The Army’s Strategic Studies Institute published a report entitled “Cognitive Defense: 2024 Homeland Defense Symposium”, capturing the proceedings of a pivotal symposium held in February 2024 at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. The event brought together military leaders, homeland security officials, and academic experts to address the growing threat of cognitive warfare and the urgent need to reframe homeland defense strategies.
The symposium, themed “Reestablishing the Sanctuary,” emphasized that the US homeland could no longer be considered a secure rear area in future conflicts. Instead, participants argued that adversaries were already conducting operations — particularly cognitive and informational — within US and allied borders. “Cognitive warfare seeks to shape the attitudes and behaviors of a civilian populace by negatively influencing and disrupting their cognitive processes,” the report said.
Major-General Darcy Molstad of the Canadian Joint Operations Command opened the symposium by contextualizing cognitive warfare within NATO doctrine. He described it as a coordinated effort to influence, protect, or disrupt individual and group cognition to gain strategic advantage. This definition framed subsequent discussions on how adversaries — particularly Russia and China — were integrating cyber, psychological, and informational tools to destabilize democratic societies.
Drs. George Schwartz, Michael Roi, and Mark Landahl contributed key chapters that explored the operational, legal, and societal dimensions of cognitive defense. Schwartz, a former National Guard general and current academic, argued that the US must develop a whole-of-society approach to counter cognitive threats. He emphasized the importance of public education, institutional resilience, and interagency coordination.
Roi, a Canadian defense strategist, examined how adversaries exploited open societies through targeted disinformation campaigns. He noted that events like elections, natural disasters, and pandemics were particularly vulnerable to manipulation, as they generated high emotional engagement and media saturation. Roi warned that adversaries were not only foreign actors but also domestic extremists who leveraged the same tactics to sow division.
Landahl, an emergency manager and former homeland security commander, focused on the legal and policy gaps that hindered effective responses to cognitive threats. He highlighted the lack of clear authorities for civil agencies to counter disinformation and called for legislative reforms to empower local and federal actors. Landahl also stressed the need for ethical frameworks to guide cognitive defense without infringing on civil liberties.
“Cognitive defense requires more than technical solutions.”
The report underscored that cognitive warfare was not a new phenomenon but had become more dangerous due to the ubiquity of mobile technology and social media. These platforms enabled adversaries to bypass traditional gatekeepers and reach individuals directly, often with emotionally charged or misleading content. The result, according to the authors, was a corrosive loss of trust in institutions, media, and even interpersonal relationships.
One panel drew on Carl von Clausewitz’s concept of the “paradoxical trinity” — passion, chance, and reason — to explain how cognitive warfare exploited the emotional and irrational dimensions of human behavior. The panelists argued that modern adversaries were weaponizing these elements to undermine democratic decision-making and societal cohesion.
The symposium also examined NATO’s evolving approach to cognitive warfare. Participants noted that NATO had begun integrating cognitive defense into its strategic planning and offered models that North American institutions could adapt. These included public resilience campaigns, cross-sector partnerships, and the development of rapid-response teams to counter viral disinformation.
Throughout the report, contributors emphasized that cognitive defense required more than technical solutions. While cybersecurity and AI tools played a role, the heart of the challenge lay in rebuilding societal trust and civic literacy. The authors called for investments in education, media literacy, and community engagement to inoculate the public against manipulation.
“Cognitive defense requires more than technical solutions — it demands rebuilding societal trust and civic literacy,” according to the report.
The Cognitive Defense report portrayed a sobering but actionable vision of homeland security in the 21st century. It warned that the “away game” had come home and that defending the cognitive domain was now as critical as defending physical borders. The symposium’s insights laid the groundwork for a new doctrine of homeland defense — one that recognized the mind as both a battlefield and a line of defense.
