Council on Strategic Risks

📋Page Status

Page Type:ContentStyle Guide →Standard knowledge base article

Quality:38 (Draft)⚠️

Importance:25 (Peripheral)

Last edited:2026-02-05 (1 day ago)

Words:2.1k

Structure:

📊 2📈 0🔗 0📚 27•6%Score: 10/15

LLM Summary:The Council on Strategic Risks is a DC-based nonprofit founded in 2017 that focuses on climate-security intersections, strategic weapons, and ecological risks through three research centers. While the organization claims nonpartisan status, its left-leaning funding sources and critical stance toward government climate responses raise questions about ideological neutrality.

Issues (1):

QualityRated 38 but structure suggests 67 (underrated by 29 points)

Quick Assessment

Dimension	Assessment
Focus	Systemic security risks including climate-security nexus, strategic weapons, ecological disruption
Founded	2017 by Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell
Structure	Three main institutes: Center for Climate and Security, Janne E. Nolan Center on Strategic Weapons, Converging Risks Lab
Funding	MacArthur Foundation ($998,592 from 2018-2021), left-of-center foundations
Key Activities	Policy analysis, military-climate tracking, nuclear risk reduction, ecological security research
Stated Position	Non-partisan, emphasizes “Responsibility to Prepare and Prevent”
Criticisms	Funding from left-leaning sources raises questions about partisan neutrality claims

Key Links

Source	Link
Official Website	councilonstrategicrisks.wildapricot.org
Center for Climate and Security	climateandsecurity.org

Overview

The Council on Strategic Risks (CSR) is a nonprofit security policy institute based in Washington, DC, founded in 2017 by Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell. The organization focuses on anticipating and addressing systemic security risks in the 21st century, particularly where multiple threat categories intersect and amplify each other.¹

CSR operates through three main research institutes. The Center for Climate and Security examines climate change as a security threat multiplier, tracking military responses to climate-related disasters and analyzing how climate factors affect geopolitical stability. The Janne E. Nolan Center on Strategic Weapons addresses nuclear, biological, chemical, and other strategic weapons threats amid weakening international norms. The Converging Risks Lab studies cross-sectoral risks by bringing together experts from different security domains to develop anticipatory policy solutions.²

The organization’s core philosophy emphasizes a “Responsibility to Prepare and Prevent,” arguing that unprecedented societal foresight capabilities create an obligation to address systemic threats commensurate with their scale and probability. CSR produces policy briefings, conducts research, and engages directly with policymakers and military officials. Recent work includes tracking 41 military deployments across 15 countries responding to climate-related disasters from November 2025 through January 2026, and expanding research into ecological security and biodiversity loss as transnational security threats.³

History

Founding and Early Development

Francesco Femia and Caitlin Werrell founded the Council on Strategic Risks in 2017 as a non-partisan security policy institute. Both co-founders had previously established the Center for Climate and Security, which became one of CSR’s core institutes. Femia served as CEO during the organization’s early years and currently serves as research director, while Werrell held the position of president before transitioning to research director.⁴

The organization incorporated as a nonprofit with tax ID 82-3106472, establishing its headquarters at 1025 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 1000, in Washington, DC. From its inception, CSR structured itself around specialized institutes focused on different categories of systemic risk, with council members conducting individual research programs on intersecting security threats.⁵

Major Funding and Program Development

The MacArthur Foundation became a significant early supporter, providing $998,592 across three grants between 2018 and 2021. In 2018, the foundation awarded $380,000 over two years and four months to continue CSR’s Working Group on Climate, Nuclear, and Security Affairs, which had previously operated at the Sustainable Markets Foundation. This working group explored intersections between climate change and nuclear security, producing policy recommendations for U.S. decision-makers.⁶

A smaller 2018 grant of $18,592 funded expert travel to The Hague, Netherlands, where CSR staff engaged with NATO policymakers to advocate for eliminating nuclear-armed cruise missiles and preventing nuclear arms race escalation. In 2021, MacArthur provided $600,000 over two years and nine months to reinvigorate U.S. leadership on nuclear energy security, safety, and nonproliferation in the context of climate mitigation strategies.⁷

Additional funding came from left-of-center philanthropic sources including the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, Compton Foundation, and David Rockefeller Fund, primarily supporting the Center for Climate and Security’s work.⁸

Recent Expansion and Activities

In October 2020, CSR released a major policy briefing titled “Confronting Systemic Security Risks: Proposals for the Next U.S. Administration,” addressing biological, climate, and nuclear threats. The report proposed interagency integration mechanisms including a White House-level strategy to coordinate Pentagon, intelligence, and diplomatic responses to systemic risks. Francesco Femia emphasized that COVID-19 and climate-related disasters demonstrated the need for integrated approaches, while Kate Guy, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Climate and Security, argued for long-term planning against interconnected global risks.⁹

In 2021, CSR significantly expanded its Ecological Security Program to research biosphere disruptions, biodiversity loss, and links to transnational crime. CEO Christine Parthemore described this expansion as aimed at building national security agencies’ capabilities to address nature-related security threats and informing policy responses. Brigadier General Bob Barnes (Ret.), a CSR Board of Directors member, characterized the evolving security landscape as requiring attention to ecological risks alongside traditional threats.¹⁰

The Center for Climate and Security launched the Military Responses to Climate Hazards (MiRCH) tracker, documenting military deployments in response to climate-related disasters. From November 2025 through January 2026, the tracker recorded 41 military deployments across 15 countries, primarily in South and Southeast Asia responding to typhoons, flooding, and Cyclone Ditwah—which Sri Lankan officials described as the country’s largest and most challenging natural disaster.¹¹

Research and Policy Engagement

Climate-Security Analysis

The Center for Climate and Security maintains a 32-member advisory board of national security professionals, including retired military officers, lending military credibility to its climate threat assessments. The center’s Climate Security Consensus Project builds on a 2016 determination that climate change presents strategically significant risk to U.S. and international security.¹²

John Conger, who served in Obama administration Defense Department roles including principal deputy undersecretary of defense and positions overseeing energy and environmental policy from 2009 to 2015, directs the center. In a December 2019 interview, Conger characterized the Defense Department as responding slowly to climate threats, attributing the sluggishness partly to the Trump administration’s “anti-climate posture” and the DOD’s structural resistance to rapid directional changes as a large organization.¹³

The center operates several specialized programs including fellowships for emerging climate-security researchers, the International Military Council on Climate and Security bringing together defense officials, and the Responsibility to Prepare Framework examining government use of technology for climate adaptation. Research emphasis includes the Middle East and North Africa as regions where climate acts as a “threat multiplier,” exacerbating existing tensions.¹⁴

Recent work includes analysis of climate security intersecting with information manipulation and democratic governance, supported by the John and James L. Knight Foundation. This research examines cases like Russia amplifying climate disinformation, and develops exercises for U.S. states and cities to address climate-security-information challenges.¹⁵

Strategic Weapons and Converging Risks

The Janne E. Nolan Center on Strategic Weapons, named for its founder, develops risk-reducing solutions for nuclear, biological, chemical, and other strategic weapons threats. The center’s work addresses how rising threats and weakening international norms create new strategic weapons challenges, including through CSR’s engagement with NATO on nuclear-armed cruise missiles.¹⁶

The Converging Risks Lab released a landmark report titled “The Security Threat That Binds Us: The Unraveling of Ecological and Natural Security and What the United States Can Do About It.” Led by Dr. Rod Schoonover, former Director of Environment and Natural Resources at the National Intelligence Council, the report identified global nature loss and natural system degradation as major security threats. The Natural Security Campaign made this research possible.¹⁷

Leadership and Governance

As of January 2020, CSR’s Board of Directors included Hon. Sherri Goodman (term 2018-2023), Dr. Marcus King (term 2018-2023), Joseph R. Barnes, Alice Hill, Anne Phillips, and David W. Titley. Christine Parthemore serves as CEO, leading organizational expansion including the Ecological Security Program. Erin Sikorsky directs the Center for Climate and Security, with Tom Ellison serving as deputy director.¹⁸

The organization reported total revenues of $3,742,950 in its most recent available financial data, indicating significant scaling from its 2017 founding.¹⁹

Criticisms and Limitations

Funding and Partisan Concerns

Despite CSR’s stated non-partisan mission, the organization receives significant funding from left-of-center philanthropic sources including the Mertz Gilmore Foundation, Compton Foundation, and David Rockefeller Fund. This funding pattern raises questions about whether the organization’s policy positions and framing of security threats reflect ideological leanings rather than purely technical security assessments.²⁰

The tension between professed nonpartisanship and left-leaning funding sources is particularly relevant given that climate security advocacy often aligns with progressive policy priorities. While CSR emphasizes its bipartisan advisory boards and presents its work as building on consensus security assessments, critics may view the funding sources as potentially biasing which threats receive emphasis and how they are framed.²¹

Government Critique and Institutional Positioning

CSR leadership has been explicitly critical of U.S. government responsiveness to climate threats. John Conger’s 2019 characterization of the Defense Department as “precariously unprepared” and “slow to respond” to climate risks, with the Trump administration’s policies exacerbating this sluggishness, represents a politically charged assessment. While framed as technical security analysis, such critiques intersect with partisan debates about climate policy and government priorities.²²

The organization’s heavy emphasis on climate as a security “threat multiplier”—particularly in regions like the Middle East and North Africa—involves causal claims that remain debated among security scholars. CSR’s programs explicitly linking climate with nuclear security (Climate-Nuclear Security working groups) may amplify unproven or contested causal connections between these risk domains.²³

Limited Independent Critique

Available sources provide limited third-party critical analysis of CSR’s methodology, effectiveness, or track record. Most information comes from CSR-affiliated sources or descriptive organizational profiles. The primary critical perspective available comes from InfluenceWatch, which focuses on funding sources rather than evaluating research quality or policy impact. This makes it difficult to assess how CSR’s work is received by diverse security experts or whether its policy recommendations have influenced actual decision-making.²⁴

Connection to Longtermism and AI Safety

CSR’s work does not directly address artificial intelligence safety, alignment, or AI-related existential risks. The organization’s focus centers on climate-security intersections, strategic weapons including nuclear threats, and ecological security. While CSR’s framework of addressing systemic risks with significant scale and probability shares conceptual similarities with longtermist approaches to catastrophic risk reduction, the organization does not appear to engage with AI governance or safety questions.

CSR’s emphasis on “Responsibility to Prepare and Prevent” using unprecedented foresight capabilities represents a forward-looking approach to security policy. However, the threats the organization addresses—climate change, nuclear weapons, biodiversity loss—differ substantially from the AI-related concerns that occupy much of the effective altruism and longtermist communities. No evidence suggests CSR receives funding from EA-aligned sources or participates in AI safety discourse.²⁵

Key Uncertainties

Policy Impact: Limited information available on whether CSR’s recommendations have influenced actual policy decisions or institutional practices within defense and security agencies.
Research Methodology: Sources do not detail how CSR conducts threat assessments, validates causal claims about risk intersections, or develops policy recommendations, making it difficult to evaluate analytical rigor.
Organizational Independence: The extent to which left-leaning funding sources influence research priorities, framing, and policy positions remains unclear, with CSR’s claims of nonpartisanship difficult to verify independently.
Military Response Effectiveness: While CSR tracks military deployments responding to climate hazards, assessment of these responses’ effectiveness or lessons learned is not documented in available sources.
Ecological Security Framework: Recent expansion into ecological security represents newer work; the framework’s development, evidence base, and reception among security professionals is not yet well-documented.