Compiled by Sarah Willrich.
Articles
The Global Data Center Boom Is a Gift to Spies
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.
Colocation assumes that neighbors can’t reach into each other’s racks. In reality, servers are swapped constantly, often by short-term, local contractors performing routine maintenance. A tenant or technician with consistent access could easily bypass basic safeguards such as keycard doors, cameras, and access logs to plant surveillance gear nearby or replace basic components with parts that have been altered to send information elsewhere. It turns out that good old fashioned spycraft takes far less energy than a complicated hack, even for a sophisticated adversary. And while tampering is possible anywhere in the world, it is much easier overseas, away from stronger oversight and American regulatory guardrails.
Assessing the Legal Bases for the Defense Department’s Equity Stakes
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.
The Defense Department’s assertion of authority to take equity stakes has a complex past. At the outset of the second Trump administration, the executive branch evidently believed that the department lacked clear authority to take equity stakes, and the Office of Management and Budget requested language in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2026 that would have granted the Defense Department the authority to do so. Nevertheless, no such language was added to the NDAA—or any other law. In other words, the only thing that could have changed between the beginning of the Trump administration, when the White House evidently believed that the Defense Department lacked clear authority, and mid-2025, when the department began making its investments, is its interpretation of existing authorities.
Podcasts
Lawfare Daily: The National Guard in Washington, D.C.: Natalie 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.
Rational Security: The “Fifth Anniversary Hot Take Takedown” Edition: Scott R. Anderson celebrated the fifth anniversary of Rational Security 2.0 with co-hosts emeriti Shane Harris, Quinta Jurecic, and Benjamin Wittes. The four sat in brutal judgment of this year’s Hot Take Takedown pitches provided by Julia Curlee, Michael Feinberg, and Molly Roberts on topics ranging from the President’s Daily Brief to the Bourne movies.
Videos and Webinars
Lawfare Live** : The Trials of the Trump Administration, September 11: **On Friday, Sept. 11, at 4 p.m. ET, Wittes will sit down with Roberts,
Announcements
*Lawfare *is hiring a Program Assistant for our AI Research Program and seeking applications for the 2026-2027 Student Contributor Program. Learn more and apply at the links above.
*Support *Lawfare
*Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Become a material supporter on Patreon. Sign up to receive *Lawfare
