U.S. National Security and Military News Review

South Korea : Lee Jong-seok, the academic driving South Korea's new security shift

Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400

On 4 June 2025, Lee Jong-seok, the former unification minister and a researcher by training, was appointed as the new [...]

Kyrgyzstan/Russia : Pro-Kremlin NGO Evrazia boosts network in Caucasus and Central Asia

Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400

Moldova's pro-European PAS party resisted pro-Russian forces in tense parliamentary elections on 28 September, narrowly winning more than 50% of the [...]

United States : Israeli PR machine ropes in influencers for US charm offensive

Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400

The Israeli government is launching a new influence campaign in the US to improve its image for which it has [...]

China/United States : OFAC pressed to rule on case involving dual-use tech export to China

Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400

The US company Capital Asset Exchange and Trading (CAE), which supplies goods and machinery to the semiconductor industry, and the [...]

UAE : Sharjah graft probe hits dozens of consultants with travel bans and asset freezes

Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400

Dozens of consultants and financial advisers in the United Arab Emirates have been named as parties to a criminal complaint [...]

Malaysia/Spain : Heirs of Sulu v Malaysia: influence and intel campaigns intensify ahead of critical court verdicts

Fri, 10 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400

Lawyers and corporate intelligencers in Europe, the US and Asia, were adjusting their newsfeeds this week as rumours of an [...]

Amid shutdown, the Army will do its best to talk transformation, counter-drones, and acquisition reform

Meghann Myers — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 23:17:00 -0400

The Army’s largest professional gathering kicks off Monday, traditionally a venue for the service to make big organizational announcements, like the advent of the black uniform beret or the launch of the Multi-Domain Operations concept. But with the government shut down and the Pentagon reining in public appearances by uniformed and civilian officials, it’s an open question how much the service will be able to participate in this year’s edition of the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference.

As of Tuesday, an AUSA spokesman told Defense One, impact to Army participation will be “minimal.” [Editor’s note: CNN reported Thursday evening that AUSA has donated $1 million to enable the attendance of senior leaders whose travel and per diem funding is frozen by the shutdown.]

An Army official told Defense One that the service has sought exceptions to the Pentagon’s new restrictions on public speaking so that Army leaders may speak to members of the press at the conference.

In addition to the standard panels and fireside chats, the 2025 AUSA annual meeting will feature a “Shark Tank”-like competition for developers to pitch their products, with a prize pool of $500,000. Winners will see their prototypes sent directly to the field for soldiers to try out.

“One of the things we know is we, the Army, are a bad customer for ourselves, but we're also a bad customer for industry. We give demand signals, but don't put dollars behind that,” Army Secretary Dan Driscoll told reporters last month. “And so small and medium businesses have a really hard time growing and scaling with us. And so we're going to change that.”

The competition is a piece of the service’s larger FUZE program, which brings together xTech, the Small Business Innovation Research and Technology Transfer, the Manufacturing Technology and the Technology Maturation Initiative. The idea is that, like venture-capital firms, the Army will invest small amounts of money in buying existing technology and quickly unload what doesn’t work, rather than spending years developing the perfect product only to find it obsolete once it’s ready for fielding.

The service is also poised to make some “massively substantive changes to how we buy our stuff,” Driscoll said. “For us, what that looks like is our soldiers and our contractors and the people who come up with our requirements, putting them all together, empowering them with these big, hairy problems, and saying, ‘Go fix this for the soldier’.”

Other officials are slated to present updates on a range of initiatives, including the Mobile Brigade Combat Team concept, counter-small unmanned aerial systems development, and electronic warfare—all part of the service’s ongoing Transformation-in-Contact program.

On Tuesday, AUSA is to bring together the current and former commanders of U.S. Army North to talk about threats to the homeland, promising a rare public discussion on what has become the Defense Department’s top priority as the second Trump administration prepares to roll out its National Defense Strategy.

Other scheduled events include updates on the long-awaited Next-Generation Command and Control and the newly formed Joint Task Force 401, the Army-led effort to rapidly procure counter-small drone systems for all of the services.

NGC2, a joint venture by new-school contractors Anduril and Palantir, came under recent scrutiny after the Oct. 3 leak of an internal Army memo, first reported on by Breaking Defense, that warned of the system’s “significant risk to data, mission operations, and personnel by rendering the system vulnerable to insider threats, external attacks, and data spillage.”

The concerns were compiled as part of a normal audit of the development process, Anduril founder and CEO Palmer Luckey told reporters Thursday. Since it was shared internally, Luckey said, Anduril has since upgraded NGC2 with security protocols like user authentication and recording, which were always available in its Lattice software.

“The real answer is, we turned on all of the features that Lattice already had, which were not part of that initial prototype,” he said. “And the people who are planting that story are totally aware of that.”

The Army has talked about turning this around in its acquisitions process for years, and using these Silicon Valley firms to do it. Driscoll said he feels confident something is actually going to change this time.

“So from my perspective, I think if you look at the Army's budget of $185 billion, that is a lot of money, and we should be getting much better outcomes to the American people and the soldiers,” he said. “And this is not intended to disparage previous administrations. But my understanding from people who've been in the building for 30-plus years is, it actually is different this time, that we are able to do the right thing as we think soldiers define it.”

]]>

Current, former state leaders weigh in on Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops

Jacob Fischler, Stateline — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 23:12:53 -0400

President Donald Trump’s novel use of National Guard troops for law enforcement purposes has reopened a debate over states’ authority to control police powers, as dueling briefs from current and former state leaders filed in Illinois’ lawsuit against the president show.

A bipartisan group of former governors said Trump’s federalization and deployment of National Guard members to Chicago to control “modest” protests upended the careful balance between state and federal powers.

At the same time, a group of 17 current Republican attorneys general told the court they supported the administration’s move that they said was necessary to protect immigration enforcement officers.

Both groups submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division brought by Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson to block the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops to the nation’s third-largest city.

Trump on Wednesday called for the arrest of Johnson and Pritzker for not assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, a provocative demand that raised further concerns about his administration’s relationship with state leaders.

The bipartisan group supported Pritzker and Johnson’s call for a restraining order to block the deployment, while the Republicans said the restraining order should be denied.

Democratic attorneys general back Oregon

In another case, in which Oregon is challenging Trump’s order to deploy troops to Portland, Democratic governors or attorneys general in 23 states and the District of Columbia argued in support of the state’s position.

Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who was among those siding with Oregon, said Wednesday he did so to “put an end to the dangerous overreach of power we are seeing with Donald Trump’s Guard deployments.”

The brief was also signed by Democratic state officials from Washington state, Maryland, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Kansas and Kentucky and the District of Columbia’s attorney general.

Former govs say deployment robs state authority

The federalist structure of the U.S. government, which bestows powers to both the federal and state governments, leaves broad police power to the states, the bipartisan group wrote.

Sending military forces to conduct law enforcement would unbalance that arrangement, they said.

That group includes Democratic former Govs. Jerry Brown of California, Steve Bullock of Montana, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, Parris Glendening and Martin O’Malley of Maryland, Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Christine Gregoire, Jay Inslee and Gary Locke of Washington, Tony Knowles of Alaska, Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Steve Sisolak of Nevada, Eliot Spitzer of New York, Ted Strickland of Ohio, Tom Vilsack of Iowa and Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania.

GOP former Govs. Arne Carlson of Minnesota, Bill Graves of Kansas, Marc Racicot of Montana, Bill Weld of Massachusetts and Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey also signed the brief.

“The present deployment of military resources, based on an assertion of nearly unfettered federal authority, is unlawful,” they wrote. “The president’s assertion of authority to deploy military troops on domestic soil based on his unreviewable discretion, and without the cooperation and coordination of state authorities, threatens to upset the delicate balance of state and federal authority that underlies our constitutional order.”

The Trump administration misunderstands the section of federal law that Trump has relied on to federalize National Guard troops, the group said.

The administration’s claim that only the president can decide if the conditions are met for National Guard units to be federalized “not only undermines state sovereignty but also deprives governors of a critical public safety tool,” they wrote.

“If federalization of the National Guard is unreviewable, a president motivated by ill will or competing policy priorities could divert Guard resources away from critical state needs, including natural disasters or public health crises,” they continued.

States need ICE enforcement, GOP govs say

The group of current Republican attorneys general argued their states are harmed by the protests in Chicago and other cities that impede federal ICE officers from doing their jobs.

The attorneys general are Brenna Bird of Iowa, Austin Knudsen of Montana, Gentner Drummond of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Steve Marshall of Alabama, Tim Griffin of Arkansas, James Uthmeier of Florida, Chris Carr of Georgia, Raúl R. Labrador of Idaho, Todd Rokita of Indiana, Lynn Fitch of Mississippi, Catherine Hanaway of Missouri, Michael T. Hilgers of Nebraska, Marty Jackley of South Dakota, Ken Paxton of Texas and John B. McCuskey of West Virginia.

They described the protests in Chicago as acts of violence that require a strong response.

“Rather than protest peacefully, some of those protests became violent, threatening federal officers, harming federal property, and certainly impeding enforcement of federal law,” they wrote. “President Trump’s deployment of a small number of National Guard members to defend against this lawlessness is responsible, constitutional, and authorized by statute.”

The attorneys general added that their states had been harmed by immigrants in the country without legal authorization who had settled in their states, which they said gave the president a public interest purpose in calling up troops to assist.

“The President’s action of federalizing the National Guard furthers the public interest because it allows ICE agents to continue to perform their statutory duties of identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens, which is the only way to protect the States from the harms caused by illegal immigration,” they wrote.

]]>

What a National Guard Deployment Means

John Ismay, Claire Hogan, June Kim and Nikolay Nikolov — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 20:49:50 -0400

John Ismay, who reports on the Pentagon for The New York Times, describes what National Guard troops and civilian law enforcement are doing in cities where President Trump has mobilized them.

U.S. to Send 200 Troops to Israel in Support Roles

Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 20:13:24 -0400

The American force will help coordinate the many aspects of the cease-fire deal.

Appellate Judges Appear Open to Allowing National Guard Troops to Deploy to Portland

Mattathias Schwartz and Anna Griffin — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 16:54:02 -0400

Three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit are reviewing an order blocking President Trump from deploying National Guard soldiers in the city.

Get more F-35s in the air and don't break the bank, senators beg USAF chief nominee

Thomas Novelly — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 16:18:56 -0400

You need to fix alarming mission-capability rates and rising sustainment costs for the Air Force’s F-35A fighter jet, senators told the service’s chief-of-staff nominee on Thursday.

“The F-35 remains the most advanced fighter in the world, but too many of them are sitting idle on ramps. The readiness rates of our aircraft continue to fall short of Pentagon goals. This is known on this side of the ocean and around the world,” Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, said during Thursday’s hearing. “The Air Force cannot protect power if its most advanced fighter cannot get off the ground.”

The warning was directed at Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, the former head of Air Combat Command and Pacific Air Forces, who was nominated last month to serve as the service’s top uniformed leader. The current Air Force chief of staff, Gen. David Allvin, unexpectedly announced in August that he would retire, effective in November, after his ties to a massive reorganization effort focused on China seemingly broke with the Pentagon’s renewed homeland focus.

Wilsbach was not questioned by lawmakers about Allvin’s sudden departure and was not heavily grilled on the Trump administration’s domestic deployment of the National Guard or ongoing military actions against alleged drug-runners. Senators mainly focused on technical problems facing the Air Force—and in particular, the F-35’s parts and maintenance problems.

F-35 maker Lockheed Martin has regularly delivered the jets late and without necessary upgrades, according to a Government Accountability Office report released last month. Between 2019 and 2023, mission-capable rates for the fifth-generation fighter have floated between 71 and 51 percent while sustainment costs ballooned, another GAO report found last year.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the SASC’s ranking member, told Wilsbach that idle F-35s need to get flying because pilots sitting “around in a simulator all day” will harm aviator retention. Wilsbach agreed and told the lawmakers that his service’s weapons-sustainment accounts need more money to fix the problem.

“We definitely have to invest in those accounts so that the parts are on the shelves when the aircraft flies,” the general said. “The problem with the F-35 is now they have to wait for the part to be shipped…All that time where it's sitting waiting for that part is downtime where we can't use the aircraft to train.”

The 2026 defense budget working through the cogs of Congress would allow for the purchase of 47 F-35s, including two dozen A-models for the Air Force. The massive defense-focused reconciliation spending bill passed this summer included no additional funding for the F-35. Discretion for implementing those funds ultimately falls to the Defense Department.

When asked by Wicker if Wilsbach would “carry out congressional intent” with reconciliation funds, the general declined to explicitly answer and said he “will carry out the funding in accordance with the law” and “will strive to do my best.”

One of the major efforts led by Allvin and former Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall was a sweeping organizational shift for great power competition, an influx of increased strategy and spending focused on countering China. Wilsbach did not commit to continuing these reoptimization efforts. He did acknowledge during questioning by Sens. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., that China was a threat to national security and worth further investment from the committee.

Mirroring comments made by Air Force Secretary Troy Meink last month, Wilsbach stated in submitted written answers to lawmakers’ policy questions that both the homeland and the Pacific would be prioritized.

“Homeland Defense is our top priority. At the same time, our Service needs to be able to project power into critical regions to prevent wars when possible, or to win them if and when we must,” Wilsbach wrote in the document. “The Air Force must deliberately preserve our high-end readiness for the nation's most consequential challenges, such as that posed by China in the Western Pacific.”

When asked outside of his hearing Thursday morning if he planned to support those past reoptimization efforts, Wilsbach said, “That’s outside of my lane,” and added that it is Meink’s decision to make.

“I’ve had some private conversations,” the general said, and said he wouldn’t be sharing details of those talks with reporters.

]]>

A Skeptical Reception for Hegseth’s Quantico Talk

Thu, 09 Oct 2025 15:17:26 -0400

Readers respond to a guest essay that put Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s speech in a more favorable light.

Texas’ Blue-State Deployments Shred Relations Between Governors

J. David Goodman — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 14:27:45 -0400

State leaders have prided themselves on finding bipartisan consensus, but President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops from Texas to Illinois has ripped the veneer off that image.

Oklahoma’s Republican Governor Criticizes National Guard Deployment in Chicago

J. David Goodman — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 14:06:33 -0400

Gov. Kevin Stitt, the current chairman of the National Governors Association, broke with Texas, saying, “Oklahomans would lose their mind” if Illinois sent troops to their red state.

The Army’s Race to Catch Up in a World of Deadly Drones

Greg Jaffe and Meridith Kohut — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 13:08:17 -0400

The rapid proliferation of drones in places like Ukraine has set off a growing sense of alarm inside the U.S. Army.

Trump aumenta la presencia militar cerca de Venezuela y Catar busca mediar

Edward Wong, Eric Schmitt and Julie Turkewitz — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 12:50:35 -0400

El Pentágono ha desplegado 10.000 soldados estadounidenses en la región, la mayoría de ellos en bases de Puerto Rico, dijo un alto cargo militar.

The D Brief: Ceasefire near in Gaza?; Troops arrive in Chicago; Shipbuilding advice; Deportation stats; And a bit more.

Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 11:46:58 -0400

‘Stop trying to control every step’ of shipbuilding, senator tells Navy. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., a freshman senator and former SEAL, thinks the sea service needs to abandon its decades-old practice of being extremely hands-on during the construction of its ever-more-complicated warships.

An average naval officer is not a shipbuilding expert. They're just not,” Sheehy said Wednesday at a CSIS maritime-security event. “It takes decades to build that institutional knowledge of not just naval architecture, but also knowledge of the industrial base, to effectively build the ship and build it fast and build it right. And the Navy lost that institutional knowledge decades ago.” And, he said, if the Navy can shift its focus from requirements—and change orders—to outcomes, the rest of the Pentagon may follow.

Spread the repair workload. For his part, Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Tim Kaine, D-Va., said the Navy should look to share maintenance and repair work with allies and partners. “We have to be 100 percent better. And that is not incremental, that is, again, expanding your capacity through creative work with allies and bringing the private sector—and the innovative part of the private sector, not just the incumbent part of the private sector—bringing them in a much more robust way,” Kaine said at the same event. Defense One’s Lauren C. Williams has more, here.

Lawmakers call for more defense biotech research as China pursues breakthroughs. As the Trump administration slashes scientific research funding, Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., and his colleagues are hoping to impress upon the executive branch the necessity of biotech as a national-security priority. “One general category in which the Chinese, in particular, are out-classing us, is in bio-manufacturing, industrial applications of biotech – new materials, for example – and new life-saving compounds that could be a great utility to warfighters,” Young said at a Wednesday event hosted by the With Honor Institute.

See 49 recommendations for how the U.S. can invest in and use biotech in defense from an April report by Young’s National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology. Defense One’s Meghann Myers reports, here.

Welcome to this Thursday edition of The D Brief, a newsletter dedicated to developments affecting the future of U.S. national security, brought to you by Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston. It’s more important than ever to stay informed, so thank you for reading. Share your tips and feedback here. And if you’re not already subscribed, you can do that here. On this day in 1969, Illinois Gov. Richard Ogilvie ordered more than 2,500 Chicago-area National Guard troops to assist police after protests spread during the trial of the “Chicago Eight,” who were charged with fomenting unrest during the previous year’s Democratic convention.

Around the Defense Department

Sinking speedboats in the Caribbean won’t stop drugs from getting to the United States, writes the New York Times in an illustrated (and animated) explainer. The Trump administration has said that it is attacking boats—four in the past month—and killing all on board because they are smuggling drugs from Venezuela. “But Mr. Trump’s focus on Venezuela is at odds with reality: The vast majority of cocaine is produced and smuggled elsewhere in Latin America, according to data from the United States, Colombia and the United Nations. And Venezuela does not supply fentanyl at all, experts say.” The Times has maps, charts, and stats, here.

Related reading:

“Colombia’s President Says Boat Bombed by U.S. Was Carrying Colombians,” the NYT reported Wednesday;
“Senate Republicans vote down legislation to check Trump's use of war powers against cartels” on Wednesday, per the Associated Press;
“Legal experts fear Trump admin is ignoring JAGs on cartel strikes, Guard deployments,” Defense One’s Tom Novelly reports from a CNAS event.

Update: Trump’s Pentagon has opened nearly 300 investigations into critics of the slain far-right activist Charlie Kirk, the Washington Post reported Wednesday. The probes span service members, civilian workers and contractors, but they’ve resulted in just “a smattering of disciplinary action” so far.

Additional reading:

“The Pentagon Doubles Down on Muzzling Reporters,” Ivan Nagy writes for the Columbia Journalism Review;
“Before Pete Hegseth Joined Trump’s War on DEI, He Advocated for Educational Equity as a Harvard Student,” the Harvard Crimson reported Wednesday;
“Most support bringing US troops home from Iraq, Syria: Survey,” The Hill reported Thursday, citing a poll conducted by Concerned Veterans for America and YouGov;
“VA’s disability program is an ‘honor system.’ These veterans are defrauding it,” the Washington Post reported Wednesday.

Trump’s militarization of American cities

National Guard members from Texas were seen Thursday morning at an ICE facility in Chicago, the local Sun-Times newspaper reports. At least three vans with about 45 Texan National Guard troops arrived at the Broadview ICE facility late Wednesday. The troops can be seen in a video posted to social media Thursday morning. An estimated 200 Texas soldiers are in the Chicago area.

Later today, U.S. District Judge April Perry is set to hear arguments over Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s request for a temporary restraining order to block the deployment of both Illinois and Texas Guard members to Chicago. “The troops, along with about 300 from Illinois, had arrived Tuesday at a U.S. Army Reserve Center in Elwood, 55 miles (89 kilometers) southwest of Chicago. All 500 troops are under the Northern Command and have been activated for 60 days,” the Associated Press reports.

Update: Clergy and faith leaders have joined protests at the ICE facility in Broadview. “Three say they’ve been shot with pepper balls, sometimes while praying,” the Religion News Service reported Tuesday.

More dissent from Democratic lawmakers: “This is the fourth time that Trump has taken the extreme and dangerous move to send the military into an American city without the consent of state and local authorities,” Rep. John Garamendi of California said in a statement Wednesday. “The Founders made clear the distinction between presidents and kings. Presidents do not get personal militaries, dictators do,” he said. “Fearful of kings and occupying military forces, our Founders thought hard about how to ensure military forces were responsive to lawful, civilian control and not inappropriately used against their fellow citizens…These actions are unacceptable and contrary to the democratic values our nation was founded upon.”

Mapped: See how militarism is spreading across U.S. cities targeted by Trump in this map from the Associated Press, published Wednesday.

Trump held a roundtable discussion with mostly far-right influencers Wednesday to signal aggressive new measures targeting anti-fascism protesters. Attorney General Pam Bondi attended, and told the president in front of cameras Wednesday, “Just like we did with cartels, we are going to take the same approach, President Trump, with antifa—destroy the entire organization from top to bottom. We are going to take them apart.”

Critical reax: “Cartels have actual leadership structures, central funding, command and control, and more,” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council pointed out on social media. “‘Antifa’ is mostly a philosophy. That the Attorney General doesn't know the difference is quite the thing to admit!”

By the way: Eight of the 12 “influencers” invited to Trump’s antifa roundtable have direct financial ties to Talking Point USA, the far-right activist organization founded by Charlie Kirk, researcher Jared Holt pointed out online Thursday.

Trump called protesters “paid anarchists,” and claimed, “They're like insurrectionists. They're terrible people, but you really wonder why. Why are they doing it? What are they gaining? Other than they're obviously paid. They're paid a lot of money.” He also told his audience at the roundtable, “You'll be finding it out very soon, you should see what we have on these people. These are bad people. These are people that want to destroy our country. We're not going to let it happen.”

The White House on Wednesday also released a screed targeting the city of Portland, Oregon, which it claimed has been turned “into a wasteland of firebombs, beatings, and brazen attacks on federal officers and property” because of “an Antifa-led hellfire.”

“Premeditated anarchy” is what Trump called protests in Portland. “That’s why, as President Donald J. Trump mobilizes federal resources to safeguard lives and property,” the White House said in its Portland flier.

See for yourself: Here’s on-the-ground video from protests in Portland on Tuesday.

Deportation-nation update: The U.S. conducted at least 1,464 immigration enforcement flights last month, including removals to 48 countries, according to open-source observers at ICE Flight Monitor from Human Rights First. That represents “the highest monthly total to date, averaging 49 flights per day.”

During such flights, “individuals are nearly always restrained by handcuffs, waist chains and leg irons, including during any layovers and fuel stops,” HRF writes, noting, “The harsh conditions during enforcement flights raise serious human rights concerns.”

Additional reading:

“A quarter of FBI agents are assigned to immigration enforcement, per FBI data,” the Washington Post reported Wednesday;
“Homeland Security Cyber Personnel Reassigned to Jobs in Trump’s Deportation Push,” Bloomberg reported Wednesday;
“Attorney for woman shot by Border Patrol claims agent said, 'Do something b----' before shooting,” the Chicago Sun-Times reported Tuesday, isolating at least five different inflammatory claims ICE agents made which later fell apart upon closer inspection;
“Ken Paxton Compared Charlie Kirk to Jesus—Then Used Him as an Excuse to Crush Free Speech,” Texas-based journalists at The Barbed Wire reported Wednesday;
And “Trump’s war on the left: Inside the plan to investigate liberal groups,” via Reuters, reporting Thursday.

Israel

Developing: Israel and Hamas appear to be close to forging some kind of ceasefire in Gaza. “Israel said a truce would take effect on Friday and start a 72-hour window to exchange hostages and prisoners,” the New York Times reports almost exactly two years after the conflict erupted with a brutal surprise attack by Hamas militants. Trump said he’s considering traveling to the region sometime this weekend, too.

Caveats: This “initial agreement addresses only a few of the 20 points in a plan Mr. Trump proposed last month, and some of the most difficult issues between Israel and Hamas appeared to have been left to a future phase of negotiations. Those include who would rule postwar Gaza and whether, to what degree and how Hamas would lay down its weapons.”

And lastly: A Scottish maritime museum somehow ended up in Israel’s video models of alleged Hamas infrastructure, Israel’s progressive +972 Mag reported Wednesday.

The gist: As Israel’s military responded to the Hamas attack two years ago, its three-dimensional illustrations posted to social media “coalesced into a distinct and consistent visual style. They usually begin with satellite imagery, followed by transitions into 3D visualizations that then often present an X-ray wireframe view of an interior or underground scene, intercut with real drone footage of airstrikes or bombings.”

However, after reviewing 43 animations produced by the Israeli army since October 7, 2023, “many contain serious spatial inaccuracies or prefabricated assets—sourced not from classified intelligence but rather from commercial libraries, content creators, and cultural institutions.” And one of those inaccuracies included “scans from a boat-building workshop in Scotland” that had been “uploaded to the internet by the Scottish Maritime Museum under an unrestricted Creative Commons license.” Those files were used by Israel to illustrate alleged “Hamas bunkers or Iranian weapons facilities.”

So far, more than 50 third-party assets lifted from unrelated artists and institutions have been identified, and those “were replicated hundreds of times across animations of sites ranging from Gaza to Iran,” reporter Oren Ziv writes. Story, here.

]]>

DHS tells hundreds of staffers: accept reassignment to border security, immigration—or face termination

David DiMolfetta — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 11:16:00 -0400

Hundreds of Department of Homeland Security employees have been marked for reassignment to agencies focused on Trump-era border-security and deportation work, and could be dismissed if they don’t comply, according to multiple people familiar with the matter and a copy of one notice viewed by Nextgov/FCW.

In recent weeks, the employees have been directed to transfer from various DHS agencies (including Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard) to other ones (including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Protective Service, and Customs and Border Protection).

The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly communicate their knowledge of the shifts.

The notice seen by Nextgov/FCW gave the employee it addressed just one week to accept the Management-Directed Reassignment, or MDR, or face possible termination. They are then given 60 days to move, with some flexibility on deadlines in certain circumstances.

“If you do not respond, the Department of Homeland Security will consider your non-response as a declination of the directed reassignment,” it reads. “If you choose to decline this reassignment or accept but fail to report for duty, you may be subject to removal” from federal service, it says. Bloomberg News first reported details of the reassignments.

The MDRs have targeted people in CISA’s Cybersecurity Division, including its Capacity Building subdivision that focuses on improving and centralizing the cybersecurity posture of federal agencies, one of the people said. The Stakeholder Engagement Division, which oversees the agency’s national and international partnership work, was also affected, the person added.

Another person said hundreds of FEMA staffers, including human resources and personnel security workers, were moved to positions in ICE throughout hurricane season, the peak of which occurs from around August to October. Many of those employees are still there, that person added.

The moves align with broader White House immigration-policy priorities. The Trump administration has steered tens of billions of dollars toward immigration and border-security agencies as part of a renewed push to expand detention capacity, accelerate deportations and fortify barriers along the U.S. southern border.

Many, but not all, of the reassignments direct staff to ICE, CBP, and FPS, two people said.

The shifts could slow responses to cyber threats that have targeted the federal government.

CISA personnel are addressing a Cisco vulnerability — recently exploited by a hacking group potentially linked to China — that predominantly affects government networks. And over the summer, a hacker stole employee data from both the Federal Emergency Management Agency and CBP, Nextgov/FCW first reported.

Cybersecurity has been historically a bipartisan darling of Washington, but CISA, the nation’s core civilian cyberdefense agency, has been criticized by Donald Trump ever since it declared the 2020 election "the most secure in American history." Top officials in the second Trump administration have aimed to “refocus” its mission amid GOP accusations that the agency engaged in censorship of Americans’ free speech. Those claims stem from CISA’s earlier collaboration with social media platforms to remove false information online concerning the COVID-19 pandemic, elections and other divisive subjects around 2020.

Across DHS, there is widespread uncertainty and fear among some employees about the financial and legal consequences of accepting or refusing the reassignments, including potential loss of severance pay, penalties or restrictions on future government work, the people familiar said.

DHS staff who have taken offers to leave the government are largely barred from interacting with people still inside the agency, and risk fines and jail time if they are caught doing so, another person said, describing their experience trying to seek help on completing a task by asking a former employee for assistance.

The reassignments appear to be used as a strategy to encourage voluntary departures without direct firings, the person added. When they applied for their current position, for example, this person indicated that they were unwilling to relocate, and the reassignment they received completely circumvented that constraint.

Nextgov/FCW has reached out to DHS for comment.

]]>

Appeals Court to Weigh Legality of Deploying Troops to Portland

Mattathias Schwartz — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 09:24:08 -0400

Judge Karin Immergut blocked President Trump from sending National Guardsmen to defend against a “rebellion.” Now three judges will hear the government’s appeal.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s War with the Rules of Engagement

Daniel Maurer — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 09:07:01 -0400

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth listed many targets during his speech to the largest assembled gathering of U.S. generals and admirals in American history, along with their senior enlisted advisers. In his quest to rebuild a supposedly broken warrior mindset, Hegseth named “toxic leadership,” “wokeness,” fitness and grooming standards, and the Pentagon’s whistleblower system as areas for reform. He also decried the military’s “stupid rules of engagement” (ROE), which he considers “politically correct and overbearing.” He told the group gathered at Quantico, Va:

We fight to win. We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don’t fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for warfighters. You kill people and break things for a living. You are not politically correct and don’t necessarily belong always in polite society.

Hegseth’s latest attack on the ROE demonstrates a dangerously limited, tactical – and legally incorrect – view about these rules and what they are for. He misunderstands how ROE work, how they enable judicious and legally permissible deadly force in light of larger strategic concerns, and how they promote American –and human – values. Delegitimizing the role of the ROE – and what values, norms, and legal obligations they represent – also delegitimizes U.S. military operations overseas, erodes professional values, and will hasten the erosion of public confidence and trust in the military as the Trump administration expands its deployment on American city streets.

Rules of Engagement

The military’s rules of engagement are, in their simplest version, a list of conditions in which deadly force can be employed and how to treat civilians, prisoners, and detainees on or near the battlefield. They are brief permissions and prohibitions given to troops, in the form of a direct order from their commander, tied to the type of mission or operation those troops are executing. Ground combat troops fighting in the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 received a small card with these simple rules. Such ROE cards are small enough to fit in one’s uniform pocket and direct enough to commit to memory. They are provided in every significant military deployment, whether large-scale combat operations against another nation, counter-insurgency operations, or humanitarian missions. ROE, moreover, are not limited to just American military forces. Nearly every modern military publishes ROE to ensure their troops obey certain foundational limits and operate within clearly defined permissions.

But the ROE are not actually all that simple, and Hegseth’s military experience at the junior officer tactical level has informed his beliefs about what these rules do, and why. These brief ROE cards for troops on the front line are derived from much longer, much more elaborately detailed ROE published as part of an operations order. That order articulates the commander’s understanding of the current military “situation” (the nature of the enemy threat as well as civilian considerations) and his or her desired end state given the intent and overarching plans of even higher headquarters. These orders are the result of extraordinarily exhaustive planning among various subject-matter experts within the commander’s staff working collaboratively to coordinate and synchronize the multiple subordinate units with different functions and responsibilities (such as naval ships, tank battalions, remotely piloted drones, light infantry, demolition-expert combat engineers, civil affairs teams, medical evacuation and attack helicopters, special operations teams, mortars and long-range artillery batteries); the logistics of movement and resupply; the methods of communication; personnel allocations, among many other subjects. Essentially, these operations orders explain the who, what, where, when, why, and how of a particular operation or campaign. The more complex and longer the mission, and the higher up the headquarters that issues it is, the more exhaustive these orders tend to be.

One mandatory section of that operations order is the classified appendix called the “Rules of Engagement” – at least at levels of command above brigade level (well above the platoon and company-level operations Hegseth participated in as a National Guard junior infantry officer in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay overseeing detainees). This document, written by a multi-disciplinary “cell” that includes the military lawyers (Judge Advocates, or JAGs), operations planners, and often weapons experts and civil affairs personnel – is ultimately approved by the commander. It specifies what can be described as

control measures employed by the chain-of-command with respect to, inter alia, necessary conditions (including where and how) for use of lethal force, the scope of collective and unit self-defense, identification of “declared hostile forces,” restrictions on certain types of weapons, treatment of prisoners of war and other detainees and noncombatant civilians, and procedures for commanders at all echelons to request additional authorities as missions and circumstances change.

These orders are usually first detailed in this defined way at the Combatant Command, the four-star headquarters responsible for overseeing operations in a particular theater of war or conflict, such as U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East. These commanding officers, all of whom attended Hegseth’s conclave, report only to the secretary of defense and the president in the operational chain-of-command. They command and control forces assigned to their headquarters from all the armed services (e.g., Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Force) for specific operations and various steady-state peacetime training and other military engagements in their respective theater of operations.

But these theater-specific orders are not written in a vacuum. They are derived from the Standing Rules of Engagement (SROE), a document first published in 1994 and since then updated infrequently (the most recent was in 2005), signed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The SROE has “establish[ed] fundamental policies and procedures” that regulate the use of lethal and non-lethal force in somewhat generic terms. It applies to U.S. commanders and military operations outside of U.S. territory or territorial seas, as well as for contingencies involving hostile actions against foreign threats during armed conflict. The current unclassified sections of the SROE define terms such as “hostile act” and “hostile intent,” and “inherent right to self-defense.” They provide guidelines for requesting various “supplemental measures,” additional permissive authorities that may be delegated lower down the chain-of-command, such as the permission to use certain types of weapons or tactics that would normally be withheld to higher echelons of command. The SROE is broadly drafted, intending to “ensure they allow maximum flexibility for mission accomplishment while providing clear, unambiguous guidance to the forces affected.”

Therefore, because the theater-specific ROE and those issued by subordinate commands are tailored to particular times, places, and threats, these ROE are always a modification of the original baseline SROE. As retired Brigadier General (and former JAG) Mark Martins, a leading authority on rules of engagement, once wrote, the SROE “undergo amplification at as many as nine subordinate levels of authority.” In other words, the ROE card that ends up in the pocket of a soldier digging a trench, distributing aid after an earthquake, or patrolling a village is like a Russian nesting doll: it fits within the ROE of his immediate commander, which in turn fits inside the ROE of that commander’s commander, and so on.

The Constituent Elements of ROE

Superficially, and perhaps from the vantage point of the average soldier or junior officer down in the mud or sand, the ROE is a just collection of “shall,” “shall not,” and “may” and has the force of a lawful order that must be obeyed. At the lowest tactical levels, the “pointy end of the spear,” the ROE is not justified, defended, or explained. But the content of ROE, even at the tactical level of a 30-soldier platoon or a 12-man Special Forces Operational Detachment, reflects three distinct but overlapping interests and concerns about the use of armed force: national policy (at the highest, strategic levels of government); the particular operational environment and mission; and the international law of armed conflict (also known as International Humanitarian Law).

First, a particular administration may believe that fighting a controversial counter-insurgency mission with the consent of another host nation, amidst a civilian population, requires a policy of restraint and particular concern for conditions that would trigger a soldier’s authority to use lethal force. It might take the form, in the ROE, of explicit restrictions on where and under what threat conditions certain types of munitions may be used, or impose tight limits on how long a military unit may detain a suspected insurgent before release or transfer to a higher headquarters for interrogation. Or the administration may believe that fighting a war of attrition against a near-peer competitor, more like the battles of World War II than Afghanistan in 2015, justifies less restraint and a more aggressive, permissive use of lethal force. In the ROE, this might look like permission to use lethal force immediately upon contact with a designated enemy combatant or giving relatively low-ranking commanders greater authority to use certain weapon systems without asking for permission first. Or the administration might believe that deliberate restraint is called for in one area of operations but more deliberate destruction in another. These are national policy decisions made by the president and his advisers, usually in consultation with field commanders, and often made with considerations for domestic public opinion and foreign relations with allies and partner nations.

Second, such policies are subject to a vote by the enemy. Conditions on the ground, at sea, or in the air – be they environmental, tactics and movements by the enemy, or local civilian population concerns – drive the strategic, operational, and tactical choices available to the chain-of-command. Commanders therefore organize, plan, and execute missions that look like proactive implementations of national policy and theater strategies but can also look like reactive responses, contingent upon choices made by the adversary, sensitive to the fluid and sometimes unpredictable character of any military operation – the fog and friction of war, according to Clausewitz. In the ROE, this may take the form of which organizations or armed groups are “designated hostile forces,” which civilians and which partner nation forces may be protected by U.S. military units under the notion of collective self-defense, or the tactical directives that authorize or restrict the employment of munitions under specified triggering conditions.

Third, regardless of operational conditions and missions, and regardless of strategic (but never static) national policies, international law provides an invariant baseline below which choices about how, where, and when to use armed force cannot sink. For international armed conflicts (IACs), such as the war between Russia and Ukraine, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 provide most of the rules that regulate how militaries may treat adversaries, prisoners of war, civilians and their property, and the wounded or sick. The Conventions reflect the “principles of international humanitarian law” which include distinction (between civilians and civilian objects and military targets), military necessity, humanity (also called “unnecessary suffering”), and proportionality. The principles reflect the special care the Conventions insist that militaries take toward protecting civilians and other non-combatants from the ravages of warfare.

To follow those rules, militaries and their finite resources are necessarily imposed upon. For example, military commanders and their troops must take “feasible precautions” during the planning and execution of operations to reduce the likelihood and scale of collateral damage to civilians and property (Additional Protocol I, arts. 57 and 58, which the United States considers part of customary international law). The Conventions demand consideration of civilian non-combatants “without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion” (Geneva Convention IV, art. 13) and with

respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs [and they] shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity (Geneva Convention IV, art. 27).

The Conventions expect militaries to secure and treat wounded enemy soldiers and to prioritize treatment based on seriousness of the wounds rather than nationality (Geneva Convention I, art. 12). The Conventions impose a requirement for safeguarding, caring for, and respecting prisoners of war (Geneva Convention III, arts. 12-20 and 25-108). Such requirements may often tax a military unit’s resources, slow its advance, deny it an efficient weapon or tactic, or even expose U.S. forces to increased risk of an attack by the enemy. But such is the accepted cost of waging modern war under a rules-based international order.

For non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), States are bound to follow the basic admonitions of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘hors de combat’ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

Legitimate Operations Are More Effective Operations

This body of international law is not simply best practice or a recommendation to follow only when operationally convenient. As a ratifier of the Conventions, the U.S. government is bound by its terms like it is bound by federal statutes. These Conventions are part of the law that the president is constitutionally required to “take care” is “faithfully executed.” Indeed, Congress has long emphasized the importance of such laws, basing the U.S. war crimes statute on violations of certain critical sections of the Geneva Conventions. Not to be overlooked, the Department of Defense has as well, directing subordinate components and commands to:

implement effective programs to prevent violations of the law of war, including . . . [i]nstructions, regulations, and procedures to implement law of war standards and establish processes for ensuring compliance [and take] [a]ppropriate actions to ensure accountability and to improve efforts to prevent violations of the law of war in U.S. military operations.

The Department has further directed the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to:

[p]rovide[] appropriate guidance to the Combatant Commanders, consistent with Section 163 of Title 10, U.S.C., [and] [re]view[] appropriate plans, policies, directives, joint doctrine, and rules of engagement, as necessary, ensuring their consistency with this issuance and the law of war [to] [h]elp[] ensure that plans, policies, directives, and rules of engagement issued by the Combatant Commanders are consistent with this issuance and the law of war.

This is not paying mere lip service to an international treaty. As its own Law of War Manual demonstrates, the Department of Defense has long understood that compliance with the laws armed conflict, including its fundamental principles regardless of operation type, are critical if the United States at all cares about the perception (both do

A Closer Look at Trump’s Peace Deals: From “Death and Hatred” to “Love and Success”?

David J. Simon — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 09:01:23 -0400

In his speech at the United Nations (U.N.), President Trump claimed (no fewer than four times) that he has “ended seven unendable wars.” This assertion, which he began repeating over the summer, is not only a gross exaggeration : it also betrays a flawed understanding of peace itself. Under the Trump administration, peace deals have been treated as an opportunity to secure resources and real estate. Recent agreements between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, and between Armenia and Azerbaijan, illustrate this “resources-for-peace” approach. Both deals are fundamentally transactional. But by prioritizing American economic interests and quick fixes over a sustainable peace, they promise to yield fragile outcomes at best.

DRC-Rwanda Peace Agreement

Trump claims that his administration’s mediation between the DRC and Rwanda “stopped”’ the conflict in DRC and yet, fighting continues unabated. The outcome was predictable. The peace agreement, signed in June, had more to do with securing U.S. access to Congolese minerals than finding a recipe for durable peace.

In DRC’s eastern provinces, more than 100 armed groups compete for land, resources, and political influence. Regional powers –– including Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi –– have further fuel ed the violence by backing rival forces to advance their own interests. Illicit mineral smuggling (enabled by instability and conflict) generates billions, funding militias and enriching foreign actors and corrupt officials alike. However, the complex factors driving the conflict –– including ethnic marginalization, land disputes, weak governance, and mass displacement –– received little to no attention at all in the Washington agreement.

The supposed crown jewel of the Washington deal is a regional economic framework designed to combat illegal trafficking, “de-risk” mineral supply chains and secure opportunities for U.S. investors. Trump hopes American involvement will generate revenue while challenging China’s dominance in the Congolese mining sector. To many people in DRC, however, American involvement merely revives a pattern of exploitation that has characterized the mining sector from pre-colonial and colonial times to the infamously corrupt Mobutu era. The latest version of the extraction model has foreign powers offering feeble security promises in exchange for resource access: a paradigm that only “erode[s] the sovereignty and bargaining power of mineral-rich nations such as the DRC.”

Fulfilling the terms of the regional economic framework will prove nearly impossible without an end to fighting. Yet the Washington agreement offers no viable path to sustainable peace. For one, Kinshasa has refused to move forward with the economic agreement until 90 percent of Rwandan troops have withdrawn from eastern DRC. Rwanda also provides significant backing to the M23, the most powerful rebel group in eastern DRC, but the agreement introduces a major loophole to de-escalation. Both countries are barred from supporting non-state armed groups “except as necessary” to implement the agreement. Interpretation of what is “necessary” will no doubt weaken the provision.

Meanwhile, the deal calls on DRC to disarm the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a militia with historical links to the perpetrators of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Rwanda frames the disarmament of the FDLR as a matter of national security, but critics argue that Rwanda exaggerates this claim to justify its intervention.

Though disarmament is an essential step toward peace, the Washington deal lacks the enforcement mechanisms needed to make it happen. Much of the FDLR operates within M23-held areas, and the Congolese army is notoriously weak: so weak, in fact, that the army has repeatedly outsourced its security operations to local militias known as Wazalendo. The result is a stalemate , for Rwanda insists that its withdrawal depends on DRC first neutralizing the FDLR. At present, neither side seems prepared to move first.

Commitments from the DRC and Rwanda (which, under the Trump deal, are nominal at best), account for only a small piece of the puzzle. Both Burundi and Uganda have troops in the region, but they were absent from the negotiations. What’s more concerning, none of the armed groups active in DRC were included in the peace deal, and Qatari-led talks between the Congolese government and M23 have largely stalled. Recent analysis suggests that the narrow focus on M23 has allowed other armed groups to fill the void.

Washington has made clear that funding peace is not a priority. Trump’s dissolution of USAID has already wrought devastating consequences in eastern DRC. Meanwhile, the administration has moved to eliminate funding for U.N. peacekeeping, while offering no viable alternative to the current mission in Congo.

The consequences of the poorly thought-out framework are already apparent: since the signing of the Washington agreement, violence in DRC has surged, brutal attacks on civilians have continued, and the M23 has further expanded its territorial control.

Armenia-Azerbaijan Joint Declaration

On August 8, Trump celebrated what he described as a “peace treaty” between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In reality, the Joint Declaration signed at the White House is neither a legally-binding treaty nor a credible roadmap to peace. It is merely a political statement that commits the two sides to “continue further actions” toward a stalled peace agreement whose text was finalized six months ago. That impasse remains unresolved, as Azerbaijan refuses to actually sign the peace treaty until Armenia adopts a new constitution. Armenia’s constitutional process could take years. And while this U.S. administration’s fleeting interest in the region may temporarily stave off conflict, the deal lacks the security guarantees, local buy-in, and justice mechanisms crucial to ensure long-term peace.

The centerpiece of the Joint Declaration is an investment deal. The so-called “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP) will grant Washington exclusive development rights to an Armenian transit corridor connecting Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave. The route advances long-standing Azeri ambitions to connect the Turkic world, finalize a Middle Corridor between China and Europe, and secure an outlet for Azeri oil and gas.

For its part, Armenia hopes that U.S. investment will provide temporary security in an otherwise hostile neighborhood. That hope rests on shaky ground. Since the 2020 ceasefire, Azerbaijan has occupied roughly 215km of Armenian territory and terrorized border populations. President Ilham Aliyev has repeatedly labeled Armenia as “Western Azerbaijan ” and threatened to seize by force the TRIPP corridor (which Azerbaijan calls the “Zangezur” corridor). With a modernized military backed by Israel and Türkiye, and a demonstrated disregard for international law (see also here), Azerbaijan remains well positioned to pursue its irredentist ambitions.

Armenia, by contrast, holds little leverage in the negotiations. The United States and Europe have historically proved unwilling to intervene. And since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia has abandoned its former peacekeeping role in the Caucasus. The EU border monitoring mission, tasked with tracking ceasefire violations, remains the last external presence in the region. And yet, Azerbaijan forced a provision in the peace agreement that would require its withdrawal.

Absent international accountability, the risk of renewed aggression remains acute. The Joint Declaration includes no security guarantees from the United States or other actors. To the contrary, American investment interests –– along with policy calculations vis-à-vis Russia and Iran –– could lead the Trump administration to turn a blind eye to future Azeri provocations. For the TRIPP corridor to live up to its name, the United States would need to make credible commitments to defend Armenia’s sovereign control over both the transit route and broader Syunik region.

The peace deal’s most glaring omission is the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh: a contested region which has been the epicenter of conflict for the last three decades. In 2023, Azerbaijan forcibly displaced Nagorno-Karabakh’s entire ethnic Armenian population through a brutal 10-month blockade and subsequent military campaign. At the time, Trump himself condemned the Biden administration for doing “NOTHING as 120,000 Armenian Christians were horrifically persecuted and forcibly displaced.”

Through a provision of the peace deal, Azerbaijan successfully pressured Armenia to drop its international legal cases, thereby depriving Nagorno-Karabakh’s 150,000 victims of justice. Though Azerbaijan would also drop its countersuits, they are significantly weaker and unlikely to succeed at the merits stage.

The deal also ignores the efforts of displaced Armenians to return safely to Nagorno-Karabakh, which has been mandated by the International Court of Justice but effectively obstructed by Azerbaijan policies. Since 2023, Azerbaijan has rushed to resettle the region while continuing its demolition of Armenian monasteries and cultural sites. Meanwhile, 23 Armenian political prisoners remain in unlawful Azeri detention. These fundamental omissions have the adverse effect of legitimizing Azerbaijan’s military aggression and rights abuses. And without justice, long-term reconciliation falls further from reach.

At the signing of the Joint Declaration, Trump proclaimed that after “Thirty-five years of death and hatred…now it’s going to be love and success together.” But given a paradigm that prioritizes economic access over reconciliation, even a cautious form of optimism is hard to justify.

Future Iterations of the “Resources-for-Peace” Approach

Looking forward, Trump may seek to replicate the “resources-for-peace” approach in other contexts, namely, in Gaza and Ukraine.

In February, Trump floated a plan for the United States to “take over” and “level” the Gaza strip and transform it into a “Ensuring the Security of the State of Qatar,” which sets out significant U.S. security commitments to Qatar in the event of an external attack against it.

The order announces that “it is the policy of the United States to guarantee the security and territorial integrity of the State of Qatar against external attack.” In pursuit of this policy, the order states that “the United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory, sovereignty, or critical infrastructure of the State of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States” and that “in the event of such an attack, the United States shall take all lawful and appropriate measures — including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military — to defend the interests of the United States and of the State of Qatar and to restore peace and stability.”

The order raises a number of important legal and policy questions that merit careful consideration by Congress and the public. The commitments it makes are extraordinary, both in that they are as far-reaching as the defense commitments the United States has made to its closest treaty allies and that they appear to have been made on a unilateral, rather than a reciprocal, basis. Congress does not appear to have had any formal role in the decision to make these weighty commitments, which is inconsistent with past practice and raises significant constitutional questions. It is unclear whether these commitments are legally binding on the international plane; and the significant policy ramifications of making these commitments have not been addressed publicly in any detail. I’ll address each of these below.

1. The breadth of the commitments: why are they on par with mutual defense treaties?

The commitments announced in the order are on par with the mutual defense commitments the United States provides its closest allies. The administration has not clarified whether this was intentional, but, as noted, the executive order commits the United States to regard an armed attack on Qatar as a threat to its own peace and security, and to act to defend Qatar in the event of such an attack. These commitments mirror the commitments the United States has made to its NATO allies in the North Atlantic Treaty and those contained in the U.S. mutual defense treaties with Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines.

The breadth of these commitments stands in contrast to more limited kinds of security assurances the United States has made to other states with which it does not have formal treaty-based alliances. For example, recent executive agreements with Bahrain and Ukraine have included commitments to consult with those states at senior levels in the event of external aggression or the threat of external aggression, but have stopped short of committing the United States to act to defend those states against such aggression, as it has committed to its partners in treaty-based alliances. The administration was likely aware of these models, but appears instead specifically to have chosen to make more expansive commitments.

The executive order is brief and hasn’t been accompanied by any more detailed public explanation of what will be entailed in meeting these full-scale security commitments to Qatar. Important questions that the United States would typically analyze before making commitments of this kind include:

How likely is it that Qatar will face the threat of an armed attack in the near or medium term that would implicate the defense commitments contained in the executive order?
Who might be the likely parties in such an attack, and what actions would the United States be prepared to take against such parties, particularly if they, too, are U.S. partners or allies? (Given recent Israeli missile strikes on Doha, this scenario merits careful consideration.)
What are the scope and scale of actions anticipated to be required to defend Qatar against such an attack?
What are the financial and other resource requirements associated with ensuring that the U.S. military is prepared to act to defend Qatar against an armed attack?
What are the implications for other U.S. security commitments and priorities of devoting resources to be prepared to defend Qatar?
What impact will committing to defend Qatar have on relations with other close U.S. partners to which the United States has not been willing to date to extend comparable security guarantees?

2. Does the President have authority to make these commitments absent Congressional involvement?

Past U.S. mutual defense commitments of the kind announced in the executive order have been made via treaties entered into with the Senate’s advice and consent, ensuring legislative participation in the decision to make the commitments. As the Qatar commitments were announced via executive order, Congress had no formal role in deciding to make them.

Congress has historically carefully guarded its role in decisions by the United States to make security commitments. In 1969, the Senate passed the National Commitments Resolution addressing the making of “national commitments” that involve “a promise to assist a foreign country, government, or people by the use of the Armed Forces or financial resources of the United States, either immediately or upon the happening of certain events.” The resolution stated that:

it is the sense of the Senate that a national commitment by the United States results only from affirmative action taken by the executive and legislative branches of the United States Government by means of a treaty, statute, or concurrent resolution of both Houses of Congress specifically providing for such commitment.

Making commitments to defend Qatar against armed attack without Congressional participation is inconsistent with both historical practice and the Senate’s longstanding position, and raises significant constitutional questions. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the authority both to declare war and to decide whether to appropriate funds to support U.S. military actions. Fulfilling a U.S. commitment to defend Qatar in the event of an armed attack would almost certainly require Congressional action, and making such a commitment without Congressional approval entails an extraordinary and seemingly unprecedented claim of independent authority by the President.

It is further notable that the executive order omits language contained in U.S. mutual defense treaties stating that the actions each party commits to take in response to an armed attack would be taken “in accordance with its constitutional processes.” Such language has historically been included to reflect recognition of Congress’s role in decisions to use force, and to avoid prejudging Congress’s willingness to authorize particular actions. By contrast, the executive order commits the United States to take “all lawful and appropriate measures” to defend U.S. and Qatari interests, without any more specific provision addressing a Congressional role in authorizing such measures.

3. Are the commitments unilateral in nature, as it appears in the E.O.?

Historically, U.S. commitments to defend foreign states have been made as part of a mutual defense agreement, in which each party commits to act together to defend against an attack on another party to the agreement. In such agreements, the United States receives commitments from its partners that they will act to defend against an attack on the United States in exchange for the commitments the United States makes to defend its partners. Of note, the NATO mutual defense commitment was invoked when the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001, and NATO allies took actions to assist in the U.S. defense effort pursuant to their NATO obligations.

By contrast, the executive order’s security commitment to Qatar appears to be made unilaterally, without any mention of a reciprocal pledge on Qatar’s part to act in the defense of the United States in response to an attack on it. The order does mention Qatar’s historical cooperation with the United States on defense matters, including Qatar’s hosting of U.S. forces and enabling critical security operations. But it does not suggest that Qatar is making the same defense commitment to the United States as other U.S. allies have made in the context of our mutual defense treaties. It is not clear why the United States would not expect from Qatar a commitment to act to defend the United States comparable to that which the United States has received from other states to which it has extended security commitments. (Of course, we can’t be sure whether Qatar has privately made such assurances to the United States, but if it did so, it would be odd for the U.S. side’s commitments to be made public and not those of a reciprocal partner.)

4. Are the commitments intended to be binding or non-binding?

The apparent unilateral nature of the commitments also raises questions about their legal character as a matter of international law. Because the commitments are conveyed in a unilateral instrument rather than in a bilateral international agreement, it does not appear that they would be governed by the international law of treaties. This might suggest an assumption that the commitments are discretionary in nature and not legally binding on the United States.

Under some circumstances, however, unilateral undertakings have been held to give rise to binding legal obligations under international law. In 1974, the International Court of Justice held in the Nuclear Test Cases that a unilateral declaration by France to cease nuclear testing in the Pacific gave rise to a binding legal obligation not to conduct further tests. In doing so, the ICJ explained generally that “when it is the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become bound according to its terms, that intention confers on the declaration the character of a legal undertaking, the State being thenceforth legally required to follow a course of conduct consistent with the declaration.”

Further clarification from the administration about its intention regarding the legal character of the commitments in the executive order could shed light on its legal significance. It is notable, however, that the executive order uses language often used in international practice to reflect an intention to create a legal obligation. It states that the United States “shall” regard any armed attack on the territory, sovereignty, or critical infrastructure of the State of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States, and that in the event of such an attack, the United States “shall” take all lawful and appropriate measures — including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military — to defend the interests of the United States and of the State of Qatar and to restore peace and stability. The use of “shall” rather than a discretionary term such as “intends” could be interpreted as reflecting an intention to assume a legally binding obligation, in the absence of other evidence to the contrary.

* * *

Decisions to commit the United States to involvement in armed conflict are among the weightiest decisions we can make as a country. The commitments contained in the Qatar executive order have not received the kind of public attention and deliberation the United States has historically given to such important matters. The executive order leaves unanswered significant questions about the nature and extent of the pledges it makes and the legal basis for making them. Congress and the public should demand answers to these questions.

The post Some Questions About Trump’s Order Pledging to Defend Qatar’s Security appeared first on Just Security.

Early Edition: October 9, 2025

Weronika Galka — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 08:27:27 -0400

Signup to receive the Early Edition in your inbox here.

A curated weekday guide to major news and developments over the last 24 hours. Here’s today’s news:

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR

Israel and Hamas overnight agreed on the initial terms of a deal to exchange the Israeli hostages and around 250 Palestinian prisoners and 1,700 Gazans detained by Israeli forces in the coming days. Hamas has confirmed the deal, but a Palestinian source told BBC News that they have yet to receive a list of Palestinian prisoners Israel would free in the exchange. An Israeli official said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was convening his cabinet today to sign the agreement, which would then mark the start of the formal ceasefire. Alice Cuddy, Yolande Knell, and Hugo Bachega report.

Israeli tanks opened fire along the coastal road of Al-Rashid Street near Gaza City today following the announcement of the deal and before the Israeli cabinet have formally signed off on it, according to a live video feed. The IDF told CNN that the tanks were firing “smoke bombs to keep people away from our forces.” The Hamas-controlled Interior Ministry in Gaza urged people “to exercise caution in the final hours before the ceasefire goes into effect in order to ensure their safety.” Ibrahim Dahman and Eyad Kourdi report.

A “formal declaration” ending the war in Gaza must be made in order for the hostage exchange to take place in the coming days, a senior Hamas official said today. “This is what the Israelis have signed up to,” he said. “This is not a ceasefire. It is a declaration to end the war.” Mostafa Salem, Abbas Al Lawati, and Eyad Kourdi report for CNN.

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR — U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE

Shortly after announcing the Israel-Hamas deal, President Trump told Axios that he is “likely going to Israel in the coming days,” to speak to the Knesset. Trump said he had a “great” call with Netanyahu yesterday, adding “[Netanyahu] is so happy. He should be. It is a great achievement.” Trump also said that under the deal, the hostages would “likely” be released on Monday, and that his administration is “forming a council of peace” to maintain a lasting end to the conflict. Barak Ravid reports; Kaanita Iyer report for CNN.

The U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Tom Fletcher, today called for the immediate delivery of 170,000 tonnes of food, medicine, shelter, and other supplies to Gaza. “Let’s get the hostages out and surge aid in – fast,” Fletcher said. Nick Cumming-Bruce reports for the New York Times.

More than 54,600 children under the age of 5 in Gaza may be acutely malnourished, according to an UNRWA-funded study published in The Lancet yesterday. “Tens of thousands of preschool aged children in the Gaza strip are now suffering from preventable acute malnutrition and face an increased risk of mortality,” Dr Masako Harino, the study’s lead scientist, said. Jonel Aleccia and Sarah El Deeb report for AP News.

OTHER GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS

French President Emmanuel Macron is set to appoint a new prime minister within the next 48 hours, the Élysée presidential office said this morning. “A majority of deputies oppose dissolution [of parliament]; a platform of stability exists; a path is possible to adopt a budget by December 31,” Macron’s office said, citing the outgoing Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s findings. Dominique Vidalon, Michel Rose, and Ingrid Melander report for Reuters.

China’s Commerce Ministry announced today that foreign suppliers must obtain approval from Beijing to export products with certain Chinese rare-earth materials if they account for more than 0.1% of the good’s value. Export applications for products with military use will generally be refused and licenses related to semiconductors or AI development will be granted on a case-by-case basis, the ministry said. Hannah Miao reports for the Wall Street Journal.

China is honing its military ability to stage a surprise attack on Taiwan and seeking to undermine trust in the Taiwanese government with online warfare tactics, Taiwan’s defense ministry announced today in their bi-yearly report. The report said China is using a “professional cyber army” to manipulate social media accounts and flood Taiwan with misinformation. Lee and Ben Blanchard report for Reuters.

680,000 children in Haiti have been displaced by violence, according to a UNICEF report released yesterday. The report says that around 6 million Haitians need humanitarian support, adding that “without decisive action, the future of an entire generation is at stake.” Dánica Coto and Evens Sanon report for AP News.

The United Nations will cut a quarter of peacekeepers in nine operations worldwide in the upcoming months due to a current lack of funding and concerns about future funding from the United States, U.N. senior officials said yesterday. An official said that the United States’ total outstanding bill to the U.N. is more than $2.8 billion. Michelle Nichols reports for Reuters.

Over 200 health facilities in east Congo are experiencing shortages of medicine due to a lack of humanitarian funding and fighting in the region, the International Committee of the Red Cross said yesterday. “The lives of thousands of people are at stake” due to shortages of medicine against HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis, according to the head of the ICRC delegation in Congo, FrançoisMoreillon. Jean-Yves Kamale reports for AP News.

The Taliban administration has placed restrictions on content on some social media platforms in Afghanistan, sources at the Afghan Ministry of Communications and Information Technology told BBC News. It is not clear what sort of posts are subject to filtering. Hafizullah Maroof and Doug Faulkner report.

U.S. FOREIGN AFFAIRS

A bipartisan War Powers Act measure to stop Trump’s strikes on alleged drug vessels in the Caribbean failed 48-51 in the Senate yesterday, despite Republican Sens. Rand Paul (KY) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) joining Democrats in supporting the measure. “The U.S. should not be blowing up boats without even knowing who’s on them. There’s no due process in that – no names, no evidence, no oversight,” Paul said yesterday on social media. Stephen Neukam and Stef W. Kight report for Axios.

“Indications show that the last boat bombed” by the United States in the Caribbean sea “was Colombian with Colombian citizens inside of it,” Colombian President Gustavo Petro said yesterday on social media. He did not provide evidence backing the claim. A White House official told Reuters that “the United States looks forward to President Petro publicly retracting his baseless and reprehensible statement.” Nelson Bocanegra and Alexander Villegas reports.

Qatar is trying to act as a mediator in the conflict between the United States and Venezuela, according to three sources. The sources said that Qatar’s efforts have been welcomed by the Venezuelan government, but that the Trump administration is more focussed on military operations than diplomacy. The Pentagon has deployed 10,000 U.S. troops to the region, mostly to bases in Puerto Rico, according to a U.S. military official. Edward Wong, Eric Schmitt, and Julie Turkewitz report for the New York Times.

The United States has sanctioned Serbia’s main oil supplier, which is majority-owned by Russia’s state oil monopoly Gazprom Neft, , the company said today. “The special license from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which enabled unhindered operational business, has not been extended,” Petroleum Industry of Serbia (Nis) said. U.S. officials have yet to comment. AP News reports.

FEDERALIZATION OF DOMESTIC POLICING

White House officials have held meetings this week that increasingly seriously considered whether Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops inside the United States, five sources told NBC News. A senior official said that a decision to invoke the act is not imminent and that the broad consensus among Trump’s aides is to exhaust all other options first. Two other sources said the debate has shifted from whether to invoke the act to when and how to invoke it. Courtney Kube, Katherine Doyle, Carol E. Lee, and Garrett Haake report.

Trump yesterday called for Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) to be imprisoned for failing to protect ICE agents. “This is not the first time Trump has tried to have a black man unjustly arrested,” Johnson responded on social media. “I’m not going anywhere.” Pritzker said in an interview, “If you come for my people, you come through me. So come and get me.” Joseph De Avilia, Mariah Timms, and Bob Tita report for the Wall Street Journal.

Texas National Guard Troops started “actively protecting federal personnel and property,” in the Chicago area yesterday evening, according to a U.S. Northern Command spokesperson. Several hundred people marched in Chicago yesterday protesting the deployment of the troops. Mitch Smith reports for the New York Times; Emily Schmall, Susan Heavey, and Daniel Trotta report for Reuters.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS

The Internal Revenue Service said yesterday in an internal memo that federal workers are required by law to be paid for the furlough period during a government shutdown. The letter from Acting IRS Human Capital Officer David Traynor to IRS employees confirms that they will be paid on “the earliest date possible.” Avery Lotz reports for Axios.

FBI Director Kash Patel this week fired two agents who were identified as having worked with Jack Smith, the special counsel who led the federal investigation into Trump, according to two sources. The sources said that the two agents had not been formally accused of misconduct, nor were they subject to investigation. Patel cited Article II of the Constitution and his right to fire anyone without cause. Gleen Thrush and Alan Feuer report for the New York Times.

The Defense Department plans to enforce new policies that “appear designed to stifle a free press,” the Pentagon Press Association said in a statement yesterday. “The policy conveys an unprecedented message of intimidation to everyone” within the DoD, “even suggesting it’s criminal to speak without express permission,” the press association said. Julianna Bragg reports for Axios.

U.S. IMMIGRATION DEVELOPMENTS

Pope Leo XIV yesterday told U.S. bishops that they should firmly address how immigrants are being treated as a result of the Trump administration’s policies, according to attendees at the meeting in the Vatican. Pope Leo “expressed his desire that the U.S. Bishops’ Conference would speak strongly on this issue,” El Paso Bishop Mark Seitz told Reuters. Joshua McElwee reports.

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that ICE’s use of blank warrants for making arrests can only be used as a basis to arrest someone who has already been given notice to appear before an immigration judge. The ruling, which stems from a consent decree struck by the Biden administration in 2022, is confined to Chicago and will expire in February. Matthias Schwartz reports for the New York Times.

A federal grand jury yesterday elected not to indict two individuals charged with assaulting federal law enforcement officers at a protest outside an immigration facility in Chicago last month. “Obviously they didn’t have enough for a ham sandwich here,” said a lawyer representing one of the protestors, adding that the failure to secure an indictment was “highly unusual.” Ernesto Londoño reports for the New York Times.

U.S. DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS

Former FBI Director James Comey yesterday pleaded not guilty to charges that he lied to Congress. Comey’s lawyer said he would move to dismiss the case, calling the prosecution “vindictive” and “selective.” Glenn Thrush, Karoun Demirjian, and Minho Kim report for the New York Times.

TECH DEVELOPMENTS

Microsoft will release an update of its Copilot AI chatbot that responds to queries about healthcare, developed in collaboration with Harvard Medical School, as soon as this month, sources told the Wall Street Journal. Sources said that the move is part of an urgency in Microsoft to build up technological independence from OpenAI. Sebastian Herrera reports.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION LITIGATION

An appeals court yesterday granted an administrative stay of a federal judge’s October 4 Temporary Restraining Order blocking the deployment of Oregon National Guards troops to Portland. A broader order from October 5 that prohibits any state’s National Guard from entering Portland remains in effect. Peter Charalambous reports for ABC News.

A federal judge yesterday ruled that the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency must respond to the New York Times’ September 2024 FOIA request and produce a list of any security clearances granted to Elon Musk at that time. The court held that the DCSA’s failed to prove that the disclosure of a list of Musk’s clearances would be a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Did you miss this? Stay up-to-date with our Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

If you enjoy listening, Just Security’s analytic articles are also available in audio form on the justsecurity.org website.

ICYMI: yesterday on Just Security

A New Approach in the Fight Against Transnational Violent Extremism is Needed

By Thomas E. Brzozowski

U.S. Sanctions Removal on Mining Magnate Would Set Back Peace and Investment in DR Congo

By John Prendergast and Sasha Lezhnev

Russia’s Eliminationist Rhetoric Against Ukraine: A Collection

By Clara Apt

The post Early Edition: October 9, 2025 appeared first on Just Security.

Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

Just Security — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 07:30:19 -0400

This public resource tracks legal challenges to Trump administration actions. If you think we are missing anything, you can email us at lte@justsecurity.org.

The Tracker is part of the Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of the Trump Administration’s Executive Actions.

NEW: To get important litigation updates delivered to your inbox at the end of every weekday, sign up for “Today on Just Security.” That weekday newsletter also includes our articles from the day. Readers may also be interested in signing up for our free Early Edition roundup of global and national news each workday morning. (Both sign-ups are free and we respect your privacy; we do not use your email address for any other purpose except to automatically send you the requested email). If you would like to help support our efforts, we appreciate donations of any amount as it takes a village to produce this work.

Total number of cases currently tracked: 439.

Case Status Summary
Case Closed in Favor of Plaintiff: 0
Blocked: 29
Temporarily Blocked: 83
Blocked Pending Appeal: 19
Temporarily Blocked in Part; Temporary Block Denied in Part: 10
Temporary Block Denied: 38
Not Blocked Pending Appeal: 33
Awaiting Court Ruling: 195
Case Closed: 23
Misc: Transferred: 2
Case Closed/Dismissed in Favor of Government: 7

What’s included in our tracker?

Note-1: We do not track cases in which the Trump administration is the plaintiff/files a civil lawsuit. Some other organizations include those cases in their litigation trackers – ours tracks only challenges to Trump administration executive actions.
Note-2: We do not count appeals as separate cases. (The appeal of a district court decision to a Court of Appeals and/or Supreme Court is part of the same case.)
Note-3: We treat as one case all the lawsuits involving the removal of F-1 foreign student visa registration. According to Politico, there were “more than 100 lawsuits and 50 restraining orders from dozens of federal judges,” before the government reversed its decision and restored the F-1 registrations on or about Apr. 25, 2025.

Case Name	Filings	Date Case Filed	Case Status	Issue	Executive Action	Last Update	Case Summary	Case Updates
Taylor v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01161	Complaint	2025-04-16	Awaiting Court Ruling	Civil Liberties and Rights	"Executive Action: Conditions of Imprisonment (Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety - Executive Order 14164) (Attorney General Memorandum, Feb. 5, 2025)"	2025-05-27	Overview: A group of individuals whose federal death sentences were commuted by President Biden challenge Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 Executive Order (EO), directing the Attorney General to evaluate their imprisonment conditions for consistency with the “monstrosity” of their crimes and the threats they pose, and the subsequent Attorney General memo (Bondi Memo) implementing the EO by incarcerating the individuals indefinitely at the only federal supermax prison. The individuals request that the Court enjoin implementation of the EO and the Bondi Memo, ordering appropriate redesignation based on initial designation by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Case Summary: The plaintiffs, a group of individuals whose federal death sentences were commuted by President Biden, filed a complaint against President Trump, Attorney General Bondi, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and other DOJ and BOP employees in their official capacity. The plaintiffs challenge Executive Order 14164, issued by President Trump, which directed the Attorney General to ensure their imprisonment in conditions reflecting the severity of their crimes. The Bondi Memo implemented this order, mandating their indefinite incarceration at ADX Florence, the only federal supermax prison. Plaintiffs allege that the redesignation process was a sham, denying them procedural due process and equal protection. They claim the conditions at ADX Florence constitute cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference to their medical and mental health needs. Additionally, they argue that the redesignation directive is a bill of attainder and violates the Ex Post Facto Clause by retroactively increasing the severity of their punishment. The plaintiffs assert that these actions interfere with the clemency power of President Biden's commutation orders. They also contend that the defendants' actions exceeded statutory authority and were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to overturn EO 14164 and the Bondi Memo, ordering appropriate redesignation based on initial BOP decisions. The plaintiffs also request costs and attorneys' fees for the legal proceedings.	Update 1: On May 2, Defendants filed a motion opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Update 2: On May 12, Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum in further support for their motion for a preliminary injunction, claiming that the Defendants stopped the lawful process to impose an extra-judicial punishment. Plaintiffs claim that they are likely to prevail on the merits, they will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not intervene, and the balance of equities and public interest weighs heavily in their favor. Update 3: On May 27, Judge Timothy Kelly denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction Judge Kelly’s opinion noted Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, because they have not exhausted all available administrative remedies.
National Association of the Deaf v. Trump (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-01683	Complaint	2025-05-28	Awaiting Court Ruling	Civil Liberties and Rights	Executive Action: Accessibility	2025-05-28	Overview: The Trump Administration has stopped providing ASL interpretation at White House press briefings and other similar events. The National Association of the Deaf and two of its members are challenging the Trump Administration’s decision, arguing that it deprives them of the ability to meaningfully participate in American society. Plaintiffs allege the Administration is violating the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the First and Fifth Amendments. Case Summary: In January 2025, the Trump administration stopped providing ASL interpreters at public press briefings and other similar events. The federal government had provided ASL interpretation for all coronavirus press briefings following a court order in October 2020 and began voluntarily providing interpretation services at all press briefings by key administration officials in January 2021. The National Association of the Deaf (NAD), a civil rights organization, and two members of NAD are suing President Trump, Susan Wiles, the White House Chief of Staff, Karoline Leavitt, the Press Secretary to the President, and a number of offices within the White House to challenge the decision to stop providing ASL interpretation. Plaintiffs argue that without such services, deaf and hard of hearing individuals are unable to meaningfully access federal government programs and services or participate in American society. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants are violating the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits executive agencies from discriminating against individuals with disabilities when conducting any program or activity. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants are violating the First Amendment, arguing that freedom of speech includes the right to receive information and that this deprivation impinges on their ability to petition the government. Plaintiffs further argue that the Fifth Amendment is violated because Plaintiffs are being denied equal protection under the law by being treated differently and because the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights under the First Amendment are being impinged upon. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring Defendants to provide ASL interpreters at press briefings and other similar events. They also seek a court declaration that Defendants are violating the Rehabilitation Act and the First and Fifth Amendments.
Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C.) 1:25-cv-00716	Complaint Amended Complaint 2025-04-29	2025-03-11	Blocked	Civil Liberties and Rights	Executive Action: Action Against Law Firms and Lawyers (Executive Order 14230 - Perkins Coie) (Executive Order 14246 - Jenner & Block) (Executive Order - WilmerHale) (Presidential Memorandum)	2025-06-30	Overview: The law firm Perkins Coie sued the Department of Justice and other government agencies over President Trump’s Mar. 6, 2025 executive order (EO) terminating government contracts, denying members of the firm access to federal employees, and suspending employees’ security clearances. A federal judge held the order is unlawful. The Defendants have appealed the decision. Case Summary: On Mar. 6, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) accusing the law firm Perkins Coie LLP of undermining democracy and maintaining illegal race-based hiring quotas. The executive order directs various agencies to impose sanctions against the firm, including: terminating the firm’s government contracts; suspending employees’ security clearances pending a national-security review; ordering a review of the firm’s hiring practices by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; limiting employees’ access to federal buildings; and directing agencies not to hire Perkins Coie employees. The Plaintiff sued, alleging that the executive action is unconstitutional, violating separation of powers, the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and association, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. They seek a declaratory judgment that the order is unconstitutional and an immediate injunction stopping implementation of the order pending court review, followed by preliminary and permanent injunctions. The Plaintiff also submitted a request for a temporary restraining order and a proposed order that enjoined only Sections 1 (Purpose), 3 (Contracting), and 5 (Personnel including access to Federal Government buildings) of the executive order.	Update 1: On Mar. 12, Judge Beryl Howell, ruling from the bench, granted Perkins Coie’s request for a temporary restraining order to block Sections 1, 3, and 5 of the executive order. During the hearing, she reportedly noted that the Plaintiff had not requested the TRO apply to Section 2 (Security Clearances) and Section 4 (Racial Discrimination) of the executive order, although those sections are also part of the lawsuit. She followed hours later with a written order. Update 2: On Mar. 21, the Defendant filed a motion to disqualify the judge. On Mar. 26, the court denied the motion. Update 3: On Apr. 2, Perkins Coie filed a motion for summary judgment and requested the court to permanently block Defendants from enforcing the EO. Perkins Coie argues the Court should declare the EO unlawful for violating the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution, exceeding the President’s constitutional authority under Article II, and violating the separation of powers. On that same day, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, arguing that the EO directs the review of Perkins Coie to ensure that the Federal Government’s dealings with the firm are consistent with national security and other public interests. Defendants also filed a motion to reconsider the scope of the TRO granted on Mar. 12, arguing it is overly broad because the United States is not a proper defendant. Update 4: On Apr. 16, Perkins Coie filed its opposition to the DOJ’s motion to dismiss, emphasizing the retaliatory nature of the EO. On that same day, the DOJ filed its opposition to Perkins Coie’s motion for summary judgment, instead requesting the court grant its motion to dismiss. Update 5: On Apr. 18, the DOJ replied to Perkins Coie’s opposition to its motion to dismiss, asserting Perkins Coie’s conduct is subject to reasonable scrutiny and that the court is not the proper recourse for Perkins Coie’s concerns. On that same day, Perkins Coie replied to the DOJ’s opposition to its motion for summary judgment, emphasizing its view that the EO is “blatantly unconstitutional” and requesting the court grant its summary judgment motion on all claims. Update 6: On Apr. 29, Perkins Coie amended its complaint to list all of the defendants and their addresses. Update 7: On Apr. 30, the Fannie Mae defendants were voluntarily dismissed in a notice by Perkins Coie. On that same day, Perkins Coie filed a motion for summary judgment and the DOJ renewed its motion to dismiss and requested expedited judgment. Update 8: On May 2, Judge Howell held that the EO violates the law and is invalid. Specifically, Judge Howell held that the EO violates the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and permanently enjoined the DOJ from implementing, enforcing, or using statements from the EO in any way. Judge Howell granted Perkins Coie’s motion for summary judgment and declaratory relief and denied the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. Update 9: On June 30, the Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal in response to Judge Howell’s judgment and injunction blocking Executive Order 14230, which explicitly targeted law firm Perkins Coie. In her May 2 decision, Judge Howell ruled the Executive Order unconstitutional and condemned it as an “unprecedented attack” on the “foundational principles” of the judicial system.
Je LEADERSHIP: Russian Navy Crippled by Corruption Thu, 09 Oct 2025 06:40:26 -0400 INFORMATION WARFARE: Iran Exploits Western Cellphones Thu, 09 Oct 2025 06:39:13 -0400 Thomas Pynchon Saw Where We Were Headed. How Does “Shadow Ticket” Hold Up? Parul Sehgal — Thu, 09 Oct 2025 05:01:10 -0400 The novelist anticipated our bizarre present. How does his latest book hold up in an age of eroding reality? China/Europe : Chinese influence and interference in Western Europe Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400 The Chinese Communist Party has stepped up efforts to spread its influence in Europe. Whether it be through students, academics, "friends of China" groups or cultural players, China's ruling party is initiating new channels of communication coordinated directly by the United Front Work Department. [...] China/Europe/India/Russia/Saudi Arabia/UAE/United States : The geopolitical power plays in Earth observation Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400 As global strategic rivalries return to the fore - in Ukraine, Gaza, the Taiwan Straight and in Africa, where Russia is a force to be reckoned with - accumulating crises are influencing the spy-satellite power players: who observes what, who sets up where, who sows alliances with whom and, increasingly, who releases what data publicly.The upshot is that the targets selected for observation, the countries being courted, and the NGOs and broadcasters being brought into the loop all provide insight into the major space players' strategies and focal points. [...] United States : Tulsi Gabbard to rely more heavily on Project 2025 playbook Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400 The US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard has just appointed Dennis Kirk, an experienced human resources specialist, as chief operating officer at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). In his new role, Kirk will be [...] Afghanistan/India : India seeks Taliban deal to counter Pakistan Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400 India's National Security Adviser (NSA, IO, 20/11/23) Ajit Doval has been in regular contact with Afghan officials ever since the [...] China/France : France's Florian Philippot the odd darling of Chinese propaganda network Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400 Intelligence Online has gained exclusive access to a forthcoming study by Paul Charon, researcher at the French defence ministry's IRSEM [...] France/Russia : Dangerous liaisons: Russian services tap into ISIS Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400 A French source interviewed by Intelligence Online has revealed that a former Islamic State fighter, Russian-Kazakh national Baurjan Kultanov, recently [...] Syria : Pressure mounts on oligarchs of former Syrian regime to pay their dues Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400 Syria's new leaders are relying primarily on the so-called Special Pardon Committee to pump cash into the state coffers, ahead [...] Russia : Roscosmos turns to low-cost GEOINT in face of Russian space sector crisis Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400 Russian space agency Roscosmos's announcement on 18 September that it is to develop an Earth observation constellation with a new [...] Afghanistan : Amarante prevails in spat over EU diplomats' security deal in Kabul Thu, 09 Oct 2025 00:00:00 -0400 Wednesday 1 October was supposed to provide IDG Security with a reason to celebrate. The British company owned by former [...] Colombia’s President Says Boat Bombed by U.S. Was Carrying Colombians Julie Turkewitz and Robert Jimison — Wed, 08 Oct 2025 22:58:46 -0400 The Trump administration has said that it is attacking boats and killing their occupants because they are smuggling drugs from Venezuela to the United States. ‘Stop trying to control every step’ of shipbuilding, senator tells Navy Lauren C. Williams — Wed, 08 Oct 2025 22:57:04 -0400 The White House wants to speed up shipbuilding, but first, the Navy has to loosen its grip—at least according to one senator. “The Navy has taken over shipbuilding, I believe, to their detriment,” said Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, during a Center for Strategic and International Studies event on Tuesday. “An average naval officer is not a shipbuilding expert. They're just not…It takes decades to build that institutional knowledge of not just naval architecture, but also knowledge of the industrial base, to effectively build the ship and build it fast and build it right. And the Navy lost that institutional knowledge decades ago.” Sheehy, a former Navy SEAL, said the Navy must “stop trying to control every step of the process” and be more decisive on what it needs—which will in turn bring down costs and speed up production. “Stop the change orders, stabilize specs, lock in engineering requirements and then push it out to industry to bid and manage the build of those vessels as fast and cheaply as possible. And we're going to see quantity go up, price go down, and we're going to see suppliers coming to the table—we're going to see a broader supplier base,” Sheehy said. “So, for all the bashing of the big defense primes, of the Big Five—‘They're bad.’ No, they're not. They've just responded to the reality. The Pentagon has built a landscape and asked them to play by a set of rules. They've played by those rules, and those rules have encouraged mass consolidation, very long, drawn-out processes, where the process is the point, not the outcome. And we have to change those incentives to where the outcome is the point, not the process.” Earlier this year, the White House issued executive orders meant to speed up defense acquisitions and shipbuilding. The Pentagon followed suit with its own directive for buying software. But the Pentagon and Congress have wrestled with acquisition reform for years. Defense acquisition “has to be lit on fire and destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up,” Sheehy said. “So, it's more than a radical rethink. We need a revolutionary point of view on this. And if we can fix shipbuilding, I believe that will trickle down to the rest of defense acquisition.” In recent years, Navy leaders have called for more competition in the shipbuilding sector as a means to reduce production delays and ballooning costs. Some of those changes are already underway as Navy Secretary John Phelan moves to reorganize the service’s drone-acquisition structure. But while Sheehy stressed the need to welcome the private sector and more startups to manufacturing, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said the Navy should look to share maintenance and repair work with allies and partners. “We have to be 100 percent better. And that is not incremental, that is, again, expanding your capacity through creative work with allies and bringing the private sector—and the innovative part of the private sector, not just the incumbent part of the private sector—bringing them in a much more robust way,” Kaine said at the same event Tuesday. Kaine, who is the SASC’s ranking member on its seapower subcommittee, also pushed for a bigger defense budget to help spur the maritime industrial base, saying the U.S. can’t ask NATO countries to spend 5 percent of their GDP if it's not doing the same. “Three percent is about where we are, maybe a little bit north of that. I mean, at a minimum, we need to do what we're asking other NATO nations to do…where it was five of 34 nations meeting the 2 percent, it's now 29 of 34. But I like the fact that President [Donald] Trump is now going beyond in saying 2 percent isn’t enough. It should be [5 percent]. Now, we will give you credit for some infrastructure investments. It's not just weapons platforms. So, we're slightly opening up the definition,” Kaine said, noting that U.S. infrastructure investments could bring defense spending closer to 5 percent of GDP. But it’s a complex problem that requires the U.S. and its allies to evaluate and balance competing priorities, such as commerce security in the Red Sea. “When the Houthis were firing into the Red Sea. I mean, the U.S. is basically paying the entire bill, even though they weren't firing at U.S. ships. The U.S. is paying the entire bill for protecting commerce through the Red Sea, ships flagged by other nations,” Kaine said. “Obviously, we're going to defend U.S. military ships, but a lot of what they were firing at was commercial ships from other nations…We have a lot of things we want to do. Are we honest about matching up those aspirations with dollars? But that is why pushing allies to do more and getting closer together with allies is so important.” ]]> G.O.P. Blocks Bid to Halt Trump’s Attacks in the Caribbean Sea Robert Jimison — Wed, 08 Oct 2025 20:17:31 -0400 Republicans in the Senate blocked a measure that would terminate the president’s legally disputed campaign targeting alleged drug runners. PHOTO: Raptor and Mustang Wed, 08 Oct 2025 20:09:29 -0400 Kash Patel Fires Two F.B.I. Agents Who Worked on Trump Investigation Glenn Thrush and Alan Feuer — Wed, 08 Oct 2025 19:53:45 -0400 The agents were identified in documents obtained by a Republican senator as having worked with Jack Smith, the special counsel who led the federal inquiries into Donald J. Trump. Qatar Pushes U.S.-Venezuela Diplomacy as Trump Focuses on Military Action Edward Wong, Eric Schmitt and Julie Turkewitz — Wed, 08 Oct 2025 19:53:36 -0400 The Pentagon has deployed 10,000 U.S. troops to the region, most of them to bases in Puerto Rico, a senior military official said. ON POINT: Battlefield Chicago: America's Internal War Wed, 08 Oct 2025 19:50:09 -0400 Trump 2.0 Is America’s Worst Moments Redux Jamelle Bouie — Wed, 08 Oct 2025 19:10:17 -0400 Remember when Republicans loved states’ rights? Lawmakers call for more defense biotech research as China pursues breakthroughs Meghann Myers — Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:36:20 -0400 The U.S. is falling behind in biotechnology development, Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., said Wednesday—adding that he and other lawmakers are working to help the country catch up with China’s push to incorporate technologies like gene editing for human performance on the battlefield. As the Trump administration slashes scientific research funding, Young and his colleagues are hoping to impress upon the executive branch the necessity of biotech as not just a national-security priority, but as an economic driver for its voter strongholds. “One general category in which the Chinese, in particular, are out-classing us, is in bio-manufacturing, industrial applications of biotech – new materials, for example – and new life-saving compounds that could be a great utility to warfighters,” Young said at an event hosted by the With Honor Institute. An April report by Young’s National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology made 49 recommendations for how the U.S. can invest in and use biotech in defense. “Biological sensors could detect pathogens or chemical threats in real time, creating a dynamic and resilient system for battlefield awareness,” the report argued. “Biotechnology also promises new advantages in stealth and mobility. Dynamic biological camouflage, for instance, could shield warfighters from thermal detection, while wearable biosensors could adjust mission parameters based on real-time physiological data.” There’s also the possibility of shelf-stable blood products for combat lifesaving, Young said, and “other materials that might actually be incorporated into our weapons systems in various ways.” There are concerns in Congress about the administration’s cuts to science funding, including $4 billion from universities, hospitals and other institutions. “I'm deeply, deeply alarmed by what's happening in our basic science and research sectors,” said Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., a co-founder of the BIOTech Caucus. “It's a chilling effect at the business level and at the individual science levels. It just doesn't make any sense, that if we think we need to lead in manufacturing or lead in technology, why would we be blowing up the basic research that drives that?” Houlahan and her colleagues on the House and Senate armed services committees have inserted a host of biotechnology measures into the most recent National Defense Authorization Act bill, including a mandate that the Pentagon create an official strategy for its efforts in the field. Both Young and Houlahan pointed to the CHIPS and Science Act, a signature piece of Biden administration legislation, as a promising example of bipartisan support for investment in U.S. technology independence. “The administration clearly has proven from the CHIPS Act that they can support industrial policy as long as they put their own signature on it,” Young said. “And in this case, they have an opportunity to stand up a program which will disproportionately benefit, from an economic standpoint, farm country USA.” Opportunities for this type of manufacturing in states like his own Indiana, Young added, are “enormous.” “They campaigned on restoring a golden age of innovation. They campaigned on a golden age of manufacturing. They particularly tried to connect with overlooked, under-appreciated people in rural America, and electorally, they disproportionately benefited from the support and encouragement of what was once disparagingly called flyover country,” Young said. “I will make a political argument, along with the policy argument, that they need to be attentive to this, otherwise another party will take the narrative and become the party of championing rural America and bio manufacturing.” While the Trump administration has spent much of its first months in office “clearing” what it believed are the excesses of the federal government, Young added, the next step is to put forth a vision for building. ]]> James Comey, Former FBI Director, Pleads Not Guilty and Will Seek to Dismiss Charges as Vindictive Glenn Thrush, Karoun Demirjian and Minho Kim — Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:32:30 -0400 The former F.B.I. director appeared in a brief hearing in federal court. His lawyers sought clarity on the details of a case filed under pressure from President Trump. Legal experts fear Trump admin is ignoring JAGs on cartel strikes, Guard deployments Thomas Novelly — Wed, 08 Oct 2025 17:25:15 -0400 National-security-law experts worry that guidance from the military’s top legal minds is being ignored by the Trump administration, which is pushing troops into new legal territory with deployments to U.S. cities and strikes on alleged drug-runners abroad. "One of the things I fear might be happening here is that the judge advocates in this instance may be providing proper means and methods advice, but I sense that the administration has gone to the Department of Justice and asked the Office of Legal Counsel to override whatever advice is being given by the judge advocates,” James Baker, a law professor at Syracuse University and former chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, said Wednesday during a Center for a New American Security event. Baker and James McPherson, a retired rear admiral and former Navy JAG who served as Army undersecretary during Trump's first term, told attendees that the military's lawyers have historically been crucial for making sound decisions during operations. But, in February, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired the Air Force, Army and Navy’s top judge advocates general. Hegseth told reporters their dismissals were necessary to clear "roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief." Baker and McPherson’s concerns follow a new report that a classified legal opinion from the Department of Justice has justified continued strikes on alleged cartel members. McPherson said that if he was put in the difficult position of the JAG advising the commander on the cartel strikes, he would take note of everything and offer that officer a way out of the situation, too. “If I felt that he was being given advice that was not sound and not legal, I would document that myself,” McPherson said, adding he’d also tell that commander he’d draft legal guidance to his superiors “‘that will protect you in the future if some of this comes back to haunt you.’” In the early hours of his second term, Trump signed an executive order designating certain cartels as terrorist organizations. On Oct. 2, the administration sent a memo to Congress declaring that the U.S. is in an “armed conflict” with the groups. Baker poked holes in that logic. He said the labels alone don’t seem to be enough to support the militarized action. “The problem here seems to be reverse engineering,” Baker said. “There's no armed group and ongoing, consistent, violent hostilities. I'm not seeing it.” In addition to the cartel strikes, a flurry of legal challenges have been filed in response to President Trump’s deployments of National Guard troops to Chicago, Portland, Oregon, and Memphis. Similar deployments earlier this year to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., are also the subjects of lawsuits. McPherson said the administration’s legal justifications for the LA deployment were divorced from reality. "Well, those facts were not supported by the evidence, ladies and gentlemen. Just simply was not,” he said. “And as a result, the facts that the administration articulated were facts that they found on Truth Social, facts they found in podcasts, facts they found not in evidence on the ground." Judge advocates general often provide direct guidance to a commander, steering them between the guardrails in place for military operations. An August survey by the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab reported that 4 out of 5 service members surveyed understood the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s mandate to disobey unlawful orders. Baker said commanders should have the courage to stand up to illegal orders. "If the JAG advised it was unlawful, the commander owns it now,” Baker said. “So, if you think there's something that is unlawful, you need to say so. And that's a point when you put your stars on the table." ]]>

U.S. National Security and Military News Review

South Korea : Lee Jong-seok, the academic driving South Korea's new security shift

Kyrgyzstan/Russia : Pro-Kremlin NGO Evrazia boosts network in Caucasus and Central Asia

United States : Israeli PR machine ropes in influencers for US charm offensive

China/United States : OFAC pressed to rule on case involving dual-use tech export to China

UAE : Sharjah graft probe hits dozens of consultants with travel bans and asset freezes

Malaysia/Spain : Heirs of Sulu v Malaysia: influence and intel campaigns intensify ahead of critical court verdicts

Amid shutdown, the Army will do its best to talk transformation, counter-drones, and acquisition reform

Current, former state leaders weigh in on Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops

What a National Guard Deployment Means

U.S. to Send 200 Troops to Israel in Support Roles

Appellate Judges Appear Open to Allowing National Guard Troops to Deploy to Portland

Get more F-35s in the air and don't break the bank, senators beg USAF chief nominee

A Skeptical Reception for Hegseth’s Quantico Talk

Texas’ Blue-State Deployments Shred Relations Between Governors

Oklahoma’s Republican Governor Criticizes National Guard Deployment in Chicago

The Army’s Race to Catch Up in a World of Deadly Drones

Trump aumenta la presencia militar cerca de Venezuela y Catar busca mediar

The D Brief: Ceasefire near in Gaza?; Troops arrive in Chicago; Shipbuilding advice; Deportation stats; And a bit more.

Around the Defense Department

Trump’s militarization of American cities

Israel

DHS tells hundreds of staffers: accept reassignment to border security, immigration—or face termination

Appeals Court to Weigh Legality of Deploying Troops to Portland

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s War with the Rules of Engagement

Rules of Engagement

The Constituent Elements of ROE

Legitimate Operations Are More Effective Operations

A Closer Look at Trump’s Peace Deals: From “Death and Hatred” to “Love and Success”?

DRC-Rwanda Peace Agreement

Armenia-Azerbaijan Joint Declaration

Future Iterations of the “Resources-for-Peace” Approach

1. The breadth of the commitments: why are they on par with mutual defense treaties?

2. Does the President have authority to make these commitments absent Congressional involvement?

3. Are the commitments unilateral in nature, as it appears in the E.O.?

4. Are the commitments intended to be binding or non-binding?

Early Edition: October 9, 2025

Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

LEADERSHIP: Russian Navy Crippled by Corruption

INFORMATION WARFARE: Iran Exploits Western Cellphones

Thomas Pynchon Saw Where We Were Headed. How Does “Shadow Ticket” Hold Up?

China/Europe : Chinese influence and interference in Western Europe

China/Europe/India/Russia/Saudi Arabia/UAE/United States : The geopolitical power plays in Earth observation

United States : Tulsi Gabbard to rely more heavily on Project 2025 playbook

Afghanistan/India : India seeks Taliban deal to counter Pakistan

China/France : France's Florian Philippot the odd darling of Chinese propaganda network

France/Russia : Dangerous liaisons: Russian services tap into ISIS

Syria : Pressure mounts on oligarchs of former Syrian regime to pay their dues

Russia : Roscosmos turns to low-cost GEOINT in face of Russian space sector crisis

Afghanistan : Amarante prevails in spat over EU diplomats' security deal in Kabul

Colombia’s President Says Boat Bombed by U.S. Was Carrying Colombians

‘Stop trying to control every step’ of shipbuilding, senator tells Navy

G.O.P. Blocks Bid to Halt Trump’s Attacks in the Caribbean Sea

PHOTO: Raptor and Mustang

Kash Patel Fires Two F.B.I. Agents Who Worked on Trump Investigation

Qatar Pushes U.S.-Venezuela Diplomacy as Trump Focuses on Military Action

ON POINT: Battlefield Chicago: America's Internal War

Trump 2.0 Is America’s Worst Moments Redux

Lawmakers call for more defense biotech research as China pursues breakthroughs

James Comey, Former FBI Director, Pleads Not Guilty and Will Seek to Dismiss Charges as Vindictive

Legal experts fear Trump admin is ignoring JAGs on cartel strikes, Guard deployments