The ongoing evolution of technology can obscure just how dramatically our counterterrorism capabilities have improved since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001. The 9/11 Commission’s description of how, before al-Qaeda struck, “the system was blinking red” now almost reads like a period piece. Printed photographs of most-wanted terrorists were passed from hand to hand among intelligence operatives, while coordination took place in person or over the phone. Following up on leads required weeks of painstaking investigation. The United States paid a terrible price for those limitations.
Contrast that with today. The ubiquity of smartphones gives law enforcement access to vast amounts of data for tracking suspects. Advanced artificial intelligence can identify potential threats in real time and route cases to the appropriate investigators. Modern software platforms can break down information silos across agencies. Many of the 9/11 hijackers operated in the United States under their real names and were already known to authorities. Such weak tradecraft would stand little chance against today’s technological capabilities.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
Yet these critical counterterrorism advances are under increasing threat—not from foreign adversaries with better training or greater resources, but from opposition at home. Since the start of the second Trump administration, a backlash against technology companies has intensified across many sectors, especially law enforcement. If left unchecked, it could reverse a quarter-century of progress in counterterrorism. The best response is greater openness about how these technologies work and the safeguards that govern them.
City councils are increasingly targeting companies like Flock and technologies like SoundThinking’s ShotSpotter, seeking to limit data collection that critics argue has a disparate impact on certain racial groups. Companies such as Palantir, which use AI to detect anomalous behavior, face mounting opposition from protesters who claim that the government is embracing unchecked digital surveillance. Even the data centers that power these platforms have become targets. New York recently became the first state to pass a temporary moratorium on their construction.
Some of these disputes reflect the long-standing tension between civil liberties and public safety. More troubling, however, is that the tenor of the debate reveals a growing distrust among citizens, government, and technology providers—one that threatens to erode the substantial progress made in counterterrorism over the past quarter-century. If that impasse persists, confronting the next generation of lone-wolf extremists—a central focus of counterterrorism efforts today—will become more difficult.
The irony is that confidence in these technologies should be higher than ever. In the 25 years since the Twin Towers fell, New York City—and the United States more broadly—has prevented another large-scale terrorist attack. Sweeping intelligence reforms, improved information-sharing among federal, state, and local agencies, and advances in technology have all helped make the country far safer than it was in 2001.
Yet that very effectiveness is increasingly seen as the problem by antipolice activists, who view law enforcement’s ability to track down and arrest criminals and potential terrorists as a success to be reversed. Consider Darializa Avila Chevalier, a police and prison abolitionist who is likely to become the next congresswoman representing Upper Manhattan. In a wide-ranging interview in June, detailing her approach to policing, she said that “there’s more harm being perpetrated, not only on the folks who engaged in the harm, but also on the victims of the harm.” The implied moral equivalence between perpetrators and victims is chilling—but it is no longer rare.
The questioning of a fundamental goal of American government—ensuring domestic tranquility—comes just as the scale of potential future terrorism is growing. In a recent report by the Soufan Center, Jacob Ware describes a “five-alarm counterterrorism fire,” driven by the rapid radicalization of young people across the West, often cultivated by overseas terrorist networks recruiting children as young as eight. The combination of pervasive social-media use and algorithm-driven engagement is exposing children to extremist ideas at ever younger ages, creating conditions that, Ware argues, “lubricate the radicalization process.”
Once these impressionable youth are radicalized ideologically, a range of threat actors can take advantage. In Sweden, the Foxtrot Network, believed to be funded by Iran, has recruited several teenagers to assassinate dissidents and other regime enemies. I interviewed researcher Daniela Richterová, who highlighted Russia’s “gig economy” model of terrorism in Eastern Europe and globally, where saboteurs, recruited online, “can bid for a job as if they were an Uber driver.” Bombing a building can be done for as little as $1,000.
Countering these emerging threats will require more sophisticated analysis of larger volumes of data, powered by increasingly advanced artificial intelligence, along with a greater willingness to intervene earlier rather than respond after the fact. As the threat evolves, the scope of these systems will inevitably evolve as well, in ways that many law-abiding citizens will find uncomfortable. Data not traditionally considered part of counterterrorism—including, potentially, school records and pediatric mental-health notes—may increasingly be incorporated into intelligence systems if they are to identify the next generation of threats. The alternative is an increasingly militarized civic life, in which everything from attending a ticker-tape parade to worshipping at a synagogue becomes a potential target.
Rebuilding trust will take time. No one is arguing that counterterrorism agencies should operate without guardrails or accountability. Yet many cities adopt contracts with technology providers behind closed doors, with little public scrutiny. That feeds a cycle of distrust: officials know that these tools are vital to public safety, but they also fear the organized activists who routinely oppose them at public hearings.
There is reason for optimism. Most Americans want safe public spaces and reject terrorism in all its forms. Winning and maintaining that broad public support will require greater transparency and a clearer account of what government and technology companies are doing—and why these tools matter. Officials are understandably reluctant to reveal operational details, but they can do a much better job explaining how modern technologies, paired with well-funded policing, have saved lives and made the country safer.
We have come a long way since those harrowing images from Lower Manhattan at the dawn of a new century. After 9/11, patriotic resolve and confidence in government helped usher in some of the most important law-enforcement and intelligence reforms in American history. Today, the backlash against technology and modern counterterrorism tools poses a serious challenge to our ability to protect the nation. It is a challenge that we must meet.