Alliance for Securing Democracy

Executive Profile (BLUF)

Confidence: High — As of May 2026, the Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD) is a counter–foreign-influence research and advocacy program that operated within the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) from July 2017 until its merger with the Institute for Strategic Dialogue–US (ISD-US) effective 1 January 2026 (Wikipedia/GMF, 2025-12; Alliance for Securing Democracy official site). ASD’s stated mission is to “expose, analyze, and develop strategies to counter foreign information manipulation and interference in democracies” — primarily Russian, Chinese, and Iranian state-aligned activity targeting transatlantic democracies (ASD “About Us”; GMF program page).

Confidence: High — ASD is analytically significant for two reasons. First, it produced one of the most-cited Western counter–information-operations products of the late-2010s, the Hamilton 68 dashboard, whose methodology was substantively challenged by internal Twitter records released in January 2023 (“Twitter Files,” Matt Taibbi/Racket News, 2023-01-27/28). Second, ASD sits inside a Western counter-IO institutional ecosystem — alongside the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC), Stanford Internet Observatory, Atlantic Council DFRLab, and Graphika — whose analytical claims were widely amplified by mainstream outlets (NYT, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN) before being subjected to retrospective correction (Washington Post corrections notice, 2023-05-18).

Core products: Hamilton 68 (2017–2018), Hamilton 2.0 (2019–), Authoritarian Interference Tracker (2020–), policy blueprints, and analytical publications. Founders: Laura Rosenberger (former Hillary Clinton campaign foreign-policy adviser; later NSC China senior director; later chair of American Institute in Taiwan) and Jamie Fly (former foreign-policy adviser to Senator Marco Rubio) (Wikipedia; Hewlett Foundation Q&A, 2018).

---

Organizational Profile

Confidence: High — ASD was housed at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, a policy institution founded in 1972 with a USD 150 million gift from West Germany commemorating the Marshall Plan (German Marshall Fund of the United States — Wikipedia; GMF “About”). ASD was launched in July 2017 in Washington, D.C., explicitly framed as a response to documented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election (GMF press release, “Alliance for Securing Democracy Launches at GMF,” 2017-07).

Confidence: High — Leadership history:

• Laura Rosenberger — co-founder and director (2017–2021); previously foreign-policy coordinator for Hillary for America presidential campaign; later NSC senior director for China under the Biden administration; subsequently chair of the American Institute in Taiwan (Wikipedia; ASD biographies; Clements Center event listing).
• Jamie Fly — co-founder and senior fellow (2017–2019); previously foreign-policy adviser to Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and a national-security official in the George W. Bush administration (Wikipedia; ASD biographies).
• Laura Thornton — director from May 2021 onward; later senior vice president of democracy at GMF, with broader oversight of ASD as part of GMF’s democracy programs (GMF biographies).

Confidence: High — Advisory Council (founding and notable members; partial list, drawn from Wikipedia and ASD “About Us”):

• Michael Chertoff — former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security (Republican)
• Michael McFaul — former U.S. Ambassador to Russia (Democrat)
• Michael Morell — former Acting Director, CIA
• Mike Rogers — former chairman, U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Republican)
• William Kristol — conservative commentator; former chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle; founder of The Weekly Standard
• Toomas Hendrik Ilves — former President of Estonia
• David Kramer — former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
• Julianne Smith — former deputy national security adviser to Vice President Biden
• Jake Sullivan (early-period; later Biden National Security Advisor)

Assessment (Confidence: Medium): The Washington Post characterized the council as “a who’s who of former senior national security officials from both parties” (cited in Wikipedia). Analytically, the composition skews heavily toward U.S. national-security and intelligence community alumni — a pattern relevant when evaluating ASD’s analytical independence from the U.S. state security apparatus it both informs and critiques. This is not an indictment; it is a structural fact that should be foregrounded under the Analytical-Symmetry-Protocol.

Notable senior fellow (now departed): Ben Nimmo — former NATO press officer (2011–2014); co-founder, Atlantic Council Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab); subsequently Head of Investigations, Graphika; then global threat-intelligence lead at Meta/Facebook (hired Feb 2021); currently Principal Investigator on OpenAI’s Intelligence and Investigations team (Atlantic Council bio; Grayzone, 2021-02-09; OpenAI/EUvsDisinfo interview). Nimmo’s career arc — NATO → Atlantic Council DFRLab → ASD orbit → Graphika → Meta → OpenAI — is itself a portrait of the revolving door inside the Western counter-IO institutional ecosystem.

Ideology / doctrine (Confidence: Medium): ASD’s analytical doctrine treats “authoritarian interference” — Russian, Chinese, Iranian — as a unified threat category requiring cross-platform monitoring, public attribution, platform pressure, and policy advocacy. Methodologically aligned with the broader DFRLab/Stanford-SIO/Graphika school of open-source disinformation analysis, with an explicit transatlantic/NATO-aligned posture.

---

Strategic Objectives

1. Confidence: High — Document and publicly attribute foreign state-sponsored information operations targeting transatlantic democracies, with a stated focus on Russia, China, and Iran (ASD “About Us”; Authoritarian Interference Tracker FAQ).
2. Confidence: High — Influence U.S. and European platform-governance and electoral-integrity policy through congressional testimony, policy blueprints, and direct engagement with social-media platforms (Laura Rosenberger statement before House Foreign Affairs Committee, JSTOR resrep21247; “ASD Policy Blueprint for Countering Authoritarian Interference,” GMF, 2018).
3. Assessment (Confidence: Medium): Reinforce a transatlantic, liberal-internationalist counter-narrative ecosystem — by producing dashboards, trackers, and reports that journalists, platforms, and policymakers cite when framing foreign influence threats. The bipartisan advisory composition is a structural feature aimed at maintaining cross-partisan policy salience for this project.

---

Capabilities & Methods

Domain	Capability Level	Key Tools / Methods
Kinetic	None	Not applicable — civilian research/advocacy organization.
Cyber	Limited	Open-source monitoring of state-aligned media and social-media networks; no offensive capability. Does not appear to conduct independent network-forensic work; relies on partner platforms and third-party experts (AIT methodology page).
Information / Analytical	Substantial-to-Advanced	Hamilton 68 (2017–2018) and Hamilton 2.0 (2019–) dashboards; Authoritarian Interference Tracker (2020–); narrative-tracking of Russian/Chinese/Iranian state media; partnership with academic and platform analysts. Methodology subject to documented controversy (see § Hamilton 68 Controversy).
Diplomatic / Policy	Substantial	Congressional testimony (Rosenberger, 2017–2020); policy blueprints; transatlantic working groups; bipartisan advisory council enabling access to U.S. and European policymakers across administrations.

Confidence: High — Hamilton 2.0 explicitly tracks the public messaging output of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian government officials, state-funded media, and diplomatic accounts — a methodologically distinct activity from Hamilton 68 (which monitored a closed, non-disclosed list of 644 ostensibly Russian-linked accounts) (Hamilton 2.0 dashboard description, ASD; Hamilton 68 InfluenceWatch entry).

---

Core Products & Methodology

Hamilton 68 Dashboard (2017–2018)

Confidence: High — Hamilton 68 was ASD’s flagship product from August 2017 until it was effectively retired in 2018 (replaced by Hamilton 2.0 in 2019). It claimed to track “Russian influence operations on Twitter” by monitoring 644 Twitter accounts algorithmically selected by analyst J.M. Berger using behavioral-network analysis (InfluenceWatch; Hamilton 68 Brief Addendum, Taibbi/Racket News, 2023-01-29).

Confidence: High — Methodologically the dashboard had three documented features:

1. The 644-account list was not public — neither the accounts themselves nor the selection criteria were disclosed.
2. ASD did not claim each account was a Russian bot or Russian state operative; they were claimed to constitute a network that “amplified Kremlin-linked content” (ASD response to Taibbi, January 2023, summarized by Wikipedia and InfluenceWatch).
3. Hamilton 68’s individual account selections were not individually verified by ASD — selection was algorithmic/aggregate, per ASD’s defense (ASD response, 2023; Taibbi Racket News, 2023-01-29).

Hamilton 2.0 Dashboard (2019–)

Confidence: High — Launched 2019; expanded 2020 to include Chinese state media; subsequently incorporated Iranian state media. Hamilton 2.0 monitors publicly identifiable government, diplomatic, and state-media accounts of Russia, China, and Iran, tracking narratives, themes, hashtags, and amplification patterns (ASD Hamilton 2.0 dashboard page; ASD press release, “Alliance for Securing Democracy Expands Hamilton 2.0 Dashboard to Include China”). This is a methodologically distinct and substantially more transparent product than Hamilton 68.

Confidence: Medium — Hamilton 2.0 has been associated with State Department Global Engagement Center engagement. A House Judiciary Committee report cited the GEC recommending Hamilton 2.0 (alongside the Global Disinformation Index) to Zoom staff seeking lists of “malign actors” (cited in School Information System, 2024-09-19). An April 2020 State Department Inspector General audit of GEC referenced 39 contractors, but specific Hamilton 2.0 funding line-items are not clearly public. Gap: Direct GEC sub-grant amounts to ASD/GMF for Hamilton 2.0 are not in the open record at this profile’s collection cutoff.

Authoritarian Interference Tracker (2020–)

Confidence: High — Catalogues incidents of Russian (since 2000) and Chinese (since 2006) interference across 40+ transatlantic countries, organized by five tools: information manipulation, cyber operations, malign finance, civil society subversion, economic coercion (and a sixth, kinetic operations, added in later iterations). Methodology is open-source: incidents are included only where “credible public attribution to Russian-linked entities” exists, drawn from journalism, security-firm reports, and government statements (ASD AIT FAQ).

ASD Research / Policy Blueprints

Confidence: High — ASD produces academic-style reports, policy blueprints, and congressional testimony. The 2018 “Policy Blueprint for Countering Authoritarian Interference in Democracies” is a flagship output (GMF, 2018). Director Rosenberger testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on “Undermining Democracy: Kremlin Tools of Malign Political Influence” (JSTOR resrep21247).

---

The Hamilton 68 Controversy

This section requires deliberate balance under the Analytical-Symmetry-Protocol.

Primary Document Trail (Confidence: High)

In January 2023, journalist Matt Taibbi, working with internal Twitter records released by Elon Musk after his October 2022 acquisition of Twitter, published two reports for Racket News documenting an internal Twitter investigation into Hamilton 68’s 644-account list:

• “Move Over, Jason Blair: Meet Hamilton 68, the New King of Media Fraud,” Taibbi, Racket News, 2023-01-27.
• “Hamilton 68: Brief Addendum,” Taibbi, Racket News, 2023-01-29.

The internal Twitter analysis, conducted by then–Head of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth, found:

• Only 36 of the 644 accounts were registered in Russia.
• 86% of the accounts were English-speaking.
• Most were assessed as “legitimate people” based in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
• Roth’s internal conclusion: “These accounts are neither strongly Russian nor strongly bots… no evidence to support the statement that the dashboard is a finger on the pulse of Russian information ops” (quoted in Taibbi reports; cited in Washington Times coverage, 2023-01-27, and OpIndia, 2023).

Roth additionally noted (per Taibbi’s release of his internal communications) that he chose not to publicly correct Hamilton 68 attributions because doing so would damage Twitter’s relationship with the ASD researcher community ([primary] internal Twitter records as released; [secondary] Taibbi narrative framing).

ASD’s Defense (Confidence: High)

ASD published a detailed response shortly after Taibbi’s reports. The defense, summarized:

“The dashboard was an analysis of networks that (1) reliably amplified Russian propaganda and disinformation, either wittingly or unwittingly, and (2) primarily targeted audiences in the United States. This would account for the inclusion of some genuine Americans in the account list — not because they were labelled by analysts as being a bot or even Russian, but because the analytic techniques used identified them as being a part of a network that either promoted or engaged with Russian propaganda targeting American audiences.” — ASD response, January 2023 (cited in Wikipedia; InfluenceWatch)

ASD’s communications director had earlier acknowledged (pre-2023) that “most of the reporting on the dashboard is inherently inaccurate” because outlets called the accounts “bots” while ASD did not claim they were bots (cited in Daily Caller, 2018-04-09; later resurfaced in 2023 controversy coverage).

Independent Assessment (Confidence: Medium)

Three points should be held simultaneously:

1. The methodological critique is substantively valid at one level: a list of 644 accounts presented to journalists as a window into “Russian influence operations” was largely composed of ordinary American, Canadian, and British users tweeting about politics. Major outlets (NYT, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, Mother Jones — which alone ran 14 stories citing the dashboard) systematically described the accounts as “Russian bots” or “Russian-linked” without reading ASD’s own caveats (Wikipedia; Daily Caller 2018; Washington Post corrections notice, 2023-05-18; Hot Air MSNBC supercut, 2023-04-25).

2. ASD’s defense — that the dashboard tracked an amplification network, not bots — is internally coherent: a network that algorithmically amplifies Kremlin-aligned content is analytically interesting regardless of whether each node is a Russian agent. This is, however, a substantially weaker claim than what mainstream reporting attributed to the dashboard, and ASD did not consistently force-correct media misattribution.

3. Taibbi’s framing involves editorial choices: the Racket News reports embed the methodological findings inside a broader political narrative (“media fraud,” “Russiagate”) that goes beyond what the underlying Twitter records strictly document. The internal Twitter records ([primary]) are a stronger evidentiary base than Taibbi’s surrounding interpretive frame ([secondary, advocacy-adjacent]).

4. The controversy is about one product’s methodological transparency, not about whether Russian information operations exist. Russian state-aligned information operations targeting Western democracies are independently documented across multiple bodies of evidence (U.S. intelligence community 2017 ICA; Mueller Report; Senate Intelligence Committee Volume 2; subsequent indictments). Hamilton 68’s failure was a failure of one dashboard’s representational discipline, not a refutation of the threat category.

Media Corrections (Confidence: High)

• Washington Post issued formal “minor corrections” to multiple stories that had cited Hamilton 68 (Washington Post, “The Post issues minor corrections in coverage of Hamilton 68,” 2023-05-18).
• Other outlets — including Mother Jones, NYT, MSNBC — did not formally retract or correct at comparable scale at this profile’s collection cutoff. Gap.

---

Funding

Confidence: Medium — ASD and its parent GMF disclose donors at varying granularity:

• Disclosed ASD donors (2018 policy blueprint and supporters page): Craig Newmark Philanthropies, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Klarman Family Foundation, Sandler Foundation, Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust (InfluenceWatch; ASD “Supporters”; Wikipedia).
• Stated policy: ASD does not accept funding from social-media companies (ASD “About Us”; InfluenceWatch).
• GMF (parent) funding: “Generous contributions from individuals, foundations, corporations, and U.S. and foreign government agencies” (GMF “Our Donors”). GMF operates CEBRICS, a USAID-funded 2022–2026 grantmaking project for Bulgaria/Hungary/Poland (GMF “CEBRICS”), establishing that GMF as a whole receives U.S. government funding even where ASD’s specific line items are not always disaggregated.
• GEC linkage to Hamilton 2.0: Indirect/recommendation evidence (House Judiciary Committee citation of GEC recommending Hamilton 2.0 to Zoom staff). Direct sub-grant amounts not in the open record at collection cutoff. Gap.

Assessment (Confidence: Medium): The transparency profile is mid-tier among Western counter-IO institutions. ASD discloses major foundation donors but the parent GMF aggregates U.S. and foreign government funding without consistently disaggregating specific program line items. For an organization whose flagship analytical claim is foreign government interference, the specific line-item disclosure of any U.S. government funding flowing to ASD products would meaningfully clarify the analytical-independence picture.

---

Relationship to Government

Confidence: High — ASD operates inside a Western counter–information-operations institutional ecosystem alongside:

• Global Engagement Center (U.S. Department of State; recommended Hamilton 2.0 to platforms per House Judiciary citation)
• Atlantic Council Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) — shared personnel (Ben Nimmo) and methodology
• Stanford Internet Observatory
• Graphika (commercial; shared personnel — Nimmo, others)
• Global Disinformation Index (GDI) — co-recommended by GEC alongside Hamilton 2.0

Confidence: Medium — Advisory-council composition (Chertoff, Morell, Rogers, McFaul, Kramer) places ASD inside the U.S. national-security alumni network. This is a structural feature, not necessarily a delegitimizer — but under the Analytical Symmetry Protocol, this is the same kind of structural fact that the vault foregrounds when profiling state-aligned research institutions in adversary countries.

ISD-US merger (Confidence: High): As of 1 January 2026, ASD merged into the Institute for Strategic Dialogue–US (ISD-US) (announcement December 2025; Wikipedia). The merger consolidates the Western counter-IO research ecosystem further; analytical implications for the future Hamilton 2.0 / AIT product line are not yet documented.

---

Active Involvement

Confidence: Medium — ASD’s analytical output intersects with multiple investigations and crisis frames currently tracked in this vault:

• Hamilton 68 / 2.0 attribution claims feed into the broader Western information-operations attribution architecture relevant to coverage of Russian (Internet Research Agency, GRU) and Chinese state-media activity.
• ASD’s Authoritarian Interference Tracker is one of the open-source datasets relevant to any vault investigation of state-attributed information operations.
• Hamilton 68 controversy is itself a case study in Western counter-IO analytical-discipline failure — relevant to any vault treatment of Influence Campaigns attribution methodology.

---

Assessment

Confidence: Medium — Under the Analytical Symmetry Protocol, ASD should be treated as a methodologically significant Western counter-IO institution whose analytical claims have been independently corroborated in some products (Hamilton 2.0, AIT) and substantively challenged in another (Hamilton 68). Three specific analytical postures follow:

1. ASD attributions are not equivalent to government attributions, but they have functioned in the public record as if they were — particularly during 2017–2022, when major U.S. outlets cited Hamilton 68 with a specificity (“Russian bots are amplifying X”) that ASD’s own methodology did not actually support. Vault citations of ASD findings should be epistemically labeled accordingly.

2. The bipartisan advisory composition is a feature for policy access and a structural fact for analytical evaluation — both true simultaneously. ASD is genuinely cross-partisan in U.S. terms while being structurally aligned with the U.S./transatlantic national-security worldview.

3. The Hamilton 68 controversy is real and the threat category it addressed is also real. Conflating these — either to dismiss documented Russian information operations because of Hamilton 68’s methodological failure, or to dismiss the Hamilton 68 critique because Russian operations exist — fails the symmetry test. Both conclusions independently follow from the evidence.

Open analytical gaps at collection cutoff (2026-05-08):

• Specific GEC sub-grant amounts (if any) flowing to ASD/GMF for Hamilton 2.0 or AIT.
• Full advisory-council current membership post-merger into ISD-US.
• Comparative correction record across NYT, MSNBC, Mother Jones on pre-2023 Hamilton 68 citations.
• Hamilton 2.0 / AIT specific incident-attribution audit (whether AIT’s “credible public attribution” filter has itself been independently audited).

---

Sources

[primary] — internal documents, court filings, official testimony, primary records:

• Twitter Files internal records (released Jan 2023 by Elon Musk via journalist intermediaries) — Yoel Roth internal analysis of Hamilton 68 644-account list.
• Laura Rosenberger statement before U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, “Undermining Democracy: Kremlin Tools of Malign Political Influence” (JSTOR resrep21247).
• ASD official “About Us,” “Our Work,” “Supporters,” and Hamilton 2.0 dashboard pages, securingdemocracy.gmfus.org.
• GMF press release, “Alliance for Securing Democracy Launches at GMF” (gmfus.org, 2017-07).
• GMF “Our Donors” page (gmfus.org/about/our-donors).
• Washington Post, “The Post issues minor corrections in coverage of Hamilton 68” (washingtonpost.com, 2023-05-18) — primary corrections record.

[secondary] — mainstream journalism, encyclopedic, and reference compilations:

• Alliance for Securing Democracy — Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Securing_Democracy).
• German Marshall Fund — Wikipedia.
• Hewlett Foundation, “Safeguarding U.S. elections: Q&A with Alliance for Securing Democracy’s Laura Rosenberger and Jamie Fly” (hewlett.org).
• Atlantic Council biography, Ben Nimmo (atlanticcouncil.org).
• Just Security author archive, Ben Nimmo (justsecurity.org).
• Washington Times, “Twitter execs internally trashed Russian bot theory used to target conservatives” (2023-01-27).
• Daily Caller, “The Media’s Favorite ‘Russian Bot’ Narrative Just Fell Apart” (2018-04-09).
• Lawfare podcast, “Ben Nimmo on the Whack-a-Mole Game of Disinformation.”

[advocacy / advocacy-adjacent] — analytically useful but ideologically positioned, treat as single-source equivalents:

• Matt Taibbi, “Move Over, Jason Blair: Meet Hamilton 68, the New King of Media Fraud” (Racket News, 2023-01-27) — primary-document-bearing but editorially framed.
• Matt Taibbi, “Hamilton 68: Brief Addendum” (Racket News, 2023-01-29).
• The Federalist, “The Astounding Saga of Hamilton 68” (2023-01-31) — right-aligned advocacy.
• Conservative News Daily, ScheerPost, OpIndia, 1819News, BizPac Review, Hot Air, The Maine Wire — ideologically positioned outlets cited only where they corroborate primary-document quotes.
• The Grayzone, “Facebook hires ex-NATO press officer and social media censor Ben Nimmo” (2021-02-09) — left-anti-imperialist advocacy; useful for Nimmo career chronology.
• InfluenceWatch entries on ASD and Hamilton 68 (influencewatch.org) — Capital Research Center, right-aligned but documentation-heavy.
• KeyWiki, Grokipedia, HandWiki entries — tertiary, treat as leads only.

[reference / context]:

• The National Desk / Sinclair, “Twitter Files 15 furthers the misunderstanding of Hamilton 68” — methodological caveat reporting.
• ASD Authoritarian Interference Tracker FAQ (securingdemocracy.gmfus.org).
• Information Professionals Association entry on Hamilton 2.0 (information-professionals.org).

Lexicon additions proposed

The following outlets are not yet in the vault’s source-reputation lexicon and should be reviewed:

• Racket News (Matt Taibbi’s publication) — proposed tag: [advocacy, primary-document-bearing]. Rationale: hosts genuinely primary internal-document releases (Twitter Files) but editorial framing is ideologically positioned; treat document quotes as primary, surrounding analysis as advocacy.
• InfluenceWatch (Capital Research Center) — proposed tag: [advocacy-right, documentation-heavy]. Useful for funding/structural facts; ideological framing of nonprofit “left-leaning” labels.
• The Grayzone — proposed tag: [advocacy-left-anti-imperialist]. Useful for personnel-trajectory documentation; framing is positional.
• Grokipedia / KeyWiki / HandWiki — proposed tag: [tertiary-aggregator]. Leads only, never single-source.
• ScheerPost — proposed tag: [advocacy-left].
• The Federalist — proposed tag: [advocacy-right].

---

Cross-References

• Global Engagement Center — GEC recommended Hamilton 2.0 to platforms (House Judiciary citation); shared institutional ecosystem.
• Influence Campaigns — ASD’s analytical category and product domain.
• Analytical-Symmetry-Protocol — frame governing this profile’s balanced treatment.
• Internet Research Agency — Russian information-operations entity that ASD’s products were ostensibly designed to track.