Freedom House Freedom House identified security, migration, and foreign policy factors as important for countering transnational repression. covert gathering of intelligence about political leaders, state institutions, or the military, but they are rarely applied to foreign governments’ collection of intelligence about private individuals. A national security approach that accounts for transnational repression would have to acknowledge the threat posed by espionage against civilian residents. Sweden has a law criminalizing the collection of information about a person in the country “to benefit a foreign power” either “secretly or using fraudulent or improper means.”53 This is an unusual example of a government incorporating individuals’ rights—beyond basic physical safety—into both criminal law and national security policy. However, a country’s efforts to prevent transnational repression should not curtail the freedoms of either its citizens or its noncitizen residents. Examples of overreach in past responses to security threats can be seen in the US policies that followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. As extensive media reporting and academic research have shown, some of these policies led to increased surveillance and marginalization of ethnic and religious minority communities, with significant negative effects on individual liberties.54 The governments of host countries should consult with the relevant populations to ascertain what they view as an appropriate response to malign actions by foreign states. Governments that recognize threats to human rights and democracy as a matter of national security are better prepared to address transnational repression. freedomhouse.org 13