Author: TSA Press

This
is
the
story
we
hoped
wouldn’t
happen,
but
let’s
be
honest
—
of
course
it
did.
It
was
always
going
to
happen.

Between
the
administration
publicly
threatening

criminal
action
against
private
sector
companies
over
diversity
initiatives
and

law
firms
rushing
to
curry
favor
with
the
White
House,
it
was
only
a
matter
of
time
before
a
Biglaw
firm
tried
to
memory-hole
prior
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
efforts.

As
we’ve
monitored
Biglaw
websites
over
the
couple
weeks
since
Trump
returned
to
power,
we
took
heart
every
time
we
noticed
that
a
major
firm
still
hadn’t
tried
to
subtly
purge
its
public-facing
site
of
any
mention
of
diversity.
Unfortunately,
though
perhaps
inevitably,
the
legal
community
is
no
longer
pitching
a
perfect
game.

Let’s
play
a
game
of
Photo
Hunt!
Here’s
a
screenshot
of
the

K&L
Gates
website
today:

Can
you
spot
the
difference
from
this
image
captured
on
January
30
from
the
Wayback
Machine:

Yes,
the
“The”
is
missing!
But
probably
more
importantly
the
“Our
Commitment
to
Diversity”
link
at
the
top
of
the
whole
page.

While
this
was
the
only
major
change
to
the
homepage,
the
deletions
and
heavy
edits
didn’t
stop
there.
Over
on
the
“About”
page,
the
December
19,
2024,
version
of
the
website
looked
like
this:

This
morning’s
version
of
the
About
page
looks
like
this:

And
the
changes
aren’t
limited
to
word
choices.
The
entire
“Diversity
and
Inclusion”-turned-“Opportunity
and
Inclusion”
page
has
changed.
The
old
website
included
visual
representations
backing
up
the
firm’s
commitment.
For
example:

The
accomplishments
of
these
attorneys
are
now
deleted.
The
page
still
offers
general
statements
about
inclusion,
but
any
specific
claims
about
individual
achievements
are
gone,
hiding
from
public
view
any
way
to
measure
the
firm’s
success
in
this
area.
The
page
also
linked
to
“a
robust
educational
toolkit”
developed
by
the
firm
and
a
block
set
off
in
all
caps
recognizing
that
“WE
PLEDGE
TO
FOLLOW
THE
MANSFIELD
RULE.”

And
for
what?
If
firms
think
scrubbing
diversity
efforts
will
shield
them,
they
should
ask
Target
how
that
worked
out.
The

retail
giant
backtracked
on
its
public
DEI
commitments
—
only
to

get
sued
by
Trump’s
fellow
travelers
anyway.
These
people
won’t
be
satisfied
until
the
entire
workforce
looks
like
a
1950s
country
club.
It
undermines
firm
culture
for
nothing.

Even
the
Diversity
and
Inclusion
Committee
has
been
scrubbed.
Now
rebranded
as
the
Opportunity
and
Inclusion
Committee
and
its
mission
statement
reads…
a
little
differently.

By
way
of
comparison,
this
is
the
old
description:

These
global
committees
oversee
robust
budgets
and
our
employee
resource
groups
(ERGs),
which
include
groups
for
women
lawyers;
LGBT
employees
and
allies;
lawyers
of
color;
working
parents;
veterans;
and
lawyers
with
disabilities.
These
groups
spearhead
programs
ranging
from
women’s
business
mentorship
training
in
Portland
and
promoting
mental
health
awareness
in
London
and
Melbourne,
to
assisting
transgender
individuals
with
name
changes
in
Melbourne,
Pittsburgh
and
Sydney.

And
this
is
the
new
description:

These
global
committees
oversee
robust
budgets
and
our
taskforces,
which
include
groups
that
explore
ways
to
best
support
and
utilize
the
unique
and
various
perspectives
of
the
professionals
within
our
community
that
contribute
to
the
overall
success
of
the
firm
and
our
clients. 

Erasing
“women
lawyers;
LGBT
employees
and
allies;
lawyers
of
color;
working
parents;
veterans;
and
lawyers
with
disabilities”
seems
significant.
In
a
different
submenu,
the
site
continues
to
identify
a
“Women
in
the
Profession
Committee,
Opportunity
&
Inclusion
Committee,
LGBTQ+
Subcommittee,
Disability
Inclusion
Taskforce,
and
Veterans
Taskforce”
but
at
the
top
level,
these
specific
issues
are
scrubbed
into
vague
generalities.

As
an
aside,
there’s
a
sad
comedy
watching
conservatives
on
social
media
angrily
pushback
against
the
idea
that
“DEI”
ever
meant
working
parents,
or
veterans,
or
folks
with
disabilities.
The
whole
term
was
a
mostly
corporate
buzz
effort
to
lump
numerous
inclusion
efforts
under
the
same
administrative
roof,
but
conservatives
are
adamant
that
this
can’t
be
true.
Because
regardless
of
every
DEI
mission
statement
ever
written,
they
just
wanted
it
to
be
a
socially
acceptable
way
to
use
racial
slurs.

As
the
new
website
says,
“We
will
continue
to
listen,
learn,
and
work
together
to
build
a
culture
where
everyone
is
welcome,
included,
and
has
the
opportunity
to
demonstrate
their
skills.”
I’d
be
interested
to
hear
what
they’re
hearing
and
learning
after
these
edits.
Frankly,
I’d
be
interested
to
hear
what
the
Committee
had
to
say
about
these
changes
in
the
first
place
—
or
if
they
were
even
consulted.

We
contacted
the
firm
for
comment
and
haven’t
heard
back.
That
said,
this
is
one
of
those
stories
where
the
firm
can’t
really
explain
away
the
impact
of
the
documents
on
their
face
and
the
impression
it
gives
to
an
outside
reader
—
and
even
more
so
to
an
inside
reader
working
as
an
attorney
or
staff
member.
That’s
why
nothing
is
“cosmetic”
when
talking
about
this
work.
It’s
all
a
series
of
signals
up
and
down
the
firm
hierarchy
and
out
toward
clients.

Giving
the
firm
the
benefit
of
the
doubt,
leadership
likely
expects
the
committee
and
the
firm
as
a
whole
to
maintain
business
as
usual.
They
probably
would
argue
that
these
are
purely
“cosmetic”
changes
and
they
remain
committed
to
these
causes
even
if
they’ve
pushed
that
commitment
to
harder-to-find
corners
of
the
site.

But
when
we’re
talking
about
inclusion,
shunting
people
and
their
accomplishments
off
to
the
side

is
the
problem.
The
whole
point
is
to
build
a
workplace
where
traditionally
marginalized
or
otherwise
overlooked
people
feel
like
they’re
part
of
the
team.
When
an
employer
signals
that
they’re
afraid
to
publicly
acknowledge
women
and
minorities
and
LGBT
folks
and
every
other
employee
covered
by
the
diversity,
equity,
and
inclusion
umbrella,
that’s
ballgame.
The
trust
is
fractured,
and
the
message
is
clear:
diversity
is
fine,
just
as
long
as
no
one
can
see
it.

---

Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or

Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.

Donald
Trump
spent
the
four
years
between
his
two
presidencies
filing
garbage
lawsuits.
Hillary
Clinton!
The
Pulitzer
Committee!
Twitter!
No
one
was
immune.

Now
back
in
the
White
House,
President
Trump
is
continuing
the
habit.
Yesterday,
the
Department
of
Justice

sued
the
state
of
Illinois,
Governor
JB
Pritzker,
the
City
of
Chicago,
and
Cook
County
in
a
misbegotten
attempt
to
bully
them
into
becoming
federal
immigration
agents.

The
theory
of
the
case
appears
to
be
that,
because
the
Supremacy
Clause
bars
states
from
creating
their
own
immigration
laws,
it
must

a
fortiari
require
them
to
enforce
federal
immigration
laws.
And
thus
state
and
local
ordinances
that
bar
local
law
enforcement
officers
from
cooperating
with
federal
immigration
officials
are
not
only
bad
public
policy,
but
illegal
and
even
potentially
criminal.

The
government
complains
that
the
state’s

Way
Forward
Act
and

TRUST
Act,
Chicago’s

Welcoming
City
Act,
and
a
similar
Cook
County

municipal
ordinance
“are
designed
to
and
in
fact
interfere
with
and
discriminate
against
the
Federal
Government’s
enforcement
of
federal
immigration
law
in
violation
of
the
Supremacy
Clause
of
the
United
States
Constitution.”

In
reality,
the
laws
bar
local
officials
from
holding
immigrants
on
civil
detainer
warrants
and
from
expending
state
and
municipal
resources
to
detain
immigrants
at
the
request
of
the
feds
absent
a
criminal
warrant.
The
state
laws
are
very
carefully
crafted
to
comply
with

federal
laws,
and
are

not
a
blanket
ban
on
communicating
with
federal
immigration
authorities
—
that’s
why
the
complaint
was
forced
to
say
that
“upon
information
and
belief”
local
cops
are
“confused”
by
the
ordinances
and
“chilled”
from
engaging
in
permitted
communications
with
their
federal
counterparts.
What
they

are
is
a
refusal
to
allow
state
officials
to
be
coopted
into
carrying
out
federal
immigration
law,
as
the
Supreme
Court
has
said
very
clearly
they’re
entitled
to
do.

Just
take
it
from
that
liberal
squish
Justice
Antonin
Scalia,
who
said
in
1997’s


Printz
v.
United
States,
that
the
anti-commandeering
doctrine
barred
the
federal
government
from
forcing
state
law
enforcement
officials
to
run
background
checks
on
gun
purchasers
as
required
by
the
Brady
Bill.

The
Federal
Government
may
neither
issue
directives
requiring
the
States
to
address
particular
problems,
nor
command
the
States’
officers…
to
administer
or
enforce
a
federal
regulatory
program.
It
matters
not
whether
policymaking
is
involved,
and
no
case-by-case
weighing
of
the
burdens
or
benefits
is
necessary;
such
commands
are
fundamentally
incompatible
with
our
constitutional
system
of
dual
sovereignty.

And
so
the
lawsuit
bizarrely
recasts
the
refusal
to
carry
out
federal
policy
with
obstructing
it,
accusing
the
state
of
“obstructing
the
Federal
Government’s
ability
to
enforce
laws
that
Congress
has
enacted
or
to
take
actions
entrusted
to
it
by
the
Constitution.”

It
then
invents
a
new
protected
class
and
accuses
the
state
of
…
discriminating
against
the
feds?

WTF???

So
weird
that
our
new
AG
felt
the
need
to

threaten
“any
attorney
who
because
of
their
personal
political
views
or
judgments
declines
to
sign
a
brief
or
appear
in
court,
refuses
to
advance
good-faith
arguments
on
behalf
of
the
Administration”
with
termination
—
how
else
are
you
going
to
get
line
attorneys
to
sign
off
on
this
shit?

The
DOJ

tried
to
designate
this
case
as
related
to
a
First
Amendment

challenge
to
Trump’s
immigration
executive
order
filed
by
a
coalition
of
nonprofits,
which
would
have
put
them
in
front
of
Judge
John
Kness,
a
Trump
appointee.
But
no
dice
—
the
case
is
in
front
of
Judge
Lindsay
Jenkins,
a
Biden
appointee.
An
initial
status
hearing
is
scheduled
for
April
15.

---

Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

President
Donald
Trump’s
government
hiring
freeze
is
really
doing
a
number
on
lawyers’
career
prospects.
Not
only
have
third-year
law
students’
permanent

job
offers
been
revoked
and
summer
internship
programs
been
canceled,
but
government
agencies
are
now
pulling
out
of
law
school
recruitment
events
for
future
legal
roles. 

As
noted
by

Bloomberg
Law,
government
agencies
have
decided
to
skip
attending
public
interest
career
fairs
and
recruiting
events
hosted
by
at
least
three
law
schools.
Here
are
some
additional
details:

More
than
a
dozen
agencies
withdrew
from
a
public
interest
career
fair
hosted
by
New
York
University’s
law
school
on
Thursday
and
Friday,
according
to
a
NYU
spokesperson.
The
annual
event
saw
more
than
1,700
job
seekers
from
20
law
schools
at
last
year.
Multiple
agencies
also
skipped
a
Jan.
24
law
student
recruiting
event
organized
by
Georgetown
University
and
George
Washington
University,
according
to
two
people
familiar
with
the
situation.

Nikia
Gray,
NALP’s
executive
director,
worries
that
because
these
jobs
have
suddenly
disappeared
out
from
under
hopeful
law
students,
they
may
never
go
on
to
become
lawyers.
“For
some
of
these
students,
the
fact
that
these
jobs
were
pulled
may
make
the
difference
of
whether
they
ever
become
a
practicing
attorney
or
not,”
she
said.
“This
is
happening
at
a
really
critical
juncture
in
their
career
development.”

Meanwhile,
Biglaw
and
boutique
law
firms
are
eager
to
recruit
from
this
pool
of
would-be
government
lawyers,
with
firms
like
Morgan
Lewis,
Quinn
Emanuel,
Elsberg
Baker
&
Maruri,
and
Elias
Law
Group
offering
receptive
messages
of
hope
that
there
are
still
jobs
available
for
them.
“We
have
been
in
touch
with
career
services
offices
at
various
law
schools
to
help
facilitate
placements
that
are
a
good
fit
for
both
the
candidates
and
our
firm,”
said
William
Burck,
global
co-managing
partner
of
Quinn
Emanuel.
Elisabeth
Frost,
litigation
chair
of
Elias
Law
Group,
echoed
Burck’s
thoughts,
saying, “[W]e
hope
other
firms
and
legal
employers
will
similarly
do
what
they
can
to
help
give
these
new
lawyers
meaningful
opportunities
to
start
their
careers.”

Best
of
luck
to
all
aspiring
government
lawyers
who
have
been
left
out
in
the
cold
by
Trump’s
hiring
freeze.  

Trump
Hiring
Freeze
Has
Agencies
Ditching
Law
School
Recruiting

[Bloomberg
Law]

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

Ed.
Note:

A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s

How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.

“This
time,
the
anti-Trump
resistance
is
in
the
courts,
not
in
the
streets;
As
the
president
issues
orders
that
critics
say
disregard
the
law,
a
haphazard
group
of
opponents
is
filing
lawsuits
—
and
it’s
starting
to
work”: Naftali
Bendavid
of
The
Washington
Post
has this
report.

And
in
commentary,
online
at
The
Washington
Post,
columnist
Ruth
Marcus
has
an
essay
titled
“Can
the
courts
—
can
anyone
—
stop
Trump?
Despite
my
expectation
of
mixed
success
in
legal
battles
with
the
president,
there
are
reasons
for
tempered
optimism
here.”

“Trump
Is
Testing
Our
Constitutional
System.
It’s
Doing
Fine.
The
president’s
flurry
of
illegal
actions
have
been
stopped
by
the
courts.
That’s
how
it
is
supposed
to
work.” Law
professor Noah
Feldman has this
essay online
at
Bloomberg
Opinion.

And,
in
response,
online
at
Balls
and
Strikes,
Jay
Willis
has
an
essay
titled
“Our
Constitutional
System
Cannot
Be
‘Fine’
When
It
Is
Also
On
Fire;
The
possibility
that
a
judge
might
someday
declare
Trump’s
actions
illegal
does
nothing
to
stop
the
pain
and
suffering
that
the
legal
system
allows
Trump
to
inflict
in
the
meantime.”

“At
the
Supreme
Court,
at
the
White
House
and
at
his
house,
Clarence
Thomas
is
the
go-to
justice
to
swear
in
Trump’s
Cabinet”: Joan
Biskupic
and
Jeff
Zeleny
of
CNN
have this
report.

“The
Most
Indefensible
Aspects
of
DOJ’s
Briefs
in
the
Birthright
Citizenship
Cases”: Marty
Lederman
has this
post at
the
“Just
Security”
blog.

“Eighteen
‘Pro-Life’
States
Demand
the
Freedom
to
Persecute
American
Babies”: Mark
Joseph
Stern
has this
Jurisprudence
essay online
at
Slate.

Seattle-based
district
court
Judge
John
Coughenour
—
appointed
to
the
federal
bench
by
noted
lefty
President
Ronald
Reagan
—
is
already
on
record
that
he
is

not
at
all
a
fan
of
Donald
Trump’s
unilateral
effort
to
rewrite
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
and
end
birthright
citizenship.
He’s
overseeing
a
case
to
stop
Trump’s
executive
order
brought
by
four
states
and
individual
pregnant
immigrant
plaintiffs.
The
initial
restraining
order
Coughenour
issued
on
the
enforcement
of
the
executive
order
was
set
to
expire,
but
yesterday
the
judge
granted
the
states’
effort
to
block
the
EO
with
a

preliminary
injunction.

Coughenour

isn’t
the
first
to
enjoin
the
order
ahead
of
its
February
18th
effective
date,
but
he
made
a
stirring
statement
in
defense
of
the
rule
of
law
and
against
the
“clearly
unconstitutional”
effort
of
Trump
to
amend
the
constitution
“under
the
guise
of
an
executive
order.”
As

reported
by
Law360:

“It
has
become
ever
more
apparent
that
to
our
president
the
rule
of
law
is
but
an
impediment
to
his
policy
goals,”
Judge
Coughenour
said
at
a
hearing
Thursday.
“The
rule
of
law
is,
according
to
him,
is
something
to
navigate
around
or
simply
ignore,
whether
that
be
for
political
or
personal
gain.

“Nevertheless,
in
this
courtroom
and
under
my
watch,
the
rule
of
law
is
a
bright
beacon
which
I
intend
to
follow,”
the
judge
said.
“…
I
refuse
to
let
that
beacon
go
dark
today.”

Judge
Coughenour
continued,
“We
are
all
citizens
subject
to
the
rule
of
law.”
Adding,
“No
amount
of
policy
debate
can
change
that.
And
the
fact
that
the
government
has
cloaked
what
is
effectively
a
constitutional
amendment
under
the
guise
of
an
executive
order
is
equally
unconstitutional.”

“If
the
government
wants
to
change
the
exceptional
American
grant
of
birthright
citizenship,
it
needs
to
amend
the
Constitution
itself.
That’s
how
the
Constitution
works,
and
that’s
how
the
rule
of
law
works,”
the
judge
said.
“Because
the
president’s
order
attempts
to
circumscribe
this
process,
it
is
clearly
unconstitutional.”

Powerful
stuff
—
particularly
coming
from
a
Republican-appointed
judge.

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

WASHINGTON
—
As
information
sharing
between
allies
and
partners
becomes
increasingly
important
in
the
space
domain,
the
US
needs
to
create
a
uniform
set
of
cybersecurity
standards
for
its
space
systems,
government
officials
said
Tuesday. 

Right
now
there
are
several
entities
and
agencies
who
have
or
are
working
on
their
own
set
of
cybersecurity
standards
for
space
systems.
These
include
the

National
Institute
of
Standards
and
Technology,

the
Cybersecurity
and
Infrastructure
Security
Agency,
OASIS
and
commercial
providers.
Additionally,
a


Biden-era
executive
order
mandated
practices
that
would
protect
commercial
satellite
systems
against
cyber
attacks.

But
if
all
of
these
standards
are
siloed,
it
will
be
more
difficult
to
share
them
with
international
allies
and
they
won’t
be
useful
in
protecting
space
systems
against
adversarial
threats,
Lauryn
Williams,
former

chief
of
staff
in
the
Office
of
the
Assistant
Secretary
of
Defense
for
Industrial
Base
Policy,
said
during
a
Washington
Business
Space
Roundtable
discussion
Tuesday. 

Williams
said
that a
meeting
with
Japanese
officials
during
her
stint
in
the
Office
of
the
National
Cyber
Director
prior
to
her
most
recent
post
was
her
catalyst
for
wanting
to
develop
a
clear
set
of
cyber
standards
for
space
systems.

“The
Japanese
government
turned
to
me
as
the
kind
of
cyber
person
sitting
at
the
table,
and
they
said,
very
straightforwardly,
‘What
is
your
cybersecurity
policy?
What
is
your
cybersecurity
standard?’
We
could
not
answer
that
question.
I
cannot
answer
that
question,”
she
said. 

“We
need
to
be
able
to
answer
that
question,
so
that
we
can
lead
because
that
was
the
indication
that
I
got,
was
that
the
Japanese
were
looking
to
us
to
be
able
to
say,
‘Here
it
is.’
So
that
they
and
many
of
our
other
international
partners
could
take
and
build
on
it,”
she
added.
“I
hope
that
we’ve
got
a
piece
of
that
answer
now,
not
the
entirety
of
it,
but
the
world
really
is
looking
to
us
on
this.” 

Erin

Miller,
executive
director
of
the
Space
Information
Sharing
and
Analysis
Center
(Space
ISAC),
echoed
Williams’
need
for
a
cohesive
set
of
cyber
standards.
She
noted
that
ideally
one
agency
would
be
in
charge
of
setting
these
standards;
for
example,
the

Department
of
Homeland
Security.
This,
however,
could
be
tricky
since
the
federal
government
tends
to
fall
behind
commercial
industry
in
terms
of
understanding
cyber
threats
to
space
systems.

“There’s
a
lot
of
[standards]
that
are
available
that
we
can
look
at.
We
actually
formed
a
task
force
in
Space
ISAC
to
look
at
all
of
these
different
standards
and
see
if
we
can
get
a
comprehensive
view
of
how
to
address
risks
for
space
systems,”
Miller
told
Breaking
Defense
on
the
sidelines
of
the
event.
“But
the
challenge
is
that
the
commercial
sector
can
do
that,
and
organically
we
can
come
to
a
conclusion
on
how
we’re
all
going
to
manage
sector
risk,
but
it’s
still
a
commercial
sector
that’s
driving
it.
We
need
a
complement
from
the
federal
government
side
to
drive
overall
sector
risk.” 

Both
Williams
and
Miller
made
clear
that
such
a
set
of
uniformed
cybersecurity
standards
would benefit
international
cooperation.
Miller
also
used
the
opportunity
to
make
her
argument
that
space
systems
should
be
considered
critical
infrastructure. 

With
this,
she
explained
that
another
benefit
to
having
the
DHS
in
particular
take
on
the
responsibility
of
creating
space
cyber
standards
would
be
allowing
space
systems
to
be
considered
critical
infrastructure,
something
the
space
community
has
been
advocating
for
for
several
years.
But
the
federal
government
maintains
these
systems
do
not
qualify
as
critical
infrastructure.

“Human
lives
depend
on
the
security
of
space
systems,
and
it’s
not
just
humans
in
the
US.
That’s
another
challenge,
is
that
DHS
has
primarily
been
responsible
for
critical
infrastructure
that
humans
in
the
US
rely
on,
and
so
risk
management
is
based
on
US
lives,
but
this
is
a
global
conversation,”
Miller
told
Breaking
Defense.
“People
across
the
whole
world
are
dependent
upon
the
space
systems,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
international
sales
and
trade
and
commerce
that’s
associated
with
our
space
systems
and
the
use
of
them
in
countries
around
the
world.
So
it’s
dynamic.” 

Though
Miller
said
the
DHS
could
be
responsible
for
making
the
uniformed
set
of
standards,
she 
acknowledged
that
there
is
more
than
one
agency
capable
of
tracking
critical
infrastructure,
so
the
DHS
wouldn’t
necessarily
have
to
be
the
agency
responsible
for
creating
the
standards.

“Space
ISAC
has
heavily
advocated
that
we
have
a
designation
of
space
systems
as
a
critical
infrastructure
sector,
and
that’s
where
DHS’s
role
is
that
they
have
a
responsibility
for
critical
infrastructure
sectors,
and
they
also
share
that
responsibility
with
other
agencies.
So
that’s
why
this
conversation
of
which
agency
is
responsible
is
so
challenging,”
she
said. 

Remember
when
Donald
Trump
and
the
MAGA
universe
wanted
to
“lock
her
up!”
over
Hillary
Clinton’s
use
of
a
personal
email
server
for
State
Department
business?

Let’s
be
clear,
we
found
Clinton’s
use
of
a
personal
email
server,
which
she
claimed
to
have
used
“for
convenience”, deeply
problematic but
pretty
clearly
not
criminal.
And,
as
we’ve
covered
for
years
now,
it’s
unfortunately
(tragically)
common
for
government
officials
to
use
personal
emails
from Colin
Powell to
many
Trump
officials,
including Jared
Kushner
and
Ivanka
Trump.
This
is
the
same
administration,
mind
you,
that
later
mishandled
classified
documents
at
Mar-a-Lago
and
various
other
properties.
During
the
first
Trump
admin, the
NSA
kept
trying
to
warn
admin
officials to
stop
using
their
personal
email,
which
you’d
think
they’d
know,
given
the
whole
“but
her
emails”
stuff.

So,
really,
if
anyone
were
briefed
on
how
emails
can
be
insecure,
you
would
hope
it
was
the
Trump
administration.

About
that…
Yesterday,
the
NY
Times
revealed
that
the
Trump
administration
demanded
that
the
CIA
hand
over
the
names
of
everyone
the
CIA
hired
in
the
last
two
years
which,
for
fairly
obvious
reasons,
could
contain
some
pretty
sensitive
information.

So,
of
course,
the
White
House
demanded
this
sensitive
information be
sent
via
unclassified
email.

The
C.I.A.
sent
the
White
House an
unclassified
email
listing
all
employees
hired
by
the
spy
agency over
the
last
two
years
to
comply
with
an
executive
order
to
shrink
the
federal
work
force,
in
a
move
that
former
officials
say
risked
the
list
leaking
to
adversaries.

The
list
included
first
names
and
the
first
initial
of
the
last
name
of
the
new
hires,
who
are
still
on
probation
—
and
thus
easy
to
dismiss.
It
included
a
large
crop
of
young
analysts
and
operatives
who
were
hired
specifically
to
focus
on
China,
and whose
identities
are
usually
closely
guarded
because
Chinese
hackers
are
constantly
seeking
to
identify
them.

Let
that
sink
in:
The
same
administration
that
wanted
Clinton
jailed
over
email
security
just
demanded
the
CIA
expose
its
newest
China-focused
recruits
through
unsecured
channels.

Surprisingly,
the
Trump
admin
didn’t
deny
any
of
this,
but
just
said
they
were
sure
it
was
no
big
deal.

Current
officials
confirmed
that
the
C.I.A.
had
sent
the
names
of
employees
to
the
White
House’s
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
complying
with
an
executive
order
signed
by
President
Trump.
But
the
officials
downplayed
security
concerns.
By
sending
just
the
first
names
and
initials
of
the
probationary
employees,
one
U.S.
official
said,
they
hoped
the
information
would
be
protected.

That,
of
course,
is
fucking
nonsense:

One
former
agency
officer
called
the
reporting
of
the
names
in
an
unclassified
email
a
“counterintelligence
disaster.”

[…..]

[F]ormer
officials
scoffed
at
the
explanation,
saying
that
the
names
and
initials
could
be
combined
with
other
information
—
from
driver’s
license
and
car
registration
systems,
social
media
accounts
and
publicly
available
data
from
universities
that
the
agency
uses
as
recruiting
grounds
—
to
piece
together
a
more
complete
list.

Any
competent
intelligence
operation
–
like,
say,
China’s
–
can
easily
cross-reference
this
information
with
publicly
available
data
and
standard
OSINT
techniques
to
identify
these
recruits.
It’s
literally
Intelligence
101.
Hell,
we
even published
a
card
game years
ago
based
on
the
CIA’s
internal
training
tool
that
tells
analysts
to
do
exactly
that!

As
for
why
it
was
sent
as
an
unclassified
mailing,
the
ranking
House
Intelligence
Committee
member,
Rep.
Jim
Himes,
says
the
White
House “insisted” on
the
CIA
sending
the
list
in
an
unclassified
email.

It’s
worth
asking:
If
a
hostile
foreign
power
wanted
to
compromise
US
intelligence
capabilities,
would
their
wishlist
look
any
different
from
what
the
Trump
administration
is
actually
doing?

Apparently,
the
reason
that
the
admin
wanted
this
list
is
because
they’re
basically
trying
to
get
a
huge
portion
of
the
CIA
to
quit
(they
just
offered
the
highly
questionable mass
resignation
offer
to
the
CIA),
and
they’re
so
completely terrified of
the
word
“diversity”
that
they’ve
decided
the
most
recent
hires
are
“DEI.”

Why?
Because
the
CIA
realized
recently
that
it
needed more
diverse
agents
and
analysts in
order
to
better
understand
what
was
happening
in
places
like
China:

Under
William
J.
Burns,
the
former
C.I.A.
director,
the
agency
put a
new
emphasis
on
trying
to
recruit
a
diverse
group
of
officers,
arguing
that
overseas
spying
operations
required
people
with
an
array
of
language
skills
and
cultural
knowledge.
He
focused
particularly
on
expanding
the
agency’s
coverage
of
China,
creating
a
China
center
at
the
headquarters
that
included
analysts,
operatives
and
others.
When
Mr.
Burns
arrived
at
the
agency
in
2021,
about
9
percent
of
the
agency’s
budget
was
devoted
to
China-related
analysis
and
espionage;
today
it
is
closer
to
20
percent.

Let’s
spell
this
out:
The
CIA
recognized
that
to
effectively
spy
on
and
analyze
China,
they
needed
people
who
actually
understand
Chinese
language,
culture,
and
society.
You
know,
the
kind
of
basic
competence
you’d
expect
from
an
intelligence
agency.
The
“diversity”
they
sought
wasn’t
about
checking
boxes
—
it
was
about
having
agents
and
analysts
who
could
actually
do
the
job.

But
it
sounds
like
the
Trump
admin
saw
the
word
“diverse,”
collapsed
upon
their
fainting
couch
while
clutching
their
pearls,
and
demanded
all
the
names
of
these
“diverse”
new
recruits
to
prepare
to
shed
all
those
pesky
“DEI”
hires.
Because
apparently,
in
their
world,
having
Mandarin-speaking
analysts
focusing
on
China
is
just
woke
virtue
signaling.

What
could
possibly
go
wrong?

As
Daniel
Drezner
notes,
this
story almost
perfectly
encapsulates the
absolute
idiocy
that
is
the
current
Trump
administration:

So,
to
sum
up:
in
order
to
comply
with
the
Trump
White
House’s
myriad
edicts,
the
CIA
has:

• 
  Burned
  its
  most
  recent
  cadre
  of
  recruits;
• 
  Weakened
  its
  ability
  to
  focus
  intelligence
  assets
  on
  China;
• 
  Undermined
  its
  recruitment
  capacity
  for
  the
  future;
  and
• 
  Unwittingly
  demonstrated
  why
  a
  jihad
  against
  DEI
  weakens
  rather
  than
  strengthens
  U.S.
  foreign
  policy
  competence.

The
irony
is
almost
perfect:
An
administration
that
campaigned
on
email
security
is
now
deliberately
exposing
our
intelligence
apparatus
through
unsecured
emails,
all
because
they’ve
turned
“diversity”
into
such
a
boogeyman
that
they
can’t
tell
the
difference
between
basic
operational
competence
and
their
imagined
DEI
crisis.

Ah,
but
her
emails!

But
Her
Emails
Redux:
Team
Trump
Makes
CIA
Send
List
Of
All
Recently
Hired
Employees
Over
Unclassified
Email

More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:

No
More
Pretense:
Carr’s
FCC
Threatens
News
Radio
Station
For
Reporting
The
News
Too
Specifically

Spam
Emails,
Spam
Lawsuit:
The
GOP
Tries
To
Break
Gmail
By
Court
Order

South
Dakota
Lawmakers
Latest
Asshats
Seeking
To
Force
Schools
To
Post
The
Ten
Commandments

*
Deal
lawyers
earning
some
vacation
time
next
week
as
they
billed
like
crazy
to
get
mergers
filed
by
today
to
avoid
new
rules.
[Reuters]

*
Despite
court
orders,
the
federal
hiring
freeze
hangs
over
everything
and
agencies
are
halting
law
school
recruiting.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]

*
Supreme
Court
refuses
Trump
request
to
halt
pending
environmental
cases
because,
unlike
Trump,
they
understand
that
they
can
do
a
lot
more
damage
to
environmental
law
by
issuing
decisions.
[National
Law
Journal]

*
Reagan
judge
has
harsh
words
for
Trump
administration’s
birthright
citizenship
stunt.
[Law360]

*
That
case
is
one
many
sparked
by
Trump’s
executive
order
push.
If
you’re
looking
for
a
resource
to
compile
all
those
dockets
in
one
place…
this
is
your
answer.
[Courtwatch]

*
Using
firm
credit
card
to
get
wine
delivered
to
the
house
seems
like
a
wellness
expense,
no?
[Roll
on
Friday]

*
If
you
had
any
doubts
about
the
lawlessness
of
the
Federal
Circuit’s
approach
to
Judge
Newman,
remember
they’re
refusing
to
release
documents
about
their
decision
even
though

Newman
is
the
one
asking
for
the
release.
[National
Law
Journal]

The
DOJ
Is
Basically
Trump
Legal
Now:
And
there’s
so
much
work
to
bill!
Losses
And
So
Much
Potential:
Will
a
merger
get
them
on
the
right
track?
How
Can
It
Be
Defamation
When
I’m
So
Silly?:
This
defense
against
defamation
may
be
an
issue
of
first
impression.
Donna
Adelson
Moved
To
Protective
Custody:
Hope
she
stays
safe.
Biglaw
Makes
A
Big
Difference:
This
firm
offered
pro
bono
work
to
help
out
the
LA
FireAid
benefit
concert.