Compiled by Athena Smith.
Articles
After the Flood: Moving Beyond the U.S. Vulnerabilities Equities Process
Jason Healey and Michael Daniel described how a flood of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven vulnerabilities demands will change the U.S. vulnerabilities equities process (VEP). Daniel and Healey noted that the VEP cannot handle the volume of vulnerabilities government researchers can now find using AI tools, and they recommended that policymakers put VEP on hiatus until the impacts of AI are clearer.
The VEP no longer serves the American people, at least as originally structured. The U.S. government cannot assume it will have exclusive access to a given vulnerability even for a limited time. The process cannot scale to review the flood of potential vulnerabilities the government discovers in a timely manner. As cybersecurity resources shrink inside the federal government, the VEP draws people away from other activities. Combined, these factors demonstrate that the current VEP no longer passes a cost-benefit test.
While a flood of AI-discovered bugs will likely happen, other outcomes remain unclear. Accordingly, we do not recommend eliminating VEP entirely, at least not yet. It is more important to keep government options open for maximum flexibility, with changes to meet the needed public-policy priorities of an AI age.
Combating Misinformation During States of Emergency
Ema Rose Schumer described how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit struck down a law Puerto Rico passed during the coronavirus pandemic which criminalized the spread of so-called fake news during states of emergency. Schumer explained that the First Circuit’s decision reaffirmed that First Amendment protections hold even during crises and that counter-speech is the preferred constitutional remedy for lies.
The ruling has implications beyond the specific statute it considered. The Puerto Rican legislature had passed the law in an effort to combat the intentional spread of false information during disasters or crises, which can endanger public safety by sowing confusion and eroding public trust in government agencies charged with managing emergency responses.
The First Circuit’s holding, however, underscores that the First Amendment does not recede during government-declared emergencies. Despite the real dangers of misinformation, especially online, the decision follows a line of foundational Supreme Court jurisprudence suggesting that the First Amendment prefers counter speech to address misinformation to the risk of government officials marshalling the state’s power to suppress speech they disfavor.
Podcasts
Lawfare Daily** : The Trials of the Trump Administration, September 18:** During Friday’s
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
