U.S. National Security and Military News Review

Why Does the U.S. Arm Ukraine With Fanfare and Israel in Secret?

Nicholas Kristof and Taylor Maggiacomo — Sat, 27 Apr 2024 07:00:00 -0400

The Biden administration should be more transparent about weapons sent to Israel.

How the U.S. Humanitarian Pier in Gaza Will Work

Elena Shao, Mika Gröndahl, Anjali Singhvi and Marco Hernandez — Sat, 27 Apr 2024 05:05:43 -0400

A pier operation being assembled by U.S. service members will involve an elaborate process to provide Gazans with just a portion of the aid they need.

AIR DEFENSE: EAGLS and APKWS

Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:18:07 -0400

LOGISTICS: Ukraine Connects With European Railroads

Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:16:54 -0400

SPECIAL OPERATIONS: Russia Lost It's Subversion Skills

Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:12:44 -0400

Lisa Page, Ex-F.B.I. Lawyer Who Criticized Trump, Says Bureau Failed to Warn Her of Stalker

Glenn Thrush and Adam Goldman — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 18:16:15 -0400

A man who pleaded guilty to stalking the lawyer, Lisa Page, had been discharged from the Marines after expressing an obsession with her as well as mass shootings, information that was shared with the F.B.I.

Losing a Foot Never Held Her Back, Until She Tried to Join the Military

Dave Philipps — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:16:18 -0400

Amputees who try to join the U.S. armed forces are rejected, no matter how capable they are. Hannah Cvancara wants to change that.

The D Brief: Houthis renew ship attacks; More ATACMS to Ukraine; Gaza pier update; Changes at SOF school; And a bit more.

Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 11:20:31 -0400

5 Takeaways from David Pecker’s Testimony in Trump’s Hush-Money Trial

Jesse McKinley and Kate Christobek — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:32:28 -0400

David Pecker told jurors of a universe in which favors for celebrities were demanded and dispensed. His cross-examination will continue Friday.

U.S. Builds Web of Arms, Ships and Bases in the Pacific to Deter China

John Ismay, Edward Wong and Pablo Robles — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 10:29:29 -0400

With missiles, submarines and alliances, the Biden administration has built a presence in the region to rein in Beijing’s expansionist goals.

An Oversight Model for AI in National Security: The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

Faiza Patel — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:56:59 -0400

As national security agencies race to adopt AI, it is critical that Congress and the Biden administration shore up oversight of these technologies, which they acknowledge pose serious risks to privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently issued guidance that mandates transparency for federal uses of AI, identifies numerous uses that are presumptively rights- and safety-impacting, and requires minimum risk management practices—including a requirement that agencies provide individuals with notice and an opportunity to challenge decisions made using AI. But national security systems—which include everything from domestic intelligence programs to autonomous weapons systems—are exempted from that guidance.

This exemption raises immense concerns about oversight, not least because protections like notice help affected individuals unlock information that can be used to challenge biased or inaccurate decision-making in the courts. Contesting national security decisions that affect individuals—even Americans and people living in the United States—is an enormous challenge. Notice and remedies are the exception rather than the rule and, even where they exist, they are often ineffectual. Litigants face severe barriers in accessing the courts, given the classified nature of many national security systems and the government’s use of secrecy to thwart court review. Black box AI systems—where the public lacks critical information about the underlying algorithms, such as the data used to train them or the rules they rely on—will only exacerbate this oversight gap, which deserves immediate attention.

To begin to address this problem, the Biden administration and Congress can look to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) as a model. Created in 2007 to mitigate the privacy and civil liberties risks posed by post-9/11 counterterrorism programs, the PCLOB has brought independent expertise and evaluation to some of the government’s most sensitive activities. While we have not always agreed with the board’s conclusions—and its activities are no substitute for individualized notice to people impacted and the provision of remedies—PCLOB has provided a critical measure of transparency and accountability in a system with extremely limited oversight.

However, neither the current mandate nor capacity of PCLOB equips it to exercise oversight over all AI systems used for national security purposes. Its counterterrorism mandate would cover many of these systems but could leave out the use of AI in efforts such as the recent targeting of racial justice protestors under the guise of protecting federal monuments and counterintelligence programs targeting Chinese Americans. Moreover, the board’s public reports have so far not focused on the civil rights aspects of the programs that it examines, such as impact on racial groups or minority communities, a critical concern with respect to both AI systems and national security programs.

PCLOB is also not resourced to review the myriad of AI systems that national security agencies are poised to use. Only the chair of the five-member board serves in a full-time capacity, and the board has often had vacancies that prevented its operation. For years, the board has had a miniscule staff relative to its mandate and the sweeping counterterrorism programs it oversees, operating as one of the smallest federal agencies. Even at the end of 2023, it had only 25 staff, only one of whom was identified as a technologist. The limited capacity of PCLOB is reflected in its public output: since its creation, it has issued just eight public reports on counterterrorism programs and four follow-up assessments.

To provide urgently needed independent oversight of national security AI, Congress could either expand the jurisdiction and resources of PCLOB so that it could serve this role, or it could create a new body. Whichever course it chooses, it should ensure that the AI oversight authority’s mandate and resources are commensurate with the burgeoning systems it will need to watch over. Below we offer suggestions for how to structure an oversight authority for AI national security systems.

Independence

The importance of independent supervision cannot be overstated, especially in the national security context. As we have seen repeatedly with surveillance, watchlisting, immigration and travel vetting, and “insider threat” detection, internal oversight mechanisms by alone are unlikely to provide adequate protection for individual rights. Civil liberties offices too often are subject to agency capture or sidelined by agency leadership, culture, or structure. AI guardrails may not be reliably enforced—or may be interpreted away by determined agency lawyers—without the pressure and accountability provided by external overseers.

PCLOB has brought this kind of independence to its work reviewing programs like the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ call records and warrantless surveillance of Americans under Section 702 of FISA. Intelligence agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and NSA may chafe when the board’s oversight yields different conclusions about the efficacy, lawfulness, or wisdom of their programs after accounting for privacy and civil liberties interests. But that is precisely PCLOB’s job, and it is a function that will be sorely needed as complex and intrusive AI systems proliferate.

Mandate

Just as PCLOB’s purview broadly covers “actions the executive branch takes to protect the Nation from terrorism,” the AI oversight authority should have a broad mandate that covers all AI used in national security systems. This matches the scope of the systems that are explicitly excluded from the OMB’s rules for rights-impacting AI and which therefore are most in need of oversight. It also parallels PCLOB’s authority. The board covers all counterterrorism programs except covert operations and does not distinguish between domestic and international or military and civilian, although in practice it has focused primarily on intelligence efforts that have serious impacts on people in the United States.

PCLOB is charged with balancing the need for counterterrorism programs with the need to protect privacy and civil liberties. This seems to have been a workable formulation. With respect to the Section 215 call records program and U.S. person queries under Section 702, PCLOB has contributed substantially to public understanding and reform debates by providing transparency about how these programs operate, evaluations of their efficacy based on information held by agencies, and reform recommendations for mitigating privacy and civil liberties impacts. This is not to say that PCLOB has always met expectations (see, e.g., criticism of its weak report on Executive Order 12333), but it has by and large promoted transparency and reform of opaque government programs.

Whether the oversight agency is PCLOB or a new body, we recommend that its mandate encompass the following:

First, the AI oversight authority’s mandate should explicitly include protection of civil rights. This would be consistent with the President’s AI Executive Order 14110 and the OMB guidance, both of which recognize serious concerns about algorithmic discrimination and bias.

Second, the mandate should make clear that the AI oversight authority is charged with reviewing the full AI lifecycle, including the initial decision to deploy the AI system, and any impact assessments and audits that have been performed. As emphasized in both the OMB guidance and the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s AI Risk Management Framework, adequately identifying and managing AI’s risks and impacts requires ongoing assessments throughout the AI system’s lifecycle—from planning and development to deployment and use, including changes to systems or the conditions of their use after deployment.

Third, the mandate should explicitly state that if the AI oversight authority determines that the need for an AI national security system does not meaningfully outweigh the risks to privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties, it may recommend that agencies stop using that system. The OMB memorandum envisages putting an end to the use of AI-based systems or tools in these circumstances and PCLOB has previously made such recommendations for counterterrorism programs.

In addition to reviewing national security systems, the AI oversight authority should be charged with ensuring that privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties concerns are appropriately considered in the development and implementation of laws, regulations, and policies relating to AI national security systems. (PCLOB has this type of advice authority for counterterrorism activities.) As Congress considers how to regulate AI and agencies move quickly to incorporate it into their functions, advice provided by the AI oversight authority prior to system launch can help ensure that safeguards are built into the system from the outset.

Leadership and Resources

The AI oversight authority must have the leadership, expertise, and resources to carry out its functions effectively and expeditiously.

The qualifications for PCLOB members provide baseline criteria for appointments to the AI oversight authority. Board members are to be appointed “solely on the basis of their professional qualifications, achievements, public stature, expertise in civil liberties and privacy, and relevant experience.” For the AI oversight authority, qualifications should also include expertise in computer science and machine learning, as well as in investigating the impact of AI systems. Members are meant to be chosen “without regard to political affiliation” although no more than three members of the Board can be “members of the same political party.”

To keep pace with evolving technologies, we recommend that the AI oversight authority be explicitly authorized to create a committee of outside technical experts to provide advice to members and staff.

The current term of six years for PCLOB members with the possibility of reappointment seems about right for the AI oversight authority as well; a significant length of service allows board members to gain experience and work on complex issues. But all AI oversight authority members should be engaged on a full-time basis. This would improve on the PCLOB structure where, except for the chair, board members serve on a part-time basis, paid for each day they are engaged in PCLOB duties and limited in the number of days per year in which they may perform board work. This may have contributed to the considerable turnover at PCLOB (only one member has served a full six years, most have served about three years and the board has frequently been without a quorum). This structure has also likely contributed to the slow pace of its work noted above.

The authority should have enough full-time employees with the requisite skills, knowledge, training, and expertise to perform their oversight responsibilities, including relevant technical expertise (including in auditing systems) and expertise in privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. PCLOB is seriously under-resourced, with a 2023 budget of just $12.3 million and 25 staff members assigned to oversee the entire U.S. counterterrorism enterprise, which involved spending estimated at approximately $175 billion in 2018. PCLOB’s budget pales in comparison to the budgets of oversight bodies like DHS’s Office of Inspector General ($214.9 million) and DOJ’s Office of Inspector General ($149 million). While those offices oversee a broader range of issues—albeit within one agency—the authority’s scope of oversight across the executive branch and the administration’s intention to further integrate technologically complex AI in intelligence and military operations warrant a sizeable budget. At present, the intelligence agencies that would be a significant focus for the AI oversight authority have a budget of more than $70 billion, and defense spending on AI nearly tripled from 2022 to 2023 and is certain to swell further.

Congress should also address the salary gap that has prevented many federal agencies from recruiting personnel with technical expertise. The Executive Order on AI directed the Office of Personnel Management to help agencies acquire AI subject matter experts by using pay flexibilities, benefits, and special salary rates to offer competitive salaries. Using this flexibility, DHS recently announced that it would hire a 50-person “AI Corps.” This type of salary flexibility should also be available to the AI oversight authority.

Access to Information

Access to information will be critical to the success of the AI oversight authority. PCLOB provides a workable model: where the board finds it necessary to carry out its responsibilities, it has access to documents and personnel of federal agencies, including classified information, with the possibility of elevating problems to the head of the agency. While the definition of documents to which PCLOB has access is expansive, for the AI oversight authority, Congress should make clear—as it considered doing in 2021—that additional information relating to underlying data, training and testing processes, and models should be made available. PCLOB can also obtain a subpoena (via the Attorney General) to obtain documents and information from persons outside the executive branch. This will be particularly important for the AI oversight authority since significant relevant information may be held by third parties who design and develop the AI systems. Notably, PCLOB has not expressed any issues with access to information in its reports, although oversight bodies typically engage in some negotiations in this regard.

External oversight bodies also need information to decide where to focus attention when confronted with sprawling agencies and programs. Privacy and civil liberties officers at agencies can help; they are, for example, required to provide semiannual reports to PCLOB. However, the extent to which these offices have information about AI national security systems will likely vary. We therefore recommend that Congress also require each agency head to designate a senior official to provide the AI oversight authority with notice of any existing or proposed national security AI system. If the White House creates a system for agencies to inventory and report their national security systems to a specified authority as we have recommended, these documents too should be made available to the AI oversight authority.

Promote Transparency and Accountability

The AI oversight authority can also play an important role in bringing transparency and enhancing public trust in national security uses of AI. PCLOB has often played this role. For example, it has brought to public attention critical information about the Section 215 and Section 702 surveillance programs. The board is mandated to make its reports to Congress available to the public “to the greatest extent that is consistent with the protection of classified information and applicable law.” Despite that statutory mandate, PCLOB has been criticized, including by a board member, for failing to seek declassification of its report on the NSA’s XKeyscore program. To promote transparency, we recommend that the AI oversight authority be required to seek declassification of its reports, including by requesting public interest declassification of information and raising with agencies instances where the authority considers information to be overly or improperly classified.

****

National security systems using AI are simply too high stakes for the American people to be left to unaccountable and opaque internal oversight mechanisms. To mitigate these risks, Congress must create an AI oversight authority with the mandate and resources to help build safeguards into these systems from the outset, to keep a close eye on their operation, and to ensure that the public and policymakers are informed about their breadth, use, and impact.

IMAGE: Visualization of artificial intelligence. (via Getty Images)

The post An Oversight Model for AI in National Security: The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board appeared first on Just Security.

The Just Security Podcast: Harm to Women in War Goes Beyond Sexual Violence: `Obstetric Violence’ Neglected

Fionnuala Ní Aoláin — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:09:58 -0400

In recent decades, the international community has sought to address the particular harms that women and girls experience in war. International law now punishes sexual violence in armed conflict. And there’s the Women, Peace and Security agenda, which the U.N. Security Council launched in 2000 with Resolution 1325. That requires member States to consider impacts of conflict based on gender and to involve women more in all aspects of conflict prevention, management, and resolution.

But while some harms rightly receive coverage and draw condemnation, other forms of violence are overlooked. In November 2023, the World Heath Organization estimated that there were 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza. Since the October 7th Hamas terrorist attack, it is estimated that nearly 20,000 babies have been born into the humanitarian catastrophe that has unfolded in the Gaza strip.

Around the world – from Ukraine to Sudan to Gaza – violence experienced by pregnant civilians, women giving birth, nursing women, and women struggling to survive in the period after childbirth remains entirely at the sidelines of global political conversations.

Joining the show to discuss what experts call “obstetric harms” faced by women and girls in armed conflict and the obligations of combatants in the face of these risks, is Fionnuala Ní Aoláin. Fionnuala is the former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counterterrorism, and a law professor at the University of Minnesota and at Queen’s University School of Law in Belfast, Northern Ireland. We’re honored to have her as an Executive Editor at Just Security.

Listen to the episode by clicking below.

The post The Just Security Podcast: Harm to Women in War Goes Beyond Sexual Violence: `Obstetric Violence’ Neglected appeared first on Just Security.

Early Edition: April 26, 2024

Beatrice Yahia — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 07:53:16 -0400

Signup to receive the Early Edition in your inbox here.

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

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR

Israel’s war cabinet met yesterday to discuss hostage deal negotiations, according to an Israeli official. The meeting comes ahead of a planned Israeli offensive into Rafah. Following the deliberations, an Egyptian delegation will travel to Israel today to discuss “security coordination,” the official said, adding that discussions included talks for a hostage deal that could avert a planned Israeli offensive in Rafah. Loveday Morris and Lior Soroka report for the Washington Post.

Israel stepped up airstrikes on Rafah overnight after saying it would evacuate civilians from the city and launch a full-scale assault. Medics in Gaza reported five Israeli airstrikes on Rafah early yesterday, killing at least six people. According to a government spokesperson, Israel’s war cabinet also yesterday discussed “how to destroy the last vestiges, the last quarter of Hamas’ battalions, in Rafah and elsewhere,” indicating Israel is continuing to weigh up its Rafah plans. Nidal Al-Mughrabi reports for Reuters.

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR — U.S. RESPONSE

The U.S. military yesterday began construction of a floating pier and causeway for humanitarian aid offshore of Gaza. When completed, the pier could help aid workers deliver as many as two million meals a day to the enclave, Defense Department officials said. Some U.S. military officials have privately expressed concerns about the project, and the Defense Department’s press secretary said the military was looking into a mortar attack on Wednesday that caused minimal damage in the region where some pier work is supposed to be done. Helene Cooper reports for the New York Times.

Washington is seeking answers from Israel about reports of mass graves at two hospitals in Gaza. “We have been in touch at multiple levels with the Israeli government. We want answers,” White House national security adviser Sullivan said. Andrew Jeong reports for the Washington Post.

The State Department’s Arabic-language spokesperson has resigned, citing her opposition to U.S. policy on Israel’s war in Gaza. Hala Rharrit’s departure marks at least the third resignation in the department since the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks. Kanishka Singh reports for Reuters.

More arrests were made as pro-Palestinian protests spread yesterday to colleges across the United States, bringing the total number of people detained to more than 500. Dozens of arrests late Wednesday pushed the University of Southern California to cancel its main commencement ceremony on May 10, citing security concerns. Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff, Jennifer Hassan, Richard Morgan, and Karin Brulliard report for the Washington Post.

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR — INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE

A joint statement released yesterday by the United States and seventeen other countries called for the release of hostages held in Gaza. “We strongly support the ongoing mediation efforts in order to bring our people home. We reiterate our call on Hamas to release the hostages, and let us end this crisis so that collectively we can focus our efforts on bringing peace and stability to the region,” the statement reads. The countries include Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.

A Belgian aid worker in Gaza was killed in an Israeli strike, the Belgian government said yesterday. In a statement, Belgium’s development minister said Abdallah Nabhan, 33, and his son, 7, were killed after a bombardment by the Israeli army in the eastern part of Rafah. In a post on X, Belgian foreign minister Hadja Lahbib said, “I will summon the Israeli ambassador to condemn this unacceptable act & demand an explanation.”

IRAN-BACKED MILITANTS

Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah today struck an Israeli military convoy in a disputed area along the border, killing an Israeli civilian, the group and the Israeli military said. Hezbollah said its fighters ambushed the convoy shortly before midnight yesterday, destroying two vehicles. The Israeli military said the ambush injured an Israeli civilian doing infrastructure work, and that he later died of his wounds. AP News reports.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE DEVELOPMENTS

The United States is finalizing one of its largest Ukraine military aid packages to date, according to two U.S. officials. The contracts could include up to $6 billion worth of weapons and equipment for Kyiv’s forces, and could be finalized and announced as soon as today, the officials said. The funding will dip into the $61 billion in Ukraine funding signed by President Biden on Wednesday, and would include Patriot air defense munitions, artillery ammunition, drones, counter-drone weapons, and air-to-air missiles to be fitted on fighter planes. Paul Mcleary and Lara Seligman report for POLITICO.

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS

Blinken and Chinese President Xi Jinping are meeting in Beijing. Blinken said he challenged Xi on China’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine, saying Russia would “struggle” without China. Xi earlier told Blinken that China and the United States should be “partners, not rivals,” and avoid engaging in “vicious competition.” BBC News reports.

The Pentagon will withdraw dozens of Special Operations forces from Chad in coming days, U.S. officials said yesterday. It comes days after the Biden administration announced the withdrawal of over 1,000 U.S. military personnel from Niger in the coming months, marking the second major blow in a week to U.S. security and counterterrorism policy in West and Central Africa. The Pentagon is being forced to draw down troops in response to the two governments’ demands to renegotiate the rules and conditions which the U.S. military can operate. Eric Schmitt reports for the New York Times.

French President Emmanuel Macron yesterday appealed for stronger European defense, warning, “There is a risk our Europe could die.” “We’ve had decades of under-investment,” Macron said, adding that Europeans should give preference to buying European military equipment. Echoing past calls to find a third way between the U.S. and China, he said Europe must show that “it’s never going to be a vassal for the United States” when it “speaks to other regions of the world.” Clea Caulcutt reports for POLITICO; NBC reports via Reuters.

Foreign states are targeting British universities to undermine national security in higher education, Britain’s security agency MI5 warned yesterday. No direct reference has been made to any state, but Parliament’s intelligence and security committee warned last year that China could be gaining undue influence in British academic research. Nathan Williams reports for BBC News.

DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS

Tennessee’s governor yesterday said he planned to sign a bill this week that would allow school staff members to carry concealed handguns on school grounds. “What’s important to me is that we give districts tools and the option to use a tool that will keep their children safe in their schools,” Bill Lee said at a press conference yesterday. At least 26 states have laws permitting school staff to possess guns on school grounds, with some exceptions, according to gun violence prevention group, Giffords Law Center. Zoë Richards reports for NBC News.

TRUMP-LEGAL MATTERS

The Supreme Court yesterday appeared poised to allow former President Trump’s Jan. 6 trial to proceed, though the timing of when that could occur is unclear. The court seemed unlikely to accept either Trump’s broad claim of absolute immunity for all official acts, or the special counsel’s position that former presidents have no guarantee of immunity for their official acts. Instead, a majority of justices seemed to be looking for a way to provide at least some narrow protections for presidents, with some conservative justices concerned about hampering the power of future presidents. In contrast, the court’s liberal three justices as well as Justice Amy Coney Barrett stressed that a president is not above the law. Ann E. Marimow reports for the Washington Post; John Fritze, Tierney Sneed, and Marshall Cohen report for CNN.

Former President Trump’s hush money trial is continuing today. Prosecutors wrapped up their direct testimony with David Pecker, who was on the stand for three days describing how he worked with Trump and Cohen to suppress damaging press stories about Trump throughout the 2016 presidential campaign. Meanwhile, Judge Merchan’s next gag order hearing will take place on Thursday, May 2, following the prosecution filing a motion arguing that Trump has violated his gag order four more times over the past few days. Jeremy Herb, Lauren dal Valle, Kara Scannell, Nicki Brown, and Brynn Gingras report for CNN.

The post Early Edition: April 26, 2024 appeared first on Just Security.

Trump Trials Clearinghouse

Norman L. Eisen — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 06:00:56 -0400

Former President Donald Trump is a defendant in a sizable number of criminal and civil cases. To help readers parse through these complex legal developments, we have centralized information on Trump’s major cases in the most comprehensive clearinghouse of its kind. Below you will find links to relevant court proceedings, key statutes, government documents, and defense documents – as well as Just Security resources and analysis, media and other guides.

NEW: The clearinghouse also includes Just Security Journalism Fellow Adam Klasfeld’s courtroom reporting and coverage of the issues.

We will continue updating this page with new information as the trials develop. Moreover, as Trump’s co-defendants plead guilty and cases close, this page will remain a one-stop source for those matters. We hope this repository of information will be useful for analysts, researchers, investigators, journalists, educators, and the public at large.

If you think the Trump Trials Clearinghouse is missing something important, please send recommendations for additional content by email to lte@justsecurity.org.

Master Calendar of Trump Court Dates and the 2024 Campaign

New York: 2016 Election

Department of Justice: 2020 Election Interference

Georgia: 2020 Election Interference

Department of Justice: Classified Documents

New York Attorney General: Corporate Fraud

NB: Sasha Matsuki and Arava Rose also contributed to co-authoring previous versions of this clearinghouse.

The post Trump Trials Clearinghouse appeared first on Just Security.

Clearinghouse: January 6th Election Interference Case – District of Columbia

Norman L. Eisen — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 05:25:25 -0400

This repository contains a collection of information for researchers, journalists, educators, scholars, and the public at large. This particular repository is part of a much larger collection – the Trump Trials Clearinghouse – which contains similar documents and information related to other criminal and civil trials involving former President Donald Trump.

The repository and other parts of the Trump Trials Clearinghouse will be continually updated. If you think the repository is missing something, please send recommendations for additional content by email to lte@justsecurity.org.

Expand all Collapse all

Relevant Court Proceedings

Charging Instrument

Indictment of Donald Trump (Aug. 1, 2023)

Filings following December 13 stay of proceedings

Motions to Dismiss and Strike (and associated appeals)

U.S. Supreme Court (Presidential Immunity)

Merits Appeal, Case No.: 23-939

Parties Briefs

Trump reply brief in support of appeal based on presidential immunity (April 15, 2024)
Government brief in opposition to Trump appeal based on presidential immunity (April 8, 2024)
Trump merits brief in support of appeal based on presidential immunity (March 19, 2024)
Trump joint appendix in his appeal based on presidential immunity (March 19, 2024)

Amicus Briefs

Amicus brief of Retired Four-Star Admirals and Generals, and Former Secretaries of the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force in support of government in Trump presidential immunity appeal (April 8, 2024)
Amicus brief of Puerto Rico House of Representatives submitted in support of government in Trump presidential immunity appeal (e-filed April 8, 2024)
Amicus brief of scholars of constitutional law in support of government in Trump presidential immunity appeal (April 8, 2024)
Amicus brief of G. Antaeus B. EdelSohn in support of government in Trump presidential immunity appeal (April 5, 2024)
Amicus brief of John Danforth, J. Michael Luttig, Barbara Comstock, Carter Phillips, Peter Keisler, Larry Thompson, Stuart Gerson, et al., in support of the government in Trump presidential immunity appeal (April 4, 2024)
Amicus brief of Gavin M. Wax, New York Young Republican Club Inc., National Constitutional Law Union Inc., and Paul Ingrassia in support of Trump presidential immunity appeal (March 19, 2024)
Amicus brief of three former senior military officers and executive branch officials in support of Trump presidential immunity appeal (March 19, 2024)
Amicus brief of Alabama and 17 Other States in support of Trump presidential immunity appeal (March 19, 2024)
Amicus brief of United States Justice Foundation & Policy Issues Institute, Inc. in support of Trump presidential immunity appeal (March 19, 2024)
Amicus brief of Coolidge Reagan Foundation and Shaun McCutcheon in support of Trump presidential immunity appeal (March 19, 2024)
Amicus brief of Christian Family Coalition (CFC) Florida, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit Corporation in support of Trump presidential immunity appeal (March 19, 2024)
Amicus brief of America's Future, Judicial Action Group, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Fdn., Gun Owners of Calif., Tenn. Firearms Assoc., Tenn. Firearms Fdn., U.S. Constitutional Rights Legal Def. Fund, and Conservative Legal Def. and Ed. Fund in support of Trump presidential immunity appeal (March 19, 2024)
Amicus brief of National Republican Senatorial Committee and Senator Steve Daines in support of Trump presidential immunity appeal (March 19, 2024)
Amicus brief of Former U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and Constitutional Coalition in support of neither party in Trump presidential immunity appeal (March 19, 2024)
Amicus brief of Former White House Chief of Staff Mark R. Meadows in support of neither party in Trump presidential immunity appeal (March 19, 2024)
Amicus brief of Former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and Michael B. Mukasey; Law Professors Steven Calabresi and Gary Lawson; and Citizens United in support of Trump presidential immunity appeal (March 19, 2024)
Amicus brief of Senator Roger Marshall and twenty-xix other Members of Congress in support of Trump presidential immunity appeal
(March 19, 2024)
Clearinghouse: Georgia Election Interference Case

Norman L. Eisen — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 05:25:21 -0400

This repository contains a collection of information for researchers, journalists, educators, scholars, and the public at large. This particular repository is part of a much larger collection – the Trump Trials Clearinghouse – which contains similar documents and information related to other criminal and civil trials involving former President Donald Trump.

The repository and other parts of the Trump Trials Clearinghouse will be continually updated. If you think the repository is missing something, please send recommendations for additional content by email to lte@justsecurity.org.
Expand all Collapse all
Charging Instrument

Indictment filed with amended page numbering (Feb. 15, 2024)

Order granting State of Georgia motion to re-scan and amend inaccurate numbering in the indictment (Feb. 14, 2024)

State of Georgia motion to rescan the indictment and with amended page numbering (Feb. 1, 2024)

Indictment of Trump and 18-codefendants (Aug. 14, 2023)

Guilty Pleas, Sentencing and Probation

Guilty Pleas

General

Order unsealing records and dockets for Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and Scott Hall (Oct. 27, 2023) [e-filed Oct. 31]

Jenna Ellis

Transcript of Jenna Ellis Oct. 24 negotiated plea hearing (Oct. 24, 2023) [e-filed Jan. 8, 2024]

Video of Jenna Ellis proffer (Nov. 13, 2023) [credit ABC]

Jenna Ellis first offender final disposition (Oct. 24, 2023) [behind paywall]

Video of Jenna Ellis guilty plea hearing (Oct. 24, 2023)

Jenna Ellis plea of guilty statement (Oct. 24, 2023) [behind paywall]

Jenna Ellis criminal accusation (Oct. 24, 2023)

Order of nolle prosequi as to Jenna Ellis (Oct. 24, 2023)

State of Georgia motion to nolle prosequi as to Jenna Ellis (Oct. 23, 2023) [e-filed Oct. 24]

Jenna Ellis waiver of indictment (Oct. 23, 2023)

Kenneth Chesebro

Second order modifying Kenneth Chesebro conditions of probation (Nov. 27, 2023)

Kenneth Chesebro second motion to modify condition of probation (Nov. 20, 2023)

First order modifying Kenneth Chesebro conditions of probation (Nov. 7, 2023) [e-filed Nov. 8]

Kenneth Chesebro motion to modify condition of probation (Nov. 7, 2023) [behind paywall]

Kenneth Chesebro plea of guilty statement to count 15 (Oct. 20, 2023)

Video of Kenneth Chesebro guilty plea hearing (Oct. 20, 2023)

Kenneth Chesebro apology letter (Oct. 20, 2023)

Sidney Powell

Video of Sidney Powell proffer (Nov. 13, 2023) [credit ABC]

Sidney Powell amended final disposition (Oct. 23, 2023) [e-filed Oct. 24]

Order of nolle prosequi as to Sidney Powell (Oct. 20, 2023)

Video of Sidney Powell guilty plea hearing (Oct. 19, 2023)

Sidney Powell plea of guilty statement (Oct. 19, 2023)

State of Georgia motion to nolle prosequi as to Sidney Powell (Oct. 19, 2023)

Sidney Powell apology letter (Oct. 19, 2023)

Sidney Powell criminal accusation and waiver of indictment (Oct. 18 & 19, 2023)

Scott Hall

Scott Hall sentencing summary and condition of probation (Oct. 3, 2023)

Order of nolle prosequi as to Scott Hall (Oct. 2, 2023)

Scott Hall plea of guilty statement (Sept. 29 2023) [e-filed Oct. 3, 2023]

Scott Hall waiver of indictment (Sept. 29, 2023)

Criminal accusation against Scott Hall (Sept. 29, 2023)

State of Georgia motion for nolle prosequi as to Scott Hall (Sept. 29, 2023) [e-filed Oct. 2, 2023]

Video of Scott Hall guilty plea hearing (Sept. 29, 2023)

Scott Hall apology letter (undated)

Special Purpose Grand Jury

Case No.: 2022-EX-000024

General

SPGJ final report (complete publication) (Sept 8, 2023)

Order directing the complete publication of the SPGJ final report on Sept. 8, 2023 (Aug. 28, 2023)

SPGJ final report (partial publication) (Feb. 16, 2023)

Order directing partial release of SPGJ final report (Feb. 13, 2023)

Clearinghouse: Mar-a-Lago Documents Case – Southern District of Florida

Norman L. Eisen — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 05:25:16 -0400

This repository contains a collection of information for researchers, journalists, educators, scholars, and the public at large. This particular repository is part of a much larger collection – the Trump Trials Clearinghouse – which contains similar documents and information related to other criminal and civil trials involving former President Donald Trump.

The repository and other parts of the Trump Trials Clearinghouse will be continually updated. If you think the repository is missing something, please send recommendations for additional content by email to lte@justsecurity.org.

Expand all Collapse all

Relevant Court Proceedings

United States v. Trump Case No. 9:23-cr-80101

Charging Instruments and Arraignment

Trump waiver of appearance at arraignment, and entry of not guilty plea (Aug. 4, 2023)

Superseding Indictment charging a third defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, with four counts, and adding three counts against Trump and two counts against Nauta (July 27, 2023)

Government notice of superseding indictment (July 27, 2023)

Minute order for Nauta initial appearance and arraignment (July 6, 2023)

Full transcript of Trump arraignment (June 14, 2023)

Minute order for Trump initial appearance and arraignment (June 13, 2023)

Order denying press coalition motion (June 12, 2023)

Press coalition motion to intervene and unseal Trump indictment (June 9, 2023)

Order granting motion to unseal case (June 9, 2023)

Government motion to unseal indictment (June 9, 2023)

Order granting government motion to seal indictment, judicial summonses, and related paperwork (June 8, 2023)

Government motion to seal indictment, judicial summonses, related paperwork, and any resulting order until Trump appeared in court (June 8, 2023)

Indictment of Donald Trump and Waltine Nauta (June 8, 2023)

Pretrial Motions (including motions to dismiss)

Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith (Trump)

Trump reply in support of motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on the unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith (March 24, 2024)

Government opposition to Trump motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on the unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith (March 7, 2024)

Trump motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on the unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith (Feb. 22, 2024)

Government response to Seth Barrett Tillman and Landmark Legal Foundation amicus curiae brief in support of Trump motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on the alleged unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith (April 4, 2024)

Seth Barrett Tillman and Landmark Legal Foundation amicus curiae brief in support of Trump motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on the alleged unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith (March 13, 2024) [e-filed March 21]

Paperless order granting Tillman and Landmark Legal Foundation motion leave file amicus brief supporting MTD on unlawful appointment + funding Jack Smith (March 21, 2024)

Seth Barrett Tillman and Landmark Legal Foundation motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief in support of Trump motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on the alleged unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith (March 13, 2024) [e-filed March 21]

Paperless order granting constitutional lawyers, former government officials, and state democracy defenders motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief in opposition to Trump motion to dismiss based on the alleged unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith (April 3, 2024)

Constitutional lawyers, former government officials, and state democracy defenders motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief in opposition to Trump motion to dismiss based on the alleged unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith (and exhibited brief) (April 1, 2024) [e-filed April 3]

Government response to Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III et al. amicus curiae brief in support of Trump motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on the alleged unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith (March 15, 2024)

Paperless order granting motion for leave to file amicus briefs in support of dismissing the superseding indictment based on the PRA and the alleged unlawful appointment and funding of Jack Smith (March 6, 2024)

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III et al. motion for leave to participate in the case as amicus curiae, and to file a brief in support of Trump motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on the alleged unlawful appointment and funding of Jack Smith, and brief and proposed order (March 5, 2024)

De Oliveira notice of joining and adopting Trump, inter alia, motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on the alleged unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith (Feb. 23, 2024)

Presidential Immunity (Trump)

Trump reply in support of motion to dismiss counts 1-32 of based on Presidential Immunity (March 24, 2024)

Government opposition to Trump motion to dismiss counts 1-32 of based on Presidential Immunity (March 7, 2024)

Trump motion to dismiss counts 1-32 based on Presidential Immunity (Feb. 22, 2024)

Selective and Vindictive Prosecution (Trump)

Trump notice of submitting to the court his reply in support of motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on selective and vindictive prosecution (March 24, 2024)

Government opposition to Trump undocketed motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on selection and vindictive prosecution (March 7, 2024)

De Oliveira notice of joining and adopting, inter alia, Trump motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on selective and vindictive prosecution (Feb. 23, 2024)

Trump notice of submitting to the court, inter alia, a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on selective and vindictive prosecution (Feb. 22, 2024)

Prosecutorial M

Clearinghouse: New York Attorney General Corporate Fraud Case

Norman L. Eisen — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 05:25:07 -0400

This repository contains a collection of information for researchers, journalists, educators, scholars, and the public at large. This particular repository is part of a much larger collection – the Trump Trials Clearinghouse – which contains similar documents and information related to other criminal and civil trials involving former President Donald Trump.

The repository and other parts of the Trump Trials Clearinghouse will be continually updated. If you think the repository is missing something, please send recommendations for additional content by email to lte@justsecurity.org.

Expand all Collapse all

Selected Court Proceedings

Summons and Complaint

State of New York summons and complaint (Sept. 21, 2022)

Final Decision and Judgment, Surety on Undertaking, and Related Appeals

Surety on Undertaking

Order granting proposed order to show cause, setting hearing for April 22 at 10 AM (April 16, 2024)

Knight Specialty Insurance Company and defendants joint memorandum of law in support of order to show cause to justify KSIC as surety on the undertaking, to set aside the State of New York notice of exception to surety, and to award costs incurred by the application (April 15, 2024)

Knight Specialty Insurance Company and defendants proposed joint order to show cause to justify KSIC as surety on the undertaking, to set aside the State of New York notice of exception to surety, and to award costs incurred by the application (April 15, 2024)

Affirmation of Amit Shah in support of motion by Knight Specialty Insurance Company and defendants for an order to show cause to justify KSIC as surety on the undertaking, to set aside the State of New York notice of exception to surety, and to award costs incurred by the application (April 15, 2024)

Affirmation of Gregory V. Serio in support of motion by Knight Specialty Insurance Company and defendants for an order to show cause to justify KSIC as surety on the undertaking, to set aside the State of New York notice of exception to surety, and to award costs incurred by the application (April 15, 2024)

David H. Pikus affirmation of urgency in support of motion by Knight Specialty Insurance Company and defendants for an order to show cause to justify KSIC as surety on the undertaking, to set aside the State of New York notice of exception to surety, and to award costs incurred by the application (April 15, 2024)

Exhibits in support of joint application to set aside the State of New York exception to surety and to justify surety (April 15, 2024)

State of New York notice of exception to the sufficiency of the surety on the undertaking issued by Knight Specialty Insurance Company (April 4, 2024)

Trump filing confirming having posted a $175 million undertaking on appeal (April 1, 2024)

Appeal of Final Decision and Judgment

Trump filing confirming having posted a $175 million undertaking on appeal (April 1, 2024)

Order granting in part Trump motion to stay Engoron judgment pending appeal – all portions of the judgment stayed except (1) extending and enhancing the role of the Monitor and (2) directing the installation of an Independent Director of Compliance, so long as Trump posts an undertaking of $175 million by April 4 (March 25, 2024)

State of New York affirmation in surreply to defendants motion for a stay pending appeal (March 22, 2024)

Court grants State of New York letter seeking permission to file a surreply to defendants motion for a stay pending appeal (March 22, 2024)

Defendants response letter to State of New York letter seeking permission to file a surreply to defendants motion for a stay pending appeal (March 21, 2024)

State of New York letter seeking permission to file a surreply to defendants motion for a stay pending appeal (March 20, 2024)

State of New York letter seeking permission to file a surreply to defendants motion for a stay pending appeal (and exhibited proposed affirmation in surreply) (March 20, 2024) [this filing was later deleted from the docket, with the state filing an amended letter seeking permission to file, receiving permission and filing the surreply again, as above]

Defendants reply memorandum of law in support of application for stay pending appeal of Feb. 16 decision and order and Feb. 23 final judgment (March 17, 2024) [e-filed March 18]

Affirmation in support of defendants reply memorandum of law in support of application for stay pending appeal of Feb. 16 decision and order and Feb. 23 final judgment (March 18, 2024)

State of New York memorandum of law in opposition to application for stay pending appeal of Feb. 16 decision and order and Feb. 23 final judgment (March 11, 2024)

Order granting defendants application for interim stay of final judgment pending appeal in respect of all matters sought except enforcement of the fine imposed, and setting briefing and oral argument (Feb. 28, 2024)

State of New York opposition to defendants joint emergency application for an interim stay pending appeal of Feb. 16 decision and order and Feb. 23 final judgment (Feb. 28, 2024)

Defendants joint emergency application for an interim stay pending appeal of Feb. 16 decision and order and Feb. 23 final judgment, including order to show cause, exhibits (and memorandum of law in support) (Feb. 28, 2024)

Defendants notice of appeal of Feb. 23 judgment (Feb. 26, 2024)

Defendants notice of appeal of Feb. 16 decision and order (Feb. 26, 2024)

Final Decision and Judgment

Final judgment of Justice Engoron (Feb. 22, 2024) [e-filed Feb. 23]

Emails between defense counsel, State of New York and Justice Engoron regarding the proposed judgment and stay of enforcement (Feb. 21-22, 2024)

Defendants letter responding to Justice Engoron Feb. 21 email (Feb. 21, 2024)

Justice Engoron email to defendants on there being no need for a motion or conference and directing defendant to inform the court of any specific objections to proposed judgment and how counter judgment would differ (Feb. 21, 2204)

Amended State of New York proposed final judgment (Feb. 21, 2024)

Defendants letter in response to State of New York proposed final judgment (Feb. 21, 2024)<

Clearinghouse: 2016 Election Interference Case – Manhattan District Attorney

Norman L. Eisen — Fri, 26 Apr 2024 05:25:05 -0400

This repository contains a collection of information for researchers, journalists, educators, scholars, and the public at large. This particular repository is part of a much larger collection – the Trump Trials Clearinghouse – which contains similar documents and information related to other criminal and civil trials involving former President Donald Trump.

The repository and other parts of the Trump Trials Clearinghouse will be continually updated. If you think the repository is missing something, please send recommendations for additional content by email to lte@justsecurity.org.

Expand all Collapse all

Relevant State Court Proceedings

State of New York v. Trump, Case No.: IND-71543-23

Charging Documents and Arraignment

State of New York response to Trump request for a bill of particulars (May 16, 2023)

Trump request for bill of particulars (April 27, 2023)

Trump case file (April 4, 2023)

Transcript of arraignment (April 4, 2023)

Trump Indictment (indicted on March 30, 2023 released on April 4, 2023) and statement of facts (April 4, 2023)

Order unsealing indictment (April 4, 2023)

Transcript of hearing on application of news organizations to unseal indictment (April 4, 2023)

Application of news organizations to unseal indictment (March 31, 2023)

Order on application of news organizations to permit videography, photography, and radio coverage of the arraignment (April 3, 2023)

Supplemental submission in further support of application of news organizations to permit videography, photography, and radio coverage of the arraignment (April 3, 2023)

State of New York response to application of news organizations to permit videography, photography, and radio coverage of the arraignment (April 3, 2023)

Trump opposition to application of news organizations to permit videography, photography, and radio coverage of the arraignment (April 3, 2023)

Application of news organizations to permit videography, photography, and radio coverage of the arraignment (March 31, 2023)

Order confirming the existence of grand jury true bill and indictment (March 30, 2023) (entered March 31)

Trial Material

Transcripts of Proceedings

Day 6 Transcript: Gag order violation hearing and day 2 of David Pecker testimony (April 23, 2024)

Day 5 Transcript: Court opening, jury instructions, opening statements, Sandoval ruling, and day 1 of David Pecker testimony (April 22, 2024)

Day 4 Transcript: Jury selection (April 19, 2024)

Day 3 Transcript: Jury selection (April 18, 2024)

Day 2 Transcript: Jury selection (April 16, 2024)

Day 1 Transcript: Jury selection (April 15, 2024)

State of New York Trial Evidence and Exhibits

April 23, 2024

Cohen email inviting Pecker to Trump campaign announcement (June 2, 2015) (Exhibit 151)

National Enquirer news stories on Trump (Sept. 9, 2015 - Nov. 9, 2016) (Exhibit 152)

National Enquirer news stories on Ben Carson (Oct. 7, 2015 - Dec. 7, 2015) (Exhibit 153A)

National Enquirer news stories on Ted Cruz (Feb. 12, 2016 - July 25, 2016) (Exhibit 153B)

National Enquirer news stories on Marco Rubio (Dec. 16, 2015 - Feb. 2, 2016) (Exhibit 153C)

Source agreement between Dino Sajudin and AMI (Nov. 15, 2015) (Exhibit 154)

Amendment to source agreement between Dino Sajudin and AMI (Dec. 17, 2015) (Exhibit 155)

Email and invoice confirming payment from AMI to Dino Sajudin (Dec. 18, 2015) (Exhibit 164)

AMI email to Dino Sajudin release him from the source agreement (Dec. 9, 2016) (Exhibit 169)

Sandoval Evidence

Trump letter regarding State of New York Sandoval notice (March 19, 2024)

State of New York Sandoval notice (March 10, 2024) [entered April 17]

Attachments to State of New York Sandoval notice (March 10, 2024)

Media Access Notices

Update media access notice and media list for trial (April 24, 2024)

Media access notice for jury selection through trial

Other

Trump letter regarding alleged double-hearsay of certain AMI business records offered by State of New York (April 23, 2024) [entered April 25]

Ongoing First Department Proceedings

Venue Change (1st Dept., 2024-02365)

First Department order denying Trump motion for a stay of trial pending the determination of his motion for a change of venu

US will ‘continue to provide” ATACMS for Ukraine, National Security Advisor says

Patrick Tucker — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 22:29:02 -0400
Months of work to build up stocks means the U.S. can give Ukraine more of the sought-after long-range weapon.

US will ‘continue to provide' ATACMS for Ukraine, National Security Advisor says

Patrick Tucker — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 22:29:02 -0400
Months of work to build up stocks means the U.S. can give Ukraine more of the sought-after long-range weapon.

US will ‘continue to provide' ATACMS to Ukraine, national security advisor says

Patrick Tucker — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 22:29:02 -0400
Months of work to build up stocks means the U.S. can give Ukraine more of the sought-after long-range weapon.

MORALE: Desperate Soldiers With Nowhere To Go

Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:16:37 -0400

SPACE: A SpaceX Falcon Does Twenty

Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:14:36 -0400

ATTRITION: Russia Regenerates Its Forces in Ukraine

Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:10:54 -0400

At Army’s special-ops school, the biggest changes in a generation

Sam Skove — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:46:36 -0400
Ukraine, robotics, and more are driving a six-year plan to improve training in irregular warfare, technology, and psyops.

Pentagon canceled Northrop’s classified satellite program due to ‘budgetary concerns’

Audrey Decker — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:44:04 -0400
Its CEO also said the company won’t compete to build cheap, non-survivable drones.

U.S. to Withdraw Troops From Chad

Eric Schmitt — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:56:17 -0400
The departure of U.S. military personnel in Chad and Niger comes as both countries are turning away from years of cooperation with the United States and forming partnerships with Russia.

In Ukraine, New American Technology Won the Day. Until It Was Overwhelmed.

David E. Sanger — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:47:15 -0400
Project Maven was meant to revolutionize modern warfare. But the conflict in Ukraine has underscored how difficult it is to get 21st-century data into 19th-century trenches.

The D Brief: Aid heads to Ukraine; Army’s 100K goal; Niger pullout talks; Pentagon test recuses himself; And a bit more.

Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:05:56 -0400

Software Backdoor is a Wakeup Call for Cybersecurity

Jeffrey Vagle — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:50:44 -0400

As March gave way to April, the cybersecurity community was abuzz with the news that liblzma, a component of the xz open source data compression utility, had been hijacked as a vehicle for code that could create a backdoor into computers that installed and ran the software. It’s likely that you’ve never heard of liblzma or xz, nor spend much time thinking about software compression utilities. But whether you know it or not, you may have actually installed and used xz through its inclusion in other software tools, as is the case with many obscure open source software packages, and that’s a problem for cybersecurity. The malicious code hidden in xz was not discovered due to the careful vetting of the software by teams of cybersecurity professionals on a mission to weed out malware. Rather, the problem was discovered by happenstance, and the bad news is, we are often at the mercy of luck when it comes to detecting cybersecurity attacks before they are actually deployed and used.

Despite its general obscurity, the xz utility is widely used on many computing platforms. There is nothing particularly noteworthy about xz, one of many software compression utilities that take large files and data streams and make them smaller by taking advantage of statistical redundancies in information. Compression tools can be presented as stand-alone pieces of software but are more often part of a larger software package that might invisibly use the compression functions as part of its overall purpose. This was how the xz package became embedded in larger software projects. The xz tool has been around for over 15 years with no security defects and has been deployed in many operating systems since then, including most Linux distributions and Microsoft Windows. In addition, xz had been added as a dependency in the OpenSSH software package, a widely used set of tools for secure login between computers. What is noteworthy about xz’s inclusion is that it was indirectly added to optionally work with internal functions of Linux operating systems, not as part of OpenSSH’s core technology.

You might think that an open source software project as widely depended upon as xz would be maintained by a sizable team of developers whose code was regularly reviewed by security experts. That was not the case. The xz utility was being maintained by a single developer who had started to have problems with his health and had been slow to publish updates to xz because of them. In October 2021, a developer named Jia Tan started making contributions to the xz code and offered to take over maintenance of the project. In 2023, the reins were passed over to Jia, and they began to carefully introduce a well-concealed piece of malware into the xz code, releasing the final version in February 2024, where users of the code such as Linux distributions picked it up for inclusion in future versions of their own software.

The xz backdoor code was discovered by accident. In late March 2024, a Microsoft software engineer noticed that when he used OpenSSH to log in to remote computers, they were taking about 500ms longer than they ordinarily should have. He dug into the OpenSSH code and noticed that it was making unusual calls to xz’s liblzma library on his own computer running the Debian Linux operating system. After analyzing the xz code, he found a carefully concealed script that would enable a remote user to log into his computer without any authorization—a back door. He immediately alerted the security team at Debian, and the Red Hat Linux team followed up by submitting a CVE–an initialization of “Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures,” a reference method for tracking information security vulnerabilities–with a severity of 10, the highest severity level.

All signs point to the xz backdoor as a well-planned and sophisticated hacking attempt. “Jia Tan”—likely a pseudonym—had suddenly appeared in 2021, making multiple updates to the xz project on GitHub, all of which were of generally high quality. Soon afterwards, the original xz maintainer began getting continuously pestered by multiple accounts either run by Jia Tan or by their associates. The maintainer eventually relented in 2023, and Jia Tan began adding their malicious code to the project. Engineers at Red Hat Linux also noted that Jia Tan had been repeatedly pressing distribution maintainers to use the new version of the xz code due its “great new features.”

This model of open source software development is not unusual, and that presents a cybersecurity problem. In fact, the scenario, often referred to generally as the supply chain problem, is so common that the xkcd webcomic has published a clever illustration of the problem. Operating systems and software applications the world over regularly make use of open source software packages and libraries, and they are not always carefully vetted beforehand. Open source software is quite useful and often necessary for enormous—and enormously complex—software projects such as operating systems, which can then afford users with functionality that might not otherwise be available without additional time and costs to the manufacturer. And there is very little in the way of regulation or legal liability that might present technology companies as users of open source software with the incentives to take on the costs necessary to avoid putting cybersecurity risk on customers as a kind of negative externality. The U.S. Government has recognized this problem, creating programs like the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA’s) Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) concept to better identify supply chain risks from software dependencies. But it is unlikely that an SBOM requirement alone would have detected the xz backdoor. It turns out that solutions to this problem are frustratingly elusive.

Relying on luck is not a sustainable cybersecurity strategy, especially when we consider just how much of our world depends on secure and reliable software. A sophisticated, malicious hacking attempt like the xz backdoor might not have been easily discovered were it not for a Microsoft engineer curious about a 500ms delay in his login time. We currently rely too heavily on good fortune when it comes to software security. What happens when open source projects begin letting AI-based tools write parts of their codebase? An already complex system moving at a faster pace is a recipe for disaster. At a minimum, we need to seriously consider regulatory systems with appropriately shared risk and responsibility.

IMAGE: Visualization of cybersecurity (via Getty Images).

The post Software Backdoor is a Wakeup Call for Cybersecurity appeared first on Just Security.

Early Edition: April 25, 2024

Beatrice Yahia — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 07:53:12 -0400

Signup to receive the Early Edition in your inbox here.

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

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR

A top Hamas official said the group would lay down its weapons if a two-state solution is implemented. The official told The Associated Press the group is willing to agree to a ceasefire of five years or more with Israel and that it would convert into a political party if an independent Palestinian state is established along pre-1967 borders. If that happens, Hamas’s military wing would dissolve, the official said. Abby Swell reports.

Top Israeli and Egyptian officials secretly met in Cairo yesterday to discuss a possible Rafah invasion, according to three senior Israeli officials. Egyptian officials are concerned an Israeli offensive in Rafah would lead to displaced civilians entering their territory en masse, potentially involving a breach of the border that would endanger Egypt’s security. Israeli officials have said close military and diplomatic coordination with Egypt is a basic prerequisite for an offensive in Rafah. Barak Ravid reports for Axios.

An Israeli-American hostage appeared in a Hamas video, the first proof he survived the Oct. 7 attacks. Hamas yesterday released an undated video of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, 24, who was kidnapped from the Nova music festival during the Hamas attacks. In the video, Goldberg-Polin said he has been “here for almost 200 days,” suggesting the video was taken shortly before Tuesday, the 200th day of the war. Eyad Kourdi, Pauline Lockwood, and Lauren Izso report for CNN; Barak Ravid reports for Axios.

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR — U.S. RESPONSE

A report released yesterday casts doubts on Israel’s assurances that it is using U.S. weapons in full compliance with U.S. international law. The report, published by Independent Task Force on the Application of National Security Memorandum-20 (NSM-20), comes amid an internal review by the Biden administration on whether U.S. partners provided with U.S. weapons have complied with international humanitarian law. Patsy Widakuswara reports for VOA News.

National security adviser Jake Sullivan yesterday declined to say whether the Biden administration will cut U.S. aid to an Israeli military unit accused of human rights abuses. Sullivan said the matter was for the State Department to decide and that the White House would not intervene. State Department officials have declined to comment on the matter. Michael Crowley reports for the New York Times.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said yesterday that the protests sweeping U.S. college campuses are antisemitic and must be quelled. “What’s happening in America’s college campuses is horrific,” Netanyahu said, adding, “Antisemitic mobs have taken over leading universities. They call for the annihilation of Israel. They attack Jewish students. They attack Jewish faculty.” The comments could harden division over the demonstrations. Matthew Mpoke Bigg reports for the New York Times.

Legalizing Israeli settlements in the West Bank would be “dangerous and reckless,” a State Department spokesperson said yesterday. “Our policy, US policy, remains that settlements are counterproductive to the cause of peace, and the government of Israel’s program is inconsistent with international law,” deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel said. He added that the United States will continue urging Israel “to refrain from taking actions to fund outposts that have long been illegal under Israeli law.” Michael Conte reports for CNN.

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR — REGIONAL RESPONSE

Turkey yesterday accused the United States of having double standards on human rights with respect to Gaza. In a statement, Turkey’s foreign ministry said it was deeply concerned Washington’s annual rights report failed to “duly reflect the ongoing inhumane attacks in Gaza.” The report was prepared with “political motives, far from impartiality and objectivity,” it said, calling on Washington to end its “double-standard policy on human rights.” Reuters reports.

IRAN-BACKED MILITANTS

Israel said that half of Iran-backed Lebanese Hezbollah commanders in southern Lebanon have been killed since Oct. 7. “Half of Hezbollah commanders in southern Lebanon were eliminated. We made it so that either they die, or they hide and abandon South Lebanon to the IDF’s operation, which is being done intensively,” Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant said. Hezbollah has denied the claim. CNN reports.

MILITARY CONFLICT WITH THE HOUTHIS

A coalition vessel yesterday stopped an anti-ship ballistic missile launched from Yemen by the Houthis, CENTCOM said. It added that the missile was “likely targeting” a “U.S. flagged, owned, and operated vessel with 18 U.S. and four Greek crew members.” No damage or injuries were reported. Separately, CENTCOM said it “successfully destroyed” four unmanned aerial vehicles over Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE DEVELOPMENTS

President Biden said yesterday that weapons would begin to flow to Ukraine “within hours” as he signed a $95.3 billion package of aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. Zolan Kanno-Youngs reports for the New York Times.

Ukraine has begun using long-range ballistic missiles against Russia secretly provided by the United States, according to U.S. officials. The weapons were sent as part of a U.S. aid package from March, and arrived in Kyiv this month. “I can confirm that the United States provided Ukraine with long-range ATACMS at the president’s direct direction,” State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel said yesterday. U.S. media reports they were used for the first time last week to strike Russian targets in occupied Crimea, and again on Tuesday in an attack on Russian troops in the occupied port city Berdyansk. Kathryn Armstrong reports for BBC News.

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS

Spain’s prime minister said yesterday he was considering resigning after a judge opened an investigation into whether his wife had abused her position to help friends win public contracts. In a letter posted on X, Pedro Sánchez said, “I need to stop and think.” He canceled all political engagements until Monday to decide, he said, whether he “should continue to lead the government or renounce this honor.” Rachel Chaundler and Jason Horowitz report for the New York Times.

Russia yesterday vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution that proposed a ban on the use of nuclear weapons in outer space. The vote came amid U.S. intelligence-backed concerns that Russia is attempting to develop a nuclear device capable of destroying satellites. Mariya Knight, Richard Roth, and Chris Lau report for CNN.

China is providing moorage for a U.S.-sanctioned Russian cargo ship implicated in North Korean arms transfers to Russia, according to satellite images obtained by Reuters. The ship’s presence underscores the challenge facing the United States and its allies as they try to sever military and economic support for Russia’s war in Ukraine. Michael Martina and David Brunsstorm report for Reuters.

Indonesia’s electoral commission formally declared Prabowo Subianto president-elect yesterday. It comes after the country’s highest court rejected challenges to his landslide win lodged by two losing presidential candidates alleging fraud and widespread state interference. Niniek Karmani and Fadlan Syam report for AP News.

A ceremony to install a presidential transition council in Haiti will take place today on the outskirts of the capital Port-au-Prince, according to the office of outgoing Prime Minister Ariel Henry. The ceremony will be hosted at the prime minister’s official office, not the downtown National Palace, which has come under repeated fire from armed gangs in recent days. Reuters reports.

A Human Rights Watch investigation released today found that more than 220 civilians, including at least 56 children, were massacred by Burkina Faso’s military on February 25 this year. It described the killings as “among the worst army abuse” incidents in the country in nearly a decade. Gloria Aradi reports for BBC News.

DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS

An Arizona grand jury indicted former President Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and 16 others for their roles in an attempt to overturn Trump’s loss to President Biden in the 2020 election. The indictment, released yesterday, names 11 Republicans who submitted a document to Congress falsely declaring that Trump won Arizona in 2020. Trump himself was not charged, but was referred to as an unindicted co-conspirator. Jacques Billeaud, Josh Kelety, and Jonathan J. Cooper report for AP News.

TRUMP-LEGAL MATTERS

Former President Trump’s hush money trial is continuing today. David Pecker will resume testifying and defense counsel may start cross-examining him today. Justice Merchan may also announce his ruling on Trump’s alleged gag order violations.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments today on whether former presidents, including Trump, have immunity from criminal prosecution for actions they take while in office. Trump is charged with attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, but Trump’s lawyers argue he cannot be indicted under the U.S. constitution. If the court rules Trump can be prosecuted, the trial will move forward, probably taking place in the middle of the presidential election season. If the court decides Trump does have immunity, the other criminal charges against him may be thrown out. Anthony Zurcher reports for BBC News.

The post Early Edition: April 25, 2024 appeared first on Just Security.

Why Trump Will Likely be Held in Contempt and What Then

Norman L. Eisen — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 01:01:28 -0400

Originally published April 22, 2024; updated April 25, 2024

Trial in The People of the State of New York vs. Donald J. Trump, the first-ever criminal prosecution of a former U.S. president, began on Monday, April 15. Although the trial is still in its early stages, Trump has already run into trouble with a court “gag order” restricting his extrajudicial statements about trial participants. On the opening day of trial, the office of District Attorney for New York (DANY) Alvin Bragg sought an order to show cause, alleging that Trump was in contempt of court for violating the gag order. That same day, the court granted the order to show cause, meaning that the allegations were sufficient to warrant a hearing, which it set for Tuesday, April 23.

Undaunted, Trump went on to make additional statements that prosecutors allege also violate the gag order. Three days later, on April 18, DANY submitted a supplemental filing identifying seven more alleged violations of the gag order. The court issued an order to show cause the same day, again finding the allegations were sufficient for the hearing to be held on Tuesday.

As if that were not enough, the DA alleged four new violations on the morning of April 25, in which Trump made extrajudicial statements about not only Cohen, but even the jury and the witness who was about to resume testifying, David Pecker. Prosecutors sought a new order to show cause and as of this writing, the judge is considering whether to sign it.

Below we explain the gag order, the alleged violations, and the legal framework. We then assess the strength of the prosecution’s case and what may follow.

The Gag Order

In May 2023, the court originally issued a protective order prohibiting Trump from disclosing on social media or elsewhere any discovery the defense received from the prosecution as well as the names and identifying information of personnel from DANY—other than sworn members of law enforcement, assistant district attorneys and trial witnesses (the latter could be disclosed only once jury selection began). In granting the protective order, Justice Juan Merchan, the presiding trial judge, explained, “It’s certainly not a gag order,” as Trump was allowed to publicly discuss the case.

In February 2024, DANY filed a motion seeking a narrowly-tailored gag order to prohibit Trump from making statements outside of court intended to threaten, intimidate or harass jurors, prosecutors, witnesses, or court staff. The motion contended that Trump’s “[a]dvocacy of revenge and retribution against perceived opponents” justified such an order. The motion cataloged Trump’s long history of verbally attacking people involved in legal proceedings against him and his allies, offering examples from this case, the D.C. federal criminal prosecution, the Georgia state prosecution, the NY civil fraud case, and the prosecution of Roger Stone.

Trump opposed the motion, arguing it would be unconstitutional to restrict his political speech, especially when he is the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

On March 26, 2024, the court granted, in substantial part, DANY’s request to restrict Trump’s prejudicial extrajudicial statements. Justice Merchan imposed a narrowly-tailored gag order that prohibits Trump from making or directing others to make public statements about witnesses, DANY counsel and staff (other than DA Bragg) or their families, court staff or their families, and jurors. The gag order closely tracks the one adopted by the DC Circuit in the federal election interference case against Trump, here with the additional protection for jurors.

In granting the motion, Justice Merchan rejected Trump’s argument that as the presumptive Republican nominee for president, he needs to be able to respond to political attacks and “criticize these public figures.” The judge found that Trump’s history of extrajudicial statements “went far beyond defending himself against ‘attacks’ by ‘public figures,’” and included “threatening, inflammatory, denigrating” statements targeting local officials, prosecutors, court staff, and jurors “performing their civic duty.” The court concluded that these types of statements “undoubtedly risk impeding the orderly administration” of the court, with no less restrictive means to guard against that risk short of a limited gag order.

The court’s order is consistent with New York and U.S. Supreme Court law which, in order to protect the administration of justice, allows a court to restrict a party’s extrajudicial speech that is “substantially likely to have a materially prejudicial effect” or that presents a “‘reasonable likelihood’ of a serious and imminent threat” to the integrity of the trial.

On March 27 at 10:30 am, the morning after the gag order was entered, Trump mentioned Justice Merchan’s daughter in a post on Truth Social in which he criticized the gag order, saying she was “allowed to post pictures of her ‘dream’ of putting me in jail.” One minute later, Trump again posted about the judge’s daughter, saying she “represents Crooked Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, and other Radical Liberals.” (It was later determined that Merchan’s daughter had not posted any such image of Trump; the false claim started with a prominent conspiracy theorist.)

On March 28, DANY filed a letter asking for clarification that the gag order, which expressly covered “family members of any counsel or [court] staff,” was also intended to cover members of the judge’s family. Trump responded, arguing that the gag order should not apply to the judge’s family because his daughter was “actively supporting adversarial campaign speech” by Trump’s political opponents. DANY filed a second letter on April 1 asking the court to expand the order if it was determined not to currently cover the judge’s family.

Trump made several more posts about Merchan’s daughter in the days that followed, leading to DANY filing another brief on April 1 to curb what it described as Trump’s “dangerous, violent, and reprehensible rhetoric.” It wrote:

There is no constitutional right to target the family of this Court, let alone on the blatant falsehoods that have served as the flimsiest pretexts for defendant’s attacks. Defendant knows what he is doing, and everyone else does too. And we all know exactly what defendant intends because he has said for decades that it is part of his life philosophy to go after his perceived opponents “as viciously and as violently” as he can.

Trump responded, rehashing arguments he had raised while challenging the existing gag order and rejecting the need for any clarification to cover the court’s family.

On April 1, the court granted the DA’s motion, clarifying the gag order to include the court’s family. The judge wrote:

[Trump’s] pattern of attacking family members of presiding jurists and attorneys assigned to his cases serves no legitimate purpose. It merely injects fear in those assigned or called to participate in the proceedings, that not only they, but their family members as well are ‘fair game’ for Defendant’s vitriol. … To argue that the most recent attacks, which included photographs, were ‘necessary and appropriate in the current environment,’ is farcical.

The Court’s April 1 order further stated that Trump was “hereby warned that any violation of this Order will result in sanctions under Judiciary Law §§ 750(A)(3) and 751.”

The order now reads:

ORDERED, that the Court’s Order of March 26, 2024, is amended as indicated below.

Defendant is directed to refrain from:

a. Making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding;

b. Making or directing others to make public statements about (1) counsel in the case other than the District Attorney, (2) members of the court’s staff and the District Attorney’s staff, or (3) the family members of any counsel, staff member, the Court or the District Attorney, if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with, counsel’s or staff’s work in this criminal case, or with the knowledge that such interference is likely to result; and

b. Making or directing others to make public statements about any prospective juror or any juror in this criminal proceeding.

Trump’s Alleged Violations of the Gag Order

DANY’s initial April 15 request for an order to show cause—effectively a motion to find Trump in contempt of court—argues that there is “good cause” for believing that three social media postings by Trump (numbers 1-3 below) violate the gag order. DANY argued the statements relate to witness credibility and were made “on the eve of trial” and Trump, with recent knowledge of New York gag orders and their scope, acted willfully and “deliberate[ly] flout[ed]” the Court’s mandate. As a result, DANY sought a finding of contempt and the maximum $1,000 fine for each of Trump’s three violations of the gag order. (As we explain below in discussing the law, that is the maximum amount for the relevant contempt statute; other statutes not relied upon here have different maximum fines.) The prosecutors also asked the court to order Trump to remove the posts, and to warn him that future violations could lead not only to fines but jail time of up to 30 days.

Three days later, on April 18, DANY supplemented its motion for contempt, raising seven more alleged violations of the gag order (numbers 4-10 below). DANY explained the additional (alleged) violations occurred:

after this Court issued the order to show cause to hold defendant in criminal contempt; after the Court warned defendant on Monday that there was no exception in the orders allowing defendant to make statements about witnesses who defendant perceives to have attacked him; and after this Court made it “crystal clear” to defendant that it would not “tolerate” his gestures and statements to jurors in the courtroom.

The court issued an order the same day, again finding the allegations were sufficient to warrant addressing at the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, April 23.

The 10 posts allegedly made by Trump across his Truth Social and campaign website from April 10 through April 17 that DANY claims violate the gag order are as follows:

1. April 10, 2024, at 10:07 AM

Trump reposted to his Truth Social a Truth Social post by Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels’ former lawyer who was convicted of stealing from her.

Avenatti’s post read: “We can’t be hypocrites when it comes to the 1st Amendment. It is outrageous that Cohen and Daniels can do countless TV interviews, post on social, & make $$ on bogus documentaries – all by talking shit about Trump – but he’s gagged and threatened with jail if he responds.”

Trump’s repost further added: “Thank you Michael Avenatti—for revealing the truth about two sleaze bags who have, with their lies and misrepresentations, cost our Country dearly!”

2. April 10, 2024, at 10:48 AM

Trump shared on his Truth Social platform a picture of a document titled “Official Statement of Stormy Daniels,” dated Jan. 30, 2018, in which Daniels denied having an affair with Trump: not because she was paid “hush money,” but rather “because it never happened,” the statement read.

Trump’s post of the statement was accompanied by the following words by Trump: “LOOK WHAT WAS JUST FOUND! WILL THE FAKE NEWS REPORT IT?”

3. April 13, 2024, at 12:56 PM

Truth Social post by Trump: “Has Mark POMERANTZ been prosecuted for his terrible acts in and out of the D.A.’s Office. Has disgraced attorney and felon Michael Cohen been prosecuted for LYING? Only TRUMP people get prosecuted by this Judge and these thugs! A dark day for our Country. MAGA2024!!!”

4. April 15, 2024, at 9:12 AM

Trump reshared to his Truth Social an April 14 article by Jonathan Turley in the New York Post, titled “A serial perjurer will try to prove an old misdemeanor against Trump in an embarrassment for

Blinken’s Visit to China: What to Know

Ana Swanson, David Pierson and Olivia Wang — Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:46:13 -0400
Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken is in China this week as tensions have risen over trade, security, Russia’s war on Ukraine and the Middle East crisis.

Justice Dept. Reaches $138.7 Million Settlement Over FBI’s Failures in Nassar Case

Glenn Thrush and Juliet Macur — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:53:59 -0400
The settlement likely signifies the end of a yearslong effort by U.S. Olympic gymnasts to seek justice for early failures by the F.B.I. to investigate Lawrence G. Nassar, the team’s doctor.

Arizona Election Interference Indictment- Conspicuous Absences

Ryan Goodman — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:51:31 -0400

A grand jury in Arizona has returned an indictment for several close associates of former President Donald Trump as well as lower-level individuals who served as false electors in Arizona during the 2020 presidential election. The Office of Attorney General Kris Mayes has charged all of them with a conspiracy under Arizona state law to overturn the popular vote in the state.

The list of indicted co-defendants includes seven (7) national figures: Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn, Mike Roman, Jenna Ellis, and Christina Bobb.

The eleven (11) other co-defendants are all the false electors in the 2020 election. That list notably includes Kelli Ward, who served as the chair of the Arizona Republican Party during the 2020 presidential election.

Notably, like Georgia, criminal trials in Arizona can be publicly broadcast.

Some highlights follow.

1. The conspicuous absence of Donald Trump

The Arizona indictment raises a question. How is it possible that Trump’s two alter egos have been indicted but the former president — the ego in that equation — has not?

The two alter egos are Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. *Trump’s absence from the indicted co-defendants list is all the more puzzling since Trump is identifiable as “Unindicted Coconspirator 1” in the Attorney General’s court filings. Coincidentally, on Wednesday, April 24, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office testified in that state’s court that Trump, Meadows, and Giuliani are “unindicted co-conspirators” in the Michigan state prosecution of false electors.

A great deal of evidence shows that Meadows and Giuliani helped lead the multi-pronged efforts to overturn the election acting on behalf of Trump.

Giuliani: The federal indictment of Trump, for example, refers to Giuliani as “Co-Conspirator 1” including for his allegedly helping orchestrate – on behalf of Trump – the false electors scheme across the seven swing states, including Arizona. The federal indictment also states that Trump worked directly with Giuliani in pressuring Arizona state officials to overturn the popular vote, including calling the Republican Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Rust Bowers in which they “made knowingly false claims of election fraud aimed at interfering with the ascertainment of and voting by Arizona’s electors.”

Meadows: The January 6th House Select Committee final report has the greatest details of Meadows’ deep involvement in the false electors scheme on behalf of Trump. Indicted in Georgia, Meadows’ own court filings there claim – or, admit – that he was acting in service of the then-president.

One can only speculate as to the reasons why Trump might be excluded but the other two men included in the Arizona indictment. The reasons might have to do with direct evidence for Meadows and Giuliani that is lacking for Trump – especially as the former president acted, in part, through them as intermediaries and conduits. Another reason may be the exercise of “prosecutorial discretion.” And yet another could be that prosecutors submitted the question to the jury but an insufficient number of jurors approved of charging the former president. Or some other reason might explain it.

Tuesday’s indictment may not be the final word on whether Trump will be indicted in Arizona. Another shoe may be yet to drop. But the current situation cries out for an explanation of how Trump’s two key agents – Giuliani and Meadows – are included in the list of indicted individuals, but not Trump himself.

2. The conspicuous absence of Kenneth Chesebro

Kenneth Chesebro has properly been called “a chief architect” of the false electors scheme. He is identifiable as Co-Conspirator 5 in the federal indictment of Trump, and he has pleaded guilty in the Fulton County, Georgia prosecution.

Chesebro has so far escaped prosecution in other states where false electors are under indictment. His protection from prosecution appears to be on the basis that he “cooperated” with those investigations. However, recent investigative reporting by CNN and others has revealed that Chesebro apparently made false statements to state prosecutors in Michigan and Nevada while feigning cooperation with their respective criminal investigations of false electors (see also this analysis of flaws with his proffer agreement in Georgia).

That all is now fairly well known to close observers of these cases. Why then the Arizona indictment excludes Chesebro is a mystery. Prosecutors in Michigan and Nevada have decided not to seek indictments of anyone at the national level and instead focused only on false electors in their states. But in Arizona that’s different, as the prosecutors have now charged several out-of-state individuals who were involved in the nationally coordinated effort to overturn the election results. But not Chesebro. Earlier reports were that Chesebro was “cooperating” with the Arizona prosecutors, and that may explain it.

3. The indictment of Boris Epshteyn and Christina Bobb

Two new figures have been added to the list of Trump’s associates now under indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the presidential election: Boris Epshteyn and Christina Bobb.

In the federal indictment, it appears that Epshteyn may be unindicted “Co-Conspirator-6” (see analysis by New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan and Luke Broadwater). In the Fulton County, Georgia indictment, previous analysis at Just Security identified Epshteyn as most likely one of the unindicted co-conspirators (“Individual 3”).

4. A potential Trump presidency and pressure on defendants to flip

Criminal defendants in the Arizona 2020 election interference prosecution, as well as elsewhere like Fulton County, Georgia, may have reasons to flip and cooperate with prosecutors due to the prospect of a Trump presidency.

A president cannot issue pardons for state crimes, and his or her control over the Department of Justice does not extend to state law enforcement authorities. The state-level prosecutions of false electors and other Trump associates – in Arizona and elsewhere – will accordingly proceed whether or not Trump wins election. But he himself has a high likelihood of being deemed immune (by the Supreme Court if it comes to that) from state and local criminal prosecutions while in office. In other words, co-defendants and co-conspirators may be left holding the bag. That dawning reality may create incentives for some of these individuals to cooperate with law enforcement authorities sooner than later.

The post Arizona Election Interference Indictment- Conspicuous Absences appeared first on Just Security.

Arizona Election Interference Indictment – Conspicuous Absences

Ryan Goodman — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:51:31 -0400

A grand jury in Arizona has returned an indictment for several close associates of former President Donald Trump as well as lower-level individuals who served as false electors in Arizona during the 2020 presidential election. The Office of Attorney General Kris Mayes has charged all of them with a conspiracy under Arizona state law to overturn the popular vote in the state.

The list of indicted co-defendants includes seven (7) national figures: Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn, Mike Roman, Jenna Ellis, and Christina Bobb.

The eleven (11) other co-defendants are all the false electors in the 2020 election. That list notably includes Kelli Ward, who served as the chair of the Arizona Republican Party during the 2020 presidential election.

Notably, like Georgia, criminal trials in Arizona can be publicly broadcast.

Some highlights follow.

1. The conspicuous absence of Donald Trump

The Arizona indictment raises a question. How is it possible that Trump’s two alter egos have been indicted but the former president — the ego in that equation — has not?

The two alter egos are Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Trump’s absence from the indicted co-defendants list is all the more puzzling since Trump is identifiable as “Unindicted Coconspirator 1” in the Attorney General’s court filings. Coincidentally, on Wednesday, April 24, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office testified in that state’s court that Trump, Meadows, and Giuliani are “unindicted co-conspirators” in the Michigan state prosecution of false electors.

A great deal of evidence shows that Meadows and Giuliani helped lead the multi-pronged efforts to overturn the election acting on behalf of Trump.

Giuliani: The federal indictment of Trump, for example, refers to Giuliani as “Co-Conspirator 1” including for his allegedly helping orchestrate – on behalf of Trump – the false electors scheme across the seven swing states, including Arizona. The federal indictment also states that Trump worked directly with Giuliani in pressuring Arizona state officials to overturn the popular vote, including calling the Republican Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Rust Bowers in which they “made knowingly false claims of election fraud aimed at interfering with the ascertainment of and voting by Arizona’s electors.”

Meadows: The January 6th House Select Committee final report has the greatest details of Meadows’ deep involvement in the false electors scheme on behalf of Trump. Indicted in Georgia, Meadows’ own court filings there claim – or, admit – that he was acting in service of the then-president.

One can only speculate as to the reasons why Trump might be excluded but the other two men included in the Arizona indictment. The reasons might have to do with direct evidence for Meadows and Giuliani that is lacking for Trump – especially as the former president acted, in part, through them as intermediaries and conduits. Another reason may be the exercise of “prosecutorial discretion.” And yet another could be that prosecutors submitted the question to the jury but an insufficient number of jurors approved of charging the former president. Or some other reason might explain it.

Tuesday’s indictment may not be the final word on whether Trump will be indicted in Arizona. Another shoe may be yet to drop. But the current situation cries out for an explanation of how Trump’s two key agents – Giuliani and Meadows – are included in the list of indicted individuals, but not Trump himself.

2. The conspicuous absence of Kenneth Chesebro

Kenneth Chesebro has properly been called “a chief architect” of the false electors scheme. He is identifiable as Co-Conspirator 5 in the federal indictment of Trump, and he has pleaded guilty in the Fulton County, Georgia prosecution.

Chesebro has so far escaped prosecution in other states where false electors are under indictment. His protection from prosecution appears to be on the basis that he “cooperated” with those investigations. However, recent investigative reporting by CNN and others has revealed that Chesebro apparently made false statements to state prosecutors in Michigan and Nevada while feigning cooperation with their respective criminal investigations of false electors (see also this analysis of flaws with his proffer agreement in Georgia).

That all is now fairly well known to close observers of these cases. Why, then, the Arizona indictment excludes Chesebro is a mystery. Prosecutors in Michigan and Nevada have decided not to seek indictments of anyone at the national level and instead focused only on false electors in their states. But in Arizona that’s different, as the prosecutors have now charged several out-of-state individuals who were involved in the nationally coordinated effort to overturn the election results. But not Chesebro. Earlier reports were that Chesebro was “cooperating” with the Arizona prosecutors, and that may explain it.

3. The indictment of Boris Epshteyn and Christina Bobb

Two new figures have been added to the list of Trump’s associates now under indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the presidential election: Boris Epshteyn and Christina Bobb.

In the federal indictment, it appears that Epshteyn may be unindicted “Co-Conspirator-6” (see analysis by New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan and Luke Broadwater). In the Fulton County, Georgia indictment, previous analysis at Just Security identified Epshteyn as most likely one of the unindicted co-conspirators (“Individual 3”).

4. A potential Trump presidency and pressure on defendants to flip

Criminal defendants in the Arizona 2020 election interference prosecution, as well as elsewhere like Fulton County, Georgia, may have reasons to flip and cooperate with prosecutors due to the prospect of a Trump presidency.

A president cannot issue pardons for state crimes, and his or her control over the Department of Justice does not extend to state law enforcement authorities. The state-level prosecutions of false electors and other Trump associates – in Arizona and elsewhere – will accordingly proceed whether or not Trump wins election. But he himself has a high likelihood of being deemed immune (by the Supreme Court if it comes to that) from state and local criminal prosecutions while in office. In other words, co-defendants and co-conspirators may be left holding the bag. That dawning reality may create incentives for some of these individuals to cooperate with law enforcement authorities sooner than later.

The post Arizona Election Interference Indictment – Conspicuous Absences appeared first on Just Security.

ON POINT: Ukraine's Battle for the Black Sea -- And Free Europe

Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:06:00 -0400

Jury Weighs Claims of Abuse at Abu Ghraib Prison Against Contractor, 20 Years Later

Mattathias Schwartz — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 17:56:54 -0400
Three men who were detained at the notorious prison in Iraq are suing a defense contractor, saying its interrogators told U.S. soldiers to “soften up” prisoners.

Anduril, General Atomics win more USAF money to develop robot wingmen

Audrey Decker — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 17:37:52 -0400
But the giants they beat out are welcome to pitch self-developed drones for production contracts.

Prepositioned stocks will get new aid to Ukraine quickly, top US officer says

Patrick Tucker — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:55:41 -0400
Aircraft are likely “already flying” material toward the beleaguered country, senior official says.

NATO Puts on a Show of Force in the Shadow of Russia’s War

Helene Cooper — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:02:46 -0400
The alliance’s largest exercises offer a preview of what the opening of a Great Power conflict could look like. How it ends is a different story.

Report of the Independent Task Force on National Security Memorandum-20 Regarding Israel

Noura Erakat — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:17:46 -0400

In early February, we formed the Independent Task Force on the Application of National Security Memorandum-20 to Israel, whose report we provided to the Biden Administration on April 18. The National Security Memorandum 20 (NSM-20), adopted by President Joe Biden, directs the Department of State to seek assurances from partners involved in conflict and receiving U.S. military grant assistance that they would abide by U.S. and international law and also requires the Departments of State and Defense to report to Congress within 90 days on the extent to which such partners are abiding by their assurances.

Though delegated as a task to the Executive Branch, the administration’s disregard for credible media reporting as well as recommendations from its own experts within the State Department, alleging Israeli abuses, catalyzed us to act.

The Task Force, which has worked on a voluntary basis, consists of experts on U.S. and international law, U.S. security assistance, and U.S. military best practices. For the past two months, we have combed through thousands of lines of data from credible nongovernmental organizations, ranging from human rights watchdogs to aid organizations working on the ground in Gaza.

The final report features sixteen clear, credible, and compelling incidents that should certainly be included in the administration’s upcoming reporting to Congress as well as an 18-page appendix of additional incidents worthy of examination. It also identifies multiple restrictions on humanitarian assistance, including strikes by the IDF, that trigger Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act (which bars military assistance to states impeding U.S. humanitarian aid) and should be reportable to Congress by the Departments of State and/or Defense under the terms of NSM-20.

Our findings were striking. Though Israel has attributed the 34,000 Palestinian casualties, 70 percent of whom are women and children, to alleged human shielding by Hamas, we found that in 11 out of the 16 incidents we analyzed, Israel did not even publicly identity a military target or attempt to justify the strike. Of the remaining five incidents, Israel publicly named targets with verification in two incidents, but no precautionary warning was given and we assess the anticipated civilian harm was known and excessive.

In one of the worst incidents in a strike on Gaza City on October 25, 2023, Israel nearly flattened the entire neighborhood of Al Yarmouk, including seven residential towers. In just the Al Taj residential tower, the bombing killed 91 Palestinians, including 28 women and 39 children. Israel’s only explanation was that a Hamas tunnel ran beneath the neighborhood. Not only did this attack disregard the duty to take precautionary measures and the duty to refrain from an attack where the civilian harm exceeds the military objective to be achieved, it suggests that Israel had the authority to bomb nearly all of Gaza in similar fashion which lay above 350 miles of subterranean tunnels.

Aware of the controversial terrain of international humanitarian law in asymmetric warfare, two-thirds of our report documents violations under applicable U.S. law or policy, including civilian harm mitigation in U.S. military best practices and Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act mandating no military support be given to states restricting access to humanitarian aid. In his analysis, our expert on U.S. targeting came to the same conclusion as did Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who said that the U.S. military would “absolutely not” systematically conduct strikes with a well understood high risk of civilian casualties, as the IDF have continuously.

Our aggregate data demonstrates a broader context of systematic disregard for fundamental principles of U.S. and international law, due to reliance on the steady and sure flow of U.S. armaments. According to a high ranking former IDF officer, Israel’s combat could have achieved similar military outcomes “with 10 percent of the destruction [Israel has] caused.” He attributes this “reckless conduct” to” an absolute assumption that the U.S. will continue to arm and finance [Israel’s military operations].” Indeed, since October 7, the United States has approved over 100 Foreign Military Sales arms transfers to Israel, two of them using an emergency authority to bypass Congressional review, and none of them accompanied by any conditions or “red lines” on usage despite conditionality inherent in U.S. laws and policies.

Our findings echo the concerns recently articulated by forty House Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who have demanded that Biden halt weapons transfers to Israel. As their letter noted, “it is critical to ensure that the U.S. government is fully utilizing the expertise of State Department and DoD officials and legal experts, [including] important intelligence community assessments and data, in thoroughly assessing Israel’s actions in Gaza.”

It is our hope the Task Force’s work facilitates the drafting efforts currently under way within the administration to meet the reporting requirements of NSM-20, resulting in the overdue enforcement of applicable U.S. law as it relates to arms transfers and security assistance, and using all available means to remove all restrictions on the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.

The mounting evidence before the Biden administration now pales only in comparison to the humanitarian crisis afflicting Palestinians in Gaza. As the Task Force’s work demonstrates, the facts could not be more clear. It is now up to the Biden administration to act on them.

IMAGE: Aerial view of destroyed buildings in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip on April 22, 2024 amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and militant group Hamas. (Photo by -/AFPTV/AFP via Getty Images)

The post Report of the Independent Task Force on National Security Memorandum-20 Regarding Israel appeared first on Just Security.

The goal of 100K artillery shells per month is in sight, Army says

Sam Skove — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:13:52 -0400
The new supplemental will continue a push to boost production sixfold since Russia’s Ukraine invasion.

The goal of 100K artillery shells per month is back in sight, Army says

Sam Skove — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:13:52 -0400
The new supplemental renews the push to boost production sixfold since Russia’s Ukraine invasion.

Olimpiadas de París: el equipo de ciberseguridad espera ataques

Tariq Panja — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 12:21:20 -0400
“Seremos atacados”, dijo el responsable de la lucha contra las ciberamenazas. Para prepararse, los organizadores pagan recompensas a los “hackers” que descubren vulnerabilidades.

The D Brief: Aid bill heads to Biden; UK also boosts funding; How will Kyiv use it?; Foreign-policy poll; And a bit more.

Ben Watson — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:13:11 -0400

America’s Sanctions Habit is Hurting Peacemaking

Delaney Simon — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:05:31 -0400

As tensions between Israel and Iran threatened to spark a broader regional conflagration, Washington levied a spate of new sanctions targeting Iran’s drone program. The sanctions, among other U.S. actions, seemed intended to reassure Israel and discourage it from an escalatory response. Whether or not they worked in this instance, they likely did no harm, but that is not always the case. Too often sanctions levied in the name of advancing peace and security have hidden costs that compromise their objectives. Washington should take steps to address sanctions’ downsides and make them more effective tools for furthering global peace and security.

U.S. policymakers have long used sanctions with the aim of bolstering regional and global peace and security. In crisis situations, the United States imposes sanctions to cut off warmongers from weapons and money, hold them accountable for human rights abuses, heighten the costs of their violence, and push them to the peace table.

Sanctions are used in these and other ways in more places than ever before, at a rapidly growing rate. In the last 20 years, the number of U.S. sanctions grew by almost one thousand percent. President Joe Biden’s annual listing rate is nearly double that of President Trump and triple that of President Barack Obama, and he has listed approximately one third of all parties currently on U.S. sanctions lists, according to the law firm Gibson Dunn.

In many cases, Washington is right to wield its economic might in this way, as it was with respect to Ukraine. While the threat of sanctions did not prevent Moscow’s full-scale invasion and the Russian economy has shown some resilience, the swift imposition of sanctions in February 2022 and the additional sanctions packages imposed since have nevertheless allowed the United States and its allies to deliver on the threats they issued before the invasion, impose costs on Russia for its aggression, and make it harder for Moscow to sustain its war effort.

But again and again, U.S. sanctions frustrate diplomatic efforts – including Washington’s own.

When Sanctions Hurt Peace Prospects

There are too many cases of U.S. sanctions outliving the circumstances that prompted them, with damaging consequences for the implementation of peace deals. For example, the U.S. government backed a 2016 peace agreement between the government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), but sanctions against the FARC lingered for five years after the rebels gave up their weapons. Sanctions made it hard for them to open bank accounts, find jobs, and access credit. They were one reason why former fighters struggled to integrate into civilian life, and in some cases, decided to return to arms.

Sanctions left in place after political transitions or the end of wars block economic recovery. After the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, the U.S. sent aid to the country and declared the need for post-war economic recovery – even as U.S. sanctions hobbled the economy. The Biden administration tried to ease the sanctions’ impact with a spate of Treasury licenses permitting business activities, but the chilling effects of sanctions persisted. To be sure, sanctions were not the only reason for private investors’ aversion to working under Taliban control, but dozens of businesses have said that sanctions (and confusion about them) forced businesses to err on the side of caution and suspend investments in the country.

Sudan offers another case. The United States lifted trade restrictions on the country in 2017 but a state sponsor of terrorism designation persisted until 2020, despite the fact that a new civilian-led transitional government had replaced strongman president Omar al-Bashir, whose abuses had motivated the sanctions. To end a country’s state sponsor of terrorism designation, the President must certify to Congress that the country has undergone a fundamental change in leadership and ceased supporting international terrorism. With the transitional government in place, and with Sudan having been a U.S. counter-terrorism partner for some years by that point, it appears Sudan had fulfilled these criteria – but the designation nevertheless remained. Lingering sanctions contributed to firms’ decisions to withhold investment, despite a campaign by U.S. officials to encourage economic activity in the country. They also limited the financial support available to the transitional government, deepening an already dire economic crisis and contributing to conditions that brought about the removal of that government in a military coup in 2021.

Sanctions can pose major hurdles for non-governmental peace organizations that do the behind-the-scenes work of nudging parties toward conflict resolution. Such work often involves facilitating conversations between conflict parties, but the U.S. government sometimes deems these conversations illegal. Take a dialogue that was meant to take place in Lebanon with the participation of political leaders, several of whom were sanctioned by the United States, with the aim of forging deeper understanding of the motivations of prominent actors in the region. The U.S. Treasury told the organizers that facilitating the dialogue was a violation of federal law, and that going ahead could subject them to criminal and civil liability. Because of legal risks such as these – and also because of the administrative burdens and operating challenges involved in navigating economic restrictions – non-governmental peace organizations often pull out of, or reduce their activities in, sanctioned countries.

At the negotiation table, U.S. officials complain of being hamstrung from using sanctions as leverage. Some have found that they cannot promise effective or sustainable sanctions relief — at least not credibly. This was a problem when the Biden administration tried to re-enter the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Iranian negotiators sought guarantees that sanctions, once eased, would not be re-imposed. After all, the last time the U.S. lifted sanctions in step with Iranian significant nuclear concessions, then-President Donald Trump pulled out of the deal and reimposed them despite Iran’s full and verified compliance with its nuclear commitments. American diplomats had no way to guarantee that any deal involving sanctions relief would be long-lasting.

U.S. negotiators also find it difficult to encourage behavior change when sanctions targets know little of why they are sanctioned or what they can do to get off the lists. This happens surprisingly often. Members of Venezuela’s electoral authority who were sanctioned in 2020 were unsure of why they had been placed on U.S. blacklists and left in the dark as to how they could get off them. Others only hear of their designations from the newspaper, as one former Congolese official did after his 2019 listing. Without knowing the steps they can take to get delisted, sanctions targets are not incentivized to change course and cease their destabilizing activities.

Sanctions can also lock in the perception that peaceful relations are impossible with an adversary, even if that adversary has changed significantly since sanctions were imposed. Conflict resolution requires both sides to move beyond their grievances. But sanctions – especially terrorism sanctions – tend to reinforce stigmas, making engagement with hostile parties an even more bitter pill to swallow.

At the far end of the spectrum, sanctions can pave the way toward military action. The Trump administration’s designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization did not authorize the use of force, but it did condition parts of the U.S. bureaucracy to think of the Guards as terrorists like al-Qaeda. The designation thus led American policymakers to see military means as a legitimate way to counter them.

The Need for Reform

Why do these measures sometimes have such negative effects, even when they are intended to enhance global peace and stability? A few reasons stand out. If sanctions are intended to bolster Washington’s leverage, then it must be able to adjust them to changing situations. But U.S. sanctions are extremely difficult to change, lift, ease, or understand. Bureaucratic inertia and political pressures are partially to blame. So too is the growing complexity of American sanctions, which are more numerous and based on more legal authorities than ever before. Further, there is no meaningful review process to assess sanctions’ effectiveness in delivering on foreign policy objectives in general, let alone their impacts on conflict prevention.

Members of Congress are often the loudest advocates in Washington for tightening sanctions. Their often-vehement opposition to sanctions relaxation makes sanctions easing extremely politically costly for the executive branch. Also, the sanctions that Congress puts in place by statute can complicate the executive’s efforts to calibrate U.S. economic policy to its other foreign policy goals. For example, while President Obama relaxed sanctions on Cuba in 2016, Congress did not rescind the Helms-Burton Act (1996), which maintained the U.S. embargo on Cuba. While Congress tends to be trigger happy when it comes to imposing sanctions, it falls short in reviewing their effectiveness. As Representative Jim McGovern lamented at a hearing on sanctions in 2022, “In Congress we don’t really talk about these things in any detail.”

To its credit, the Biden administration has taken major steps to address sanctions’ downsides. In the early days of the new presidency, Treasury published a sanctions review proposing policy reforms that drew on recommendations from leading experts. The White House then championed a landmark resolution at the United Nations in 2022 that carved out humanitarian activities from certain Security Council sanctions. The U.S. government then went further, issuing licenses that implemented the UN carveout and extending it to peacebuilding and conflict resolution activities.

But the reforms do not go far enough to address the costs that sanctions pose to peacemaking. With Washington increasingly reliant on sanctions as a tool of foreign policy, addressing these downsides is more pressing than ever.

A good place to start would be setting clear objectives for U.S. sanctions programs and subjecting them to rigorous periodic reviews. This would help U.S. officials to gauge whether sanctions are achieving their goals, and give them the rationale (and the political cover) to change course if the circumstances shift. Both Congress and the executive branch have a role to play in this regard.

Washington should also make clear that peace activities are always permitted, even when sanctions are in place. This may require codifying existing sanctions carveouts into law, and expanding existing sanctions exemptions.

A further important step would be to address private sector concerns about investing in places affected by sanctions so that conflict-affected communities can rebuild. This might be achieved through support for economic regeneration in previously sanctioned countries and strengthened outreach to businesses.

American officials will keep looking to sanctions when navigating the challenges of foreign policy. And they should, if sanctions have a chance of making wars less brutal or bringing them to a close. But without reforms to blunt sanctions’ negative consequences for peacemaking, their effectiveness will be limited. Far greater effort is needed to ensure that this instrument of American power is better deployed in the service of peace and security.

IMAGE: An exterior view of the building of US Department of the Treasury is seen on March 27, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)

The post America’s Sanctions Habit is Hurting Peacemaking appeared first on Just Security.

American Autocracy Threat Tracker

Norman L. Eisen — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:57:47 -0400

This autocracy threat tracker is also available as a PDF file. The tracker was originally published on February 26, 2024 and is continually updated.

Introduction

Former President Donald Trump has said he will be a dictator on “day one.” He and his advisors and associates have publicly discussed hundreds of further actions to be taken during a second Trump presidency that directly threaten democracy, the rule of law, as well as U.S. (and global) security. These vary from Trump breaking the law and abusing power in areas like immigration roundups and energy extraction; to summarily and baselessly firing tens of thousands of civil servants whom he perceives as adversaries; to prosecuting his political opponents for personal gain and even hinting at executing some of them; to pardoning some of the convicted January 6th rioters he views as “great patriots,” “hostages,” and “wrongfully imprisoned.” We track all of these promises, plans, and pronouncements here and we will continue to update them.

We assess there is a significant risk of autocracy should Trump regain the presidency. Trump has said he would deploy the military against civilian protestors and his advisors have developed plans for using the Insurrection Act, said he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act to conduct deportations of non-citizens, continued to threaten legally-established abortion rights, and even had his lawyers argue that a president should be immune from prosecution if he directed SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political opponent. Trump also seeks the power to protect his personal wealth as he faces staggering civil fines, and to bolster his immunity as he faces 88 criminal charges in prosecutions in different parts of the country. He has predicted a “bloodbath” if he is not elected (although his meaning has been contested, with some saying he was referring to violence and others that “Trump was talking about US automakers.”) At a Veterans Day rally last year, Trump said he would “root out” political opponents who “live like vermin within the confines of our country” warning that the greatest threats come “from within” (words that, according to ABC News and others, “echoed those of past fascist dictators like Hitler and Benito Mussolini,” and alarmed historians.)

While Trump has claimed he will be a dictator for only the first day of his administration, his promise to do so—even for 24 hours—is antithetical to American democracy and consistent with the history of authoritarianism. Dictatorial powers, once assumed, are rarely relinquished. Moreover, Trump cannot possibly achieve his stated goals for the use of that power (in immigration and energy policy) in one day, meaning that his “dictatorship” would of necessity likely last much longer.

Many of Trump’s former Cabinet officials and advisors—those with the most experience watching him govern behind the scenes—believe he poses a grave danger to the country. John Bolton, Trump’s former National Security Advisor, said, “I think Trump will cause significant damage in a second term, damage that in some cases will be irreparable.” Trump’s former chief of staff, John Kelly, said that the former president praised Adolf Hitler’s ability to rebuild Germany’s economy, and admired his maintaining “loyalty” of his senior Nazi officials. Alyssa Farah Griffin, former Trump White House Director of Strategic Communications, noted, “Fundamentally, a second Trump term could mean the end of American democracy as we know it, and I don’t say that lightly.” Mark Esper, Trump’s former defense secretary, has warned of “more … hyper-aggressive behavior” by Trump if he takes office, recounting when Trump asked if demonstrators gathering around the White House following the death of George Floyd could be shot.

Significantly, Trump’s former vice president and 2020 running mate Mike Pence said recently that there are “profound differences” between the pair “on a range of issues, and not just our difference on my constitutional duties that I exercised on January 6th,” such that he would “not be endorsing … Trump this year,” adding, “Trump is pursuing and articulating an agenda that is at odds with the conservative agenda that we governed on during our four years, and that’s why I cannot in good conscience endorse … [his] campaign.”

Trump’s dictatorial aspirations are complemented by an extensive pre-election plan to fundamentally alter the nature of American government: the Heritage Foundation’s 2025 Presidential Transition Project (Project 2025). Created by Trump allies and staffed by those including his past and likely future administration appointees, it is in the words of Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts, a plan for “institutionalizing Trumpism.” Trump has returned the compliment, saying of Roberts (and Heritage) that he’s “doing an unbelievable job, he’s bringing it back to levels we’ve never seen … thank you Kevin.”

Project 2025’s plans are set forth in an 887-page document entitled “Mandate for Leadership: the Conservative Promise.” It details a program to consolidate power in the executive branch, deconstruct the federal administration, and strip remaining agencies of their independence. It proposes to dismantle or radically overhaul the Departments of Justice and State; eliminate the Departments of Homeland Security, Education, and Commerce; radically repurpose other agencies; and eviscerate the professional civil service. Project 2025 is complemented by other 2025 planning efforts by, for example, the America First Policy Institute, the Center for Renewing America, and the Conservative Partnership Institute.

Trump and his associates are reportedly discussing building an administration around loyalists who would “stretch legal and governance boundaries” to accommodate an “aggressive use of the vast powers of the executive branch” (in the words of Project 2025). Among those Axios reported to be under discussion for senior government posts are Stephen Miller, Kash Patel, Steve Bannon, and Jeffrey Clark, who is currently under indictment in Georgia for his role in the fake electors scheme and a co-conspirator in the federal election indictment.

When Trump assumed office in 2017, he and his associates did not have such well developed policies and personnel in waiting. Indeed, he made the “mistake” of including people in senior administration positions who remained loyal to the Constitution. As Sec. Esper told Bill Kirstol in an April 17, 2024, interview, “There were guard rails in place, guard rail number one being the prospect of reelection, and number two being the people he brought in around him. Some of those guard rails won’t be there in number two.” A few days later, RNC Co-Chair Lara Trump told an audience to a round of applause, “He’s not worried about winning another election. It’s four years of scorched earth when Donald Trump retakes the White House.”

We ignore leaders who promise dictatorship—and those who enable them—at our own peril. To see what America might become under Trump’s authoritarian aspirations, we should look at the regimes of other contemporary autocrats, especially as Trump has been mirroring recent autocratic moves in Hungary and elsewhere. With great fanfare, Trump recently welcomed Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to his Mar-a-Lago resort, Florida, and has long expressed his admiration for Orbán’s leadership. The Hungarian’s self-proclaimed drive toward an “illiberal state” has seen extensive democratic backsliding. He packed the judiciary to place that branch of government squarely under his control; rewrote election laws to retain his legislative majority; censored the press; used law enforcement to persecute his enemies; and changed Hungary’s constitution to help achieve his autocratic goals—and he took that “blueprint on dismantling democracy to Mar-a-Lago.” Trump and Orbán’s continuing public alignment on key policy issues also “threatens trans-Atlantic security,”—despite Orban’s repeated claims to the contrary—with the pair reportedly aligning on, among other this, the Russian-Ukraine war and eyeing an end to U.S. funding and aid to Ukraine. The United States, like many other functioning democracies, is hardly immune from backsliding and lurching toward autocracy.

Because past is prologue, it is also important to analyze relevant data points from the first Trump administration. We include considerable indicators of autocratic tendencies from 2017-2021, such as Trump’s calling for the Department of Justice to prosecute his political enemies, claiming that Article II of the Constitution gave him the authority to do “anything I wanted,” shamelessly violating the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause to use his government position to enrich himself and his family, and many more. That all culminated in the attempted interruption of the peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 election.

Trump’s followers are getting the message. On February 22, 2024 at the CPAC conference, right-wing political activist Jack Posobiec said, “Welcome to the end of democracy. We’re here to overthrow it completely. We didn’t get all the way there on January 6 but we will endeavor to get rid of it and replace it with this right here,” raising his fist. (Some media reports state he was holding up a small crucifix.) Posobiec has been described as ”a Trump favorite,” and Trump in 2020 tweeted, “That’s right Jack. Keep up the good work!” in response to a Posobiec tweet informing his followers that the then-president read his feed. When Trump spoke at the end of that same CPAC conference on February 24, he did not repudiate Posobiec’s comments. On the contrary, he too seemed to condone the January 6th attack, calling the perpetrators who have been sentenced to prison for their crimes that day “hostages.” Declaring himself “a proud political dissident,” he also attacked the functioning of American democracy and positioned himself as a strongman savior, stating, “Our country is being destroyed. And the only thing standing between you and its obliteration is me.”

Below we organize Trump’s and his allies’ autocratic plans by topic, providing full citations to their comments and the factual record. We also offer some potential solutions to address the threat both now and should it come to pass in 2025. This full Threat Tracker will continue to be updated regularly.

For public reference, we have also created a searchable data set of all of Trump’s Truth Social posts, which we will also update regularly. They are an important source for tracking the scope of his plans, although we have also drawn information from hundreds of other sources as shown in the links supporting each entry herein.

If you think we have missed something, please send recommendations to lte@justsecurity.org.

Contents

Introduction

Contents

I. Day 1 Dictatorship Promise: Immigration

II. Day 1 Dictatorship Promise: Energy and the Environment

III. Day 1 Dictatorship Promise: Release January 6th rioters from prison

IV. Subverting the Rule of Law to Protect Himself from Prosecution

V. Persecuting his Perceived Political Enemies

VI. Draconian Abortion Access Crackdown

VII. Purging Federal Employees and Attacking Federal Agencies

VIII. Rigging Elections and Promoting Harmful Election Conspiracy Theories

IX. Rejecting the Constitution

X. Demonizing Americans with Whom He Disagrees

XI. Trump’s Effusive Praise of Autocrats

XII. Enriching Himself and His Family

XIII. Creating an Unconstitutional Criminal Justice System

XIV. Wielding the Military to Suppress Civil Dissent

XV. Undermining America’s Stature Abroad and Eroding International Alliances

XVI. Discriminating Against LGBTQ+ Americans

XVII. Attacking the Free Press

XVIII. Spreading Disinformation and Conspiracy Theories on Public Health

XIX. Embracing Christian Nationalism

XX. Politicizing Education & Censoring Disfavored Ideas

XXI. Condoning Anti-Semitism

XXII. Bipartisan Actions to Counter Autocratic Threats

Selected Bibliography

Day 1 Dictatorship Promise: Immigration

Dec. 6, 2023, Davenport, Iowa: Sean Hannity asked Trump whether Trump intended to abuse power or break the law, to which Trump answered, “Except for day one. I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.” Trump then immediately doubled down on the exchange, describing it for the audience using the word “dictator” – “He [Hannity] says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”

Dec. 11, 2023, New York: Less than one week later, Trump tripled down on his dictator comment. “I said I want to be a dictator for one day. You know why I wanted to be a dictator? Because I want a wall, and I want to drill, drill, drill.”

April 2, 2024, Grand Rapids, MI: “On day one I will seal the border and we’ll begin the largest domestic deportation operation in the history of our country.”

April 19, 2024, Trump campaign website states that “President Trump will secure the border on Day One and allow our brave Border Patrol agents to do their jobs,” according to Steven Cheung, Trump Campaign Communications Director.

April 2, 2024, Green Bay, WI, Trump said: “On day one, we will terminate every open borders policy of the Biden administration and begin the largest domestic deportation operation in American history, starting with all of the criminals that are pouring in the criminals and the terrorists.”

Trump’s proposed immigration policies go far beyond securing the border and limiting illegal immigration. He has embraced ordering unlawful immigration roundups and travel bans, using the military domestically to purge undocumented immigrants (see below), violating the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, and prosecuting American officials and organizations who don’t comply with his policies.

Trump has here.

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

ISRAEL-IRAN CONFLICT

Iran’s president Ebrahim Raisi said yesterday “there will be nothing left” of Israel if Iran is attacked again. “There will be nothing left of that entity,” Iranian state news agency IRNA reported Raisi as saying. Raisi’s comments were made on the second of his three-day official visit to Pakistan, where he warned that if Israel “commits another mistake and violates the sovereignty of the holy Iranian lands, the situation will be different.” Ruba Alhenawi reports for CNN.

Iran has reduced its military footprint in Syria after a series of suspected Israeli strikes, according to a source close to the Iran-backed Lebanese group, Hezbollah. Iran has provided military support to Syrian government forces through over a decade of civil war, but a series of strikes targeting its commanders in recent months has prompted a reshaping of its presence, the sources told Agence France-Presse. “Iran withdrew its forces from southern Syria,” including Quneitra and Daraa provinces, which abut the Israeli-held Golan Heights, the source said, adding that Tehran still maintains a presence in other parts of the country. The Times of Israel reports.

Iran and Pakistan issued a joint statement calling on the U.N. Security Council to take action over Israel’s strike on an Iranian consulate building in Damascus. “Recognizing that the irresponsible act of the Israeli regime forces was a major escalation in an already volatile region, both sides called on the UN Security Council to prevent the Israeli regime from its adventurism in the region and its illegal acts attacking its neighbors,” Iran and Pakistan said in their joint statement. The statement followed Raisi’s three-day official visit to Pakistan.

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR

A Hamas military spokesperson yesterday vowed to continue attacks on Israel. Abu Obaida, the spokesperson of Hamas’s military wing Al Qassam Brigades, said in his first video message in more than six weeks, “We will keep attacking the enemy with different techniques as long as the aggression continues on our land.” Obaida also praised Iran’s strikes on Israel earlier this month and blamed Israel for stalled ceasefire and hostage release talks, saying Israel is “trying to renounce all his promises” and wants to “gain more time.” Ruba Alhenawi reports for CNN.

Israeli intensified strikes across Gaza yesterday and ordered new evacuations in the north. Airstrikes and shelling from tanks on the ground were reported across the strip, in what residents said were almost 24 hours of non-stop bombardments. Meanwhile, the Israeli army ordered fresh evacuations in the north of the enclave, warning civilians they were in a “dangerous combat zone.” In a post on X, an Israeli military spokesperson urged residents of four zones in Beit Lahiya to move to two designated areas, saying the military “will work with extreme force against terrorist infrastructure and subversive elements” in the region. Nidal Al-Mughrabi reports for Reuters.

An Israeli official has hinted at Israel’s plans for civilians if it invades Rafah. The official said that if an invasion were to begin in Rafah, where a million displaced Palesinians are sheltering, an Israeli-delegated “humanitarian zone” along the coast would be expanded to take in more civilians. Israel would tell Palestinians to go to the enlarged “humanitarian zone,” which would include a narrow strip of coastal land known as Al-Mawasi, and other unidentified areas in Gaza, the official said. The comments are among the first indications of the Israeli military’s plans for civilians in case of a ground offensive in Rafah. Adam Rasgon reports for the New York Times.

The U.N. human rights office yesterday called for an independent investigation into the two mass graves found at hospitals in Gaza. The development follows the recovery of hundreds of bodies “buried deep in the ground and covered in waste” over the weekend at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis and at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza city. “Disturbing reports continue to emerge about mass graves in Gaza in which Palestinian victims were reportedly found stripped naked with their hands tied, prompting renewed concerns about possible war crimes amid ongoing Israeli airstrikes,” the U.N. office said. Palestinian officials say they exhumed 283 bodies at Nasser. Israel’s military has said the claims are baseless, but also said that during a two-seek operation at the hospital, troops “examined” bodies buried by Palestinians “in places where intelligence indicated the possible presence of hostages.” BBC reports.

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR — U.S. RESPONSE

The Biden administration yesterday said Israel has taken “significant steps” to improve the flow of aid to Gaza over the last three weeks, but stressed further work needs to be done. David Satterfield, President Biden’s special envoy for humanitarian issues in the Middle East, said in a press briefing that while there is significant improvement, the risk of famine in northern Gaza remains, adding that Israel must do all it can to prevent it. Satterfield’s comments are the first significant public signal that the Biden administration views Israel as changing its course on humanitarian aid into Gaza. Barak Ravid reports for Axios.

Construction on the temporary pier for Gaza will begin “very soon in the near future,” the Pentagon said yesterday. Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said U.S. military vessels are in the Mediterranean region “standing by” and prepared to start construction on the temporary pier offshore of Gaza when given the order to do so. Officials are working through a checklist of procedure and processes, including assessing security on the ground, facilitating coordination with supporting partners, and drawing up a timeline for implementation, he said. Ryder has said the temporary pier is expected to be operational by the end of April or early May, and said yesterday the U.S. military is on course to meet that timeline. Haley Britzky reports for CNN.

The FBI is sharing intelligence to prevent violence on college campuses following widespread protests over the war in Gaza. FBI director Christopher Wray said the agency is coordinating with college campuses to make them aware of anti-semitic threats and possible violence, adding that while the FBI does not monitor protests, “We do share intelligence about specific threats of violence with campuses, with state and local law enforcement.” Meanwhile, Iran’s foreign ministry today criticized U.S. authorities for its crackdown on the student protests. Ken Dilanian reports for NBC News.

Former House Speaker Nancy Peolosi called on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to resign. “We recognize Israel’s right to protect itself. We reject the policy and the practice of Netanyahu – terrible. What could be worse than what he has done in response?” Pelosi (D-CA) said in an interview published Monday, adding, “He should resign. He’s ultimately responsible.” When asked whether Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace, Pelosi said, “I don’t know whether he’s afraid of peace, incapable of peace, or just doesn’t want peace. But he has been an obstacle to the two-state solution.” Zoë Richards reports for NBC News.

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR — INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE

Germany will resume cooperation with the U.N. relief agency for Palestinians refugees (UNRWA). The move comes after the organization accepted the recommendations of an independent review of its neutrality headed by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna. The German foreign office said it was pleased that UNRWA said it would take action “swiftly and in full” on the recommendations of the review. “In support of these reforms, the German government will soon continue its cooperation with UNRWA in Gaza, as Australia, Canada, Sweden and Japan, among others, have already done,” the foreign office said. CNN reports.

Nepal’s president asked the emir of Qatar, who is on a two-day visit to the south Asian country, to assist in the release of a Nepali student held hostage by Hamas, officials said today. Binaj Gurubacharya reports for AP News.

IRAN-BACKED MILITANTS

Hezbollah yesterday claimed that it had made its deepest attack into Israel since October. The group said it struck a barracks north of the city of Acre with drones, causing sirens to be set off across the country’s northern coastline. The Israeli military, however, said that no bases had been hit and no casualties reported, adding that three drones had been intercepted. Euan Ward reports for the New York Times.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE DEVELOPMENTS

Russia will intensify attacks on Western weapons stored in Ukraine, Russia’s defense minister warned yesterday. “We will increase the intensity of attacks on logistics centers and storage bases for Western weapons,” Sergei Shoigu said, according to Russian state-owned media outlet RIA Novosti. The Kremlin’s reaction comes days after the United States approved a new package of military aid to help Ukraine fend off Russia’s full-scale invasion. Pierre Emmanuel Ngendakumana reports for POLITICO.

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS

A Moscow court rejected an appeal brought by Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich against his detention. The ruling means Gershkovich will remain in prison until at least June 30, having awaited trial for over a year on charges of espionage. Gershkovich and the U.S. government vehemently deny the allegations, and the State Department has declared him wrongfully detained, a designation that requires the government to work for his release. Ann M. Simmons reports for the Wall Street Journal.

New evidence uncovered by CNN challenges the Pentagon’s account of the self-styled Islamic State-K militant group’s suicide attack outside Kabul airport during the U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021. For two years, the U.S. military has insisted the loss of life to 13 service members was caused by a single explosion. However, video evidence captured by a Marine’s GoPro camera suggests there was far more gunfire than the Pentagon admitted. A U.S. military personnel who was at the scene of the attack said, “It was a mass volume of gunfire.” Combined, the fresh evidence challenges the two U.S. military investigations, raising questions for the Pentagon which has continued to dismiss claims that civilians were shot dead. Nick Paton Walsh and Mick Krever report for CNN.

A Russian court today ordered one of Sergei Shoigu’s deputies be kept in custody on suspicion of taking bribes. Deputy defense minister Timur Ivanov was detained yesterday and will be kept in custody until June 23. The court alleges he “entered into a criminal conspiracy with third parties, teamed up with them in advance to commit an organized crime by an organized group.” Ivanov, who has said he is innocent, faces a 15-year jail term if convicted. Guy Faulconbridge and Lidia Kelly report for Reuters.

Australian police arrested seven teenagers as part of sweeping counter-terrorism raids across Sydney, claiming it was “likely” the youths may have been plotting an attack. The suspects are believed to share a “religiously motivated violent extremist ideology,” police say. The raids are linked to last week’s stabbing of an Assyrian bishop, which police declared a “terrorist attack.” Hannah Ritchie and Simon Atkinson report for BBC News.

DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS

The Senate yesterday passed 79-18 a long-delayed $95.3 billion foreign aid package. It provides around $60 billion for Ukraine, $26 billion, and $8 billion to support Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific. President Biden said he would quickly sign the measure into law today. Katy Stech Ferek and Lindsay Wise report for the Wall Street Journal.

TRUMP-LEGAL MATTERS

Former President Trump’s hush money trial is continuing today. Yesterday morning started off with a gag-order hearing, with prosecutors alleging that Trump has violated his gag order 10 times. Justice Juan Merchan and Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, had several tense exchanges, with the judge telling Blanche he is “losing all credibility.” The judge has yet to decide if Trump has violated the gag order. Meanwhile, first witness David Pecker continued his testimony yesterday, explaining a “catch-and-kill” scheme he ran while publisher of the magazine, National Enquirer. It was an “agreement between friends” to suppress negative stories about Trump during the 2016 presidential election, Pecker said. Join Just Security Journalism Fellow, Adam Klasfeld’s Daily Dispatches from the Trump Trial Courtroom in New York for updates from inside the courtroom.

The post Early Edition: 24 April, 2024 appeared first on Just Security.

U.S. National Security and Military News Review

Why Does the U.S. Arm Ukraine With Fanfare and Israel in Secret?

How the U.S. Humanitarian Pier in Gaza Will Work

AIR DEFENSE: EAGLS and APKWS

LOGISTICS: Ukraine Connects With European Railroads

SPECIAL OPERATIONS: Russia Lost It's Subversion Skills

Lisa Page, Ex-F.B.I. Lawyer Who Criticized Trump, Says Bureau Failed to Warn Her of Stalker

Losing a Foot Never Held Her Back, Until She Tried to Join the Military

The D Brief: Houthis renew ship attacks; More ATACMS to Ukraine; Gaza pier update; Changes at SOF school; And a bit more.

5 Takeaways from David Pecker’s Testimony in Trump’s Hush-Money Trial

U.S. Builds Web of Arms, Ships and Bases in the Pacific to Deter China

An Oversight Model for AI in National Security: The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

Independence

Mandate

Leadership and Resources

Access to Information

Promote Transparency and Accountability

IMAGE: Visualization of artificial intelligence. (via Getty Images)

The Just Security Podcast: Harm to Women in War Goes Beyond Sexual Violence: `Obstetric Violence’ Neglected

Early Edition: April 26, 2024

Trump Trials Clearinghouse

Master Calendar of Trump Court Dates and the 2024 Campaign

New York: 2016 Election

Department of Justice: 2020 Election Interference

Georgia: 2020 Election Interference

Department of Justice: Classified Documents

New York Attorney General: Corporate Fraud

Clearinghouse: January 6th Election Interference Case – District of Columbia

Filings following December 13 stay of proceedings

Motions to Dismiss and Strike (and associated appeals)

Clearinghouse: Georgia Election Interference Case

Clearinghouse: Mar-a-Lago Documents Case – Southern District of Florida

Pretrial Motions (including motions to dismiss)

Clearinghouse: New York Attorney General Corporate Fraud Case

Clearinghouse: 2016 Election Interference Case – Manhattan District Attorney

US will ‘continue to provide” ATACMS for Ukraine, National Security Advisor says

US will ‘continue to provide' ATACMS for Ukraine, National Security Advisor says

US will ‘continue to provide' ATACMS to Ukraine, national security advisor says

MORALE: Desperate Soldiers With Nowhere To Go

SPACE: A SpaceX Falcon Does Twenty

ATTRITION: Russia Regenerates Its Forces in Ukraine

At Army’s special-ops school, the biggest changes in a generation

Pentagon canceled Northrop’s classified satellite program due to ‘budgetary concerns’

U.S. to Withdraw Troops From Chad

In Ukraine, New American Technology Won the Day. Until It Was Overwhelmed.

The D Brief: Aid heads to Ukraine; Army’s 100K goal; Niger pullout talks; Pentagon test recuses himself; And a bit more.

Software Backdoor is a Wakeup Call for Cybersecurity

IMAGE: Visualization of cybersecurity (via Getty Images).

Early Edition: April 25, 2024

Why Trump Will Likely be Held in Contempt and What Then

The Gag Order

Trump’s Alleged Violations of the Gag Order

Blinken’s Visit to China: What to Know

Justice Dept. Reaches $138.7 Million Settlement Over FBI’s Failures in Nassar Case

Arizona Election Interference Indictment- Conspicuous Absences

1. The conspicuous absence of Donald Trump

2. The conspicuous absence of Kenneth Chesebro

3. The indictment of Boris Epshteyn and Christina Bobb

4. A potential Trump presidency and pressure on defendants to flip

Arizona Election Interference Indictment – Conspicuous Absences

1. The conspicuous absence of Donald Trump

2. The conspicuous absence of Kenneth Chesebro

3. The indictment of Boris Epshteyn and Christina Bobb

4. A potential Trump presidency and pressure on defendants to flip

ON POINT: Ukraine's Battle for the Black Sea -- And Free Europe

Jury Weighs Claims of Abuse at Abu Ghraib Prison Against Contractor, 20 Years Later

Anduril, General Atomics win more USAF money to develop robot wingmen

Prepositioned stocks will get new aid to Ukraine quickly, top US officer says

NATO Puts on a Show of Force in the Shadow of Russia’s War

Report of the Independent Task Force on National Security Memorandum-20 Regarding Israel

IMAGE: Aerial view of destroyed buildings in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip on April 22, 2024 amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and militant group Hamas. (Photo by -/AFPTV/AFP via Getty Images)

The goal of 100K artillery shells per month is in sight, Army says

The goal of 100K artillery shells per month is back in sight, Army says

Olimpiadas de París: el equipo de ciberseguridad espera ataques

The D Brief: Aid bill heads to Biden; UK also boosts funding; How will Kyiv use it?; Foreign-policy poll; And a bit more.

America’s Sanctions Habit is Hurting Peacemaking

When Sanctions Hurt Peace Prospects

The Need for Reform

IMAGE: An exterior view of the building of US Department of the Treasury is seen on March 27, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)

American Autocracy Threat Tracker