As part of Lawfare’s Sept. 11 essay collection, former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson argued that now, 25 years after 9/11 transformed how the U.S. approaches homeland security, it is time to substantially reorganize it. Johnson proposed streamlining the many agencies and departments that make up the patchwork system into a single Cabinet-level agency that combines law enforcement, counterterrorism, cybersecurity, and aviation security while keeping certain immigration and disaster response functions separate.
Paul Rosenzweig traced how the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) evolved from a border security and counterterrorism initiative to monitoring domestic threats and finally to a sprawling immigration apparatus. Rosenzweig argued that though each shift was often justifiable, together they gradually resulted in a DHS that has lost sight of its original mission and its remaining public support.
Chinmayi Sharma analyzed the origins of automated immigration enforcement, arguing that today’s immigration system has its origins in data-sharing approaches first conceived after 9/11. Sharma explained how systems once designed to prevent intelligence oversights have since quietly expanded into a massive ecosystem of data on millions of Americans.
Michel Paradis and Nick Lewin discussed the plea agreements the 9/11 defendants detained in Guantanamo Bay reached with prosecutors, and that the government later backed out of. Paradis and Lewin argued that the agreements were the only chance at justice for both the defendants and 9/11 victim families, and they urged the Supreme Court to review whether the government can withdraw from the agreement.
Kenneth Propp** **reviewed how, following 9/11, the U.S. and EU formed a series of agreements that altered precedent for transatlantic counterterrorism cooperation and international law. Together, Propp explained, the agreements greatly expanded U.S.-EU data sharing, created the expectation of mutual aid, and solidified the EU as a legal body to negotiate with.
On* Lawfare Daily*, Katherine Pompilio spoke with five members of the Lawfare team—Julia Curlee, Michael Feinberg, Natalie Orpett, Loren Voss, and Benjamin Wittes—to talk about how 9/11 shaped the U.S. national security apparatus and their careers. They examined what that apparatus looked like before 9/11, which of the legal and institutional structures built in response have outlived their original purpose, and what a younger generation should understand about the world those structures were built to answer.
Scott R. Anderson discussed Lawfare’s decision to sue the State Department over its failure to release documentation of its international agreements. Anderson broke down what the lawsuit alleges, why *Lawfare *decided the suit was necessary, recent litigation developments, and what comes next.
On Rational Security, Anderson celebrated the fifth anniversary of Rational Security 2.0 with co-hosts emeriti Shane Harris, Quinta Jurecic, and Wittes. The four sat in brutal judgment of this year’s Hot Take Takedown pitches provided by Curlee, Feinberg, and Molly Roberts on topics ranging from the President’s Daily Brief to the Bourne movies.
On Lawfare Daily, Wittes sat down with Anna Bower, Eric Columbus, Roberts, and Roger Parloff to discuss Judge Boasberg’s denial of the government’s motion to dismiss Lawfare’s suit seeking information on international agreements; developments in President Trump’s targeting of mail voting; updates in litigation over the Triumphal Arch; and more.
On this week’s* Lawfare Live*: The Trials of the Trump Administration,** **Wittes sat down with Roberts, Bower, Parloff, Columbus, and Peter Beck to discuss the latest developments in litigation surrounding the Trump administration, including the administration’s attacks on mail voting and more.
Also on Lawfare Daily, Orpett sat down with Brad Heath to discuss his reporting on the National Guard’s deployment in D.C. They talked about what he learned from reviewing thousands of criminal cases and talking to everyone from National Guard members to D.C. officials, how it maps onto the legal analysis of whether the Guard is operating lawfully, and more.
Benjamin Press explained that the Department of Defense has recently acquired several equity stakes in critical mineral and defense technology companies, but has not clearly stated under what authority it is doing so. Press suggested that the Pentagon is likely relying on stretched readings of its existing authorities that don’t clearly hold up. He added that the department’s stakes in companies from which it also procures goods create a conflict of interest that could open the department up to lawsuits from competing companies.
On* Lawfare Daily*, Tyler McBrien sat down with Nina Hachigian to discuss her recent piece in Foreign Affairs, entitled “The Autocrat’s Worst Enemy: Why Despots Hate Cities and the Mayors Who Run Them.” They considered how cities are both “laboratories of democracy” and backstops against democratic backsliding, what U.S. mayors can learn about resisting autocracy from their counterparts abroad, and more.
Sara Shah and Tal Feldman explained that the data center buildout largely relies on colocation, where multiple companies house their servers in the same physical facility. They warned that this could put U.S. artificial intelligence (AI) servers in the same facility as Chinese tenants, exposing valuable data to espionage attempts that don’t require sophisticated hacking.
Ibrahim Dagher explained that the development of Chinese AI models relies on purchasing training environments created by U.S. firms. He argued that by restricting such sales, China’s AI development could be slowed and U.S. firms’ competitive edge maintained.
Michael McLaughlin and Harvey Rishikof unpacked new Department of Defense memos that suspend phase two of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification Program. The authors explained that pausing the program leaves the Pentagon on legally shaky ground by attempting to alter a binding rule without providing public comment opportunities and justification. McLaughlin and Rishikof argued that the pause is not only legally risky but leaves a gap in the defense industrial base that makes it harder to detect adversary espionage.
On* Scaling Laws*, Christina Lee joined Kevin Frazier to discuss Lee’s forthcoming article, “Beyond Algorithmic Disgorgement: Remedying Algorithmic Harms.” They considered what algorithmic disgorgement is, why the Federal Trade Commission first used it, why its expansion matters, and whether alternate approaches could work.
Isobel Porteous and Matt Kaplan reviewed the history of Selective Availability, the U.S. policy limiting access to early GPS technology, to draw lessons for regulating AI. Porteous and Kaplan argued that Selective Availability was an important pacing mechanism, but the policy was eventually made obsolete by technical advances, the push for greater commercial use, and attempts to modernize the military. They warned that any future AI regulation needs to address how quickly safeguards and restrictions face technical decay.
And that was the week that was.
