Nobody, except sometimes the president, disputes that Russia tried to interfere with the 2016 election. Facing demands for action, Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday mandating sanctions for foreign election interference.
Any move to make elections safer, including raising the stakes for those who would interfere, is a good move. But the lawmakers who have criticized the order for not going far enough have a point. The U.S. must send a clear message that interfering in elections is unacceptable and will be met with serious consequences.
The Trump executive order does do a couple of good things. It imposes sanctions for tampering with voting infrastructure and for hacking political parties or candidates.
But as 2016 taught the country, and as recent events have reinforced, election interference goes beyond such direct attacks. Interference also includes disinformation campaigns on social media, as well as methods that have not yet become widespread, such as hacking pre-election polling operations or disrupting infrastructure that would discourage people from voting by, for example, messing with traffic lights. Those very real possibilities are not addressed by the executive order.
Moreover, the automatic sanctions imposed by the order, while important, are not as powerful as they could be. The only automatic penalty is freezing financial accounts and presenting the president with a report of other options to consider.
For their part, lawmakers are not as complacent as the commander in chief.
Currently, there is bipartisan legislation that goes much further than Trump’s order. The legislation, Defending Election from Threats by Establishing Redlines, known as the DETER Act, co-sponsored by Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., includes mandatory sanctions for less direct interference, such as social media disinformation campaigns, and would have more far-reaching consequences. DETER, if passed, would mandate specific sanctions for Russian interference and avenues to determine country-specific sanctions for other hostile nations who have or would potentially interfere with U.S. elections.
Not only is the congressional legislation much broader than the executive order, but sanctions, tailored to specific state actors behind attacks, are also a far more targeted, precise and robust mechanism for punishing and deterring interference.
Lawmakers are also considering two other measures including the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act, sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., which would also hit Russia with broad sanctions if it is implicated in interference. The other bipartisan bill, the Defending Elections against Trolls from Enemy Regimes Act, would bar any foreigner from the U.S. that “is seeking to engage in, or has engaged in, improper interference in a U.S. election.”
To be sure, Trump’s executive order is a good start. But Rubio and Van Hollen are right: “The United States can and must do more.” Free and legitimate elections are the foundation of democracy, and their integrity must not be taken lightly.
[More: Mark Warner calls Trump sanctions order ‘insufficient’]
