On Wednesday, Axios wrote a piece outlining how President Trump’s own statements could threaten his trade policy objectives: “President Trump wants to invoke a national security provision to stop the ‘dumping’ of cheap steel into America, but trade lawyers believe Trump's public statements —and dubious legal reasoning—could expose the administration to significant legal problems.”
Latest in Trade and Security
The expected election in Taiwan of Democratic Progressive Party candidate Tsai Ing-wen is likely to get a cold reception from China. How strong, exactly, is the U.S. obligation to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack?
What sort of effect would a consolidation of Chinese cyber forces have on cyber operations directed at the United States, particularly in the wake of the recent agreement?
The recent news about Volkswagen’s manipulation of emissions test results reveals a different kind of insider threat, one that damages the bonds of trust between society and the institutions upon which we rely for many aspects of our lives.
Llewelyn Hughes and Austin Long argue that current thinking in the United States and the West about the security implications of potential disruptions to global energy markets is flawed.
Today at 2:00 pm, Lawfare's Herb Lin, along with Richard Bejtlich and Gregory Shannon, will provide testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on "Understanding the Cyber Threat and Implications for the 21st Century Economy."
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has announced that she plans to introduce new legislation aimed to "significantly strengthen drone safety laws to protect U.S. airline passengers and U.S. airspace." The announcement comes in a letter to FAA Administrator Michael Heurta, in which she cites evidence of more than 190 drone safety incidents in the last nine months.
Foreign Purchases of U.S. Businesses, Presidential Power, and National Security: Ralls Corp. v. CFIUS
When then-Representative Barney Frank contemplated the ability of foreign interests to acquire American companies at the expense of national security, he made the following statement:
There is no right to buy. You do not have to file [with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), but by not filing, you do not immunize yourself from a finding that the transaction could be canceled on security grounds.
Released today: this quite significant order, containing the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland Security---or the "No-Fly List Case" [h/t Wired].
A veteran administration official emailed me just now in response to my piece last night on congressional Republicans and the shutdown: "Nice Piece (on the shutdown)," the official writes. "You are right about the impact it is having. Our sanctions efforts are crippled: Nobody home to detect violations or go after violators." Great.
Keep it up, guys.