U.S. National Security and Military News Review

Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan Arrested by FBI in Immigration Dispute

Devlin Barrett — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 17:29:27 -0400

Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested on suspicion that she “intentionally misdirected federal agents away from” an immigrant being pursued by the authorities, the F.B.I. director said.

Taliban Leader Pleads Guilty to Taking the American Journalist David Rohde Hostage

Colin Moynihan — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 16:38:37 -0400

Haji Najibullah’s plea was heard in a civilian court in Manhattan. He helped abduct David Rohde, then a New York Times reporter, in Afghanistan in 2008.

White House tries again to issue a workforce-reduction order that can survive legal scrutiny

Sean Michael Newhouse — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 14:00:00 -0400

President Donald Trump on Thursday issued an executive order expanding the reasons agencies may fire probationary employees, a group the administration has sought to dismiss en masse as part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce.

Workers in their probationary periods are generally those who have been hired or promoted within the past year or two. While they have fewer civil service job protections, they can only be dismissed for reasons of performance or conduct.

Recently, several judges have ordered the Trump administration to reinstate thousands of probationary employees fired for reasons of "poor performance" that one judge called “a total sham.” Those orders have since been paused.

Thursday’s executive order says that agency chiefs may dismiss probationary workers recently hired by the federal government by declaring that the agency does not need them to meet its needs, advance its interests, or improve its efficiency.

The directive also requires agencies to affirm the need for a probationary employee in order to retain them at the end of their term.

“For example, when the last workday is a Friday and the anniversary date is the following Monday, a probationer will be separated before the end of the tour of duty on Friday if their agency does not make the requisite certification that their continued appointment advances the public interest,” according to the order.

This latter step follows proposals that predate Trump’s second term. In 2023, the Office of Personnel Management had recommended that supervisors should decide whether to keep or fire a probationary worker.

The order also requires agencies to identify all of their employees in probationary periods that end in 90 or more days from its enactment. It directs agency leaders to certify in writing that their continued employment would advance the public interest.

Earlier this week, a federal judge ordered agencies to inform their fired probationary workers that they were not removed due to their performance. The Office of Special Counsel, whose head Trump recently fired, also decided to drop the cases of such terminated employees who had appealed their firings to the watchdog agency.

]]>

El uso del teléfono personal del secretario de Defensa de EE. UU. creó un riesgo de seguridad

Helene Cooper, Julian E. Barnes, Eric Schmitt and Christiaan Triebert — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:18:23 -0400

El número de teléfono del secretario de Defensa de EE. UU. era fácilmente accesible en WhatsApp, Facebook y un sitio de deportes de fantasía.

Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan Arrested, Accused of Shielding Immigrant From Federal Agents

Devlin Barrett — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:17:02 -0400

Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested on suspicion that she “intentionally misdirected federal agents away from” an immigrant being pursued by the authorities, the F.B.I. director said in a social media post.

Ideological purges reduce deterrence, readiness, and effectiveness. Just ask Stalin

Col. Bree Fram — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:57:57 -0400

History is replete with cautionary tales about the dangers of ideological purges, particularly when they target national-security institutions. One of the starkest examples comes from the Soviet Union, when Joseph Stalin’s purges gutted the Red Army on the eve of World War II. Now the United States faces a potentially parallel crisis: the purge of transgender service members from the military amid rising tensions with China and Russia. The consequences for national security ripple far beyond the careers of a few thousand troops.

In 1937 and 1938, the Great Terror swept through the Soviet military. More than 24,000 officers were discharged, and nearly 10,000 were arrested. Stalin targeted officers based on their belonging to perceived “dangerous” groups, rather than any actual disloyalty. The loss of senior leaders cost the Red Army thousands of cumulative years of institutional experience, forcing Stalin to replace seasoned generals with untested officers promoted for their political reliability rather than their military competence. Historian David Glantz writes that Stalin’s paranoia “impelled him to stifle original thought within the military institutions and inexorably bend the armed forces to his will…The bloodletting that ensued tore the brain from the Red Army, smashed its morale, stifled any spark of original thought and left a magnificent hollow military establishment, riper for catastrophic defeat.”

This hollowing-out of leadership eroded deterrence. At the Nuremberg Trials after the war, German Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel testified that many generals warned Hitler not to attack the Soviets, arguing the Red Army was still a formidable force. But Hitler dismissed these concerns, saying: “The first-class high-ranking officers were wiped out by Stalin in 1937, and the new generation cannot yet provide the brains they need.”

And so, in 1941, Germany launched its invasion. Despite the Red Army’s superior numbers and firepower, its lack of effective leaders turned what could have been a formidable defense into a series of catastrophic defeats. Understaffing in key command positions, coupled with a culture of fear that stifled initiative, resulted in avoidable tactical blunders. Often paralyzed in their response to the German invasion, Soviet troops were unwilling or unable to make independent battlefield decisions. This culture of paranoia and obedience, along with plunging morale, cost the Soviet Union millions of lives and nearly the war.

A dangerous parallel

Though the scale of the Great Terror dwarfs the trans ban, the United States is at risk of repeating Stalin’s blunder. Thousands of transgender troops, most with more than a decade in uniform, currently serve in the U.S. armed forces. Like Stalin’s Red Army officers, they are being expelled not for any performance failures, but solely because of ideology.

The current administration claims, without evidence, that transgender people are “incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.” Officials have been unable to back up these claims, even when challenged in court. “Any evidence that such service over the past four years harmed any of the military’s inarguably critical aims would be front and center. But there is none,” wrote Judge Benjamin Settle, one of three U.S. District Court judges who have placed injunctions on the policy to ban transgender troops for based on the immediate harms occurring.

Another is Judge Ana Reyes, who declared, “Plaintiff’s service records alone are Exhibit A for the proposition that transgender persons can have the warrior ethos, physical and mental health, selflessness, honor, integrity, and discipline to ensure military excellence. Defendants agree…Plaintiffs, they acknowledge, have ‘made America safer.’ So why discharge them and other decorated soldiers? Crickets from Defendants on this key question.” Despite the decisions, the government is determined to press forward; it has appealed each case and, on Thursday, asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for its ban.

The removal of so many dedicated, skilled, and battle-tested personnel can only reduce readiness. Many transgender troops are senior officers and non-commissioned officers who are leading from the front or training and developing the next generation of service members. Take Ken Ochoa, a warrant officer and all-source intelligence technician who served as one of the first transgender drill sergeants, then as an instructor for the intelligence analyst Advanced Leaders Course. Ken, who has previously deployed to Afghanistan, returned just this month from a deployment supporting Operation Inherent Resolve.

Or Lt. Cmdr. Kris Moore, who enlisted in 2005 and gained an appointment to the Naval Academy in the class of 2014. Kris is a surface warfare officer with multiple deployments who holds a master’s degree in education and leadership. He recently returned from an operational deployment, which followed his assignment to instruct cadets at the Academy.

Master Sergeant Jayce Saldivar, one of the first cyber operators selected for transfer to the Space Force, is the first senior enlisted leader at the Space Force’s officer Joint Professional Military Education program at Johns Hopkins University. Jayce helps develop the future senior leaders of the service into consummate professionals who can direct space warfare and lead their people to new heights.

The loss of such trained personnel means their replacements will be less experienced, just as Stalin was forced to promote unqualified officers to fill gaps. Military readiness is not just about numbers—it is about experience, training, and trust. Replacing seasoned professionals with less-prepared individuals weakens operational effectiveness.

Beyond the loss of talent, the purge undermines morale across the armed forces. Those who saw transgender troops as friends and teammates now see holes in their unit manning. As well, forcing out qualified transgender personnel sends the message that even dedicated professionals can be dismissed for reasons completely unrelated to their capability—hardly encouragement to pursue a long-term military career.

And with nearly 30 percent of Gen Z adults aged 18-25 identifying as members of the LGBTQ+ community, we have to wonder where new recruits will come from.

Both the Soviet and U.S. cases illustrate how ideology can override strategic logic, leading to weakened armed forces at moments of great geopolitical tension. Indeed, the timing of this policy shift could hardly be worse. As the U.S. faces an increasingly aggressive China in the Pacific and continued Russian expansionism in Ukraine, with increasingly high-technology threats such as drones, hypersonic missiles, and “dogfighting” satellites, the military needs every capable service member it can retain. And just as Hitler saw an opportunity in Stalin’s weakened Red Army, America’s adversaries may view this internal instability as a sign of vulnerability.

Transgender service members have proven their worth time and again. Removing them from the military is not only an attack on them, but a direct threat to national security. In a time of growing global instability, the U.S. military cannot afford to weaken itself by sidelining dedicated professionals, stifling diversity of thought and a willingness to provide best military advice over “yes, sir”, and reducing the pool of Americans willing and able to serve. It is essential that our national defense remain guided by strategic necessity, not ideology.

The views presented in this piece are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Defense Department or the United States government.

Bree Fram is a colonel and astronautical engineer in the U.S. Space Force. She is stationed at the Pentagon and is one of the highest-ranking transgender service members in the military.

]]>

The D Brief: India-Pakistan tensions rise; China’s ‘ChatGPT for robots’; Golden Dome price tag; Robot-wingman reversal; And a bit more.

Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 11:19:34 -0400

Developing: India-Pakistan tensions are rising after deadly terror attack. Islamabad has denied responsibility for the April 22 attack that killed 26 mostly Indian tourists in an India-controlled Himalayan region, but the nations have nevertheless edged toward war; they have “downgraded diplomatic and trade ties, closed the main border crossing and revoked visas for each other’s nationals,” the Associated Press reported Thursday from New Delhi.

China’s military aims to harness the coming “ChatGPT for robotics.” Several burgeoning techniques are enabling researchers and companies to train robots to be far more flexible, Josh Baughman and Peter W. Singer report in the latest edition of The China Intelligence.

“A key example is vision-language-action models, which ingest images, data, and information from a robot’s internal sensors, the degree of rotation of different joints, and the positions of actuators. This enables robots to adapt and learn from their environment rapidly, creating a level of “common sense.” Now the People’s Liberation Army and its industry supporters are looking to use these advances to make humanoid robots for the battlefield. Read on, here.

Welcome to this Friday edition of The D Brief, a newsletter dedicated to developments affecting the future of U.S. national security, brought to you by Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston. Share your tips and feedback here. And if you’re not already subscribed, you can do that here. On this day in 1960, Navy submarine USS Triton completed the world’s first submerged circumnavigation.

Even more Hegseth comms problems

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used an unsecured internet line to access the message app Signal from his office inside the Pentagon, the Associated Press reported Thursday, extending an already troublesome narrative of lax security protocols that would cost most other personnel in the U.S. military their jobs.

Rewind: Hegseth drew unwanted attention last month after sharing sensitive details of an ongoing Middle East military operation in a thread on Signal that inadvertently included journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic. Hegseth’s texts in that thread—allegedly taken from the military’s top commander in the Middle East, who shared the information on a classified system—seemed to violate Pentagon security protocols for information sharing. But in the weeks since, Hegseth reportedly shared similar information with his wife and brother over Signal as well, drawing additional unwanted attention to his first 100 days running the Defense Department under President Trump.

Why it matters: “The existence of the unsecured internet connection…raises the possibility that sensitive defense information could have been put at risk of potential hacking or surveillance,” Tara Copp of AP writes. What’s more, “A ‘dirty’ line—just like any public internet connection—also may lack the recordkeeping compliance required by federal law,” a senior U.S. official said.

Worth noting: The Pentagon’s acting inspector general has launched an investigation into Hegseth’s use of Signal during the March episode, as requested by the chair and ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Pentagon reax: Hegseth’s “use of communications systems and channels is classified,” spokesman Sean Parnell told AP. He added, “we can confirm that the Secretary has never used and does not currently use Signal on his government computer.” (For what it’s worth, AP reported Hegseth accessed Signal from a personal computer.)

But that’s not all. “Hegseth’s personal phone number, the one used in a recent Signal chat, was easily accessible on the internet and public apps as recently as March, potentially exposing national security secrets to foreign adversaries,” the New York Times reported Friday, citing cybersecurity analysts and the former director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center.

Fine print: “It has now become routine for government officials to keep their personal cellphones when they enter office, several defense and security officials said in interviews. But they are not supposed to use them for official business, as Mr. Hegseth did.” Read more at the Times, here.

Hegseth also accused Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Christopher Grady of leaking stories to the press last month, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. “I’ll hook you up to a f—ing polygraph!” Hegseth shouted at Grady, who was then the acting Joint Chiefs Chairman. According to the Journal, “Grady was never subjected to a polygraph, and Hegseth would go on to accuse a number of other people for the leak…But for Hegseth, the episode marked a turning point in an already rocky tenure.” Story (gift link), here.

Update: Hegseth’s chief of staff Joe Kasper is leaving the Pentagon, not just moving to a different post inside the building, Politico reported Thursday.

Background: “A former longtime chief of staff to indicted Rep. Duncan Hunter, Kasper was a leading figure in the firings of senior adviser Dan Caldwell, Hegseth deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick and Colin Carroll, the chief of staff to Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg. The trio were ousted last week in a leak investigation,” Daniel Lippman and Jack Detsch write. Kasper told Politico he’s currently “planning to go back to government relations and consulting.” USA Today has more.

And Thursday was “bring your child to work day” at the Pentagon, whose military photographers snapped and shared about 65 images of the occasion online at DVIDS. Organizers also led the children into seats inside the briefing room where Deputy Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson held “a packed press briefing with the most adorable reporters!” as external engagement official Tami Radabaugh posted to social media afterward.

“The Pentagon has now had as many press conferences for kids as they have for the actual press,” Konstantin Toropin of Military.com noted on Day 95 of the Trump-Vance administration.

What does Hegseth’s Friday look like? He’s traveling to the U.S.-Mexico border strip known as the Roosevelt Reservation, which was recently transferred to U.S. military control. “We will fully SEAL the border & REPEL all illegals attempting to cross,” he wrote on social media.

Additional reading:

“Pentagon to resume medical care for transgender troops,” Politico reported Thursday following a federal appeals court decision; The Hill has similar coverage, here;
“Inside the Fiasco at the National Security Council,” via Isaac Stanley-Becker writing Thursday for The Atlantic;
“Paranoid Hegseth Plasters Pentagon With Photos of Controversial Wife,” The Daily Beast reported Friday;
And “Jimmy Kimmel Mocks Pete Hegseth’s Rumored Pentagon Makeup Studio,” the New York Times reported in its “best of late night” segment. Here’s one of Kimmel’s jokes about Hegseth’s camera-shy predecessor: “Lloyd Austin, he is a four-star general. He was the previous secretary of defense. You ever seen him before? No. You know why? He was inside the Pentagon doing his job; he was not on TV.”

Around the Defense Department

Developing: We may have our first “Golden Dome” price tag. Lawmakers want $150 billion in additional defense spending in their reconciliation bill this year, and at least $27 billion of it could go towards the Trump administration’s sprawling space-based missile defense project, Reuters reported Thursday. The measure “will be in addition to the approved $886 billion national security budget for 2025,” Mike Stone writes.

The Golden Dome money is for “more missile interceptors and the purchase of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) antiballistic missile batteries,” Stone reports.

“This is part of a plan to prevent war,” said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Additional allotments in the bill:

“$29 billion for the procurement of 14 new ships”;
$11 billion for aircraft, including “the purchase of about 40 Boeing Co F-15EX fighter jets”;
Around $20 billion for munitions production;
“$14 billion to fund the adoption of artificial intelligence and to expand the production of new low-cost weapons”;
$6 billion in weapons for U.S. forces in the Pacific region;
$5 billion for autonomous systems, and more.

The USAF has changed tack on its next batch of robot wingmen. Now it’s seeking simpler and cheaper CCAs rather than more capable and expensive ones, Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel, director of Air Force force design, integration, and wargaming said Tuesday during an event hosted by the Air & Space Forces Association. And those drones could find themselves flying along not just fighter jets but the E-7 radar plane and B-21 bomber. Defense One’s Audrey Decker has a bit more, here.

The projected cost of America’s nuclear arsenal has risen again, CBO says. The Congressional Budget Office says its current estimate of the cost to operate, sustain, modernize, and replace today’s nuclear weapons over the next decade is $190 billion—about one-quarter—more than last year’s estimate of $756 billion for 2023–32. “Of that amount, $157 billion comes from differences in CBO's current and 2023 estimates of budgeted amounts for nuclear forces, and $33 billion comes from differences in the agency's estimates of potential additional costs based on historical cost growth.” More, here.

Additional reading:

“DIU barrels ahead with tri-regional expansion plans,” Defense One’s Lauren C. Williams reported Thursday;
And “The Pentagon Can’t Be Run Like a Business,” former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Capabilities Mara Karlin writes this week in Foreign Affairs.

Trump 2.0

New: Elon Musk’s DOGE cuts to the U.S. government didn’t account for the costs of firing workers, the New York Times reports.

And those costs could eat up $135 billion of his $150 billion in claimed savings, which is “about 15 percent of the $1 trillion he pledged to save, less than 8 percent of the $2 trillion in savings he had originally promised and a fraction of the nearly $7 trillion the federal government spent in the 2024 fiscal year,” Elizabeth Williamson reported Thursday for the Times.

Expert reax: “Not only is Musk vastly overinflating the money he has saved, he is not accounting for the exponentially larger waste that he is creating,” said Max Stier, the chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service, which arrived at the $135 billion price tag. “He’s inflicted these costs on the American people, who will pay them for many years to come.”

Reminder: DOGE’s cuts to the IRS are expected to reduce tax revenues by hundreds of billions of dollars.

White House reax: “Doing nothing has a cost, too, and these so-called experts and groups are conveniently absent when looking at the costs of doing nothing,” spokesman Harrison W. Fields told the Times. Read more (gift link), here.

Additional reading:

“As Tesla profits plunge 71%, Elon Musk says he'll spend less time on DOGE,” NPR reported Wednesday;
“Trump Takes a Major Step Toward Seabed Mining in International Waters,” the Times reported Thursday;
And ICYMI, “Trump Is Attempting to Use Wartime Powers in the United States,” Katherine Yon Ebright and Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice explained Thursday for The Atlantic.

]]>

Wisconsin Judge Arrested, Accused of Shielding Immigrant From Federal Agents

Devlin Barrett — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 11:11:01 -0400

Is the New Global Order a Boon for International Taxation Collaboration?

Pedro Abramovay — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 10:07:01 -0400

The Trump administration has dramatically retreated from the international order that the United States was instrumental in bringing into being. It abandoned the Paris Climate Accord, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations Human Rights Council; it suspended funding for the World Trade Organization and the U.N. relief agency for Palestinian refugees; it rejected the Sustainable Development Goals and renounced its legal commitments under the 1951 Refugee Convention; and it is currently reviewing all multilateral organizations to which the United States is a member and all international treaties to which it is a party to determine whether support should be withdrawn.

It is often assumed, and understandably so, that “America First” will accelerate the fragmentation of an already tottering multilateral order, one in which the rule of law will be subsumed by the shadow of powerful countries pursuing their spheres of influence. But could this breakdown also open new possibilities for greater international cooperation? The absence of the United States might remove one of the main spoilers — even under previous administrations — of past attempts at international cooperation, and pave the way for more aspirational and effective global agreements. To be sure, other States that have been spoilers at multilateral negotiations will likely remain, but there are likely an array of issues on which real progress can be made without the United States at the table.

The international taxation agenda is a case in point.

An Emerging Global Taxation Framework

Multinationals currently avoid tax payments of at least $240 billion annually, if not more, and millionaires and billionaires the world over are often taxed proportionally less than the working class. These inequalities are compounded by the globalization of financial capital, which has facilitated the ability of corporations and the very wealthy to evade taxation by shifting their profits to tax havens, thus depriving States of the fiscal resources needed to invest in poverty eradication and public goods.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development led efforts culminating in 2021 in an agreement for a global minimum corporate tax, an accord that President Donald Trump withdrew from only hours after returning to the White House. A significant step forward, the OECD’s success was nonetheless diluted from what African and other Global South governments had sought due to resistance from the OECD’s wealthy member States. While experts proposed a global minimum tax of 25 percent, the OECD only agreed to 15 percent, with very little of that revenue accruing to countries most in need of filling their public coffers, because the commitment to dividing taxing rights between countries was also eroded in favor of already affluent countries.

Last year at the United Nations, the majority of countries approved the parameters for a new global tax convention that aims to take a more ambitious approach (although the United States and other high-income countries voted against it). Negotiations are moving forward — although again without the participation of the United States — in the expectation of delivering the convention by the end of 2027. Parallel efforts are taking place at the national level — for example, in Brazil, where the government wants to remove the income tax burden from the lower middle class and transfer it to millionaires.

For the first time last year, discussions on the creation of a global minimum tax on billionaires took place under Brazil’s presidency of the G20. The final declaration also included the idea of taxing the super-rich. Their wealth — especially that linked to Big Tech — is generated globally but escapes taxes due to their ability to store wealth offshore under layers of secrecy. Further, the companies they own face minimal taxation owing to outdated international rules developed more than a century ago that restrict the ability of the Global South to effectively tax these companies and their billionaires. The proposed U.N. tax convention also provides a valuable avenue for taxing digital services, especially those provided by Big Tech. A more robust tax rate for the super-rich, as well as globally coordinated rules to tax transnational tech providers and ensure that wealth generated in a country pays taxes in that country, are fundamental not only to achieving global tax justice but also for defending democracy.

Why Progress on International Tax Reform Matters

Decades of neoliberalism have hollowed out States from within, dismantling the public sector and leaving governments without the fiscal space to invest in public infrastructure, healthcare, and education. If people do not believe that their democracies have the capacity to transform their lives for the better, then their support for democracy eventually collapses. Tax reform not only boosts the public coffers but also bolsters a State’s capacity to influence social transformation that is essential to sustaining democracy.

Progress on international tax reform may also herald a more democratic multilateral order, one led by the Global South that addresses the needs of the world’s majority.

Progress is Possible – With or Without the United States

This year, South Africa holds the presidency of the G20. There were whispers that the United States might withdraw from the grouping even before the Trump administration’s animosity with South Africa flared.

One could argue that, without the United States taking forward the progress on tax reform would be irrelevant — what worth is an international tax convention without the world’s largest economy? Would it not result in a race to the bottom? While this argument could be made of any multilateral agreement (be it on labor standards or environmental regulation), it should be noted that almost $500 billion in tax dollars are lost annually to tax havens — including $177 billion lost by the big spoilers themselves. The negotiations on an international tax convention aim to create a more inclusive and equitable framework for tax cooperation that stands to benefit all countries.

A multilateral approach to international tax reform is not intended to antagonize the United States, nor should it be detrimental to the U.S. economy, but negotiations must continue even if the United States is not at the table.

Today’s most challenging problems transcend international borders. Surging populist nationalism, deepening climate crises, destabilizing new technologies, and widening inequality between and within countries all demand multilateral approaches. The absence of the United States from international fora is no doubt an obstacle, but it is also an opportunity to move forward on multilateral solutions for people and the planet, especially those led by the Global South. These countries can lead the way with progress on the international tax reform agenda.

IMAGE: General view of the G20 finance ministers meeting as Brazilian Finance Minister Fernando Haddad speaks in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on February 28, 2024. (Photo by NELSON ALMEIDA/AFP via Getty Images)

The post Is the New Global Order a Boon for International Taxation Collaboration? appeared first on Just Security.

Hegseth’s Personal Phone Use Created Vulnerabilities

Helene Cooper, Julian E. Barnes, Eric Schmitt and Christiaan Triebert — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 09:51:16 -0400

The phone number used in the Signal chat could also be found in a variety of places, including on social media and a fantasy sports site.

Shaping the World’s AI Future: How the U.S. and China Compete to Promote Their Digital Visions

Kayla Blomquist — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 09:05:33 -0400

On April 8, numerous committees within the United States House of Representatives held hearings on AI, examining China’s growing capabilities, the release of DeepSeek’s R1 reasoning model, and potential implications for U.S. security and economic interests. These conversations attempted to untangle what is more important for U.S. strategic interests: building the most advanced and capable AI technology, potentially at the cost of widespread global adoption, or following China’s approach by focusing on building a new global technology ecosystem where potentially less capable models could be adopted and deployed rapidly at scale.

Recent evidence suggests it may be beneficial for the United States to pursue the latter strategy. Smaller, more resource-efficient, and localizable models are gaining significant traction globally, potentially rivalling the impact of compute-intensive frontier systems in user adoption metrics. This is exemplified by the recent releases of models from Chinese firms like DeepSeek and Alibaba; smaller in size and, therefore, more efficient to run. They have quickly achieved high rates of international adoption despite, or perhaps because of, their relatively modest size.

Although dozens of countries participate in AI development at various stages, only a few countries, notably the United States and China, are able to scale and produce the most compute, data, and talent-intensive AI models due to the immense amount of resources required. This gap may only widen as these two countries continue to pour investment into frontier model development, AI applications, computing infrastructure, and energy systems. Therefore, the AI ambitions of most countries will be interlinked and dependent on developments in the United States or China.

Due to this dynamic, AI competition between the United States and China is often framed in terms of their state-of-the-art AI capabilities. However, this view is misleading and overlooks critical dimensions of AI leadership. Different approaches, such as promoting reliable and user-friendly AI systems in international markets, developing practical business or government AI applications, and creating AI that functions effectively across varied contexts, offer strategic advantages that often go unnoticed in policy debates on international AI competition.

For the United States to maintain its current competitive edge and global influence in AI, it must acknowledge this reality and actively export and promote its AI products to the world. Getting this right will require any AI promotion strategy to pay sufficient attention to three key attributes: quality, reach, and adaptability.

The United States and China: Diverging Strategies for Global AI Leadership

The U.S. and China are each pursuing their own distinct strategies to secure their positions as global leaders in AI, putting different emphasis on technological dominance versus diffusion, the global adoption of technologies. Yet, when it comes to technological innovation, diffusion matters. History shows that “being the first” to achieve a given technological breakthrough does not necessarily translate into lasting market leadership. What matters more is how widely diffused and adopted the technology becomes. The same is likely to be true for AI. Simply reaching new thresholds of frontier capabilities, creating the world’s largest model, or building the world’s largest compute cluster may not produce a definitive or long-lasting strategic advantage. The current approaches of the United States and China toward AI engage with this dynamic in different ways.

To date, the U.S. strategy for global AI leadership has largely centered on the concept of control, particularly of computing resources via export controls. When coupled with a strong tendency towards proprietary models by U.S. firms, this gives rise to a relatively closed ecosystem. Models developed and released by the U.S. AI industry currently remain the most advanced globally and enjoy high market penetration in developed economies. Additionally, the United States has leveraged its significant advantages in computing to effectively determine which states can and cannot develop cutting-edge AI. In the short term, this approach guarantees that the United States will maintain its lead at the frontier of AI development by prioritizing technological advantage over broad adoption. In the long term, this strategy may lead other countries to look elsewhere for their technology needs, namely to China. This scenario is already playing out today. Fearing their dependence on the U.S. technology ecosystem, some countries are developing new sovereign digital capabilities and seeking alternatives for their AI needs.

In contrast to the United States, and despite U.S. export controls, recent Chinese AI advancements, such as those released by DeepSeek, Alibaba, Huawei, Zhipu, and Tencent, have showcased substantial progress in the country’s AI ecosystem and global competitiveness. Many of these releases are especially well-suited for localized adoption at a low cost to users. Combining these technological advances with longstanding government-led efforts to export Chinese-produced digital infrastructure globally has created a strong foundation for the widespread adoption of Chinese AI solutions, both domestically and internationally. This may prove to be more significant in the long term than advances in frontier capabilities alone. For example, open source repositories already indicate that Chinese models are achieving notable global download rates, with lightweight versions of DeepSeek and Qwen frequently ranking high in adoption metrics.

These divergent yet nascent approaches to AI development and deployment reflect broader strategic choices about how technological influence will spread globally.

AI Diffusion: The Importance of Quality, Reach, and Adaptability

At present, it remains uncertain which strategy — the current U.S. focus on technological superiority and control or the Chinese approach of global coalition building and diffusion — will be the most successful for achieving and maintaining AI hegemony. However, if the United States wants to seriously compete with China and guarantee that U.S. AI systems enjoy global adoption, any new AI strategy must focus on three essential attributes for effective technology promotion: technical accuracy and reliability (quality), global user accessibility (reach), and the ability to respond and adapt to the diverse needs of businesses and communities worldwide (adaptability).

Quality represents an AI model’s actual capabilities, performance, and reliability. Excelling in AI quality signifies being at the forefront of development in ways that truly matter to users and institutions. Ensuring that U.S. AI is consistently of the highest quality will require advancements in assurance mechanisms: the specific governance processes, evaluation methodologies, and verification systems that substantiate performance claims and risk mitigation strategies. Additionally, high-quality AI must reliably work in different environments and under diverse sets of conditions. This will build trust and, in turn, increase the likelihood of others adopting the technology. This is particularly important in markets where multiple systems compete for integration and adoption. Institutions like the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the United States will be instrumental for continued leadership in this domain.

Reach explains how widely adopted and accessible an AI system is. Fundamental to ensuring higher levels of reach is the presence of the necessary underlying digital infrastructure that enables access to AI capabilities in the first place. Without the necessary infrastructure, developing and deploying even the most basic AI systems may remain out of reach for significant portions of the global population that lack access to computing resources, potentially leading to a rapid increase in inequality.

Similarly, AI systems unable to function effectively across diverse environments and resource-constrained contexts will fail to achieve widespread reach and adoption. Therefore, the most successful AI systems will be those that are able to demonstrate compatibility with existing digital ecosystems and technological infrastructures. Due to China’s work on building digital infrastructure, it enjoys numerous advantages in exporting its AI systems.

Adaptability refers to an AI system’s ability to function effectively across diverse linguistic, cultural, and operational contexts. Open source represents one of the clearest ways to achieve high levels of adaptability by enabling communities to customize and tailor AI systems to meet their unique needs, though there are likely security tradeoffs to this approach. Adaptability will also be heavily influenced by the steps developers take during model training to ensure that a wide variety of use cases, languages, and contexts are considered. Many Chinese AI companies are actively working to compete with U.S. models by not only open sourcing their solutions, but also ensuring that their training data includes support for a number of typically underserved languages and cultures at a rate that surpasses that of leading U.S. companies.

A strategy grounded within these principles will be more likely to succeed in improving and expanding current diffusion efforts. As the United States navigates evolving global AI competition, balancing these elements will be crucial in determining whose AI systems — and by extension, whose approaches, values, and standards — shape the global technological landscape for decades to come.

Toward Meaningful Technological Leadership

Emphasizing the interconnected attributes of quality, reach, and adaptability will provide U.S. policymakers with a clearer perspective for conceptualizing the country’s global technological influence. By balancing technical excellence with deployment breadth and contextual adaptability, this approach recognizes the multidimensional nature of leadership in AI.

For U.S. policymakers, this highlights several strategic priorities:

First, the adoption of AI will depend heavily on trust in a given system. This will require investments in mechanisms, such as risk mitigation strategies, that reinforce trust in the quality and capabilities of a specific AI system, in addition to supporting innovation.

Second, the United States should invest in the necessary institutional capacities to support global AI deployment and benefit sharing that aligns with commercial and national security interests. This might include more robust engagement on the topic of digital public infrastructure with the global community or supporting existing government organisations, such as the Export–Import Bank, International Development Finance Corporation, or the Trade and Development Agency.

Finally, the United States should support a regulatory agenda that enables and facilitates new mechanisms and practices for AI deployment, placing adaptability at the forefront. This approach will ensure that American-made AI products become the preferred choice worldwide across a wide variety of business and societal use cases.

As the global AI landscape evolves, the systems that achieve widespread integration will not necessarily be the most technically advanced, but rather those that best balance quality, reach, and adaptability. This multidimensional understanding of competition does not diminish the importance of frontier innovation, but complements it with equally crucial considerations about how technologies spread and where they gain traction.

IMAGE: Visualization of global technology (via Getty Images)

The post Shaping the World’s AI Future: How the U.S. and China Compete to Promote Their Digital Visions appeared first on Just Security.

The AI arms race will be won on mathematical proof

Anjana Rajan and Jonathan Ring — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 08:56:31 -0400

This commentary is published in coordination with the 2025 Global Security Forum, of which Defense One is a media partner.

The AI-powered weapons and systems that the Pentagon is racing to build will come with a significant vulnerability: our inability to determine how they will behave under real battlefield conditions.

The Defense Department, National Security Agency, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency call this the “software understanding gap.” Increasingly, users do not understand the digital building blocks of their systems, which leads to an inability to predict, verify, and secure their systems’ actions. Without a deeper understanding of our most complex software, the United States’ world-class arsenal will be unreliable across modern battlefields, and adversaries may be emboldened to exploit those vulnerabilities.

So how do we ensure these autonomous systems perform as needed? Whereas traditional military hardware was designed to operate within clear and defined boundaries, AI-driven systems employ automated decision-making that learns and adapts, making them susceptible to manipulation or error beyond human anticipation. Conventional testing methods that sufficed for deterministic systems with finite failure modes, such as a jet engine or a radar system, are woefully inadequate for the complexities of AI. No amount of simulation or red-teaming can secure a system that is learning and adapting faster than any human can follow—especially in the face of an adversary intent on targeting its blind spots.

We need something more robust and sophisticated than testing. We need mathematical proof.

Testing is akin to checking each link in a chain to make sure they’re strong. This may work well for a few hundred links, but as the number of links increases, the likelihood that you miss a weakness increases as well. Mathematical proof takes a different approach. Instead of checking links one by one, proofs show that the entire chain is unbreakable—no matter how long it stretches.

A proof starts by defining the fundamental rules: what the chain is made of, how much force it must withstand, and how it is connected. Once these assumptions are established, the proof confirms the first link is strong, then follows a logical progression to ensure that every connected link must also hold. Whether the chain is ten links long or an infinite number of links, the proof guarantees that there are no weak points.

That is why proof is essential for AI-driven military systems. Testing can tell us if a system works under the conditions created in the test environment. But testing alone cannot cover every battlefield, cyberattack, or possible manipulation. A proof guarantees that no matter what conditions the system faces—even the ones not yet imagined—it will behave as intended. It produces justifiable confidence.

Complete confidence in software systems is not theoretical—it has been proven. DARPA showed this in its High-Assurance Cyber Military Systems program, where researchers used mathematical proof to make a quadcopter’s flight software unbreakable. After implementing these guarantees, DARPA tried to hack it—bringing in expert teams whose best efforts could not compromise its defenses. The lesson was clear: mathematically verified software does not just resist attacks, it eliminates entire classes of vulnerabilities.

The private sector has reached the same conclusion. Amazon Web Services applies mathematical reasoning to its cloud infrastructure, not only to strengthen security, but to build better systems by ensuring faster deployment, fewer errors, and more reliable performance.

The takeaway is simple: proof does not just prevent failure, it drives innovation.

Now we must bring this level of certainty to the AI-powered systems that are defining modern warfare. Consider the stakes: an autonomous air defense system in the Taiwan Strait detects an incoming missile. The system has mere seconds to classify and neutralize the threat. If China can surreptitiously corrupt sensor data by exploiting an undiscovered flaw, it could quickly neutralize one of the most important components of Taiwan’s defense.

The same holds true for AI-driven cyber and electronic warfare. If adversaries can manipulate battlefield signals in ways our algorithms cannot recognize, entire operations could be compromised. These scenarios underscore a stark reality: without mathematical guarantees, we are entrusting our national defense to systems that could fail unpredictably and with disastrous consequences.

China is setting the pace in autonomous warfare. The People’s Liberation Army has placed AI-driven military systems at the center of its modernization strategy—called “intelligentized warfare”—developing autonomous weapons, cyber tools, and electronic attack capabilities with speed. The U.S. is moving just as fast, but speed alone is not enough. China’s closed ecosystem, where the government can scrutinize every line of code, improves its confidence in its capabilities. The United States, with its open and fragmented technology supply chain, faces a harder problem. And it must be met with more sophisticated tools.

Modern conflicts will not be won by those who simply build the most capable AI-powered systems. It will be won by those who can definitively prove theirs will work when the stakes are highest. The U.S. and its allies cannot afford to deploy autonomous systems without mathematical rigor.

This is not just a testing problem; it’s a national security imperative. The defense community must act now to ensure that mathematical proof is powering every system we build. Anything less is a bet we cannot afford to take.

Anjana Rajan served as the Assistant National Cyber Director for Technology Security at the White House from 2022 to 2025.

Jonathan Ring served as the Deputy Assistant National Cyber Director for Technology Security at the White House from 2023 to 2025.

]]>

International Law at the Precipice: Holding Leaders Accountable for the Crime of Aggression in Russia’s War Against Ukraine

Mark Ellis — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 08:29:52 -0400

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the U.N. Charter, conceived as the constitutional framework of the international community. At the time of its ratification, the Charter reflected the aspirational goals of a world yearning for peace and security in the aftermath of the Second World War. Article 2 of the Charter lays down a foundational pillar: the prohibition of “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” This principle underpins the crime of aggression – a crime committed by Russia’s leadership first in 2014 and again with its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022.

For more than three years, efforts have been underway to establish a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, aimed at holding Russia’s leadership accountable. In January 2023, a Core Group of approximately 40 countries – including Ukraine, members of the Council of Europe, the European Union, and other supporting nations – spearheaded this initiative. This breadth of support underscores the principle that accountability for the crime of aggression transcends national interests. From March 19 to 21 of this year, the Core Group convened in Strasbourg, France, to finalize the Tribunal’s Statute – its 14th and most consequential to date. With the technical legal framework now completed, the process moves into the political stage, requiring formal approval of the Agreement between Ukraine and the Council of Europe.

The Tribunal’s proposed legal and operational structure has undergone multiple revisions. Political disagreements among participating States – compounded by the Trump administration’s complete withdrawal from the process – have complicated progress. As a result, not all parties are fully satisfied with the final compromises.

One of the most contentious issues during negotiations was whether head of State immunity (i.e., ratione personae) should be recognized. Under customary international law, sitting heads of State are typically shielded from prosecution in foreign national courts. However, this type of immunity does not extend to international criminal tribunals – such as one created by the U.N. Security Council, authorised by a U.N. General Assembly resolution, or constituted through multilateral treaties such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Many Core Group states, particularly the Baltic countries, argued that the proposed Tribunal, backed by the Council of Europe and open to broader international participation, meets the threshold and could, therefore, reject head of State immunity. However, G7 nations retained their opposition to this position, fearing it would set a precedent for future ad hoc tribunals to target sitting heads of State, heads of government, and foreign ministers – the so-called “Troika.”

In the end, a compromise view won out, limiting but not fully abolishing personal immunity. Under the framework, official status would not protect individuals from investigations. The Tribunal’s Prosecutor would be able to prepare indictments against those in positions of authority who plan, prepare, initiate, or execute acts of aggression – namely senior political and military leaders. However, for members of the Troika, an indictment could not be confirmed while they remain in office. No arrest warrant would be issued in such cases, and the pre-trial judge would be required to suspend proceedings until the individual leaves their position. As a result, the proposed Tribunal framework stops short of fully abolishing personal immunity.

Another central point is whether the Tribunal will allow trials in absentia. While such trials are generally prohibited in common law jurisdictions, they are permitted in many civil law systems, including Ukraine. The Core Group ultimately agreed that trials in absentia could proceed if an indicted individual failed to appear. However, the rights of the accused would be safeguarded, including the appointment of defense counsel and the right to a retrial upon their return. Yet here, too, a significant limitation remains: members of the Troika would not be allowed to be tried in absentia. This means that as long as Vladimir Putin remains in office, he would not face trial – only the possibility of indictment.

Initial discussions envisioned a jurisdictional framework grounded in broader international authority. However, the final arrangement ties the Tribunal’s jurisdiction exclusively to Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty. Only the Ukrainian Prosecutor General can submit information or evidence to the Tribunal. Furthermore, only Ukraine can request the Tribunal to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute a specific individual for the crime of aggression.

Although the proposed Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine is a product of compromise and is far from perfect, it represents a vital mechanism for upholding the post-Second World War international legal order. States must now show the political will to implement it without delay. The Tribunal cannot be treated as a bargaining chip in negotiations to end hostilities. To do so would undermine the principle of accountability and inflict lasting damage on the international legal system. Failure to act now risks normalizing Russia’s blatant violations of territorial sovereignty – and rendering Article 2 of the U.N. Charter effectively obsolete.

IMAGE: (L-R) Deputy Minister of Justice of Ukraine Iryna Mudra, the European Commissioner for Democracy, Justice and Rule of Law Michael McGrath, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe Alain Berset are talking to media about Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine, in the Berlaymont the EU Commission headquarter on February 4, 2025 in Brussels, Belgium. The Tribunal was granted the power to hold to account Russian political and military leaders who bear responsibility for the crime of aggression. (Photo by Thierry Monasse/Getty Images)

The post International Law at the Precipice: Holding Leaders Accountable for the Crime of Aggression in Russia’s War Against Ukraine appeared first on Just Security.

Hegseth’s Personal Phone Use Created Vulnerabilities, Analysts Say

Helene Cooper, Julian E. Barnes, Eric Schmitt and Christiaan Triebert — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 08:00:36 -0400

The phone number used in the Signal chat could also be found in a variety of places, including on social media and a fantasy sports site.

Early Edition – April 25, 2025

Weronika Galka — Fri, 25 Apr 2025 07:55:23 -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:

RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR

A car bombing in Moscow today killed General Yaroslav Moskalik, a high-ranking general in the Russian army, the main federal investigating authority in Russia confirmed. The authority’s statement did not identify who might be behind the incident. Vitaliy Shevchenko reports for BBC News; Reuters reports.

Russian strikes killed at least eight people across Ukraine overnight into today, local officials say. Todd Symons and Svitlana Vlasova report for CNN.

Russia is “ready to reach a deal” to end the war in Ukraine, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview excerpt aired after Moscow’s strikes on Kyiv yesterday. Gregory Svirnovskiy reports for POLITICO.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR — U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE

President Trump yesterday urged Russian President Vladimir Putin to “STOP” Russia’s bombing of Ukraine and agree to a peace deal after Moscow’s deadliest attack on the city of Kyiv in nearly a year killed twelve people. Jonathan Swan reports for the New York Times.

United States’ European allies are highly alarmed by the framework to end the Ukraine war that would entail significant territorial concessions by Kyiv proposed by the Trump administration, diplomatic sources say. Trump yesterday claimed that Russia’s “not taking the whole country” is a “pretty big concession.” Jennifer Hansler, Alex Marquardt, and Kylie Atwood report for CNN.

GLOBAL AFFAIRS

Indian and Pakistani soldiers briefly exchanged fire along the two countries’ Kashmir border, Indian officials said today, amid sharply escalating tensions in the region. Separately, Pakistan yesterday said it would consider it an “act of war” if India implemented its threat to block the flow of crucial rivers in retaliation for a deadly militant attack in Kashmir. Aijaz Hussain and Rajesh Roy report for AP News; Salman Masood reports for the New York Times.

The Myanmar junta has continued its military campaign against opposition armed groups despite announcing a ceasefire after a major earthquake killed thousands in March, according to the U.N. and data from a crisis monitor. Devjyot Ghoshal, Poppy Mcpherson, and Pasit Kongkunakornkul report for Reuters.

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR

The Israeli military yesterday acknowledged it was responsible for killing a U.N. aid worker in a strike on a U.N. guesthouse in Gaza last month, after previously describing the U.N.’s assertion that Israeli fire killed the staffer as “baseless slander.” Jeremy Diamond, Ibrahim Dahman, Abeer Salman, and Tamar Michaelis report for CNN.

Israeli strikes killed 50 people in Gaza yesterday, local health authorities said. According to territory’s Hamas-run health ministry, the Durra Children’s Hospital in Gaza City had also become non-operational after an Israeli strike yesterday damaged the facility’s intensive care unit and solar panel system. AP News reports; Nidal Al-Mughrabi reports for Reuters.

The Appeals Chamber at the International Criminal Court yesterday ordered the court’s lower panel to reconsider Israel’s objections to the court’s jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Reuters reports.

HOUTHI DEVELOPMENTS

The Houthis, and not the United States, are responsible for a deadly blast on Sunday near a UNESCO heritage site in Yemen’s capital, a U.S. Central Command spokesperson said yesterday. Vivian Nereim and Shuaib Almosawa report for the New York Times.

The Houthi militants successfully shot down at least seven multi-million-dollar U.S. drones in the past month, multiple U.S. officials say. Natasha Bertrand, Haley Britzky, and Zachary Cohen report for CNN.

U.S. FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Trump yesterday signed an executive order directing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to expedite permits for companies to mine in international and U.S. territorial waters. The move would entail the United States unilaterally circumventing the International Seabed Authority, whose authority is recognised by 168 states. Max Bearak, Rebecca Dzombak, and Harry Stevens report for the New York Times.

The United States is poised to offer Saudi Arabia an arms package worth over $100 billion during Trump’s May visit to Riyadh, sources say. Mike Stone and Pesha Magid report for Reuters.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi raised the possibility of negotiating an interim nuclear deal during last Saturday’s U.S.-Iran talks, sources say. Araghchi told White House envoy Steve Witkoff that it might not be possible to reach a final accord on Trump’s proposed timetable of two months, the sources add. Representatives of Washington and Tehran will meet for the next round of talks in Oman on Saturday. Barak Ravid reports for Axios; Karen DeYoung reports for the Washington Post.

The State Department is eliminating the Office of Global Change, which oversees international climate change negotiations for the United States, according to the unit’s staffers. A State Department spokesperson said the move gives effect to Trump’s directives to cease U.S. participation in international agreements. Sara Schonhardt reports for POLITICO.

U.S. DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS

The Trump Organization, run by President’s son Eric Trump, yesterday announced it would fire William Burck, the co-managing partner of Quinn Emanuel law firm hired in January to help the company manage conflicts of interest after Trump took office. Trump this week indirectly criticized Burck for his representation of Harvard University in its lawsuit against the administration. Erin Mulvaney reports for the Wall Street Journal.

The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union for federal staffers, announced yesterday that it is planning to lay off more than half of its staff nationwide. The AFGE justified the move by pointing to the impact of Trump’s policies on its finances. Ryan J. Foley reports for AP News.

A federal judge will today sentence former Rep. George Santos (R-NY), who pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft and admitted a range of other frauds and deceits last year. Grace Ashford reports for the New York Times.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS

Trump yesterday issued a memorandum directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate fundraising platforms such as ActBlue, the central fundraising apparatus of the Democratic Party. In the memo, Trump alleges that “online fundraising platforms” like ActBlue have been “willing participants in schemes to launder excessive and prohibited contributions to political candidates and committees.” ActBlue called the claims “baseless.” Maeve Reston and Jeremy Roebuck report for the Washington Post.

Joe Kasper, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s chief of staff, yesterday confirmed he is voluntarily leaving his Pentagon post to become a part-time special government employee with a focus on science, technology, and industry. Kasper’s departure is the latest episode in turmoil gripping the Defense Department amid a spate of leaks, firings, and investigations into senior aides. Dan Lamothe reports for the Washington Post;

“It’s a free-for-all” at the Pentagon, with departures of senior aides causing delays to routine memos and actions and infighting for the newly vacant positions, sources say. Former Pentagon officials warn that the tumult may have potential national security implications. Paul McLeary and Jack Detsch report for POLITICO; Nancy A. Youssef, Alexander Ward, and Vera Bergengruen report for the Wall Street Journal.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesday said she had asked the DOJ to investigate who she alleged were “deep state criminals” behind the “intelligence community [leaks].” Gabbard referred two people to the DOJ, with a third referral on its way, according to Alexa Henning, Gabbard’s Deputy Chief of Staff. Perry Stein reports for the Washington Post.

Trump yesterday issued an executive order restricting probationary federal employees’ attainment of full status. The move will likely make it easier for the government to fire probationary staffers. Eileen Sullivan reports for the New York Times.

The Pentagon will resume gender-affirming care for transgender service members due to a court order that temporarily struck down Defense Secretary Hegseth’s restrictions on its provision as unconstitutional, a memo reviewed by POLITICO shows. Jack Detsch, Paul McLeary, and Kyle Cheney report.

Elon Musk and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent engaged in a shouting match in a White House corridor within the earshot of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and multiple senior officials last week, witnesses say. The dispute concerned the choice of the next Internal Revenue Service Acting Commissioner. Marc Caputo reports for Axios.

National Science Foundation Director Sethuraman Panchanathan yesterday announced his resignation, more than a year before the end of his term, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News. The memo did not indicate a reason for his exit. Corbin Hiar reports.

Trump on Wednesday pardoned Michele Fiore, a former Las Vegas City Council member and one-time Nevada gubernatorial candidate found guilty of fraud last year, according to court documents filed by Fiore’s attorneys. Gregory Svirnovskiy reports for POLITICO.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION LITIGATION

A federal judge yesterday blocked part of Trump’s executive order on elections, ruling Trump did not have the authority to issue an order requiring documentary proof of citizenship for all voters. The judge did not block the executive order’s attempt to restrict the deadline for mail-in ballots, finding that the Democrats who challenged it lacked standing. Nick Corasaniti reports for the New York Times.

Federal agents arrested Mahmoud Khalil without a warrant, according to court documents filed in Khalil’s challenge to his deportation. Attorneys for the government argued the arrest was not unlawful by asserting that a warrant is not needed when an immigration officer “has reason to believe that the individual is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.” Susan Svrluga reports for the Washington Post.

The Trump administration this month moved a Venezuelan man to Texas for possible deportation after a federal judge had issued an order blocking his removal from Pennsylvania or the United States, according to court records. Luc Cohen reports for Reuters.

A federal judge yesterday temporarily blocked the government from enforcing part of Trump’s executive order that directed agencies to withhold funds from “sanctuary” cities and counties. Zach Montague reports for the New York Times.

Attorneys representing the American Civil Liberties Union today filed an updated version of the group’s lawsuit against Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, asking a federal judge to direct the Trump administration to take active steps toward securing the release of the Venezuelan citizens it deported to El Salvador. Alan Feuer reports for the New York Times.

Three advocacy groups yesterday filed a lawsuit against the Homeland Security Department in a bid to restore staffing levels at the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, and the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman. Rebecca Santana reports for AP News.

Three federal judges yesterday issued separate rulings declaring that the Trump administration’s sweeping bans on diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the nation’s K-12 schools likely violate the law. Juan Perez Jr. reports for POLITICO.

In an emergency application, the Trump administration yesterday asked the Supreme Court for permission to enforce its ban on transgender troops serving in the military that lower courts have blocked. Adam Liptak reports for the New York Times.

The Transportation Department yesterday said it would replace the federal lawyers defending it in a lawsuit over New York City’s congestion pricing program after the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District said it had mistakenly filed a confidential memo in court on Wednesday. The memo, since removed from the public docket, warns that the DOT’s legal strategy is “exceedingly likely” to fail. Stefanos Chen and Benjamin Weiser report for the New York Times; Sareen Habeshian reports for Axios.

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

The post Early Edition – April 25, 2025 appeared first on Just Security.

United States : On Capitol Hill, hints of the future of US intelligence, from streamlining to the return of counterterrorism

Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 -0400

Whether in Congress or on the Senate intelligence committee, Susan Collins's reputation is well established. At 72, the Republican senator from Maine, often described as a moderate, has repeatedly demonstrated her independence. This was the case when she voted to [...]

Ukraine : The Barman Dictat in Kyiv, where spies converge in a clandestine speakeasy

Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 -0400

Hidden within the heart of Barman Dictat, a fashionable establishment on the renowned Avenue Khreshchatyk, the Champs-Élysées of Kyiv, lies [...]

Bulgaria/United States : Sanctioned Bulgarian businessmen eye Donald Trump Jr visit

Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 -0400

Donald Trump Jr.'s upcoming tour of Eastern Europe at the end of this month will include a stop in Bulgaria, [...]

Japan/Ukraine : Japanese drone operator gets involved in mine clearance in Ukraine

Fri, 25 Apr 2025 00:00:00 -0400

Following in the footsteps of several other Japanese start-ups, Nagoya-based [...]

Next wave of Air Force drone wingmen could be cheaper, official says

Audrey Decker — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:48:08 -0400

The Air Force’s next batch of Collaborative Combat Aircraft will likely be on the “low-end” for both cost and capability, a service official said Tuesday—not more advanced than the first, as earlier statements had suggested.

Work is already underway on “increment two” of the CCA program, which former-Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall had previously described as more advanced and expensive than “increment one.” But now officials are suggesting that future drones will be more budget-friendly.

“I think you'll see a range of options from low-end to potentially more exquisite. I tend to think that it's probably going to be closer to this low-end thing when we start looking at further CCA increments,” Maj. Gen. Joseph Kunkel, director of Air Force force design, integration, and wargaming said Tuesday during an event hosted by the Air & Space Forces Association.

Officials recently announced that a sixth-generation fighter jet, the F-47, will be joining the fleet—which may reduce both the need and funds available for stealthy, exquisite CCAs.

The first prototypes in increment one are set to fly this summer; they’re largely thought of as missile carriers for manned fighters, at a price point of $25 to $30 million each. The service is still figuring out what it wants in increment two, but has previously discussed new mission sets like electronic attack, resilient sensing, and carrying different types of weapons.

CCAs are envisioned as companions to Air Force fighter jets like the F-35, F-22, and future F-47, but Kunkel said the service is now considering integrating CCAs with more aircraft—including the E-7 Wedgetail radar plane and B-21 Raider bomber—as well as having CCAs fight on their own.

The drones are a key part of the broader Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems, centered around the F-47. The service announced in March that Boeing will build the next-gen fighter, after a year of deliberation over what would be needed to win in a future fight.

Looking back, Kunkel said the service “probably didn't need to do the analysis,” because leaders ended up at the same conclusion: air superiority is essential and it changes the fight.

The F-47 “allows us to get places, allows the joint force to get places where it otherwise couldn't. It allows us to move closer to the adversary. It allows us to counter the adversary in ways we can’t. The F-47 is going to be fantastic, bringing game-changing capabilities,” he said.

The F-47 announcement also solidifies the new administration’s “confidence” in the Air Force, Kunkel said, as the Pentagon undergoes a major budget shakeup. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directed the services to find ways to cut 8% from their budgets so that money could be redirected to new priorities, a process Air Force officials have described as painful.

But service officials are hopeful the 8% cut will enable a broader reallocation of defense spending—potentially giving the Air Force a bigger piece of the budget.

“The F-47 I think, is a perfect example of a warwinning story, a coherent narrative, a cohesive, ‘Hey, this is how we win.’ This is how the joint force wins with Air Force capabilities, [and] we're going to see the 8% buys back into that,” Kunkel said. “This 8% cut drill is going to be good for the Air Force because it's the only way we're going to be able to reallocate the top line within the department.”

]]>

DIU barrels ahead with tri-regional expansion plans

Lauren C. Williams — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:39:54 -0400

The Pentagon’s innovation arm wants to expand its regional footprint, with new hubzones in Kentucky, Minnesota, and Montana to boost outreach with tech companies.

“We're really humbled and excited by the opportunity at DIU to be that on ramp for commercial and dual-use technology into the department. And one of the ways that we do that is by having people out in the regions,” Liz Young McNally, the Defense Innovation Unit’s deputy director for commercial operations, said Wednesday at the Apex Defense forum.

“We also have regional folks as well in places like Pittsburgh and New York and other places…so that we can better scout what commercial technology exists and help companies figure out how they can get through the department.”

The agency released a “sources sought” memo Wednesday to garner market research on the proposed new locations.

“The recipients of these awards will be expected to provide direction to improve the ways in which non-traditional companies and talent can work with the Department of Defense and grow regional defense innovation ecosystems in the state,” the memo states. “Each hub will oversee the execution of projects and initiatives that address barriers for working with the DOD, and enhance the defense innovation base through regionally-driven efforts. The hubs will also be required to coordinate with other OnRamp Hubs across the nation and with broader DIU and US government organizations.”

The OnRamp hubs will act as a “front door” to the Pentagon with a “physical space for mentoring, convening events, and programming,” while also providing services such as cyber hardening and “access to research and development or testing and evaluation” among other qualities, according to the memo.

Since its inception in 2015, DIU has grown in size and influence when it comes to how the Pentagon buys and fields commercial technologies.

The agency is headquartered in Mountain View, Calif., but has regional offices in Austin, Texas, Boston, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. There are also on-ramp hubs in Arizona, Hawaii, Kansas, Ohio, and Washington state.

]]>

China’s military aims to harness the coming ‘ChatGPT for robotics’

Peter W. Singer and Josh Baughman — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 16:02:25 -0400

Earlier this month, more than 12,000 runners raced through the streets of Beijing in a half marathon—accompanied by more than 20 humanoid robots. While the prize money for the first robot to cross the finish line was a paltry CNY5,000 ($691), the competition is emblematic of a larger race just beginning in technology and even warfare.

A world of human-like robots has long been a staple of science fiction, extending from their first mention in Karel Čapek's play, R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots), to the Terminator movies, and beyond. Like so much in technology now, this myth is rapidly approaching reality, as scientists and CEOs are beginning to see the hardware of robots as the natural destination of AI software, allowing machine intelligence to interact and learn from the real world, not just data sets. Duke University roboticist Boyuan Chen puts it this way: “I believe that intelligence can’t be born without having the perspective of physical embodiments.”

Recent years have witnessed an unprecedented surge in robotics capabilities, driven by the transformative power of AI. Academic researchers, startups, and major tech firms worldwide are harnessing large language models, speech synthesis, and image recognition. "The algorithms can transfer, which is powering this renaissance of robotics,” Covariant CEO Peter Chen told The Economist.

Aiding this is the breakthrough of multimodal models, which can handle diverse inputs—text, images, and audio—and convert them into new formats. A key example is vision-language-action models, which ingest images, data, and information from a robot’s internal sensors, the degree of rotation of different joints, and the positions of actuators. This enables robots to adapt and learn from their environment rapidly, creating a level of “common sense” known as “embodied AI.” For example, a robot equipped with vision-language-action models might be able to pick up a piece of fruit on a table of many objects, even if not specifically trained for that task. And engineers can ask why it chose the fruit, allowing rapid adjustments.

Another breakthrough, called "diffusion policy," is enabling researchers to train robots more quickly than ever. Originally developed for AI image generation and refined by the Toyota Research Institute, this method builds on taught actions to randomly generate and refine new movements, enabling a robot to adapt to unfamiliar situations. Researchers who have applied diffusion to hundreds of tasks are now integrating them into a large behavior model—a sort of LLM for the physical world. New skills can then be transmitted wirelessly between robots through “fleet learning,” accelerating training yet again.

The result is that many feel we are on the edge of an explosion in the use of robotics. “The ChatGPT moment for general robotics is just around the corner,” Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang recently said.

But if robots are to be truly useful, they must be able to seamlessly integrate into a world designed for humans, from the environments we work in to the tools and weapons we wield—in a word, be humanoid. Unlike specialized automata good for pre-designed tasks and limited settings, robotic bipeds with a head and two arms can adjust to missions from moving supplies to equipment maintenance to infantry. “Humanoid robots are the jewel in the crown of the robotics industry, integrating advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, high-end manufacturing, and new materials,” EX Robot CEO Li Boyang said at the 2024 Summer Davos Forum.

China's strategic robotic push

Recognizing this potential, China is aggressively pursuing humanoid robotics, driven by President Xi Jinping's call for "new quality productive forces." (新质生产力) Last year, a group of seven ministries led by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issued a list of innovative products that would be part of these “new quality products”; first on the list was humanoid robots. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology also published a "Guiding Opinions on the Innovative Development of Humanoid Robots," which for the first time gave China a “comprehensive and clear strategic planning and deployment for the development of humanoid robots, becoming a leading document for the development of the industry.”

Last year’s inaugural Chinese Humanoid Robot Industry Conference and Embodied AI Summit in Beijing attracted more than 1,200 industrial stakeholders and practitioners. That number is a powerful illustration of China’s heft in the field, with Morgan Stanley reporting that "Chinese companies hold a 63 percent share of the global humanoid robot supply chain."

The Beijing Humanoid Robot Innovation Center, led by UBTECH, exemplifies this commitment. Their “Tiangong” [天工] robot has 3D vision, high-precision inertial measurement units, and CPUs capable of 550 trillion operations per second—all of which have allowed it to solve motion-control challenges that have bedeviled many other robots. The 5-foot-4, 95-pound robot can run up to 12 kmph and traverse various terrains with ease, including slopes, stairs, grass, gravel, and sand. The center’s chief technology officer, Xiong Youjun, said Tiangong aims to be an open-source platform for hardware and software—and, ultimately, the global leader of embodied intelligence.

Military advantages

PLA strategists see three primary advantages to deploying such humanoid robots on the battlefield.

First, versatility. “Compared with other unmanned systems, humanoid robots are closer to humans in shape and structure, can simulate various human activities, better realize human-computer interaction, and are more suitable for replacing humans to complete complex tasks,” writes Wang Yonghua, a scholar with the Operational Theories and Regulations Department of the Academy of Military Science, the PLA’s top research institute. Other researchers from the National University of Defense Technology echoed this in the article " “Do the Rapidly Evolving Humanoid Robots Dream of Going to the Battlefield?” They note that battlefield environments increasingly reflect human-centric settings, such as towns, industrial zones, and farms, and that humanoid robots can thus interact seamlessly with various systems and simulate human operation effectively in these realms. This versatility will only grow with AI. PLA Daily author Zhang Yicheng has written, the new generation of humanoid robots now features a “brain” that can perceive complex scenarios, make decisions, and plan, along with a “cerebellum” that enables precise control of limb movements.

Second, scalability. One of the primary lessons that the PLA has taken from the Ukraine war is the importance of rapidly increasing capabilities and the success of drone swarms. In the article entitled, “It Will Profoundly Change the Form of Future Warfare,” writers for the China Association for Science and Technology, state that, “Quantity is an important aspect that affects combat effectiveness. The effect and power of a humanoid robot in attacking actions are very limited, but the large-scale use of humanoid robots to form clusters can achieve a leap in attack capabilities.”

Finally, survivability. As PLA Daily author Zhang Yicheng writes, humanoid robots can not only fight alongside humans and assist in completing various tasks but also serve as decoys to draw enemy fire, even willingly "sacrificing" themselves to protect humans. Another author envisions a particular task for this robotic cannon fodder: “The biggest obstacle for China to complete the great cause of reunification in the future is the risk of personnel losses in the street fighting on the island of Taiwan.”

There is also a recognition that these advantages are just the start. As the Chinese Ministry of National Defense article entitled “Pay Attention to the Military Application of Humanoid Robots” summed, “Just like the Wright brothers flying, it was impossible to imagine how useful airplanes would be in war at that time, but with the improvement of aircraft performance and the expansion of the scope of application, combat methods such as aerial bombing were soon born.

Obstacles and challenges

The PLA acknowledges several challenges. Trust is a major concern, with worries about the reliability and controllability of AI-powered robots, particularly in combat. Articles in PLA Daily, for example, have noted how AI does not understand "what it is doing" and has falsified information with both skill and confidence. Vulnerabilities to adversarial hacking and data pollution are also a concern. In the article “Beware of Combat Robots’ Counterattack” [警惕战斗机器人“反戈一击], one PLA author even envisioned a scenario where humanoid robots “suddenly turn their guns on their own people, causing heavy losses to their own side and chaos.”

PLA authors also know their robots also face Moravec's Paradox. Named after Canadian roboticist Hans Moravec, this is the phenomenon that, while complex machines can perform calculations no human can master, they can struggle with tasks intuitive to a one-year-old child. War is inherently unpredictable, so Chinese authors note that humanoid robotics will need to gain the robotic equivalent of common sense, if they are to “act independently without human intervention, and complete combat tasks just like humans.”

Finally, there are hardware limitations. In attributes such as weight, height, and speed, Chinese humanoid robot manufacturers appear to be on par with their international counterparts. However, one Chinese analyst wrote that Chinese robotics firms lag their global rivals in hardware precision, durability, and reliability. The upcoming race in Beijing is viewed as a chance to change that perception.

If the United States hopes to keep up with this accelerating pace of humanoid robots, it must speed up its own research and development; work with partners and allies to ensure robust safeguards and ethical guidelines for autonomous weapons; invest in resilient hardware and secure communication networks; and focus on efficient training and hardware development for military-specific uses.

A world is coming in which humanoid robots don’t just run alongside humans, but also fight alongside them in war. The next decade may determine which nation those machines serve.

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Air University, the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other U.S. government agency.

]]>

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Revive Ban on Transgender Troops

Adam Liptak — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 12:31:08 -0400

Lower courts had blocked the policy, saying it was not supported by evidence and violated equal protection principles.

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Revive Transgender Military Ban

Adam Liptak — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 12:31:08 -0400

Lower courts had blocked the policy, saying it was not supported by evidence and violated equal protection principles.

The D Brief: WH pressures Ukraine; Hegseth latest; Rare-earths squeeze; Boeing’s no-loss quarter; And a bit more.

Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 11:20:28 -0400

After at least a week of publicly threatening to abandon Ukraine, the Trump White House is pushing Kyiv to accept an apparently lopsided, U.S.-brokered peace deal that includes recognition of Russia’s illegal 2014 annexation of Crimea, among other sacrifices—but little to no concessions for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Defense One’s Patrick Tucker reports.

“If [Ukraine] wants Crimea, why didn’t they fight for it eleven years ago when it was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired?” Trump wrote incorrectly on social media Wednesday. Indeed, “At least one Ukrainian serviceman was killed, and dozens were detained or assaulted. [Putin’s invasion], widely condemned by the international community, violated international law,” the Kyiv Independent reminded readers Wednesday.

“There is nothing to talk about” regarding the latest White House plan, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said at a press briefing in Kyiv on Tuesday. Putin’s invasion “violated our Constitution. This is our territory, the territory of Ukraine,” he said.

Zelenskyy “can have peace, or he can fight for another three years before losing the whole country,” Trump said on social media Wednesday using what sounded an awful lot like the “false choice” or “false dilemma” logical fallacy. “We are very close to a Deal, but the man with ‘no cards to play’ should now, finally, GET IT DONE,” Trump wrote.

The European Union’s view: “Crimea is Ukraine,” foreign-policy chief Kaja Kallas told reporters Tuesday. “It means a lot for the ones who are occupied that others don't recognise this as Russian,” she warned as talks with Trump’s aides appeared to be faltering.

For some recent history, the New York Times pointed out Wednesday, “Just three years ago, Marco Rubio, then a senator and now Mr. Trump’s secretary of state, cosponsored an amendment to prohibit the United States from ever recognizing any Russian claim of sovereignty over parts of Ukraine that it has seized.”

And in 2018, the Trump administration issued a formal statement rejecting recognition of Crimea as Russian territory. You can still find it on the State Department’s website. Zelenskyy also shared an image of the declaration on social media Wednesday as a reminder.

Meanwhile, Russian air attacks on Ukraine continue, including a barrage that killed nine people in Kyiv after Russia launched 70 missiles and nearly 150 attack drones, Zelenskyy said on social media. “I am grateful to everyone around the world who stands with Ukraine and supports our people,” he said.

Hours later, Trump wrote on social media, “I am not happy with the Russian strikes on KYIV. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Lets get the Peace Deal DONE!”

Also: Today and tomorrow, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is visiting the U.S. for meetings with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, SecDef Pete Hegseth, and White House National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. “Thanks for the warm welcome and the good discussion on how to ensure a stronger, fairer, more lethal NATO,” Rutte said on social media after arriving at the Pentagon. “Europe and Canada are ramping up defence spending and we’re all working to increase production capacity,” he added.

Welcome to this Thursday edition of The D Brief, a newsletter dedicated to developments affecting the future of U.S. national security, brought to you by Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston. Share your tips and feedback here. And if you’re not already subscribed, you can do that here. On this day in 1898, Spain declared war on the United States.

SecDef latest

Hegseth had the Signal messaging app installed on an office computer, the latest drip-drip of detail about the defense secretary’s flouting of information-security rules that would get any U.S. servicemember censured or prosecuted. “The move was intended to circumvent a lack of cellphone service in much of the Pentagon and enable easier communication with other Trump officials, said people familiar with the matter,” the Washington Post reports.

Latest: “Trump unlikely to dismiss Hegseth, but officials are troubled by disarray in Pentagon chief’s inner circle,” is CNN’s headline of the day.

New: Hegseth ordered a makeup studio installed near the Pentagon briefing room, CBS News reported Wednesday. “The renovation that was initially planned was estimated to cost more than $40,000, but the ideas were scaled back, sources said.” A DOD spokesperson denied that the plans were ever that costly, and said, "Changes and upgrades to the Pentagon Briefing Room are nothing new and routinely happen during changes in an administration.” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell responded to the report on social media Wednesday evening, writing, “This story is 100% Fake News.” CBS has more, here.

“How a Lloyd Austin aide became Pete Hegseth’s “only guy standing’” is the headline on a revealing story about one of the SecDef’s few senior advisors to survive the wave of recent firings. Read that, from Defense News’ Noah Robertson, here.

Additional reading:

“A Beleaguered Hegseth Wanders Into His Forever War,” Bill Hennigan argues in the op-ed section of the New York Times;
“Pentagon’s innovation arm looks beyond acquisition reform to speed commercial tech buying,” Defense One’s Lauren C. Williams reported Wednesday from the the Apex Defense forum;
And “DOD kicks off review of major defense acquisition programs as Hegseth touts reforms,” Defense Scoop reported Wednesday after Hegseth spoke at the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania.

Trump 2.0

China’s rare-earth mineral squeeze will hit the Pentagon hard. From tungsten in armor-piercing rounds to gallium in radars, the U.S. Defense Department has built a warfighting enterprise with a supply chain that runs straight through China. But recent developments threaten the Pentagon’s ability to maintain that enterprise,” Defense One’s Patrick Tucker reported Wednesday.

China has long dominated rare-earth mining and processing. But this latest decision tightens the faucet on materials needed for technologies ranging from hypersonic-missile guidance systems to cancer treatments. The measures follow similar export bans issued in December 2024 on gallium, germanium, and antimony—metals used in semiconductors, infrared optics, and armor-piercing munitions.

But the chokepoint isn’t mining; it’s refinement, Tucker writes. The U.S. often ships raw mineral precursors to China for processing and re-imports them as components. With Beijing's 2024 export bans now expanded to include tungsten and tellurium, that loop is closing. Even antimony mined in Australia becomes unusable for U.S. systems if refined in China. The result: 88% of DoD’s critical mineral supply chains are exposed to Chinese influence. Read more, here.

And lastly: Boeing’s defense unit reported no losses last quarter, returning to profitability after nearly a year, Defense One’s Audrey Decker reported Wednesday. Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg credited progress on several of its thorny programs, but cautioned that the Defense, Space & Security unit still has some ground to make up.

“I'm not claiming victory here yet,” Ortberg said during the company’s first-quarter earnings call on Wednesday. “But I do think our discipline, cost risk management and active management with our customers to get to a win-win on these programs is helping. Obviously, our goal here is to get our defense business back up to a high-single-digit [margins] kind of performing business. And there's no reason, I see, we can't do that,” he said.

Notable: Boeing is still working through problems with its troubled KC-46 tankers, deliveries of which have been halted since February after cracks were found in the “outboard fixed-trailing-edge support structure.” The Air Force and Boeing have not said when they expect deliveries to resume. Despite ongoing challenges, Boeing executives highlighted their win of the Next Generation Air Dominance sixth-gen fighter jet as a “transformational accomplishment” for the company, one that will ensure the company’s fighter franchise for decades. Continue reading, here.

Related reading:

“China sends Boeing planes back to US over tariffs,” the BBC reported Wednesday;
‘“Boeing ready to resell jets as tariffs hit China trade,” Reuters reported Thursday;
“WA can now restrict outside National Guard from entering state,” the Seattle Times reported Tuesday; read over Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson’s message shortly after signing the new law, here;
“Trump’s Approval Rating Has Been Falling Steadily, Polling Average Shows,” the New York Times reported Wednesday;
And “Majorities disapprove of some key Trump administration actions,” including reducing federal agencies, raising tariffs, and eliminating diversity programs across government, the Pew Research Center reported Tuesday.

]]>

How March 31 Military Flight of Venezuelan Nationals to El Salvador Most Likely Violated Court Order

Ryan Goodman — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 11:03:37 -0400

Over at Just Security‘s substack, I wrote a piece last night very soon after the Justice Department submitted a filing in D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, a document that strongly suggests the government violated the district court’s temporary restraining order (which has since been superseded by a preliminary injunction). The D.V.D. case directly affects the administration’s ability to deport Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador without an opportunity for them to present their claims of potential torture as required by federal statute. As I discuss at greater length in the substack, a key element to focus upon is that ICE retained custody over the detainees following the court’s Mar. 28 order and then appeared to switch them over to the Department of Defense (DoD) for transfer by military plane to El Salvador. The line of defense (some would say the game) being played here by the government is that DHS/ICE is a named defendant in the case but DOD is not.

I thought to supplement last night’s analysis with three items.

First, the text of the Mar. 28 temporary restraining order appears to bind the Department of Defense, not just the named defendants. The Order enjoins “Defendants, and all of their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, successors, assigns, and persons acting in concert or participation with them” (emphasis added). Andrew Weissmann and I discussed this issue at length in a video conversation on substack Thursday morning (will be available here). Read the opening text in paragraph 2 and then paragraph 2(b) in Judge Brian Murphy’s order:

Second, in the Chart below, I match the government’s brief with the ICE official’s affidavit, which were both submitted to Judge Murphy last night. The Chart shows how the DOD was “acting in concert or participation with” DHS/ICE. The Chart also shows the shell game being played and the obfuscation in the government’s brief as to which department had custody at the time. That said, I do not think the government’s combined filings actually hide the ball that much. Rather, they reveal just how obnoxious the government’s conduct is here to the rule of law and Judge Murphy’s order, that is, given ICE’s custody over the individuals on and after the Mar. 18 order before turning them over to DOD for transfer to El Salvador.

Government Statement of Four Detainees in D.V.D. v. Dept of Homeland Security
Detainee 1 Government brief:

Detainee 1 ICE Affidavit:

Detainee 2 Government brief:"

Detainee 2 ICE Affidavit:

Detainee 3 Government brief:

Detainee 3 ICE Affidavit:

Detainee 4 Government brief:

Detainee 4 ICE Affidavit:

Third, a March 7, 2025 Memorandum of Understanding between DHS and DOD states expressly that such detainees are still under ICE custody and control while held at Guantanamo. The Memorandum is titled “DOD Support at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay (NSGB) to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for DHS/ICE Detention of Illegal Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal.” That arrangement strongly suggests that the detainees may have been in ICE custody up until the moment they were put on military planes. That will be an issue for Judge Murphy, investigative reporters, and others to explore. The Memorandum’s most relevant provision is Article 4:

Image credit: Minister of Justice and Public Security Héctor Gustavo Villatoro, pointing, accompanies Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center (CECOT) on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador (Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

The post How March 31 Military Flight of Venezuelan Nationals to El Salvador Most Likely Violated Court Order appeared first on Just Security.

Indonesia needs a two-track approach to its foreign-fighter problem

Noor Huda Ismail — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 09:00:00 -0400

This commentary is published in coordination with the 2025 Global Security Forum, of which Defense One is a media partner.

The leaders of Jemaah Islamiyah disbanded their al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadist group last June—but the schools that serve as the group’s ideological factories remain active. The Indonesian government must take action to prevent JI members who traveled to fight in Syria from using the schools to galvanize the group’s resurgence.

JI had long relied on Islamic boarding schools, or pesantren, operating under the radar as part of the Indonesian educational system. These radicalized schools steeped young minds in radical beliefs and produced a steady supply of supporters.

At least 16 former JI fighters are now in Syria, where they fought alongside the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham rebels who overthrew the Assad regime. If they return to Indonesia, they could use the schools to galvanize the group’s return—threatening Indonesia and beyond.

The Indonesian government must take a two-pronged approach: reform the pesantren network and implement a controlled-repatriation program for such men.

First, the government must establish a dedicated regulatory body to monitor and audit pesantren. This body would ensure that extremist teachings are eliminated, replacing them with civic education and democratic values. The teachers themselves must also be vetted to ensure that they hold only moderate Islamic views, and some may need retraining.

The government must also work to involve community leaders, including religious scholars and civil society organizations, in countering extremist narratives and providing alternative educational opportunities. By building strong relationships within local communities, Indonesia can create an environment that discourages extremism and encourages moderation, helping to deradicalize those within pesantren and prevent future generations from falling prey to extremist ideologies.

At the same time, the government must also forge a controlled legal process to repatriate members of terrorist groups who went abroad to fight in conflict zones like Syria. These individuals bring battlefield experience, hardened ideologies, and critical connections to global jihadist networks. If allowed to return unchecked, they could re-join radical elements in Indonesia, revitalizing the JI movement. These returnees may serve as bridges between local militants and international jihadist networks, further complicating counterterrorism efforts.

So these fighters must be held accountable for any crimes they may have committed, but must also be given the tools to reintegrate into society in a positive way. That includes participation in rehabilitation and de-radicalization programs designed to address the causes of their extremism.

Fortunately, Indonesia can draw on other countries’ experience, adapting approaches as necessary. Saudi Arabia’s reforms in religious education and Malaysia’s initiatives for rehabilitation offer valuable lessons that Indonesia can adapt to its unique context. Egypt and Kazakhstan also have valuable experience. International cooperation and the exchange of best practices are essential.

Reforming pesantren and implementing a controlled repatriation process for foreign fighters are critical steps to secure Indonesia’s future against radicalization and violent extremism.

A comprehensive approach that combines regulatory oversight, educational reform, community engagement, and law enforcement will help eliminate JI’s ideological influence and prevent returning fighters from reigniting extremist networks that could threaten Indonesia, the region, and the world.

Dr. Noor Huda Ismail is a Visiting Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and an adjunct professor at International Relations Department at Diponegoro University in Central Java, Indonesia

]]>

Justice Department Fails to Address Central Point in VOA Case

Paul M. Barrett — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 08:55:12 -0400

Late last month, federal judges in Washington, D.C., and New York issued temporary restraining orders (TROs) that halted the Trump administration’s dismantling of the Voice of America and its affiliated news networks.

Somewhat counterintuitively, the two U.S. district court judges — one appointed by President Ronald Reagan and the other by President Barack Obama — did not rely on First Amendment protection of free speech or the press, even though the administration’s actions were squarely aimed at media outlets. Instead, the judges provisionally found that the administration had usurped congressional authority and violated a federal statute requiring agencies to offer a reasoned basis for their actions.

The cases were then consolidated in Washington before Judge Royce Lamberth, the Reagan appointee. On Apr. 22, Judge Lamberth issued a more conclusive, if still not final, ruling against the administration. Lamberth granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction consistent with the earlier TROs. What stands out in the judge’s understated 37-page opinion is his apparent surprise at the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) unwillingness to argue the central point before the court or provide any reasonable arguments whatsoever as justification for shuttering the VOA and its affiliates.

Separation of Powers

As with the two earlier TROs, Judge Lamberth did not delve into the potentially sticky question of whether President Trump violated First Amendment protections of expression and the press when he shut down the VOA and its affiliates. The judge found the case relatively easy to resolve based on two other main grounds: the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Congress has repeatedly authorized the VOA to carry out its mission of reporting the news accurately for foreign audiences and continually passed appropriation bills that allow the agency to fulfill that function. Judge Lamberth made a basic point, observing that “the power to make law resides exclusively with the legislative branch,” as provided for by Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution.

The executive branch, he continued, quoting from Supreme Court precedent, “may not ‘enact, amend, or repeal statutes.’” The administration’s “unwillingness to expend funds in accordance with the congressional appropriations laws is a direct affront to the power of the legislative branch,” he wrote. Congress alone “possesses the ‘power of the purse,’ which is ‘the ultimate check on the . . . power of the Executive.’”

“Arbitrary and Capricious” Acts

Judge Lamberth went on to explain that the separation of powers analysis is buttressed by the APA, under which courts have the authority to set aside an executive branch action deemed “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” The APA, in other words, obliges an agency to explain policy changes in a reasoned manner.

When shutting down the VOA, the administration not only failed to provide “reasoned analysis,” the judge wrote, it failed to engage in any analysis at all. Moreover, the earlier TROs were based on this failure. In response, the administration had the opportunity in written filings and in-person hearings to proffer some kind of reasoning. But government lawyers declined to do so.

Judge Lamberth seemed startled. “In their briefing before this court,” he wrote, the administration’s attorneys “do not even use the words ‘arbitrary’ or ‘capricious’ anywhere, even though the central holding of the TRO was that the defendants’ actions were arbitrary and capricious.” During a hearing before him, the judge added, “the defendants opted not to argue the merits of the arbitrary and capricious challenge despite being given several opportunities to do so.”

The government made the elementary mistake of relying solely on a claim that Judge Lamberth lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, which he convincingly rejected. It was a rudimentary error by the DOJ’s lawyers. In cases such as this, lawyers are trained to argue “in the alternative”: make the jurisdictional argument, but in case that doesn’t fly, offer the substantive statutory argument as well. Incredibly, the government did not do so.

Much damage has already been done

Court challenges to all manner of Trump attacks on federal agencies are invoking the APA’s “arbitrary and capricious” standard. The public won’t know the ultimate fate of these legal actions until the Supreme Court weighs in on the APA’s application to the White House’s campaign to uproot parts of institutional Washington.

But even if some of the challenges prevail, much damage has already been done. The systems that disseminated U.S. foreign aid have been decimated, for example, and couldn’t be quickly reconstructed, even if courts order that outcome.

Likewise, the VOA’s servers and transmitters are already gathering dust, while its journalists look for new jobs. Created during World War II to counter Nazi propaganda with factual news reporting, the VOA morphed into a Cold War broadcasting tool used against the Soviet Union. More recently, it has been a source of information for audiences in a variety of countries governed by repressive regimes, including Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Trump, who has demonstrated an affinity for Putin, among other autocrats, has attacked the VOA since his first term, associating it with what he calls the “fake news” mainstream media.

On Mar. 14, Trump issued an executive order instructing that VOA’s parent agency be reduced “to the minimum presence and function required by law.” The order was followed by a White House press release entitled, “The Voice of Radical America,” which stated that “taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda.” On Mar. 15, nearly all VOA employees, more than 1,300 people, were put on administrative leave. One day later, 500 VOA contractors were terminated. The outlet fell silent. It will be difficult to rebuild what has already been lost.

The Trump administration is demonstrating that its arbitrary and capricious actions may outrun the judiciary’s capacity to consider its lawfulness.

Editor’s note #1: Two groups of VOA employees, among other plaintiffs, sued to stop the administration. One of the plaintiffs is Michael Abramowitz, the ousted director of the VOA, with whom the author has been friends since they worked together at a college newspaper in the early 1980s.

Editor’s note #2: This piece is part of the Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of the Trump Administration’s Executive Actions

Readers may be especially interested in these essays:

Ambassador Daniel Fried, The US Government’s Self-Harm in Killing Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (Mar. 17, 2025)

Jean Garner, Journalists Who Took Risks for US-Funded Broadcasters Threatened Anew by Trump Shutdown (Mar. 18, 2025)

Mark Pomar, Trump Move to Eliminate VOA, RFE/RL Ignores Lessons of Global Power (Mar. 20, 2025)

Paul M. Barrett, Unpacking the Voice of America Litigation (Apr. 10, 2025)

IMAGE: A man comes out of the Voice of America (VOA) building on March 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump signed an executive order to eliminate the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the parent agency of VOA, and put VOA employees on administrative leave. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The post Justice Department Fails to Address Central Point in VOA Case appeared first on Just Security.

Kash Patel Embraces the Limelight, Unlike Recent F.B.I. Directors

Adam Goldman and Aric Toler — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 08:18:53 -0400

Kash Patel’s embrace of the spotlight appears to be a break from the recent past, as his predecessors typically did the job with little fanfare.

Early Edition: April 24, 2025

Weronika Galka — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 07:47:43 -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:

RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR — U.S. RESPONSE

President Trump yesterday accused Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of prolonging the “killing field” and described Zelenskyy’s rejection of any peace deal that would involve ceding territory to Moscow as “inflammatory.” Trump added that he thinks the proposal is on the verge of acceptance by Russian President Vladimir Putin and “it’s harder” to “deal with Zelenskyy.” Vice President JD Vance called the U.S. deal “a very fair proposal” and warned the United States may “walk away from this process” if Russia and Ukraine do not agree to it. Illia Novikov, Aamer Madhani, and Jill Lawless report for AP News; David E. Sanger, Michael D. Shear, and Mark Landler report for the New York Times.

Reports that the White House is debating lifting sanctions on Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline and other Russian assets in Europe are “totally fictitious” and “irresponsible,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff said in a statement. POLITICO’s sources alleged such ideas formed part of discussions on how to approach the Ukraine peace negotiations. Ben Lefebvre and Felicia Schwartz report.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR

A major Russian strike killed at least eight and injured more than 70 people in Ukraine’s Kyiv overnight, mayor Vitali Klitschko said. The attack was the biggest on the Ukrainian capital this year. Zelenskyy today announced he would cut short his official trip to South Africa and return to Kyiv in the wake of the strikes. Vasilisa Stepanenko and Samya Kullab report for AP News; Yurii Kovalenko reports for Reuters.

GLOBAL AFFAIRS

India yesterday blamed an attack that killed 26 in the Kashmir region on what it described as Pakistan’s “support for terrorism” on Indian soil and announced a series of retaliatory measures, suspending its participation in a water treaty governing the flow of rivers between the two countries, closing the only land border crossing between two countries, and downgrading their diplomatic ties. Pakistan today retaliated by canceling visas for Indian nationals, closing its airspace for Indian airlines, and suspending all trade with India. Mujib Mashal and Suhasini Raj report for the New York Times; Shivam Patel and Fayaz Bukhari report for Reuters; Aijaz Hussain and Sheikh Saaliq report for AP News.

The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda-backed M23 rebels yesterday announced they had agreed to a temporary truce in eastern Congo, lasting “until the conclusion” of peace talks mediated by Qatar. Wycliffe Muia reports for BBC News.

Bosnian state security officers yesterday unsuccessfully tried to arrest Milorad Dodik, the pro-Russian leader of the Republika Srpska entity, according to a spokesperson for Bosnia’s State Investigation and Security Agency. Bosnian courts issued an arrest warrant for Dodik in March in connection with his separatist policies. AP News reports.

South Korean prosecutors today indicted former President Moon Jae-in on a bribery charge, making Moon the country’s latest ex-leader to face a criminal trial. Moon’s lawyers and Democratic Party allies disputed the charge. Choe Sang-Hun reports for the New York Times.

Jordan will enforce a ban on the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, the kingdom’s interior ministry said yesterday, linking last week’s arrest of 16 people over plotting threats to Jordan’s national security to “elements” of the Islamist group. Rana F. Sweis and Vivian Nereim report for the New York Times.

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR

Germany, France, and Britain yesterday urged the Israeli government to end its “intolerable” blockade on aid, pointing to Israel’s international law obligations and warning of “an acute risk of starvation, epidemic disease and death” if Israel does not “immediately re-start a rapid and unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid” to Gaza. Abbie Cheeseman reports for the Washington Post.

In an unprecedented set of remarks, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas yesterday called on Hamas to release the hostages to “block [Israel’s] justifications” for the “genocide that the Gaza Strip is being subjected to.” Abbas also called on Hamas to “refrain from carrying arms” and transform into “a political party that operates according to the laws of the Palestinian state.” Ibrahim Dahman, Pauline Lockwood, and Oren Liebermann report for CNN.

An Israeli strike on a school-turned-shelter for displaced families in Gaza killed ten people and set fire to tents and classrooms yesterday, according to medics. Israel said it targeted militants operating from within the complex. Nidal Al-Mughrabi and Dawoud Abu Alkas report for Reuters.

U.S. FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The Trump administration is considering rolling back its tariffs on Chinese imports, in some cases by more than a half, to de-escalate trade tensions with Beijing, sources say. Trump has not yet made a final determination on the issue and several options are on the table, sources add. While signalling it was open to trade talks, Beijing warned yesterday that it would not negotiate under continued threats from the White House. Gavin Bade, Lingling Wir, Josh Dawsey, and Alex Leary report for the Wall Street Journal.

The International Monetary Fund “devotes disproportionate time and resources to work on climate change, gender, and social issues,” and the World Bank must “demonstrate tangible value for all member countries,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said yesterday during a speech on the sidelines of the two organizations’ spring meetings. Alan Rappeport reports for the New York Times.

Direct U.S.-Beijing talks on tackling the fentanyl epidemic continue despite the trade tensions between the two countries, but are “at an impasse,” according to U.S. officials. Michael Martina reports for Reuters.

Global aid funding cuts, led by the United States, are causing as much disruption to efforts to vaccinate children as the Covid-19 pandemic, the WHO and UNICEF said today in a joint release with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Jennifer Rigby reports for Reuters.

U.S. DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the No. 2 Senate Democrat and the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday announced he will not run for reelection next year. Theodoric Meyer and Hannah Knowles report for the Washington Post.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) yesterday said that he is seeking records concerning allegations that Trump’s nominee to lead the Customs and Border Protection agency, Rodney Scott, improperly intervened in the criminal probe into the death of an undocumented immigrant in federal custody. Maria Sacchetti reports for the Washington Post.

The federal government owes the state of North Dakota nearly $28 million for the state’s policing of protests of the Dakota Access oil pipeline in 2016 and 2017, a federal judge ruled yesterday. Jack Dura reports for AP News.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had the unclassified Signal messaging app installed on a desktop computer in his Pentagon office so that he could send and receive instant messages in a space where personal cellphones are not permitted, sources say. It is unclear how widely the app’s use proliferated across the Pentagon or whether its use complied with federal records laws, the sources added. Dan Lamothe reports for the Washington Post.

Trump yesterday signed seven executive orders that included a directive to “repeal or amend” Title VI regulations, a civil rights enforcement tool used to identify and fight measures with discriminatory effects, and an order to overhaul the college accreditation system. Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, Susan Svrluga, and Laura Meckler report for the Washington Post.

The Trump administration’s approach to terminating Biden-era climate funds is “believed to have significant legal vulnerabilities,” a veteran career attorney warned the Environmental Protection Agency staff in an internal email days before EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin terminated the grants last month, according to emails obtained by POLITICO. Alex Guillén reports.

Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday directed the Justice Department employees to enforce the Trump administration’s policies restricting gender-affirming care for minors, according to a copy of Bondi’s memo reviewed by CNN. Casey Gannon and Evan Perez report.

About 20% of Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) permanent workers are expected to take a voluntary buyout offered as a DOGE staff reduction effort, sources say. According to a FEMA official, several senior leaders are expected to leave the agency as part of the buyout. Gabe Cohen reports for CNN.

DOGE is shutting down the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a Congress-established bipartisan foreign aid agency that partners with developing countries to promote economic growth, according to a Tuesday email obtained by POLITICO. Ben Johansen reports.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION LITIGATION

A federal judge yesterday ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of a 20-year-old Venezuelan man deported to El Salvador whose removal violated a previous court settlement and to not remove other individuals covered by the settlement. Katherine Faulders, James Hill, and Laura Romero report for ABC News.

A dozen states yesterday filed a legal challenge arguing that Trump has no power to “arbitrarily impose tariffs as he has done” and contending that the latest trade measures should be blocked as only Congress has the power to legislate tariffs. David W. Chen reports for the New York Times.

A federal judge yesterday agreed to give the Trump administration another week to provide answers to detailed questions about the unlawful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, stating that the extension order was made “with the agreement of the parties.” Ben Finley reports for AP News.

Attorneys representing the Homeland Security Department yesterday argued that the DHS did not violate a court order limiting when people may be deported to countries other than their own because the deportations were carried out by the Defense Department, not the DHS, and the Defense Department was not a defendant in the lawsuit to whom the order would apply. Rebecca Boone reports for AP News.

A federal judge yesterday pressed a DOJ lawyer for information on the penalties and the deals the Trump administration struck with law firms hoping to avoid punitive orders, appearing skeptical of the lawfulness of the President’s actions. Mark Berman reports for the Washington Post.

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

The post Early Edition: April 24, 2025 appeared first on Just Security.

Trump pressures Zelenskyy to accept pro-Russian deal

Patrick Tucker — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 04:35:03 -0400

In the clearest sign yet that the White House could soon abandon support for Ukraine, President Donald Trump on Wednesday renewed pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to accept a U.S.-brokered peace proposal that includes recognition of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, among other sacrifices—but little to no concessions for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Zelenskyy could have had peace long ago by giving up Crimea,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “That ship has sailed.”

Trump’s framing puts him in direct opposition not just to the current Ukrainian government, but to over a decade of international law, diplomatic precedent, and bipartisan U.S. policy. But a former diplomat and leading Ukraine analyst said it’s not too late for Trump to pursue a different approach, salvage negotiations, and set up the conditions for a more lasting ceasefire by offering more support for Ukraine and maintaining pressure on Russia.

Trump’s post Wednesday followed similar statements earlier in the day by Vice President J.D. Vance, who is traveling in India.

“We've issued a very explicit proposal to both the Russians and the Ukrainians, and it's time for them to either say yes, or for the United States to walk away from this process,” Vance told reporters.

The deal greatly favors Russia and puts Ukraine in a vulnerable position. It would “freeze” the current front lines of the conflict, leaving Russian forces deep inside of Ukraine’s territory, prohibit Ukraine from ever joining NATO, and essentially demand Ukraine cease any military efforts to regain control of Crimea. Trump, in his post, said, “Nobody is asking Zelensky to recognize Crimea as Russian territory.” But the implication is that Ukraine would be alone in pursuing some sort legal remedy.

Ukrainian leaders responded with swift and unequivocal rejection of the proposal.

“There is nothing to talk about—it is our land, the land of the Ukrainian people,” Zelenskyy said in a nationally broadcast interview April 22, as reported by AP.

High-level peace talks scheduled in London were downgraded after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio canceled his participation. Still, Ukrainian officials engaged in discussions with U.S. envoy Keith Kellogg, and Zelenskyy's chief of staff reiterated Ukraine's unwavering position on sovereignty and territorial integrity during these talks.

Zelenskyy described those discussions as promising. But Kellogg, long known as a staunch defender of Ukraine’s sovereignty and a resolute Russia hawk, is less influential in the administration than Trump’s Russia envoy, former real-estate developer Steven Witkoff, who has embraced Russia’s demands, repeated false Russian talking points, and reportedly has business dealings with Leonard Blavatnik, a Russian-born billionaire sanctioned by Ukraine for his ties to Putin’s government.

“Witkoff continues to be so visibly outplayed by the Russians,” Daniel Fried of the Atlantic Council, who served as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, told Defense One on Wednesday. “Witkoff clearly does not understand the detail, the substance of the issue. He's made that clear by accepting the Russian arguments at face value, which you should never do,” he said.

Trump still has an opportunity to make a ceasefire work, Fried said, “if it consists of a ceasefire in place and security for Ukraine.” He said a U.S. recognition of Crimea as Russian would be “a terrible idea…utterly unnecessary, damages almost a century of US foreign policy,” and noted the White House has shown its willingness to reverse course on other policy matters.

Zelenskyy and other Ukrainian officials have pointed out repeatedly that Ukraine’s constitution, let alone Ukraine’s parliament, would never allow for a surrender of Ukraine’s territory, nor could the country hold elections while citizens are living under Russian occupation.

Said Fried, “If [the final negotiated outcome] appears to be a surrender of Ukraine that is consigning them to a gray zone of insecurity, then the message is: Putin can have the rest of it at a time of his own choosing.”

What’s at stake, he says, is a heightened risk of a replay of 1938, wherein Germany signed an agreement with Czechoslovakia, the Munich agreement, effectively allowing German leader Adolf Hitler to annex a portion of Germany’s neighbor. Six months later, Hitler broke the agreement and attacked the rest of Czechoslovakia.

“Munich analogies have been overused and overused for 90 years. Now it actually applies,” Fried said.

George Barros, who leads the Russia and geopolitical intelligence teams at the Institute for the Study of War, told Defense One: “The U.S. position is puzzling, as it doesn't advance President Trump's stated objectives of achieving an end to war in Europe and a robust peace. The United States rewarding Putin's annexation of Crimea and removing the brakes from Russia's defense industrial base through sanctions relief, while not also increasing deterrence in Europe, is not a path to peace through strength. It will embolden Putin and Putin’s way of war.”

Fried and Barros agreed that continued pressure on Putin—something that’s largely missing from the current White House approach—could make a big difference, because Putin is not in as strong a position as some believe.

“Russia at its current rate of advance is not capable of seizing Donetsk or Zaporizhia regions anytime in the next two years. We have reason to believe that the Russian position will only continue to weaken as Russia impales itself on a well-armed Ukraine,” Barros said. “Putin has vulnerabilities we are either overlooking or choosing to not leverage. Protracted war has greatly degraded the health of the Russian economy and destroyed much of Russia's conventional military. Now is the time to compel Russia to make concessions so Russia can evade difficult decisions Putin would rather not have to face. Putin is betting on the U.S. letting Russia off the hook despite Russia's own precarious position.”

Also on Wednesday, Putin gave the world a glimpse of his long-term plan during a meeting with Russia’s military commission, where he called for accelerated expansion of drone manufacturing and the formalization of drone warfare in the Russian military, as well as the development of new capabilities. He gave no indication of easing military spending, even though they are harming Russia’s economy.

That indicates Russia will continue aggressive military modernization and advanced capability development at current government funding levels, regardless of any breakthrough diplomatic outcome related to Ukraine, Sam Bendett, advisor in Russian studies at CNA, told Defense One. That sets him up for a renewed military assault in a few years time.

“None of what he said is particularly new, regarding adapting military education and military regulations. Russian military bloggers and commentators were screaming about this on their Telegram channels for two years now.”

]]>

Hegseth Set Up Signal on a Computer in His Pentagon Office

Eric Schmitt and Greg Jaffe — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 04:09:05 -0400

The app facilitated communications in a building where cell service is poor and personal phones are not allowed in some areas.

Pete Hegseth Blunders Into His Forever War

W.J. Hennigan — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 01:00:05 -0400

The operation in Yemen has sent the Trump administration into an exorbitant, potentially escalatory spiral.

Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of Trump Administration Executive Actions

Just Security — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:05:41 -0400

On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump began his term with presidential actions including 26 executive orders, with more expected to follow. Just Security is covering key developments, including in concise “What Just Happened” expert explainers, legal and policy analysis, and more.

Originally published Jan. 21, 2025, and frequently updated.

A. Resources

Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

Ryan Goodman and Audrey Balliette, Timeline: Politicization and Weaponization of Justice Department in Second Trump Administration

B. “What Just Happened” Series

Dani Schulkin, Tess Bridgeman and Andrew Miller, What Just Happened: The Trump Administration’s Reorganization of the State Department – and How We Got Here (Apr. 22, 2025)

Stefanie Feldman, What Just Happened: The Trump Administration Repealed Zero Tolerance Policy for Rogue Gun Dealers (Apr. 15, 2025)

Kathleen Claussen, What Just Happened: The Trump Administration’s Latest Moves on Tariffs (Apr. 3, 2025)

Ahilan Arulanantham and Adam Cox, Explainer on First Amendment and Other Legal Issues in Deportation of Pro-Palestinian Student Activist(s) (Mar. 12, 2025)

Brett Holmgren, What Just Happened: Security and Foreign Policy Implications of Pausing Intelligence Sharing with Ukraine (Mar. 6, 2025)

Nicholas Bednar, What Just Happened: Musk-OPM Send Email to Federal Employees Asking for Five Accomplishments (Feb. 22, 2025)

Roderick M. Hills, What Just Happened: Purges at the DOJ and FBI – How Do and Don’t the Civil Service Laws Apply (Feb. 14, 2025)

Alex Finley, What Just Happened: Security Implications of Trump’s Efforts to Trim the CIA Workforce (Feb. 7, 2025)

Jonathan Hafetz and Rebecca Ingber, What Just Happened: At Guantanamo’s Migrant Operation Center (Feb. 6, 2025)

Kathleen Claussen, What Just Happened: New Tariffs on Products from Mexico, Canada, and China (Feb. 5, 2025)

Tess Bridgeman, What May Be About to Happen: Can the President Dissolve USAID by Executive Order? (Feb. 1, 2025)

Brad Brooks-Rubin, What Just Happened: Trump’s Termination of West Bank Settler Sanctions (Jan. 30, 2025)

William Banks, What Just Happened: The Framing of a Migration “Invasion” and the Use of Military Authorities (Jan. 29, 2025)

Ilya Somin, What Just Happened: The “Invasion” Executive Order and Its Dangerous Implications (Jan. 28, 2025)

Tom Ellison, What Just Happened: Trump’s Executive Actions on Environment and Implications for US Climate Security (Jan. 24, 2025)

Ahilan Arulanantham, What Just Happened: Sanctuary Policies and the DOJ Memo’s Empty Threat of Criminal Liability (Jan. 23, 2025)

Andrew Weissmann, What Just Happened: What Trump’s Hobbling Privacy Oversight Board Portends for Exercise of Surveillance Powers (Jan. 22, 2025)

Justin Hendrix, What Just Happened: Trump’s Announcement of the Stargate AI Infrastructure Project (Jan. 22, 2025)

Tom Joscelyn, What Just Happened: Trump’s January 6 Pardons and Assaults on Law Enforcement Officers By The Numbers (Jan. 22, 2025)

Mark Nevitt, What Just Happened: Unpacking Exec Order on National Emergency at the Southern Border (Jan. 21, 2025)

Tess Bridgeman and Rebecca Hamilton, What Just Happened: With ICC Sanctions (Jan. 21, 2025)

Sue Biniaz, What Just Happened: Withdrawing from Paris and other International Environmental Agreement Actions (Jan. 21, 2025)

C. Analysis and Perspectives

Paul M. Barrett, Justice Department Fails to Address Central Point in VOA Case (Apr. 24, 2025)

John Mikhail, Birthright Citizenship and DOJ’s Misuse of History in Its Appellate Briefs (Apr. 18, 2025)

Paul M. Barrett, Unpacking the Voice of America Litigation (Apr. 10, 2025)

Harold Hongju Koh, Fred Halbhuber and Inbar Pe’er, No, the President Cannot Issue Bills of Attainder (Apr. 9, 2025)

Francisco Bencosme and Michael Schiffer, America’s Absence in Myanmar’s Early Earthquake Response: A Moral and Strategic Failure (Apr. 4, 2025)

Marty Lederman, Remarkable Things in the Government’s Alien Enemies Act Briefs to the Supreme Court (Apr. 3, 2025)

Stephanie Psaki and Beth Cameron, Dropping U.S. Biodefenses: Why Cuts to Federal Health Agencies Make Americans Less Safe (Apr. 3, 2025)

Edgar Chen and Chris M. Kwok, The Trump Administration’s 14th Amendment Retcon: ‘Wong Kim Ark’ Does Not Limit Birthright Citizenship (Mar. 28, 2025)

Mary B. McCord, Dissecting the Trump Administration’s Strategy for Defying Court Orders (Mar. 25, 2025)

Rebecca Hamilton, The Imperative of Solidarity in Response to Assaults on Legal Services, Universities, and Independent Media (Mar. 24, 2025)

Andrew Weissmann, The New “Blacklists” Work When Law Firms Stay Silent (Mar. 24, 2025)

Katherine Yon Ebright, The Courts Can Stop Abuse of the Alien Enemies Act – The Political Question Doctrine is No Bar (Mar. 20, 2025)

Rebecca Ingber and Scott Roehm, The Trump Administration’s Recent Removals to El Salvador Violate the Prohibition on Transfer to Torture (Mar. 20, 2025)

Mark Pomar, Trump Move to Eliminate VOA, RFE/RL Ignores Lessons of Global Power (Mar. 20, 2025)

Jean Garner, Journalists Who Took Risks for US-Funded Broadcasters Threatened Anew by Trump Shutdown (Mar. 18, 2025)

Ambassador Daniel Fried, The US Government’s Self-Harm in Killing Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (Mar. 17, 2025)

Faiza Patel, U.S. AI-Driven “Catch and Revoke” Initiative Threatens First Amendment Rights (Mar. 18, 2025)

Steve Vladeck, 5 Big Questions in the Alien Enemies Act Litigation (Mar. 16, 2025)

Noor Hamadeh and David McKean, Suspension of FCPA Enforcement Is Bad for U.S. and Global Business (Mar. 13, 2025)

Brian O’Neill, The President’s Declassification Power is a Double-Edged Sword (Feb. 28, 2025)

Michael Schiffer and Anka Lee, Trump’s China Tariff Now Treats Hong Kong the Same as the Mainland, a First in US Policy (Feb. 27, 2025)

Bill Frelick, The Racial Twist in Trump’s Cutoff of Refugee Admissions (Feb. 27, 2025)

Daniel Jacobson, The Trump Administration Cannot Use Award Terms and Conditions to Impound Funds (Feb. 24, 2025)

Mark Nevitt, How the Pentagon Personnel Firings Threaten Our Apolitical Military (Feb. 24, 2025)

Brian Finucane, U.S. Military Action in Mexico: Almost Certainly Illegal, Definitely Counterproductive (Feb. 20, 2025)

Tobias Barrington Wolff, The Attempt to Purge Trans Members from the Armed Services (Feb. 19, 2025)

Elizabeth Goitein and Katherine Yon Ebright, Trump’s Doubly Flawed “Invasion” Theory (Feb. 19, 2025)

Seth Binder, Sheridan Cole, and Haydn Welch, The Disastrous Costs of the Foreign Foreign Aid Freeze on US Interests in the Middle East and North Africa (Feb. 14, 2025)

Laura Booth, Can the President Dismantle the Department of Education by Executive Order? (Feb. 14, 2025)

Scott Busby, Freezing Support to Democracy and Human Rights Activists Undermines US Interests (Feb. 13, 2025)

Laura Thornton, Supporting Freedom and a Foreign Aid Freeze are Incompatible – But Perhaps the Point? A Case Study (Feb. 13, 2025)

Donell Harvin, The Need for Course Correction: The Risks of Treating Drug Cartels as Terrorist Threats (Feb. 12, 2025)

Winona Xu, As Sexual Violence Surges in Goma, US Aid Remains Crucial (Feb. 12, 2025)

16 US Human Rights Experts, Current and Former Members of UN Bodies, “The Trump Administration’s Attacks on International Law and Institutions”: Public Statement of American Human Rights Experts, Current and Former Members of UN Bodies (Feb. 10, 2025)

Simon Lomax, Greg Clough, Morgan Bazilian, Restarting US LNG Permitting Brings Geopolitical Benefits and the Potential for Climate Progress (Feb. 10, 2025)

Rebecca Hamilton, Connecting the Dots: Trump’s Tightening Grip on Press Freedom (Feb. 6, 2025)

Rachel Levinson-Waldman, The Dangerous Sweep of Trump’s Plan to Designate Cartels as Terrorist Organizations (Feb. 5, 2025)

Marty Lederman, The Most Indefensible Aspects of DOJ’s Briefs in the Birthright Citizenship Cases (Feb. 4, 2025)

Suzanne Summerlin, Federal Employee Rights: What Probationary Employees Need to Know (Jan. 31, 2025)

Faiza Patel, Trump’s Executive Order on Foreign Terrorists: Implications for the Rights of Non-Citizens (Jan. 31, 2025)

Sara Zdeb, The Real Reason Trump’s Purge of Career DOJ Officials Should Alarm You (Jan. 30, 2025)

Suzanne Summerlin, Beware the “Deferred Resignation” Offer: A Legally Dubious Proposal for Federal Employees (Jan. 29, 2025)

Stuart Gerson, Understanding Trump’s Choice for FBI Leadership in Light of the “Weaponization of the Federal Government” Executive Order (Jan. 29, 2025)

Adam Cox and Trevor Morrison, Trump’s Dictatorial Theory of Presidential Power – What the Executive Orders, in the Aggregate, Tell Us (Jan. 28, 2025)

Ambassador Donald Steinberg, `Elections Have Consequences’: Trump and Rubio’s Foreign Aid Halt Will Hit the World’s Most Vulnerable (Jan. 28, 2025)

Dafna H. Rand, Stopped Security Assistance: From Counter-Narcotics to Combating Human Trafficking Programs (Jan. 28, 2025)

Andrew Weissman, Why has the Trump Justice Department Not Moved to Dismiss the Case Against Trump’s Co-Defendants in the FLA Classified Documents Case? (Jan. 28, 2025)

Michael Schiffer, Stop-Work Order on US Foreign Aid Puts China First and America Last (Jan. 27, 2025)

Ambassador (Ret.) Dennis Jett, Deprofessionalizing the State Department Is a Threat to National Security (Jan. 24, 2025)

Jean Galbraith, The Legal Problem with Trump’s WHO Order: The US Cannot Withdraw Until It Pays Its Dues (Jan. 23, 2025)

Alex Abdo, A Free Speech View on the “Free Speech” Executive Order (Jan. 21, 2025)

Xiangnong (George) Wang, President Trump’s Attempt to “Save” TikTok is a Power-Grab that Subverts Free Speech (Jan. 21, 2025)

“What Just Happened” Podcast Series

Ryan Goodman, Tom Joscelyn, Mary B. McCord, Paras Shah and Clara Apt, Politicization and Weaponization of the Justice Department in the Second Trump Administration (Mar. 6, 2025)

David Aaron, Kevin Carroll, Paras Shah, and Clara Apt, CIA Officers’ Lawsuit at Intersection of DEI and National Security (Mar. 4, 2025)

David Aaron, Tess Bridgeman and Suzanne Summerlin, Understanding Federal Employee Rights (Feb. 18, 2025)

David Aaron, Tess Bridgeman, Ryan Goodman, and Mark Nevitt, Potential U.S. Military Domestic Deployment for Immigration Enforcement (Jan. 28, 2025)

Steve Vladeck, David Aaron, Tess Bridgeman, and Ryan Goodman, Trump’s Immigration Executive Orders (Jan. 22, 2025)

IMAGE: President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump takes office for his second term as the 47th president of the United States. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The post Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of Trump Administration Executive Actions appeared first on Just Security.

Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

Just Security — Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:02:19 -0400

This public resource tracks legal challenges to Trump administration actions. If you think we are missing anything, you can email us at lte@justsecurity.org. Special thanks to Just Security Student Staff Editors Anna Braverman, Isaac Buck, Rick Da, Charlotte Kahan, and Jeremy Venook, and to Matthew Fouracre and Nour Soubani.

The Tracker is part of the Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of the Trump Administration’s Executive Actions. Readers may also be interested in signing up for our free Early Edition roundup of news and our end-of-day newsletter with Just Security articles from the day (We respect your privacy. We do not use your email address for any other purpose except to automatically send you the requested email.)

Stay In the Know with co-editor-in-chief Ryan Goodman’s weekly newsletter with key takeaways from legal challenges to the Trump administration’s actions by subscribing (for free) via Substack.

The Tracker was first published on Jan. 29, 2025 and is continually updated. Last updated April 24, 2025.

Total number of cases tracked: 209 (including 4 closed cases)

Topic	Executive Action	Case Name	Complaint	Date Filed	Case Summary	Last Update
Immigration and Citizenship	Executive Action: Alien Enemies Act removals (Presidential Proclamation 10903)	G.F.F. v. Trump (S.D.N.Y.) Case No 1:25-cv-02886	Habeas petition and Class complaint Motion for TRO	2025-04-08	Overview: Plaintiffs are two Venezuelan nationals (proceeding under pseudonym) in immigration custody in New York. They have filed a habeas petition asking the court to stop the government from removing them from the United States the Alien Enemies Act Presidential Proclamation, and to declare the Proclamation unlawful. The case has been brought on behalf of themselves and a class of all other persons similarly situated, to include all noncitizens from Venezuela in immigration custody in the Southern District of New York, who were, are, or will be subject to the Proclamation. The court has temporarily blocked the Defendants from removing the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated in the Southern District of New York through Apr. 23, 2025. Case Summary: On March 15, 2025, President Donald Trump published a Presidential Proclamation titled “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua” (Proclamation), which sought to authorize removal of noncitizens from Venezuela who are deemed to be “enemy aliens” under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). Petitioners are two Venezuelan men who have been arrested and detained by immigration authorities, and allegedly face imminent deportation pursuant to the Proclamation. Petitioners argue that the removal process established under the Proclamation is unlawful. They argue that such process is ultra vires under the AEA, as the AEA only authorizes removals during a declared war or invasion of the United States by a foreign nation or government, and further requires additional process prior to removing noncitizens. They also argue that the removal process violates various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, including those that establish procedures and mechanisms for, as well as protections against, removal (including sending someone to a country where they are more likely than not to face torture). Finally, they argue that the removal process violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the right to habeas corpus. Petitioners have brought their petition and complaint on behalf of a similarly situated class, including all noncitizens in immigration custody who were, are, or will be subject to the Proclamation. Petitioners have requested that the court certify the class, grant a writ of habeas corpus to Petitioners that enjoins Defendants from removing them pursuant to the Proclamation, and declare the Proclamation unlawful. Update 1: On Apr. 11, the court certified the class and granted a temporary restraining order preventing their removal from the district or the United States. Update 2: On Apr. 17, petitioners filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction. The reply asserts that the government has not satisfied due process requirements under the AEA and that the proclamation violates both procedural requirements and Congressionally established protections for noncitizens seeking humanitarian protections.	2025-04-17
Immigration and Citizenship	Executive Action: Alien Enemies Act removals (Presidential Proclamation 10903)	J.A.V. v. Trump (S.D. Tex.) Case No. 1:25-cv-00072	Habeas petition (Apr. 9, 2025) Emergency Motion for TRO (Apr. 9, 2025)	2025-04-09	Overview: : Plaintiffs are three Venezuelan nationals (proceeding under pseudonym) in immigration custody in Texas. They have filed a habeas petition asking the court to stop the government from removing them from the United States the Alien Enemies Act Presidential Proclamation, and to declare the Proclamation unlawful. The case has been brought on behalf of themselves and a class of all other persons similarly situated, to include all noncitizens from Venezuela in immigration custody in the Southern District of Texas, who were, are, or will be subject to the Proclamation. The court has temporarily blocked the Defendants from removing the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated in the Southern District of Texas through Apr. 23, 2025. Case Summary: On March 15, 2025, President Donald Trump published a Presidential Proclamation titled “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua” (Proclamation), which sought to authorize removal of noncitizens from Venezuela who are deemed to be “enemy aliens” under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). Petitioners are three Venezuelan men who have been arrested and detained by immigration authorities at El Valle Detention Center in Texas, and allegedly face imminent deportation pursuant to the Proclamation. Petitioners argue that the removal process established under the Proclamation is unlawful. They argue that such process is ultra vires under the AEA, as the AEA authorizes removals only during a declared war or invasion of the United States by a foreign nation or government, and further requires additional process prior to removing noncitizens. They also argue that the removal process violates various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, including those that establish procedures and mechanisms for, as well as protections against, removal (including sending someone to a country where they are more likely than not to face torture). Finally, they argue that the removal process violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the right to habeas corpus. Petitioners have brought their petition and complaint on behalf of a similarly situated class, including all noncitizens in immigration custody in the Southern District of Texas who were, are, or will be subject to the Proclamation. Petitioners have requested that the court certify the class, grant a writ of habeas corpus to Petitioners that enjoins Defendants from removing them pursuant to the Proclamation, and declare the Proclamation unlawful. Petitioners filed an emergency application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) due to being in imminent danger of removal to another country. On April 9, 2025, Judge Fernando Rodriguez granted petitioners’ TRO on an ex parte basis and blocked Respondents from transferring, relocating, or removing petitioners "or any other person that Respondents claim are subject to removal under the Proclamation, from the El Valle Detention Center; and Respondents are enjoined from transporting such persons outside of Willacy County or Cameron County, Texas, without an Order from the Court." Absent further action, the TRO will be in place through Apr. 23, 2025.	2025-04-09
Immigration and Citizenship	Executive Action: Alien Enemies Act removals (Presidential Proclamation 10903)	Zacarias Matos v. Venegas (S.D. Tex.) Case No. 1:25-cv-00057	Habeas petition	2025-03-15	Overview: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers tried to remove Daniel Enrique Zacarias Matos, a Venezuelan national who is detained at the El Valle Detention Facility, from the United States. Zacarias Matos filed a petition to prevent his removal from the US unless and until he receives a final removal order. The Government asserts that the Alien Enemies Act authorizes his removal. The court has issued a preliminary injunction and set a hearing to assess evidence of the government’s claim that he is a member of the Venezuelan TdA gang. Summary: Daniel Enrique Zacarias Matos brought a habeas petition to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers from removing him from the United States unless and until he receives a final removal order. The Government states that the Alien Enemies Act, 50 U.S.C. § 21, authorizes his removal based on the March 15 Presidential Proclamation. ICE officials tried to remove Zacarias Matos, a Venezuelan national who is detained at the El Valle Detention Facility, from the United States on Mar. 14, but they were allegedly unable to do so due to a problem with the flight. Zacarias Matos claims that the attempt to remove him violates 8 U.S.C. § 1229a of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, and asked the Court to enjoin his imminent removal unless and until a removal order is entered against him. Update 1: On Apr. 7, Judge Fernando Rodriguez granted a preliminary injunction and set an evidentiary hearing for May 5 on whether the petitioner is a member of TdA.	2025-04-07
Immigration and Citizenship	Executive Action: Alien Enemies Act removals (Presidential Proclamation 10903)	D.B.U. v. Trump (D. Colo.) Case No. 1:25-cv-01163	Class petition for habeas	2025-04-12	Overview: On Mar. 14, President Donald Trump signed a presidential proclamation purporting to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to allow for removal of alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang. Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit arguing the Act does not apply to these circumstances, in addition to constitutional and other statutory arguments. The court has provisionally issued a temporary block to any removals of plaintiffs and the class they represent. Summary: On Mar. 14, President Donald Trump signed a Proclamation purporting to invoke the authority of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang. Two Venezuelan nationals in U.S. immigration custody have brought a proposed class action on behalf of all noncitizens in custody in Colorado who are, were, or will be subject to the Mar. 14 Proclamation, along with a habeas petition. They allege that the preconditions of the Alien Enemies Act have not been met and that the Proclamation is unlawful, that they have been denied the opportunity to voluntarily leave the U.S. in violation of the Alien Enemies Act, that the government has violated the Immigration and Naturalization Act and the Foreign Affairs and Reform and Restructuring Act, that they have been denied due process under the Fifth Amendment, and that they have been denied their right to habeas corpus. The Plaintiffs submitted an emergency application for a temporary restraining order asking the court to block any removals of plaintiffs and the class they represent from Colorado. Update 1: On Apr. 14, Judge Charlotte Sweeney temporarily blocked removal of the plaintiffs and the class they represent.	2025-04-14
Immigration and Citizenship	Executive Action: Alien Enemies Act removals (Presidential Proclamation 10903)	J.G.G. v. Trump (D.D.C) Case No. 1:25-cv-00766 (D.C. Cir No. 25-5067) Supreme Court docket 24A931	Petition Motion for TRO	2025-03-15	Overview: President Trump issued a presidential proclamation purporting to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to allow for summary removal of alleged members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang. The White House publicly released the proclamation on the afternoon of Mar. 15. Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit arguing the 1798 statute does not apply to these circumstances, and the judge provisionally agreed issuing a temporary block to any removals until further hearings. The Court of Appeals upheld the judge’s ruling on appeal. The district court issued two Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) against the government on Mar. 15 that have been extended through Apr. 12. Summary: On Mar. 14, President Trump signed a Proclamation purporting to invoke the authority of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang. In the early hours of Saturday, Mar. 15, five Venezuelan nationals in U.S. immigration custody brought a proposed class action lawsuit challenging the government’s action on the ground that the Alien Enemies Act does not provide authority for such removals; that the removals would be in violation of immigration statutes governing deportation proceedings and the Administrative Procedure Act, in addition to a violation of habeas corpus. The Plaintiffs submitted an emergency application for a temporary restraining order asking the court to block any removals from the United States. In an emergency hearing on Mar. 15, Chief Judge James Boasberg, first ruling from the bench, certified a class of “all noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to the Mar. 15, 2025 Presidential Proclamation,” and granted the request for a temporary restraining order to block removals of any class members from the United States. Update 1: The same day, Mar. 15, the government submitted a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit. The judge issued a verbal order, in a ruling from the bench, and a written TRO that evening. Update 2: On Mar. 17, Defendants moved to vacate the TRO. Update 3: On Mar. 18, Chief Judge James Boasberg issued a minute order requiring Defendants to submit a declaration explaining what time the flights that left U.S. airspace prior to the filing of the TRO departed and landed, when the individuals aboard left U.S. custody, and the number of people aboard subject to the President’s Proclamation. Update 4: On Mar. 19, Defendants made it clear that it wants to uncomplicate the Pentagon’s labyrinthian acquisition system. But the antiquated process that treats buying quadcopter drones the same as fighter jets is not the only thing that keeps commercial companies from national security work. While the Defense Department must ensure the software it puts on “government systems is secure in the event of various and even more sophisticated attacks,” the potentially yearslong process of getting an authority to operate is “a tremendous barrier in terms of the amount of time and cost it takes,” Liz Young McNally, the Defense Innovation Unit’s deputy director for commercial operations, said Wednesday at the Apex Defense forum. The authority-to-operate, or ATO, process is required to verify that software is safe to use. “It's one of those areas like, the intent behind it is good…we've made some progress, but there is a lot more that really needs to happen,” she said. The Trump administration has been very focused on acquisition reform to make it easier for companies to do business with the Pentagon. The efforts, including a software memo from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth directing contracting officers to use rapid buying tools, have been well received, while also zooming in on how larger cultural issues can slow down tech adoption. “Most people choose not to tailor,” said Melissa Johnson, who leads acquisition executive for U.S. Special Operations Command, during a keynote conversation at the forum. And that’s a training issue. [[Related Posts]] “Everybody needs to understand, in the acquisition community, all the tools that are available to them,” she said. “Because if you're only using one tool that you learned 20 years ago, and you think that's the only thing you're missing out on an opportunity to…be more flexible, go faster, and maybe solve problems that you couldn't solve before.” Young McNally said she’s “hopeful” that defense acquisition reform is on a glide path, but the ATO and other issues persist. The upside is that once a company lands an ATO within the Defense Department, there’s reciprocity with other defense organizations. The downside is system owners might not trust an ATO they didn’t have a hand in “to ensure the reciprocity actually happens and people trust each other on that,” Young McNally said. And that’s ultimately a culture concern around risk. “I know that you gave the ATO to them, but I don't fully trust, trust your ATO, because if something happens, I'm the one who's ultimately going to be blamed for it,” she said of the mentality that leads to systems owners pushing for companies to go through the ATO process even if they’ve already gotten one somewhere else. “The concern and fear of that happening and what that would do is bigger…than having that company hang out for another year, waiting to get the ATO. And that's a risk-based decision that we have, more collectively, gotten comfortable with.” The Defense Innovation Unit has been testing out rapid ATOs with some of its portfolio companies and is looking to see how that process can be scaled elsewhere. Budgets are another issue, including “how flexible the budget is and how much money we're going to be able to devote to commercial technology,” she said. “We're working on those in collaboration with other innovation organizations, the [Defense Department], Congress, etc. So there is work being done on each of those, but I think that's the next wave of barriers that we're going to have to solve in order to really ensure that technology gets in the hands of the warfighter at the speed we need.” ]]> Ex-Army Sergeant Gets 7 Years for Selling Military Secrets to Chinese Conspirator Neil Vigdor — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 20:29:21 -0400 Korbein Schultz, 25, who was an intelligence analyst, accepted $42,000 in bribes for sensitive documents, prosecutors said. He pleaded guilty in 2024. Boeing’s defense arm is back in the black, but ‘not claiming victory’ yet Audrey Decker — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 16:25:41 -0400 Boeing’s defense unit reported no losses last quarter, returning to profitability after nearly a year. Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg credited progress on several of its thorny programs, but cautioned that the Defense, Space & Security unit is not in the clear yet. BDS, which reported a record total of $4.9 billion losses last year, reported no losses in the first quarter of 2025. The company is making progress on the Air Force’s T-7 trainer and VC-25B presidential jets, with Ortberg saying that cost and schedule estimates are “well-contained.” “I'm not claiming victory here yet. We've got a lot of work to do on the [estimates to complete] on a lot of these programs, but I do think our discipline, cost risk management and active management with our customers to get to a win-win on these programs is helping. Obviously, our goal here is to get our defense business back up to a high-single-digit [margins] kind of performing business. And there's no reason, I see, we can't do that,” Ortberg said during the company’s first-quarter earnings call on Wednesday. On the T-7 program, Ortberg said the company has completed two “incentive milestones” as part of a revised agreement with the Air Force. The agreement, which was reached earlier this year, will give Boeing money to accelerate parts of the program and address other issues that weren’t part of the initial contract. Boeing has absorbed over $1 billion in losses on the T-7 program since it underbid to win the fixed-price contract and delays have put the program years behind schedule. The company is also working with the government to accelerate the VC-25B program and deliver new Air Force One jets earlier than the current timeline after delays have pushed delivery to the end of President Trump’s term, possibly 2028 or 2029. Trump has publicly criticized the program’s delays and has even considered looking at other options, including buying a used Boeing aircraft that could be retrofitted in the meantime. “On VC-25B, we continue to work with the customer to revise the program plan to allow for an earlier first delivery, while maintaining our focus on safety and quality,” Ortberg said. [[Related Posts]] While Boeing claims progress, the company is still working through problems with its troubled KC-46 tankers—deliveries of which have been halted since February after cracks were found in the “outboard fixed-trailing-edge support structure.” The Air Force and Boeing have not said when they expect deliveries to resume. The cracks don’t pose a safety risk and the rework is minor so “it really wasn't a big deal. It didn't disrupt the quarter at all,” said Brian West, Boeing’s chief financial officer. Despite ongoing challenges, Boeing executives highlighted their win of the Next Generation Air Dominance sixth-gen fighter jet as a “transformational accomplishment” for the company, one that will ensure the company’s fighter franchise for decades. Boeing won the NGAD engineering and manufacturing development contract in March as a cost-plus incentive fee deal, meaning the government fits the development expenses and the company gets a fee depending on how it performs. Investors pressed for details on future NGAD contracts and how much risk the company would be assuming. Ortberg said he couldn’t disclose anything related to the contract structure, but said they haven’t committed to “undo risk.” “Clearly, we haven't come off our strategy of ensuring we're entering into the appropriate contract type for the appropriate type of work. So I wouldn't worry that we've signed up to undo risk like we've done in some of our past fixed price programs, but that's about all I can say on that right now,” the CEO said. As Ortberg implements his turnaround plan, he’s selling off non-core parts of the company. Boeing announced this week that it would sell parts of its Jeppesen digital aviation solutions business to Thoma Bravo for $10.55 billion, and the CEO hinted that more sales would be coming. “We do have a couple more…that we're looking at. I would say that they're probably not going to be as big as Jeppesen, but we've got a couple more things that I'd like to action in the portfolio. I am done with the review, so I kind of have our mind on what we need to do here. I think a couple more smaller activities are probably in the cards, and we'll just have to see,” Ortberg said. The road to recovery for Boeing will be far from smooth, however, as Trump’s global trade war has already hurt the company's commercial deliveries. In response to tariffs, China has halted acceptance of new Boeing planes. Still, Ortberg remained confident that the company’s financial outlook remains intact, and he said contingency plans are in place. ]]> China’s rare-earth mineral squeeze will hit the Pentagon hard Patrick Tucker — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 15:23:01 -0400 China is beginning to restrict exports of rare-earth minerals crucial to U.S. military might—a long-warned-of vulnerability that is becoming an urgent reality. From tungsten in armor-piercing rounds to gallium in radars, the U.S. Defense Department has built a warfighting enterprise with a supply chain that runs straight through China. But recent developments threaten the Pentagon’s ability to maintain that enterprise. In early April, Beijing imposed sweeping export controls on seven rare earth elements used in everything from laser-guided weapons to MRI machines. The newly restricted elements—samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium, and yttrium—require a government-issued license for export, with Chinese officials citing “national security” justifications for the change. Dan Darling of Forecast International observed earlier this month that “while the latest step taken by China is not an outright ban, this licensing requirement will undoubtedly introduce uncertainty and limit the consistent flow of critical components to manufacturers. This action in an already volatile global marketplace echoes Beijing’s 2010 retaliation against Japan, highlighting the potential for the weaponization of crucial supply chain resources.” China has long dominated rare-earth mining and processing. But this latest decision tightens the faucet on materials needed for technologies ranging from hypersonic-missile guidance systems to cancer treatments. The measures follow similar export bans issued in December 2024 on gallium, germanium, and antimony—metals used in semiconductors, infrared optics, and armor-piercing munitions. [[Related Posts]] Since 2010, the Pentagon’s demand for components containing five critical minerals—antimony, gallium, germanium, tungsten, and tellurium—has surged, with contracts growing by 23.2% annually and gallium-related contracts alone increasing 41.8% per year. More than 80,000 distinct parts across 1,900 weapons now depend on these materials, or about 78% of all DoD weapons may be affected, according to a new report by the Govini data analytics firm. The Navy leads in dependency, with over 91% of its systems containing at least one of the minerals. Consider one example, gallium, a mineral that plays a big role in GPS systems as well as radars. “China’s export ban on antimony, gallium, and germanium, parts containing these critical minerals saw prices increase by an average of 5.2% after the ban, compared to procurements of those same parts the few months prior. More specifically, the price for components containing gallium increased by 6.0%, those with antimony by 4.5%, and germanium by 1.6%. All other parts increased by an average of only 1.4%.” But the chokepoint isn’t mining; it’s refinement. The U.S. often ships raw mineral precursors to China for processing and re-imports them as components. With Beijing's 2024 export bans now expanded to include tungsten and tellurium, that loop is closing. Even antimony mined in Australia becomes unusable for U.S. systems if refined in China. The result: 88% of DoD’s critical mineral supply chains are exposed to Chinese influence. Consider this: nearly all antimony used in key platforms such as the F-16, Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, and Minuteman III missile passes through China at some stage of processing. Only 19% is accessible without Chinese intermediaries. The strategic cost is already measurable—prices for gallium-containing parts jumped 6% within three months of the bans; antimony parts rose 4.5%, while all other DoD parts rose just 1.4%. Even if the U.S. escapes dependency on these five minerals, more vulnerabilities await. Magnesium—essential for airframes and missiles—is dominated by China and lacks a U.S. stockpile. The same goes for graphite and fluorspar, which are critical to rocket propulsion, lasers, and nuclear fuel processing. The report suggests a multi-front response. First, revive domestic processing capacity. The U.S. still has zero domestic sources for gallium, germanium, and tungsten, but recent federal investment has begun to yield results. For example, the Kennecott mine in Utah has helped cut tellurium import reliance from 95% in 2019 to just 25% in 2023 Second, the government must exploit mineral companionality—the fact that critical minerals often occur alongside others. A zinc mine in Tennessee could soon yield 30 tons of germanium and 40 tons of gallium annually, nearly matching China’s 2022 global exports of the same materials. But tapping these sources requires regulatory reform: most mining permits ignore companion minerals, delaying extraction by years. Third, use artificial intelligence and software to discover untapped byproducts across the U.S. industrial base—bringing overlooked commercial suppliers into the defense ecosystem. Finally, strategic stockpiles must grow—and in some cases, be established for the first time. Gallium and tellurium, for instance, still have no government reserves despite their critical status. DARPA has hired AI company HyperSpectral to do just that. As the report concludes, “America’s dependence on China for critical minerals represents a glaring and growing strategic vulnerability.” Unless addressed, that vulnerability may soon define the limits of U.S. deterrence—not in dollars or troop strength, but in elemental scarcity. ]]> Just Security Expands to Substack Just Security — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 12:41:54 -0400 *Find Just Security* on Substack!** Our main site isn’t going anywhere—but Substack is where you’ll find curated newsletters and exclusive content: ● A new way to connect with Just Security in your inbox: Newsletter \| Stay in the Know: Litigation Stay in the Know with Ryan Goodman on Just Security’s Trump Administration Litigation Tracker. Co-Editor-in-Chief Ryan Goodman will be providing major updates and key takeaways twice a week, answering reader questions, and sharing infographics to provide the big picture on legal challenges to Trump administration executive actions. Newsletter \| Democracy Dispatch A weekly round up diving into domestic and global challenges to democracy and the rule of law, curated by Senior Fellow Tom Joscelyn. Newsletter \| Early Edition The Early Edition is a weekday newsletter that delivers a concise, curated overview of breaking news, helping readers stay informed on global affairs and domestic developments — now available in audio on Substack. Newsletter \| What to Read Right Now A weekly selection of articles from Just Security, bringing you key law and policy analysis and commentary from leading experts on the issues that shape our world, curated by Managing Editor Megan Corrarino. ● Fresh insights from our editors—quick takes from leading experts through posts and videos ● Smart, visual storytelling on law and policy Watch our video on Substack to learn more: What to Expect from Just Security by Tess Bridgeman & Ryan Goodman Read on Substack Transcript Ryan Goodman: Hi Tess. Tess Bridgeman: Hey Ryan, and hello everyone. Welcome to Just Security‘s new Substack. If you’ve been looking for clear expert analysis on the most pressing issues in national security, democracy, law, and rights, you have come to the right place. Ryan Goodman: Just Security has existed as a daily digital journal for over a decade in which we built a relationship of trust with our readers. We’re now expanding onto Substack. Why? To provide additional ways to stay connected and engage with our audiences. Tess Bridgeman: I’m Tess Bridgeman. Ryan Goodman: And I’m Ryan Goodman. We’re the co-editors-in-chief of Just Security. Just Security is an editorially independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit publication. Tess Bridgeman: Our mission is straightforward, to empower you with high quality analysis and commentary from leading experts. Ryan Goodman:We’re thrilled, thrilled, thrilled to introduce Just Security and Substack as a new hub to cut through the noise and get the facts and analysis that matter on a very timely basis. Tess Bridgeman: Ryan and I have both served in government. We teach courses on law and policy, and we engage regularly with civil society organizations, with journalists, with members of Congress, with policymakers who want access to high-quality analysis and to get up to speed quickly. We believe that informed dialogue is essential for working toward a more just and secure world. That’s why we’re bringing our work to Substack to foster conversation and make our resources even more accessible. Ryan Goodman: Starting today, you’ll get access to newsletters designed to keep you in the know and ahead of the curve. At JustSecurity.org, we’ve built public resources like our litigation tracker, which monitors all the legal challenges against the Trump administration executive actions, all of them, now numbering over 190 cases, ranging from civil liberties to immigration, to the structure of government, to DOGE’s activities, support for public health, defunding museums and libraries, and much, much more. We covered the waterfront. So now in Substack, I’ll be sharing an exclusive newsletter at least twice a week with major updates in the court cases, key takeaways, infographics, all distilled for busy readers. Tess Bridgeman: Ryan, can you tell us a little bit more about what’ll be in the newsletter and how we can engage? Ryan Goodman: Sure. So we’ve decided to call it “Stay in the Know” and I’ll be taking questions from readers. I’ll be highlighting what’s coming up in key cases and zooming out and looking at the big picture across the entire span of the litigation. Tess Bridgeman: I will be looking forward to having that in my inbox. You can also sign up for other Just Security content like our curated daily news roundup called the Early Edition. If you prefer audio, you can sign up on Substack to get the podcast version delivered every weekday morning. We’ll also be spotlighting key articles, breaking news, and underreported topics. That will bring you context and analysis you won’t find elsewhere. And we’ll be rolling out more subject-specific newsletters soon, so stay tuned for following the topics that matter most to you. We’ll also, as with all Just Security content, be making sure you hear directly from experts, including in short videos, breaking down major developments in real time, and zooming out to give you key context and help make sense of the bigger picture. Ryan Goodman: And this is just the beginning. We believe that access to expert analysis is more important than ever. Tess Bridgeman: If you want to support access to independent nonprofit sources of analysis and information, follow us here on Substack. Ryan Goodman: We aim to keep all of our content free and available to all readers. So if you value our work, please consider a paid subscription. That kind of support helps us keep Just Security accessible for everyone. Tess Bridgeman: So join us, stay informed, and be part of the conversation. Ryan Goodman: And welcome to Just Security on Substack. Subscribe and stay connected: The post Just Security Expands to Substack appeared first on Just Security. The D Brief: More loose lips; Troops get detention powers; State’s coming cuts; Primes’ aircraft plans; And a bit more. Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 11:21:02 -0400 Forensics of a scandal: Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth reportedly moved information from a general shared on a classified channel and to at least two separate, unsecured chat threads on the messaging app Signal, Courtney Kube and Gordon Lubold of NBC News reported Tuesday, citing three U.S. officials “with direct knowledge of the exchanges.” *The information Hegseth shared on Signal originated from Central Command’s Army Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla,* who “was doing exactly what he was supposed to: providing Hegseth, his superior, with information he needed to know and using a system specifically designed to safely transmit sensitive and classified information,” Kube and Lubold write. “Less than 10 minutes elapsed between Kurilla’s giving Hegseth the information and Hegseth’s sending it to the two group chats.” *Why it matters:* “The sequence of events…could raise new questions about Hegseth’s handling of the information, which he and the government have denied was classified,” according to NBC. *Said Hegseth Tuesday on Fox:* “What was shared over Signal, then and now, however you characterize it, was informal, unclassified coordinations for media coordination, other things.” *As for the president,* “Pete’s doing a great job; everybody’s happy with him,” Trump told reporters Monday. Continue reading at NBC, here. *Behind the scenes at the Pentagon, “Hegseth surrounded himself with advisers who quickly turned into vicious rivals for power—whose bitter brawl has now unraveled into revenge power plays, surprise firings, accusations of leaking and embarrassing headlines that are blowing up the Pentagon, distracting from Trump’s agenda and possibly jeopardizing Hegseth’s job,” four reporters from Politico* reported Tuesday. *And Hegseth’s soon-to-be-departing chief of staff Joe Kasper “ran into trouble* at DOD by berating officials in meetings, calling military officials by a lower rank on purpose, and even graphically describing his bowel movements in high-level meetings,” Jack Detsch of Politico writes. Read more, here. Update: The U.S. military can now search and detain anyone in a “60-foot-wide zone of New Mexico land that runs along the U.S. border with Mexico [that] has been deemed part of Fort Huachuca, Ariz.,” Stars and Stripes reported Monday. *It’s being called “the New Mexico National Defense Area,”* previously known as the Roosevelt Reservation, and about 170 square miles of it was transferred to the U.S. military last week by the Interior Department. *“Through these enhanced authorities,* U.S. Northern Command will ensure those who illegally trespass in the New Mexico National Defense Area are handed over to Customs and Border Protection or our other law enforcement partners,” said Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot, NORTHCOM commander. More, here. *FWIW: Trump is losing support from voters on his strongest issue, immigration,* according to new polling from Reuters published Tuesday. “On a range of issues, from inflation and immigration to taxation and rule of law, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that Americans who disapproved of Trump's performance outnumbered those who approved on every issue in the poll. On immigration, his strongest area of support, 45% of respondents approved of Trump's performance but 46% disapproved.” More, here. New: Trump’s new Navy secretary said he’s “rescind[ed] the Biden Administration’s Navy Climate Action 2030 program,” which was released (PDF) three years ago. “Our focus needs to be on lethality and our warfighters,” SecNav John Phelan announced in a video posted to social media. *Phelan also just* *appointed* *former reporter Kristina Wong as the Navy’s chief spokeswoman. Like Phelan, Wong has no military experience. But she worked at Washington media outlet The Hill* before moving to Breitbart and curating a reliably pro-Trump social media feed that includes an image of rioters “peeking into the Capitol building” during the violent January 6 effort to overturn the 2020 U.S. election. Welcome to this Wednesday edition of The D Brief, a newsletter dedicated to developments affecting the future of U.S. national security, brought to you by Ben Watson and Bradley Peniston. Share your tips and feedback here. And if you’re not already subscribed, you can do that here. On this day in 1941, the Greeks evacuated Athens in the face of an invading Nazi military. King George II along with more than 50,000 allied British, Australian, New Zealand and Polish troops fled to Crete while an estimated 15,000 Greek soldiers and 3,700 Allied troops perished in the battle for Greece. Industry After NGAD loss, Lockheed says it will ‘supercharge’ F-35. After losing out on the Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance contract, Lockheed Martin plans to funnel the technology into its F-35 program, CEO Jim Taiclet said on Tuesday’s earning call. “I challenged the team to deliver 80% of sixth-gen capability at 50% of the cost,” Taiclet said. Audrey Decker has a bit more, here. Northrop takes $477M loss on B-21 to speed up production, cover materials costs. At the company’s Tuesday earnings call, CEO Kathy Warden said Northrop Grumman and the Air Force “jointly” made the decision to invest in ways to make the stealth bomber more quickly than the Pentagon has so far required. She also said that materials costs had risen more than anticipated. The new loss brings projected losses on the first five production lots past $2 billion. Decker reports, here. Trump 2.0 Staff cuts coming to Foggy Bottom: The State Department will eliminate 15 percent of its domestic staff as part of a reorganization that will close one-sixth of its 734 offices and bureaus, officials said Tuesday. Of the remaining 602 offices and bureaus, 137 are expected to be moved around within the department, Government Executive’s Eric Katz reports. *For now, the changes will only affect domestic offices.* Department officials told employees they had made no decisions on embassy, consulate, or overseas post closures. *Update: Amid reports of his departure from Trump’s White House, Elon Musk said he wants to keep the job* even if it’s just one or two days per week, he told investors on a conference call Tuesday. Reuters has more. *Additional reading:* “Veterans affairs agency orders staff to report each other for ‘anti-Christian bias’,” the Guardian reported Tuesday. Ukraine Trump Tower Moscow? Russian negotiators are reportedly trying to “bait” Trump into a “grand bargain” over the future of Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine invasion. That alleged effort includes extending the U.S. president an offer of “rare earths deals and geopolitical leverage in Iran and North Korea [as well as] a long-dreamed-of Trump Tower in Moscow,” the Moscow Times reported Monday, citing “Five current Russian government officials, including two diplomats, three sources close to the Kremlin and employees of three major state-owned companies.” *Occupation watch:* “The scale on which Russian authorities are seizing Ukrainian property is staggering,” writes Karolina Hird at the Institute for the Study of War, citing, among other things, a BBC investigation into Russian appropriations in the occupied city of Mariupol. More, here. *Related reading:* “Russia Welcomes U.S. Proposal to Deny NATO Membership to Ukraine,” the Wall Street Journal reports, noting that Moscow continues to slow-walk actual progress toward the ceasefire the White House says it wants; And the “Trump administration unwinds efforts to investigate Russian war crimes.” The Washington Post reports that the U.S. has “moved to withdraw from an international group led by the European Union that was created to punish Moscow for violating international law in its invasion of Ukraine” and “reduced the work of the Justice Department’s War Crimes Accountability Team and dismantled a program to seize assets of sanctioned Russian oligarchs.” Etc. And lastly: Europe is realigning—but can leaders keep citizens on board? In a Defense One commentary, Michaela Millender and Clara Broekaert of The Soufan Center applaud European leaders’ galvanized efforts to build up the continent’s defenses, but warn about the difficulties of persuading their populaces to stay the expensive course. Read that, here. ]]> Nano-material breakthrough could revolutionize night vision Patrick Tucker — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 11:00:00 -0400 A new way to make large ultrathin infrared sensors that don’t need cryogenic cooling could radically change night vision for the military or even autonomous vehicles. Night vision (thermal) is clunky, power-intensive, and requires cooling components that could be hard to get, especially in the event of a conflict with China. But the U.S. Air Force, Army, and special operations forces have growing needs for night-vision, as do next-generation autonomous vehicle makers. In a study published today in Nature, researcher Jeehwan Kim of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, along with collaborators from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Seoul National University, unveiled a process called “atomic lift-off,” or ALO, which creates extremely thin layers of special crystal material that can stand on their own without being stuck to, say, a graphene lattice. The resulting skin is thinner than 10 nanometers. Most infrared sensors today, like the widely used mercury cadmium telluride detectors, have a big drawback: they need to be kept extremely cold—about -321°F—which means heavy, power-hungry cooling systems. That makes them hard to use in compact military gear, drones, or satellites, where space and power are limited. The researchers found a way around that problem. They created an ultra-thin film, less than a hundredth the width of a human hair, made from a special material called PMN-PT. This material can sense tiny changes in heat with record-breaking sensitivity—about 100 times better than many older materials such as lithium tantalate. [[Related Posts]] Most importantly, PMN-PT sensors work at room temperature. That means they can detect a wide range of heat signatures in the far-infrared spectrum without needing to be chilled—potentially transforming how we build night vision and heat-sensing devices. The researchers proved that their new technique could be used to make larger and thinner infrared sensor films without losing quality. They created membranes just 10 nanometers thick and 10 millimeters wide—about the size of a fingernail—while keeping the crystal structure smooth and consistent. They also built working infrared sensor arrays from slightly thicker membranes (80 nanometers) and found that every single device in the batch of 108 worked perfectly. The thinner 10nm versions were harder to handle during manufacturing, so fewer of those survived the process, but the ones that did still worked well. The material can respond to wavelengths across the entire infrared spectrum, allowing the wearer to see more clearly than current night-vision would allow, or potentially to enable autonomous vehicles to better detect obstacles, threats, or pedestrians, even in foggy or difficult conditions that might inhibit cameras or other common sensors. Even after being transferred to a new surface, the sensors kept their electrical performance. In tests, they stayed stable over time and detected heat as effectively as today’s best cooled infrared detectors—without needing heavy cooling equipment. The project was supported by grants from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. military isn’t just looking for smaller, more effective night vision, but also for new solutions that don’t rely on minerals, materials, or components from China. China is a major global supplier of thermal imaging equipment as well as germanium and chalcogenide, two key minerals in lenses required for thermal imaging. This research points to a new kind of vision: not just night vision without cooling, but a production method for faster and cheaper development of night vision equipment with more U.S. components. ]]> Deportation to CECOT: The Constitutional Prohibition on Punishment Without Charge or Trial Ahilan Arulanantham — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 09:04:49 -0400 Despite the blizzard of commentary involving the government’s recent invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and the fate of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to my knowledge almost no one seems to have made a seemingly obvious legal (and moral) point. Sending alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang to CECOT, a maximum security prison in El Salvador, constitutes punishment, and therefore cannot be imposed without trial under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The omission is perhaps understandable given how novel the administration’s actions have been. Although many immigrants rights advocates and scholars, including me, had closely analyzed the legality of invoking the Act in the months before the election, no one anticipated El Salvador’s involvement. And it probably doesn’t help that the attorneys litigating the challenges are primarily versed in the constitutional rights of immigrants and national security law, in which the Supreme Court long ago decided deportation itself is not punishment. Instead, much of the recent development in litigation alleging unconstitutional punishment has involved state treatment of sex offenders. Nonetheless, the claim in the El Salvador removal cases is compelling, as other attorneys and I argued recently in the case of Daniel Zacarias Matos, one of the men who narrowly managed to escape being put on the plane to CECOT because a federal judge in South Texas enjoined his removal only hours before the planes left. As we explained, the prohibition on punishment without trial applies to everyone under the U.S. Constitution—including people who have conclusively lost the right to be in the country and people deemed enemies during a war. Even during the Chinese Exclusion Era, when the Supreme Court upheld several other draconian anti-Chinese immigration laws, it struck down a provision that authorized imprisonment at hard labor without trial for people ordered removed. Similarly, while the Supreme Court has upheld the preventive detention of enemy combatants, it has made clear that such detention cannot include punishment. On the contrary, as the Court explained, punishing enemy soldiers without trial is a war crime. That leaves only one element in the legal equation: how do we assess whether sending someone to CECOT, the notorious maximum security prison for alleged Salvadoran gang members, constitutes punishment? One might think the answer self-evident. Everyone who knows about CECOT knows that it is not a civil detention center, and the inhumane conditions there have been well-documented. Detainees spend 23.5 hours a day in communal cells that have no furniture beyond rows of stacked metal bunks without mattresses or pillows. The lights are apparently always on, making sleep extremely difficult. El Salvador’s own justice minister has said the only way out is in a coffin. (See also Chief Judge James Boasberg’s summary (pp. 33-34)) But of course law sometimes obscures what reality plainly reveals. So what does the legal doctrine concerning punishment have to say on the issue? In general, the law in this area does not create robust constraints. The Supreme Court has tolerated a number of sanctions that might feel like punishment, including most obviously the potentially-indefinite detention of certain people convicted of child sex crimes. Under the governing test, where the legislature has made clear its intent to establish a civil sanction, only the “clearest proof” will lead a court to reject that classification and instead treat the sanction as punishment. Nonetheless, the punishment doctrine does contain a few meaningful safeguards. First, the government cannot state that it intends to punish, but refuse to provide the protections that must accompany its imposition, including most obviously a jury trial. That rule does not provide much protection in most situations, however, as government officials can simply disclaim any intent to punish and thereby evade constitutional constraints. For example, the Supreme Court upheld post-conviction sex offender detention in part because the state had authorized it in the probate code, and at least gestured toward providing treatment in order to “cure” people of pedophilia, which it characterized as a serious mental disorder. But in those rare cases where the government actually admits that its purpose is to bring retribution to wrongdoers, or to make an example of them to deter others, courts view those policies as ones that must be effectuated through the mechanisms of criminal trial. Two other constraints on government action in this context also warrant mention. First, when the government purports to confine someone (that is, to incarcerate them) for reasons other than punishment, the conditions of confinement must be reasonably related to their purpose. This is why, for example, the Supreme Court has held that people who do not have a mental illness cannot be held in a mental hospital. In keeping with that rule, where conditions in a facility are identical to those used for convicted criminals, that generally indicates punitive intent, because civil detainees are generally entitled to “more considerate treatment.” Of course, as anyone familiar with our jail system knows, pre-trial detainees and people serving short sentences are often housed together. The Supreme Court has also upheld pretrial detention based on dangerousness where it found no stated legislative intent to punish. Nonetheless, where the state confines someone in conditions utilized for maximum security prisoners with no other ostensible purpose for imposing those conditions, a court would likely find such conditions strongly suggestive of punitive intent. Second, when the government confines someone to stop conduct the individual cannot control (or for which they cannot be held responsible for other reasons), courts traditionally have not viewed such detention as punishment. And the converse is also true. If the government confines a group of people on the basis of intentional conduct (scienter), that counsels in favor of treating it as punishment. That understanding reflects long-held principles in our legal system that the law does not punish wholly involuntary acts, but does punish voluntary ones. This is why, in the sex offender context, the Supreme Court has required a showing of an individual’s lack of control when the state seeks to place people in civil detention based on the risk they will commit sex offenses. That principle also explains the rationale behind the detention of enemy combatants under the law of war itself. As the Supreme Court explained in a case about prisoners held at a military base at the close of World War II, “[t]he alien enemy is bound by an allegiance which commits him to lose no opportunity to forward the cause of our enemy; hence the United States, assuming him to be faithful to his allegiance, regards him as part of the enemy resources. It therefore takes measures to disable him from commission of hostile acts.” Where the government imposes additional restrictions, beyond those needed to “disable” a foreign soldier from returning to the fight, however, those restrictions are presumptively punitive. Applying those rules here confirms what common sense should already tell us: the government’s plan to send Venezuelans accused of being “enemy aliens” to CECOT is unconstitutional punishment without trial. Most obviously, high-level Executive Branch officials touting the plan have repeatedly said that its purpose is to punish. Perhaps the clearest evidence of this comes from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who visited CECOT after the initial flights sending Venezuelan citizens there. She produced a video in which she thanked the Salvadoran government for “incarcerat[ing] [alleged Tren de Aragua members] and to have consequences for the violence that they have perpetuated.” She added: “I also want everybody to know, if you come to our country illegally, this is one of the consequences you might face” (emphases added). She captioned the video with another telling statement: “President Trump and I have a clear message to criminal illegal aliens: LEAVE NOW. If you do not leave, we will hunt you down, arrest you, and you could end up in this El Salvadorian prison.” Similarly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the agreement as one for people convicted of crimes, stating El Salvador had agreed to “accept for deportation any illegal alien in the United States who is a criminal from any nationality . . .” Salvadoran President Bukele described it the same way, stating: “[w]e are willing to take in only convicted criminals (including convicted US citizens) into our mega-prison (CECOT) in exchange for a fee.” Beyond these statements of intent, everything we know about the conditions of confinement at CECOT suggests it is designed to punish, rather than simply to “disable” the people held there. The Salvadoran government uses the supermax facility as a prison for convicted Salvadorans, and the horrific conditions there—including the absence of recreational time and inhumane sleeping conditions, among others—make clear that it is a site of punishment. And, unlike traditional “enemy alien” wartime restrictions, which attach to people based on their nationality alone, this Administration’s novel version applies only to those Venezuelans who are members of Tren de Aragua, which people choose to join through a voluntary act. In other words, as the Supreme Court said in a case about punishment, “it comes into play only on a finding of scienter.” If the foregoing is correct, then our government cannot send people to CECOT without the panoply of protections required by the criminal law and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Among many other changes to its policy that would be required, the government would have to charge them with a crime—one written down in a criminal statute—rather than simply alleging they are members of a designated foreign terrorist organization. And then of course the government would have to provide them with counsel and ultimately prove those charges through jury trial. The present administration is of course unlikely to do any of this. Given that, one might wonder what legal purpose would be served by seeking such a ruling. After all, as many others and I have argued, there are strong reasons to believe the administration has no authority to invoke the Alien Enemies Act at all in response to its imaginary “invasion.” Nor is it obvious that the government could outsource punishment to the Salvadoran government, even if it could charge some crime and secure conviction against the people it has labeled Tren de Aragua members. Nonetheless, I think the overwhelming evidence suggesting that the government’s conduct is punishment without trial in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments warrants significant attention, because a favorable judicial ruling on the theory I describe would mean a great deal to the people who have been subjected to the horrors of the administration’s purported Alien Enemies Act invocation. The three men I have represented in habeas litigation under the Act were all scared to return to Venezuela, but they were absolutely terrified of being sent to CECOT. They firmly believed, for good reasons, that there would be no coming back from that place. That alone is reason to seek a ruling that the government’s current course of action constitutes punishment. IMAGE: In this handout photo provided by the Salvadoran government, members of the Salvadoran army stand guard at the gates of the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) at CECOT on March 16, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. Trump’s administration deported 238 alleged members of the Venezuelan criminal organizations ‘Tren De Aragua’ and Mara Salvatrucha with only 23 being members of the Mara. (Photo by Salvadoran Government via Getty Images) The post Deportation to CECOT: The Constitutional Prohibition on Punishment Without Charge or Trial appeared first on Just Security. Europe is realigning—but can leaders keep citizens on board? Clara Broekaert and Michaela Millender — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 09:00:00 -0400 This commentary is published in coordination with the 2025 Global Security Forum, of which Defense One is a media partner. Last month’s Signal chat scandal was the latest of several moves by the three-month-old Trump administration that have—at last—catalyzed European action toward strategic autonomy and defense capabilities. Now European leaders must keep their citizens on board. At the EU and among member states, some of the most entrenched taboos around greater European autonomy seem to have dissipated in the past months. Centrists in Europe have seen their support increase after the unceremonious and mediatized collapse of existing norms around U.S. allyship. French President Emmanuel Macron recently reiterated his willingness to extend France's nuclear deterrence to other European nations. The new German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has stated his interest in discussing such a proposal with France and the United Kingdom. Germany also approved a €1 trillion defense package, a dramatic shift away from the country’s sometimes-paralyzing post-war pacifism and resistance to militarization. Poland, one of the EU’s leaders in defense spending, has expressed its aim of gaining access to nuclear arms and to a larger military. Even laggards such as Belgium have sought to boost spending on critical military equipment. The European Commission has proposed a plan to mobilize up to €800 billion for defense spending over four years. This includes €150 billion in loans for joint armament projects and activating a fiscal escape clause that permits member states to spend up to 1.5 percent of GDP on defense without breaching EU budget rules. Critically, European capitals and the EU itself have framed the re-armament of Europe as intertwined with the defense of Ukraine. Critical and potentially fatal gaps will emerge for Ukrainian armed forces if Europe is unable to provide the advanced air defense systems, long-range strike capabilities, specialized munitions and satellite-based intelligence the U.S. has been supplying. And countries are moving towards a “coalition of the willing” to safeguard a future ceasefire deal—an effort that has brought the EU and the United Kingdom closer than they have been since Britain voted to leave the bloc in 2016. Ukraine may even be a model for the future of a cost-effective European re-armament effort. The country has a rapidly growing advanced and competitive military industrial base, largely bankrolled through the so-called “Danish model.” Its more entrepreneurial nascent defense industry thus offers Europe a strategic opportunity: a cohesive defense ecosystem combining Ukraine’s cost-effective production and Europe’s funding, partially allowing for rapid European re-armament. Still, there is reason for skepticism about whether Europe can efficiently implement and maintain its rapid re-armament and rebuilding of its defense industry. Pain points include stunted joint procurement efforts, lack of interoperability, differing strategic cultures, fragmentation of the defense industry—and even pushback from U.S. officials who say Europe must arm itself without buying fewer U.S. weapons. Some analysts are forecasting a backlash to increased defense spending, tied to demographic crisis and corollary economic woes. The number of people over 65 has surpassed those under age 15, intensifying the pressure on the welfare state, particularly in areas like pensions and healthcare. Many European countries already have high debt-to-GDP ratios, meaning that increases in defense funding require difficult guns-vs-butter decisions. As European leaders move to rapidly increase their defense capabilities in the longer term, many will seek to expand defense partnerships in the present, even with complicated allies. Perhaps the most obvious example is Türkiye, who has emerged as a key potential partner with considerable leverage over European leaders. Türkiye’s membership in NATO, including the alliance’s second-largest military after the United States, and its robust arms industry renders the country a relatively ideal alternative. Türkiye was also included in a list of non-EU countries who could potentially benefit from the European Commission’s new €150 billion rearmament fund. But Türkiye also shows how the prioritization of defense may supersede Europe’s foreign-policy ideals. Turkish President Erdogan’s recent crackdown on his political opposition drew few of the condemnations that have previously met the country’s slide into authoritarianism. This tradeoff has its precedent in Tunisia, to which the EU has sent millions of euros to reduce migration despite the documented human rights abuses by Tunisian security forces. The urgency of the moment may increase the difficult choices in Brussels and other European capitals, and, as the Tunisia example exemplifies, could be costly. The revelations of abuse of migrants in Tunisia led to an outcry in Europe, and the EU now must reconfigure its partnership with Tunis while being unable to reacquire the funds it has already dispatched. Leaders who a rush for U.S. defense alternatives may need to turn a blind eye to human rights concerns and democratic principles, and could see consequences with the electorate. Moreover, U.S. alternatives are far from an exact one-for-one exchange; new partners, such as Türkiye, do not provide the same high-tech defense and intelligence capabilities as the US—not to mention the shared history, including joint missions, democratic values, and allyship in the post-World War II era. Defense spending at the expense of social welfare programs could affect the European political landscape. Populist politicians and figures across the ideological spectrum have described an alleged disconnect between Brussels’ priorities and those of the European electorate, mobilizing tens of thousands in Europe for protests over the cost of living, particularly energy prices. Centrists’ bump in support may not outlast the next elections. To weather these effects, European leaders must develop messaging for the defense investment beyond esoteric values, which, at times, can be difficult to connect to the daily lives and needs of citizens. European leaders should remain clear-eyed and pragmatic in their search for alternative alliances, recognizing the need for supplementation while developing their own capabilities. Michaela Millender is a Research Analyst at The Soufan Center. Clara Broekaert is a Research Fellow at The Soufan Center and a Multi-Mission Analyst at The Soufan Group. ]]>

U.S. National Security and Military News Review

Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan Arrested by FBI in Immigration Dispute

Taliban Leader Pleads Guilty to Taking the American Journalist David Rohde Hostage

White House tries again to issue a workforce-reduction order that can survive legal scrutiny

El uso del teléfono personal del secretario de Defensa de EE. UU. creó un riesgo de seguridad

Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan Arrested, Accused of Shielding Immigrant From Federal Agents

Ideological purges reduce deterrence, readiness, and effectiveness. Just ask Stalin

The D Brief: India-Pakistan tensions rise; China’s ‘ChatGPT for robots’; Golden Dome price tag; Robot-wingman reversal; And a bit more.

Even more Hegseth comms problems

Around the Defense Department

Trump 2.0

Wisconsin Judge Arrested, Accused of Shielding Immigrant From Federal Agents

Is the New Global Order a Boon for International Taxation Collaboration?

An Emerging Global Taxation Framework

Why Progress on International Tax Reform Matters

Progress is Possible – With or Without the United States

IMAGE: General view of the G20 finance ministers meeting as Brazilian Finance Minister Fernando Haddad speaks in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on February 28, 2024. (Photo by NELSON ALMEIDA/AFP via Getty Images)

Hegseth’s Personal Phone Use Created Vulnerabilities

Shaping the World’s AI Future: How the U.S. and China Compete to Promote Their Digital Visions

The United States and China: Diverging Strategies for Global AI Leadership

AI Diffusion: The Importance of Quality, Reach, and Adaptability

Toward Meaningful Technological Leadership

IMAGE: Visualization of global technology (via Getty Images)

The AI arms race will be won on mathematical proof

International Law at the Precipice: Holding Leaders Accountable for the Crime of Aggression in Russia’s War Against Ukraine

Hegseth’s Personal Phone Use Created Vulnerabilities, Analysts Say

Early Edition – April 25, 2025

United States : On Capitol Hill, hints of the future of US intelligence, from streamlining to the return of counterterrorism

Ukraine : The Barman Dictat in Kyiv, where spies converge in a clandestine speakeasy

Bulgaria/United States : Sanctioned Bulgarian businessmen eye Donald Trump Jr visit

Japan/Ukraine : Japanese drone operator gets involved in mine clearance in Ukraine

Next wave of Air Force drone wingmen could be cheaper, official says

DIU barrels ahead with tri-regional expansion plans

China’s military aims to harness the coming ‘ChatGPT for robotics’

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Revive Ban on Transgender Troops

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Revive Transgender Military Ban

The D Brief: WH pressures Ukraine; Hegseth latest; Rare-earths squeeze; Boeing’s no-loss quarter; And a bit more.

SecDef latest

Trump 2.0

How March 31 Military Flight of Venezuelan Nationals to El Salvador Most Likely Violated Court Order

Image credit: Minister of Justice and Public Security Héctor Gustavo Villatoro, pointing, accompanies Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center (CECOT) on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador (Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

Indonesia needs a two-track approach to its foreign-fighter problem

Justice Department Fails to Address Central Point in VOA Case

Separation of Powers

“Arbitrary and Capricious” Acts

Much damage has already been done

Kash Patel Embraces the Limelight, Unlike Recent F.B.I. Directors

Early Edition: April 24, 2025

Trump pressures Zelenskyy to accept pro-Russian deal

Hegseth Set Up Signal on a Computer in His Pentagon Office

Pete Hegseth Blunders Into His Forever War

Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of Trump Administration Executive Actions

A. Resources

B. “What Just Happened” Series

C. Analysis and Perspectives

“What Just Happened” Podcast Series

IMAGE: President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump takes office for his second term as the 47th president of the United States. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

Ex-Army Sergeant Gets 7 Years for Selling Military Secrets to Chinese Conspirator

Boeing’s defense arm is back in the black, but ‘not claiming victory’ yet

China’s rare-earth mineral squeeze will hit the Pentagon hard

Just Security Expands to Substack

Find Just Security on Substack!

Watch our video on Substack to learn more:

Transcript

Subscribe and stay connected:

The D Brief: More loose lips; Troops get detention powers; State’s coming cuts; Primes’ aircraft plans; And a bit more.

Industry

Trump 2.0

Ukraine

Etc.

Nano-material breakthrough could revolutionize night vision

Deportation to CECOT: The Constitutional Prohibition on Punishment Without Charge or Trial

Europe is realigning—but can leaders keep citizens on board?

**Find Just Security on Substack!**