER_05

Yes, it's just he leaned in so directly, principal to principal, in Iran and Israel. And did you see that from from your close-in perspective in India and Pakistan?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Yeah, well, so I'm not in the administration now, so let me be clear, so I don't know exactly what happened behind the scenes. But from what I have understood by talking to people, the U.S. did play a role in getting the two sides to a ceasefire. And I don't have the details on President Trump talking directly to leaders, but I do know that U.S. officials were talking to leaders inside India and Pakistan and helping them come to this ceasefire agreement.

Rep. Jefferson Shreve (R-IN)SPEAKER_05

Thank you. Ms. Todd, you noted that China's engagement in the region wasn't just economic, but also military. Would you characterize their approach as being agnostic? They'll sell to anyone, or have they picked sides in terms of who they are keen to to trade with in the region?

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

I think it on the surface would look agnostic in terms of you have these five countries to the west of China. It's a great neighborhood. They're seeking partners. They're They're going to go forth and work with whoever they can there. On the other hand, they very clearly have targeted the countries that immediately border China, so that would be Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan. I think first and foremost, China is most concerned about its own security, so certainly they want to work with the countries that they see as their most immediate partners in dealing with their own internal security issues. I think that's part of the reason why we've seen so much cooperation with Tajikistan in particular. They're very concerned about the area bordering both Tajikistan and then that little piece of Afghanistan, the Wakhan Corridor. So, insofar as they can work with their Central Asian partners to address their own needs, that is their foremost priority.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Sorry, the gentleman's time has expired.

Rep. Jefferson Shreve (R-IN)SPEAKER_05

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Thank you. Yes, and we are—these are great issues, and we're looking at potentially a second round here as well that we might be able to explore some of those a little more in-depth, but we do need to get through our folks right now. So with that, Congresswoman Jayapal is recognized for 5 minutes.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)SPEAKER_08

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Our country's foreign policy has long suffered, in my view, from an overreliance on military interventions and reactive security measures and often, importantly, taken without congressional approval, as our Constitution says. I have been quite consistent in calling out both Republican and Democratic presidents who have taken actions that amount to war without approval from Congress, just as I did recently with Donald Trump in calling out the dangerous and escalatory strikes on Iran that I think put us on the brink of another forever war and risked the safety of American service members and civilians. I certainly hope that the ceasefire holds and that we can get back to a negotiated agreement to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons. I think we have to recognize that radicalization and repressive regimes don't develop in a vacuum. These are dangers that arise from extremely complex and multifaceted socioeconomic drivers, and to truly address these issues, I think we have to be proactive and confront root causes instead of adopting that purely reactionary posture. I'm deeply concerned that our ability to address radicalization and extremism, including with our soft power tools, has been decimated in numerous ways by this administration, including the cuts to USAID programs throughout the region. I worked in international health and development for more than a decade before coming to Congress and really saw the effect that the United States can have on both the relationship between two countries, but also on the substantive issues that are on the ground that may lead, if unchecked, to more radicalization and repressiveness. Trump's State Department has maintained a Level 4 Do Not Travel advisory for Afghanistan, noting risks of civil unrest, crime, terrorism, risk of wrongful detention, kidnapping, limited health facilities, including specific threats to dual nationals or green card holders who previously supported the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. Despite these dire conditions, his administration recently announced the end of Temporary Protected Status for Afghans. Ms. Todd, how does the termination of this designation and possible repatriation of Afghan nationals who supported the U.S. affect our ability to recruit individuals on the ground to work with us to combat terrorism?

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

Thank you for that question. I think that it is a sign to both our partners on the ground, but also Americans working with them, that we may not always be a reliable partner for the long term. If you go back to our engagement in Afghanistan and look at the withdrawal, whatever your opinion is of how the withdrawal was executed, there were a number of US military officers and veterans who worked very hard with Afghan partners to support them during that period and following that. Everything from AfghanEvac to women working with the Female Tactical Platoon. I think that the Afghans that we worked with are really struggling now because if they're here and they were brought in under humanitarian parole, there is a risk that they will be repatriated to Afghanistan. I think for Americans working with these individuals, there's great concern because these are our allies. These were our partners. We worked with them for 20 years, and what message does it send if we abandon them now?

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)SPEAKER_08

The expansive foreign aid cuts represent a shortsighted and deeply irresponsible approach to counterterrorism. Since the disastrous cuts, extremist threats have grown. And in Pakistan, after the elimination of a $40 million program targeting youth in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the Tehrik-i-Taliban has increased recruitment by 37%. It's particularly concerning in the wake of the May 6th terror attacks in Pahalgam, Kashmir, which I condemned in no uncertain terms at the time. I wonder if you can give me more context for the negotiation that's been interrupted by those Pahalgam attacks, the Indus Waters Treaty. Over the weekend, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah stated that India will never restore the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, which Pakistan relies on for 80% of its agriculture and a third of its hydropower. How could a lack of reliable water source impact cross-border violence between India and Pakistan?

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

I would certainly defer to Ms. Curtis on the details for South Asia, but in terms of water insecurity, that is a major driver of conflict both in Central and South Asia. I think if you look at the Indus River Treaty, it is an agreement that has held up during previous issues that the two countries have experienced. The fact that it may now be at great risk is very concerning, I think, for all parties involved. And I think

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

time has expired.

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

Thank you.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

All right, gentlelady's time has expired, and as I was trying to gently say, we may get to another round of this, so if we could keep it to five minutes, that'd be helpful. So, all right, with that, Representative Baumgartner is recognized for five minutes.

Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)SPEAKER_04

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for holding this important hearing. I want to start by joining my colleagues in unequivocally condemning the terrorist attack, recent terrorist attack on India. Every terrorist attack should be condemned, and it is imperative that all countries take every measure to fight back against terrorism, particularly terrorism that originates within their own borders. Well, I've enjoyed this this committee hearing, and I've been a little surprised how much of your testimony has relied or been germane to sort of the softer sides of counterterrorism. I agree that things like girls' schools are are important, having important information operations or media operations are important, but it's been a little light on some of the intelligence and kinetic discussions that are important for that that part of the world. I'm wondering with Central Asia specifically, could you could you maybe get into which countries there you feel are the most robust in counterterrorism and which are the least robust? And I understand the Afghan situation a little different, so let's let's leave Afghanistan out of it, but just talk to me about Central Asia and who's the best at counterterrorism and and and who's the weakest?

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

So I think there's a question of both capacity within the specific militaries, but then also how they address counterterrorism. I think there's a long-held view that Kazakhstan has the most professional military, which could be true, but I think in terms of counterterrorism, probably our best partner is Uzbekistan. They have a border with Afghanistan. They are very actively working with us on things such as intelligence sharing, partner training in terms of military capability. I think the one that we would like to do more with, as Ms. Curtis pointed out in her testimony, is Tajikistan. I think the main obstacle there is just capacity in the Tajik military and also the fact that they have partnerships with other countries. They are a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, which means they do a lot of training with Russia, also are working very closely with China. But that is certainly a partnership that we should continue to support.

Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)SPEAKER_04

And with respect to those countries, how would you rate their biometrics analytical programs and their surveillance programs? Certainly China has used a lot of those programs, and we're seeing them across the region in places like the UAE and others. But do you have a read on their biometrics?

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

I think that they will work with us in terms of when we are able to provide them both training and equipment, and that is something that we have sought to do. However, you also have Chinese training and equipment that can be provided. So insofar as we are able to work with them in our way of working, that is certainly the preference.

Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)SPEAKER_04

And how much different would the capability of our counterterrorism operations be there if we had a forward operating base at a place like Bagram versus running operations out of Qatar?

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

I don't think I'm qualified to make that determination at this point, but I think having a forward operating base in the region certainly poses particular potential benefits, but also risks at the same time.

Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)SPEAKER_04

And can you speak to the terrorist attack on Russia from Islamic terrorists originating from that region? And what's the Russian response been? And how are they working with those countries?

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

Initially, the Russian response was that Ukraine was responsible for that attack. We know that that was not in fact true, that it was very much individuals from Central Asia who had been radicalized by ISIS-K who executed that attack. I think, initially, then, the Russian response was to crack down on all individuals from Central Asia. That has been a very unpopular response, both in Russia among the migrant communities, but also in Central Asia as well. As a country with which many of the Central Asian countries have had long-term partnerships, it has been viewed very negatively.

Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)SPEAKER_04

And I do want to return to Afghanistan just quickly, in my remaining 40 seconds. We're going to do this really quick. Obviously, we have deep, fundamental differences with the Taliban government, but how would you rate their efforts at the moment to prohibit transnational terrorists?

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

I don't think that we should trust the Taliban.

Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)SPEAKER_04

I get that, but are they prohibiting transnational terrorists?

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

I don't think they're doing it to the extent that we need them to.

Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)SPEAKER_04

Thank you.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Gentleman yields back. With agreement with the ranking member, we are going to go into a second round. I'm actually going to forego going first, and I will do follow-up and go last. And with that, I recognize Congressman Perry for 5 minutes.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_00

Thank you, Chairman. And I just want to address the questions or the comments maybe about the Voice of America in Pakistan and the region generally and just point out that the Voice of America could, could do great things, and I think many of us, especially those of us a little bit older, believe that it has over time done great things. Unfortunately, there's a different experience in the recent past, and it's important that we acknowledge that so that we can fix that. And I think that while Ms. Lake, who was here yesterday testifying, acknowledged those things, also said that those programs could be rolled back up into the State Department where they originally existed, where there could be some oversight, because there is none now. There is none, there's none now. And it is evidenced just by a couple examples, and we'll go beyond the Voice of America and USAGM, but I'll just remind everybody in the room that Sesame Street Pakistan, which was $20 million, neck-deep in corruption, finally ended, thank goodness, when it was when it was exposed. That's just one of the of of the many of the many things. There was a and I don't even know how this happened, but the fact that a transgender cross-dressing man reporting for the VOA in Pakistan I mean, I just thank the good Lord that the man's able to stay alive because those parts of the world usually don't see that as something that they approve of, and and I don't know that how that helps promote America's core interests abroad, but we spent money on that. We also wasted $100,000 on a cricket team sponsorship in Afghanistan. The Voice of America did that. That's the Voice of America. So, while I agree with the gentlelady Ms. Curtis that that it could do great things, but I would say it has not done great things, and it's been on too many occasions antithetical to America's interest at a time, and I don't know what time is good, but we don't have extra money to be blowing on on transgender reporters in prohibited areas of the world to promote whatever that agenda promotes in Pakistan, and we don't have the time or the money for for Elmo over there. We've got serious adversaries that are working in that arena, and we should be working on that. But furthermore, because we're just talking about generally the area and and US funding, not necessarily or directly USAID or USAGM, which clearly clearly has problem. USAID spent $840 million in the last million in the last 20 years on Pakistan's education-related program, including $136 million on on building 120 schools, of which there can there's no reports that any of them were built. I mean, that's a great goal. American taxpayers went there. But I mean, the insult to the injury is not only that the money was spent and American taxpayers earned it and sent it to Washington, and we sent it there, but not that the schools weren't built, but we don't even know where the money is.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

I

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_00

It's likely because Pakistan supports terrorism, the money was all grifted away and likely went to to agencies, industries, organizations directly opposed to America, directly opposed to America. USAID spent $21.5 million on the Political Party Development Program in Pakistan. And according to the Inspector General's report, the project was a complete failure, was a complete failure. The partner did not ensure compliance with federal financial requirements. It's another way to say that the money was lost to corruption. And unfortunately, in Pakistan, corruption equals terrorism. So while we're here to get your opinion on things, and we want to make sure that we're countering China, we certainly want to do that. We think that India will be a great partner. We think that Pakistan could be a great partner, like the VOA could be a great tool. Right now, neither one of those are the case, and we better get serious about getting after it so that those things are the case. And spending this money willy-nilly and throwing it away or even worse, allowing it to fall into terrorists' hands is wholly and completely objectionable and unacceptable to the American people. I yield.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Gentleman's time has expired. With that, the ranking member is recognized for 5 minutes.

Ranking Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_02

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I had to take a shower immediately after the hearing yesterday because I had had my fill, and my hope was that I would not have to do that today after this one, because it is an opportunity for us to have a substantive discussion about opportunities that we are leaving on the table and that we could grab back. So I appreciate, thus far, the discussions we've been able to have. I hope we can recalibrate. I'm asking us to recalibrate back to the important topics at hand. So, Ms. Todd, you were talking a little bit about what would happen if Afghans are repatriated, and so, you know, in my mind, it's like we've sacrificed people who actually helped keep some of our people alive. Could you be a little more specific about what could, what might happen to Afghans that are repatriated?

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

Sure. I think that there are differing views on what the situation is currently in Afghanistan in terms of reprisals against former government officials and military personnel. So certainly, if we were to repatriate those individuals, I think there might be some assessments that they would be fine, that the Taliban would leave them alone. There are other assessments that they would be at great risk. I think that's one issue. For women in particular, I'm very concerned, both in terms of how women in Afghanistan are being treated today, but as I mentioned, the Female Tactical Platoon, these were women who specifically helped our special operations forces by being able to go into places that men could not go in Afghanistan as we were conducting military operations. If we repatriate those individuals, not only are they women in Afghan society, they are women who helped the U.S. military. I think that that will put them at extreme great risk.

Ranking Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_02

Thank you for that. Ms. Curtis, I know we've talked a lot about Radio Ozodi. Specifically, could you give examples about how the independent news reporting actually has helped counter extremist narratives in Tajikistan?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Yes. Well, I think there's a couple of examples here, and I would point to some reporting that the Tajik Service did, the RFE/RL Tajik Service, in exploring the social and economic factors that give rise to youth radicalization in Tajikistan. And also the, you know, the fact that they are reporting in the languages of the region, providing a U.S. perspective, is important. And I think there has also been reporting where the RFE/RL reporting in Tajikistan on the family members of the perpetrators of the attacks in Moscow on the Crocus City Hall. So they did some in-depth reporting that on the actual attackers that came from the family members. So they were able to do that. They're on the ground, they have good sources. So a lot of really good investigative reporting that is helping us actually, you know, figure out the sources of extremism and terrorism in the region.

Ranking Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_02

I'm going to cut you off because I have limited time, and I don't want the chair to hit the gavel on me. But quickly, in your view, what kind of assistance or cooperation should the US be providing to help support stability in Bangladesh?

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

So, I think the U.S. does need to be engaged in Bangladesh. And the U.S. was doing important work that was being carried out—excuse me—by organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and the International Republican Institute, working with political parties, encouraging election participation. These are all very important activities, democracy promotion. Bangladesh is at a crucial stage in its democratic development. They overthrew Sheikh Hasina. There were student protests last year that overthrew the government, and they now have an interim government. So, this is not the time that the U.S. should be disengaging from our assistance programs in

Ranking Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_02

that country. I have 30 seconds left, and I want to give the last remarks to Ms. Todd. You flew all this way. How can the U.S. support economic development and resilience in Central Asia? Real quick,

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

Even if we can't restore all of the programs we were doing previously, I think we need to go back and relook some of the programs that had the most impact in the countries that need that assistance the most. We've mentioned Tajikistan repeatedly. Certainly, we should be doing more in terms of economic development with Tajikistan.

Ranking Member Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_02

Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chair.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

The gentlelady's time has expired. I'll recognize myself for 5 minutes, and let me start by saying I actually share many of the concerns that the ranking member brought up about the shift in the approach towards the resettlement of our Afghan allies. I've heard from veterans who are concerned about that in the district, and I just wanted to put that out there. I think there's many of us up here that are making a distinction between those Afghan allies who have helped us and put their lives at risk. I want to move on a little bit because I would love to hear about Tajikistan and China, where is our main challenge there, but also, I do feel like I need to get back to Afghanistan. I sit on the Financial Services Committee as well and do a tremendous amount of work on sanctions. It's been an interesting intersection both there and here with this committee. Sanctions are only as good as the willingness to enforce them, and we have seen, in my opinion, a lax or a relaxing of many of those enforcements. The question that I have, and I have a bill actually that would prohibit any payments to the Taliban government for any taxes, fees, fines, anything, from US dollars. We did pass a version that was going to create a report earlier this week. I applaud that. I think we could go further. I think ultimately the question is, what is the risk of diversion in Afghanistan, in Pakistan? The congressman from Pennsylvania was bringing up some of those diversions. And for building schools, pick the country around the world, but we're talking about Central Asia here, and we have no evidence that those projects, especially hard infrastructure projects, are being done. How are we not supposed to look at this a little differently? So I'm just—talk to me about what types of programs will actually help people, and then how do we guarantee that that money is actually getting to those folks in a manner that, one, promotes the interests of the United States, and two, helps the folks that are there. Miss Curtis, I'll put you on that.

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Yeah, no, look, I share your skepticism, particularly when it comes to Afghanistan, and we should not be providing any support that goes to the Taliban, who are still supporting terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, who are repressing, severely repressing the women and girls of that country.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

while we're on that. Okay, so we know that they're severely repressing these folks, yet we did $10 million in a condom distribution program. Do we know that that actually happened? Do we know how it benefited either the United States or Afghanistan? I think that's the criticism that many of us have had about some of the programs and the aid programs and the effectiveness of that.

Lisa CurtisSPEAKER_07

Yeah, I agree with you. I don't know anything about what the program you mentioned, but I would agree with you that we need to enforce sanctions on Taliban leaders, both within the UN Security Council, but also within the US government. Those sanctions need to be enforced, and restricting their travel, their ability to travel. With regard to, you know, what are the programs that we can support that would help us fight terrorism and extremism, I've already talked about some of the international broadcasting, which I think is important. I've talked about scholarships for Afghan women, but we can also talk about providing counterterrorism assistance to partners. I think Pakistan is one of those partners, as difficult as they are, and as much as we need to press them on support for some terrorist groups, they can also help us fight other terrorist groups like ISIS-K. A country like Tajikistan also needs our counterterrorism training. They need some of our technology to be able to stop terrorists from coming across to their border in Tajikistan, to make sure that Tajik citizens are not joining ISIS-K and participating in terrorist attacks. So, there are ways to provide counterterrorism assistance to our partners.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

I

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

I'll give you the last word, Ms. Todd, in 15 seconds.

Brianne ToddSPEAKER_10

Yeah, I really want to address the issue that you raised about, how do we hold these programs accountable for delivering real results? The good news is, I think we have those structures in the U.S. government. I happen to have with me two reports that I found very interesting, the most recent OIG report as well as the most recent SIGAR report. These are organizations that have been regularly reporting quarterly on programs that we have been doing with Afghanistan in terms of are they delivering the results that we need them to deliver? If not, why? And I think that that's the kind of program that you need specifically for Afghanistan, but it also looks at how does that affect countries like Pakistan or the Central Asian countries as well. So those mechanisms are in place.

Chairman Bill Huizenga (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

My time has expired. I will point out I am familiar with the SIGAR report, and it's not all rosy and glowing. There are problems, significant problems, including that 10 million that I was just referencing, or nearly $11 million that's paid to the Taliban. So with that, I deeply appreciate your your time and your willingness, and especially as we go through through multiple rounds. I have a little housekeeping here about the ability for our members of the subcommittee. They have additional questions for the witnesses. We ask that they are submitted to the chair. We will pass those along and ask that you respond to those in writing. Pursuant to committee rules, all members may have 5 days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record, subject to length limitations. And without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned. All right.