Latest in National Security News
Get up-to-date national security news from our reporters
Rubio hearing heats up over US role in Venezuela
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing Wednesday on U.S. policy towards Venezuela.
read more
Quantum science experts fail to address concerns on training Chinese students at “massive scale”
The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology met Thursday morning to discuss U.S. leadership in quantum science and technology, where experts failed to address lawmaker’s concerns on training Chinese students at “a massive scale.”
read more
Republicans, Democrats clash over causes of November National Guard shooting
Senators from two subcommittees Wednesday clashed over on the effectiveness of former president Joe Biden’s Afghan parolee program and whether it contributed to a November shooting of two national guard members.
read more
Lawmakers call to ban AI chip exports to China
The House of Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing Wednesday morning to discuss the U.S. winning the AI arms race against China.
read more
Congress aims for more active cybersecurity policy
In a display of uncommon unanimity, every single witness—private and federal alike—was in staunch agreement regarding the need for a more robust framework to combat foreign cyber-adversaries.
read moreWatch: US Veteran helps lead DC protest against the Trump administration
WASHINGTON — Rig Madden, an Army Veteran who retired as a master sergeant in 2016, is one of five founders of Remember Your Oath, a group that protests the Trump administration’s military and domestic policies both in person and online.
“I warned for years that if you let someone as corrupt as Trump back in office, you will have to make a choice,” Madden said. “You can either choose him or democracy; you don’t get to keep both.”
Madden was deployed overseas five times. To Cuba in 1995, Bosnia in 1996, Kosovo in 1999, Iraq in 2008, and Afghanistan in 2013. He now shares his over 20 years of military experience online as an activist and has amassed over 170 thousand followers on Instagram under the handle @USArmyOverlord.
On August 25, the group responded to President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard by establishing a veterans’ rally point in Columbus Circle outside Union Station. It is here that they set up a hub for community outreach and protest activity.
“I’m not really here to debate Confederate lovers,” Madden said. “I’m here to defeat them, and so I defeat them by rallying to our people, and rallying to people who still want to fight for democracy and gather them together.”
After over one hundred days of resistance at the Veterans’ Rally Point, their tents were forcibly removed on December 10. Madden says they are still unwavering in their efforts.
Watch the video report here:
“A security dilemma”: Japan struggles to find its global footing
After what many called a successful meeting with President Donald Trump, Japan’s new prime minister Sanae Takaichi is leading a major change to Japan’s decades of pacifism: an increase in the defense budget.
Takaichi announced during her first parliamentary address as prime minister that Japan would increase its defense spending to 2% of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) by March 2026, nearly a year earlier than the proposed timeline announced in 2022 by former Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.
This change in the defense budget timeline highlights the evolution of the United States-Japan relationship as the U.S. is beginning to encourage its allies to arm themselves and build a stronger defense.
Trump released the official United States National Security Strategy last week, which sets up the president’s defense goals and budget for his term. Among the major points were continued pressure on American allies, including Japan, to increase defense spending in support of American efforts to “harden and strengthen our military presence in the Western Pacific.”
“The Japanese, particularly the nationalists, have wanted…to spend more, and now the Americans, instead of telling them ‘no, don’t’, are now in a position where we’re encouraging them to do so,” said Brad Glosserman, senior advisor and Japan expert at the Pacific Forum. “The confluence of American calls for greater Japanese participation and contribution—with the conservative desire to do more— has aligned well.”
In the past, Japan held itself to a defense budget that is 1% of its GDP by keeping certain programs out of the category of defense spending. Glosserman said that the new increase in defense budget is not necessarily more money but a recharacterization of some current programs as defense spending that they once excluded.
“The Japanese managed to take out… things that most NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] countries would include, such as the Coast Guard and pensions for their military officers,” Glosserman said. “Now, what they’ve done is turn that stuff back in, and my understanding, this is a crude estimate that the call to double defense spending of 2% of GDP… at least half of that increase is nothing more than putting back in the accounts things that were taken out.”
This restructuring of the defense budget comes amid escalating tensions in the Pacific region. Takaichi has found herself in hot water with China less than two months into taking office. In November, during a speech to the Japanese parliament, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan would be “a situation threatening Japan’s survival” and could prompt deployment of the Japan Self-Defense Forces. Chinese officials viewed that as an attack on their so-called claim of Taiwan as a Chinese territory, making charged statements online that appeared to many in the region as threatening.
As tensions continue to rise with countries like China, Japan is internally grappling with its own rules about war. Article 9 of its constitution states Japan will “renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation” and was written after World War II ended. However, Japan established its self-defense forces in 1954 to prepare for possible attacks from foreign powers.
Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called for amending Article 9 to expand the powers of the self-defense forces. While there have been no formal amendments, Abe expanded the Japan Self-Defense Forces in 2015 to allow collective defense to assist Japanese allies, including the United States, if they are attacked. Retired U.S. Army Col. John Hansen, who is an adjunct professor of political science at Hawaii Pacific University, said that despite these growing regional tensions, Japan is unlikely to formally amend the constitution.
“Article 9 is essential. To even hint at aggression or offensive acts, the Japanese people will not abide in that. I think they can ramp up their defense, and there’s a deterrent effect with having credible, overwhelming capability to strike back, but not to use it in an offensive way,” Hansen said.
However, the United States has recently become more involved in other regions of the globe, with some conservative party members in the Japanese parliament worrying that the United States is pushing Japan to the side. Glosserman said that Japan has always had concerns that the United States could abandon the relationship forged through decades of diplomacy.
“Historically, relationships in Asia have been fundamentally different from alliances in Europe precisely because you don’t have a multilateral security architecture like NATO,” Glosserman said. “The Japanese have always worried about whether the United States was going to give them the attention they deserved and…whether the U.S. would honor those obligations in the way that the Japanese consider them.”
Karen Knudsen, chair of the board of directors of Japan-America Society of Hawaii (JASH), said the close relationship between the United States and Japan is a result of how the United States handled Japan after World War II.
“We could have tried [the Japanese emperor] for war crimes, we could have hanged him, and we didn’t,” Knudsen said. “We preserved him, although we moved the powers, but we were able to work with the people of Japan and build a strong alliance.”
Last August marked 80 years since the United States dropped the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leading Japan to surrender and ultimately ending World War II. Since then, a nuclear bomb has not been used in war, but many countries in the Pacific region have proliferated nuclear weapons.
Trump declared on Truth Social in late October that he was instructing the Pentagon to begin nuclear testing again. This comes decades after a Congressional-led voluntary moratorium from 1992 and the United States’ signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996, both barring nuclear testing. Trump’s argument is that other countries are also testing nuclear weapons and that the United States should be testing “on an equal basis.”
“Everybody’s always responding to everyone else, but they’re also responding to the belief that broadly speaking, nuclear weapons are key to national security, are an indicator of national status and prestige,” Glosserman said. “The biggest issue we need to be worried about in the region is the degree to which the Americans are turning a blind eye or actively encouraging our friends and allies to consider proliferating nuclear capabilities.”
Hansen echoed the idea that nuclear weapons are seen today as a status symbol. He said there is “a security dilemma” going on that is pushing countries in the region to proliferate nuclear weapons, with China, Russia and North Korea each possessing a nuclear arsenal. South Korea has been debating starting a nuclear program as well. That leaves Japan, which is wary of nuclear weapons because of its past.
“If you have a neighbor or a would-be aggressive neighbor that’s arming themselves with tremendous capability, then that impels you to do likewise. The dilemma is that the one that’s arming themselves sees a gap that they’re trying to fill, to bring parity… so you get this arms race,” Hansen said. “If you want to be heard in the international discourse, you arm yourself with nuclear weapons, and then people will pay attention. That’s kind of the bizarre rationale.”
“It’s so important to de-escalate. We’ve got to do that. I’m a soft diplomacy type of person,” Knudsen said. “Governments do weird things but you’ve got to maintain the people contact, so when things get back to normal, hopefully, you can rebuild that relationship.”
Lawmakers, companies debate effective solutions for major cyberattacks
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers debated how best to combat and prepare for the next cyberattack from foreign adversaries at a Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Media hearing on Tuesday.
The hearing comes after Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr rolled back Biden administration cybersecurity regulations on telecommunications companies in November, made in the wake of the Salt Typhoon cyberattack last year.
Salt Typhoon is a group linked to the Chinese government whose goal is to hack into American networks and steal personal and classified data. The group led a years-long campaign to hack American telecommunications companies and steal data from prominent officials, including from President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, during the 2024 presidential campaign for counterintelligence purposes.
Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) called out the FCC and Trump for removing regulations and signing an executive order in January that dismantled the Cyber Safety Review Board (CSRB) created under former President Joe Biden. CSRB investigated the Salt Typhoon attacks until it was dismantled earlier this year.
“There’s still a lot we don’t know about the damage done by the Salt Typhoon attacks. In fact, President Trump fired the board that was investigating the attack,” Luján said. “But what we do know is that rolling back protections and requirements to harden our networks is putting us on a dangerous path, and it will not prevent or mitigate attacks like this in the future.”
Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) pushed back on witness Robert Mayer, the senior vice president of cybersecurity and innovation at USTelecom. Peters said that USTelecom pushed the FCC to roll back efforts that “require telecommunications providers to have a cybersecurity plan and then stick to it.”
“Officials say… cybersecurity is a priority, but at the same time, they’re basically gutting all of our cybersecurity institutions,” Peters said. “From rolling back the FCC rule to ignoring their own guidelines regarding the handling of America’s most sensitive personal information, as well as pushing out cybersecurity experts all across government, firing the people who know what needs to be done.”
Mayer emphasized that regulating telecommunication networks is not as effective as encouraging innovation.
“We have a very sophisticated adversary, and the way to deal with this is collaboration with government, partnership with government, [and] accountability,” Mayer said. “We’re making progress, and we shouldn’t stifle that or kill that with a compliance regime where you have 40 to 70 percent of your practitioners doing paperwork. We need to focus on the threat.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) supported Carr’s efforts to roll back regulations of telecommunications companies.
“Our challenge, therefore, is to secure communications infrastructure effectively without creating excessive and useless regulation that stifles the very innovation that gives our competitive edge,” Cruz said.
Daniel Gizinski, the president of the satellite and space communications segment at Comtech, argued that a public-private partnership would allow the designers and builders of communication systems to give important input on closing security holes because they “have the best view of what the vulnerabilities are.”
“The application of well-intended checklists on defense systems often aren’t designed with the end system architecture in mind,” Gizinski said. “Having that in-depth, open conversation has been incredibly valuable in securing other systems that we’ve built and delivered over the years.”
Jamil Jaffer, founder and executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, told lawmakers that rather than regulating telecommunications companies, they should strive for an incentive-based approach through public-private partnerships because regulations will ultimately lead to companies doing the “minimum necessary at the latest time possible.”
“If, on the other hand, you incentivize people to do the right thing… they’re more likely to line up your boards, your CEOs, everybody’s going to be in the same room because they’re going to say, look, we get a benefit by doing these things,” said Jaffer. “To me, that’s a more effective way to get to the goal you want.”
However, former FCC Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Debra Jordan warned that providers still need to be held accountable for basic cyber hygiene that would prevent attacks from happening so easily.
“We must establish a verification regime to ensure the security of our nation’s communications infrastructure from the largest to the smallest providers. We’ve seen time and again through outage and enforcement investigations, where providers have not implemented even some of the most basic cyber hygiene uniformly across their networks, such as changing default passwords,” Jordan said.
Published in conjunction with 
House committee warns export control loopholes are accelerating China’s chipmaking
WASHINGTON – Lawmakers scrutinized U.S. export controls on semiconductor manufacturing equipment amid growing concern that loopholes are allowing China to advance its chipmaking capabilities faster than intended.
“America must close these loopholes to stop the Chinese Communist Party from leveraging their technology for its military modernization efforts and pursuit of technological dominance,” Subcommittee Chair Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) said in his opening statement at the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Witnesses warned that gaps in the system — from insufficient allied controls to weak enforcement and staffing shortages at the Bureau of Industry and Security — are hindering U.S. efforts to enforce chip export rules, while China continues expanding its semiconductor manufacturing capabilities.
Dean Ball, a senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation, said that while the U.S. has successfully restricted China’s access to the most cutting-edge chips, Beijing continues to acquire the equipment needed to manufacture them — including deep ultraviolet (DUV) immersion lithography machines, which create intricate layers of the microchip circuit and are fundamental to the process.
He noted that while the U.S. imposes strong export controls on domestically made equipment, it has failed to align controls with international allies whose companies continue to export to China, including Dutch manufacturer ASML, the world’s largest supplier of DUV immersion lithography machines.
“We have set on the path of denying China access to the most sophisticated machines in the world … but we have failed to deny access to something perhaps even more important: the machines that make the machines,” Ball said.
The result, Ball said, is the “worst of both worlds,” as American firms lose revenue while China continues to gain technological ground.
Chris McGuire, senior fellow for China and Emerging Technologies at the Council on Foreign Relations, stressed the need for the U.S. to impose broad restrictions on the export of all semiconductor manufacturing equipment capable of advanced production to China.
He also recommended expanding extraterritorial controls to the 33 allied countries currently exempt, including the Netherlands and Japan. This would apply the foreign-produced direct product rule, which restricts exports of foreign-made products that contain U.S. technology or are produced using U.S. equipment, to these nations.
“These controls have proven effective and would be nearly impossible for any company to design around, given ubiquity of U.S. technology in the semiconductor supply chain,” McGuire said.
Beyond the technology itself, lawmakers also questioned whether the United States has the capacity to enforce its own export rules.
Rep. Julie Johnson (D-Texas) pressed witnesses on recent personnel turnover at the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, the agency responsible for export licenses and enforcement compliance. She expressed concern that the changes have left the bureau under-resourced at a moment when semiconductor export controls are becoming increasingly complex.
Kevin Wolf, a former Commerce official, said the staffing gaps reflect broader federal restructuring and layoffs under the administration. He encouraged committee members to find ways to staff BIS with more subject matter experts, Mandarin speakers, people with intelligence experience and more.
“I’m very concerned about the talent drain because we can have all the policies in the world but if we don’t have the talent that’s smart enough to figure out how to enforce them and how to enact them then we’re not going to get very far,” Johnson said.
In her remarks, Ranking Member Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) argued that Trump has shifted export controls from a national security tool to a negotiating tool, citing the U.S.–China trade war and retaliation from Beijing on rare earth exports. She warned that new restrictions could now be seen abroad as a restart of the trade war rather than a security measure.
Kamlager-Dove also criticized Trump’s recently announced agreement with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, which includes the sale of 70,000 AI chips, suggesting it could put U.S. national security at risk.
“Our national security should never be negotiable and it should also never be for sale,” she said.
Myanmar in crisis: Lawmakers discuss China’s role, sanctions and junta-led elections
WASHINGTON — Nearly five years after Myanmar’s military coup, the country remains in turmoil, with continued persecution of Rohingya Muslims, expanding scam centers targeting international victims and deepening Chinese influence. At a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday, lawmakers questioned witnesses on how Washington should engage with the country ahead of junta-run December elections widely seen as illegitimate.
“(Myanmar’s) humanitarian catastrophe, its strategic importance in Southeast Asia and the ongoing war’s harmful effects on everyday Americans — all demand a thorough reevaluation of the United States policy,” Committee Chair U.S. Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.) said in her opening statement.
Witnesses included Kelley Currie, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Indo-Pacific Security Initiative and former Ambassador-at-Large for global women’s issues. Currie repeatedly stressed China’s vested interest in supporting the Myanmar military in the ongoing conflict, citing its supply of weapons to the junta, cutting off resources to ethnic resistance groups and mining of the country’s rare-earth minerals.
Currie added that Chinese transnational criminal organizations form the backbone of scam centers based in Myanmar — rapidly growing, multibillion-dollar criminal networks that traffic people and defraud victims, including many in the U.S..
“There are a number of intersecting conflict economics that are fueling this war and the main beneficiary of these conflict economics and the war itself is not even the military junta — it’s the People’s Republic of China,” Currie said.
Currie urged placing targeted sanctions on the military junta, noting the U.S. rolled back several in July for “no apparent reason,” including those on a key arms dealer — a move sharply criticized by U.N. experts.
Steve Ross, senior fellow at the Stimson Center, underscored that the U.S. must refuse to recognize the results of the upcoming elections, arguing the outcome is predetermined after the junta dissolved the main political opposition parties in 2023.
“These so-called elections will not be free, fair, or inclusive,” Ross said. “Rather they are intended to garner international recognition for the regime in hopes that this will translate into political, financial and military support that enables it to consolidate control.”
Rep. Gabe Amo (D-R.I.) raised the topic of humanitarian aid, specifically the Trump administration’s decision to close USAID earlier this year, thus severely impacting assistance to Myanmar.
“Civilians are dying at the hands of (the Myanmar) military junta, but also from malnutrition and lack of medical care,” Amo said.
Rohingya refugee and activist Lucky Karim echoed Amo’s sentiments about the importance of U.S. aid to Myanmar, adding that it encourages other countries to contribute. She noted that after the closure of USAID, several other countries including the U.K. and Germany have also cut aid to Myanmar.
“The USAID cuts largely and more directly and personally have impacted the community members in the camps including nutrition, learning centers and other programs that are used to provide protections,” Karim said.
Rep. Scott Perry (R-Penn.) urged the committee members to focus on solutions that won’t “encumber taxpayers.” In response, Currie suggested moving frozen Myanmar foreign exchange reserves to a managing account and using the interest to support humanitarian and governance assistance, similar to how interest from frozen Russian assets is being used to support Ukraine.
Currie also suggested pushing countries like Thailand and Bangladesh, which host large Myanmar refugee populations, to authorize refugees to work, in an effort to make the communities more self-sustaining.
“Peace will only come to (Myanmar) when the people of that country are allowed to drive their own future without the interference of their big neighbor China and without the military creating the enabling environment for conflict,” Currie said.
Lawmakers sound alarm on China’s “predatory pricing” of rare earth minerals, express support of American producers and manufacturers
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers reached a consensus that Congress needs to act to prevent China’s dominance in rare earth mineral production over American companies at a House Select Committee on China hearing on Wednesday.
Rare earth minerals are essential to various industries including magnet production, automotive and consumer electronic manufacturing. They also are vital to the defense industry, including the manufacturing of F-35 jets.
“There are many more [rare earth minerals] that are critical to American manufacturing, national security and our economy. Without them, our society would crumble,” Committee Chairman Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) said. “Bringing mining value chains back to the United States will take time and require concerted effort from Congress and industry. Without a permanent signal from Congress, businesses will not invest, and China’s advantage will grow.”
Ranking Member of the Committee Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) began his opening remarks with a video clip from the cartoon Charlie Brown, where the character Lucy holds a football and moves it away at the last second, causing Charlie Brown to fall on his face.
Krishnamoorthi said that it is a metaphor for the United States continually being tricked by China.
“The CCP (Chinese Communist Party) is running the same old economic playbook in different industries, and we’re falling for it again and again. Here’s the playbook. First, the CCP makes much more stuff than their domestic market requires. Second, they export the excess stuff below their cost,” Krishnamoorthi said. “By doing this, they pull the rug out from under non-Chinese companies trying to compete, and then third, once the CCP has killed the competition, they weaponize their monopoly for coercive purposes.”
Three officials from American mineral producers and magnet manufacturers served as witnesses at the hearing. MP Materials Executive Vice President of Corporate Affairs Matthew Sloustcher emphasized the importance of the global rare earth minerals industry despite its relatively small size but warned of letting China have too much influence.
“It’s tens of billions of dollars, but there’s trillions [of dollars] of economic activity downstream that it impacts, and that’s why this issue just has to be taken off the table,” Sloustcher said.
Lawmakers from both parties shared examples of the impact that predatory pricing of rare earth minerals has on their own constituents.
“Factories in my district face unstable prices for the parts they need. Auto suppliers can’t get the magnets required for electric motors. Steel and chemical producers see costs jump overnight, and workers, many of them union members who keep our district strong, end up facing uncertainty they didn’t create,” Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) said.
“[Lithium] is a key critical mineral that the U.S. must invest in and that we will see dividends if we properly do,” Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas) said. “East Texas is at the forefront of that… with companies nearing production in that area.”
Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), who represents the metro Detroit area, said policymakers recognized years ago that the United States is dependent on China for critical minerals and microchips that are used in the automotive industry. She said she is drafting legislation “to direct loan guarantees, tax credits, create an R&D (research and development) center of excellence” to assist American mineral companies.
“I continue also to join for bipartisan solutions, for a way forward for American manufacturing and our supply chain to beat China,” Stevens said.
Most of the committee members signaled the need for some sort of legislation supporting American companies that produce and use rare earth minerals. Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) raised concerns about relying too heavily on government funded support and was more inclined to leave solutions to private companies on the open market.
Sloustcher disagreed, arguing that China is manipulating the market in their favor.
“Free-market capitalism is the engine of our economy… but I think the reality is today, we are not operating in a free market. China is both a monopoly and a non-market economy,” Sloustcher responded.
Supreme Court struggles with constitutionality in soldier’s case suing government contractor
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices struggled with how to apply the definition of “uniquely federal interest” in military combat situations during oral arguments for Hencely v. Fluor Corporation on Monday.
Army Specialist Winston Hencely, the petitioner, was injured in 2016 at the Bagram military base in Afghanistan after an Afghan employee hired by government contractor Fluor Corporation detonated a suicide bomb that killed five people and injured 17 others. The bomb was made with materials provided at his job at the base, where he was allowed to roam unsupervised after hours.
Hencely sued the Fluor Corporation in 2019 under South Carolina tort law for alleged negligence and breach of contract with the military.
Lower courts ruled in favor of Fluor, holding that government contractors that are hired by the military cannot be sued under state tort law for wrongdoing or injury to soldiers in combat situations because combat is a “uniquely federal interest” that states cannot interfere with.
A “uniquely federal interest” is an area of the law where the federal government’s rule overrides state law because the interest is significant to the nation and comes under the federal government’s authority. Combat-related situations are an example of this. States cannot declare war on other nations because the Constitution reserves war powers as a uniquely federal interest.
The precedent case from 1988, Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, held that, according to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), government contractors are free from liability arising from state tort law claims when acting under military orders.
However, this case falls on the government contractor allegedly acting in breach of its contract with the military, further complicating the issue.
Frank Chang, the representing lawyer for Hencely, argued that because Congress has not acted within the FTCA or another law to prevent service members from suing military contractors, they are able to do so.
“Our Constitution presumes that state tort claims are available and leaves it to Congress to alter that default rule,” Chang said in his opening statement. “Congress has done so in some circumstances when it comes to federal contractors, but it has not barred claims by American soldiers injured by contractor negligence.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Chang about the Department of Defense’s own regulations that told contractors that there was potential for them to be liable.
“It’s the government’s understanding that there’s some operation of common law potentially against contractors in this universe, right?” Jackson said.
Chang responded that those facts are “huge” and further show that the federal government cannot protect contractors under the Boyle precedent for allegations against them if the “government’s decisions are not at issue.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch mentioned the increase in usage of military contractors in combat situations. He asked attorney Mark Mosier, representing Fluor Corporation, why the court has the expertise to decide the importance for the military to “have contractors not fearful of liability” versus “who don’t injure military members” instead of applying the Boyle precedent to this case.
“I’m just suggesting to you there are really good arguments on both sides of this, which would advance the war-making function of the federal government, and I don’t know,” Gorsuch said.
Atlantic Legal Foundation executive vice president Lawrence Ebner also said he believes that military contractors have played an increasingly important role in overseas combat. He wrote an amicus curiae brief supporting Fluor.
“The military needs these support contractors, and the system simply won’t work if there’s tort liability that’s available by injured persons to sue these contractors that work in ultra-hazardous areas and support the U.S. military,” Ebner said. “The fact that the government is supporting the contractors here is very significant.”
United States deputy solicitor general Curtis Gannon also gave an argument in Monday’s hearing. While the United States currently supports Fluor’s case that Hencely cannot sue the company under state tort law, Mosier also argued that Fluor was not aware that the employee and bomber had ties to the Taliban until the military investigated the bombing.
“Our position was that it was our duty to supervise to ensure that the employees carried out the work that they were supposed to do to fulfill the obligations under the contract, not to provide security, not to provide force protection. That remained the military’s responsibility,” Mosier said.
West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey wrote an amicus brief along with 19 other states in support of Hencely. He said his motivation was to defend the rights of military service members in West Virginia and across the nation.
“The draw to serve your country in this way is a huge part of the culture and the ethos of what it means to be a West Virginian,” McCuskey said. “When we saw that a soldier was being, in our opinion, treated unfairly in the federal court system, regardless of the fact of whether or not they were a West Virginian, this matters to the people of West Virginia.”
Google and Meta officials discuss censorship, AI legislation at Senate hearing
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers grilled public policy officials from two of the largest tech companies in the United States, Google and Meta, on the alleged “jawboning” they endured during the Biden administration and other policies during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Wednesday.
Jawboning is described as indirect coercion by the government of others to censor and take down posts that government officials dislike.
The hearing was a continuation of the committee’s hearing earlier this month on the Biden administration’s alleged censorship of tech companies, where committee members discussed Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the temporary suspension of television host Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show.
Commerce Committee Chairman Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) accused the tech companies of bias against conservatives and being influenced by the Biden administration. He also accused Google of taking down a YouTube video that compiled clips from presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump that suggested fraud during the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.
“I don’t think a tech monopoly should be deciding what the American citizens get to hear and what they don’t get to hear, particularly given your heavy ideological bias,” Cruz said.
Markham Erickson, vice president of government affairs and public policy at Google, clarified multiple times that Google took action against claims of widespread election fraud once elections were certified.
“We felt it was appropriate to take down allegations of widespread fraud because of potential real-world harm at that moment,” Erickson said. “When that time had dissipated, we did believe it was appropriate to deprecate that policy and allow for that discussion.”
The attacks from Republican senators towards Google and Meta continued with Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) questioning Neil Potts, the vice president of public policy at Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.
“You say mistakes happen, but your mistakes always happen against conservatives,” Blackburn said.
Potts responded to her earlier claims that Meta has spent $20 million on lobbying against bills that make it safer for children to go online. She said Meta has made a “playground for pedophiles.”
“We’ve worked tirelessly with law enforcement to remove that type of content from our platform,” Potts said.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) pointed to President Trump’s threats to use the Department of Justice to prosecute tech companies. He suggested that Meta’s recent policy changes were influenced by Trump’s threats.
“My Republican colleagues have spent endless time and resources concocting elaborate conspiracies about online censorship of conservatives, yet they have ignored the real threat staring them in the face: President Trump’s explicit threats to prosecute Mark Zuckerberg and Google,” Markey said.
Markey soon found himself in heated discourse with Cruz about the ongoing government shutdown, which has now reached its 29th day.
“Beginning on November 1st, 20 million Americans are going to get the notices that they’re either losing their health care insurance or it’s going to dramatically skyrocket,” Markey said. “That is a discussion that is hard to have with Republicans since the House has not been in session for six weeks.”
Cruz responded that he had spoken out about the increase in the cost of health insurance premiums.
“Senator Markey will recall I stood on the Senate floor for 21 hours saying that is exactly what would happen, that premiums would skyrocket,” Cruz said.
Despite the partisanship, some senators made positive references to bipartisan legislation. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) mentioned the progress she’s had in working with Cruz, Blackburn, and other Republican senators, including the passage of the TAKE IT DOWN Act on nonconsensual sexual images.
Klobuchar had her own encounter with an artificial intelligence deepfake video made of her earlier this year, prompting her to work on a bill with Republicans that gives people greater control over their intellectual property rights regarding AI.
“I do appreciate Google and YouTube support for the NO FAKES Act that Senator Blackburn and Senator Coons and Senator Tillis and I have, and I think it’s very important legislation right now,” Klobuchar said.
Trump nominee faces tough questioning at ambassador nomination hearing
WASHINGTON — Hamtramck, Michigan, Mayor Amer Ghalib forcefully defended past comments and years of social media activity during intense questioning by lawmakers at his confirmation hearing to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Kuwait on Thursday.
Ghalib faced scrutiny from eight members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations over his past statements on conflicts in the Middle East, including the war in Gaza. His nomination hearing was postponed in September after criticism from several groups committed to fighting antisemitism, including the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and StopAntisemitism.
Ranking Member Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) told Ghalib, “I have grave concerns about some of the statements that you have made, particularly those that seem to justify the October 7th attack against Israel.”
Shaheen referenced quotes from Ghalib’s “hometown news outlet.” The Hamtramck Review reported in May that at a pro-Palestinian rally in 2023, Ghalib allegedly “justified Palestinian violence against Israel for its brutality against Palestinians, and denied that sexual violence happened against Israelis when Hamas militants invaded Israel on Oct. 7.”
Ghalib said he “totally condemn[s] what happened on October 7th.” He also said some of his statements were taken out of context and claimed the “media was biased in translating.”
Despite Ghalib’s reassurances, senators from both parties said they would not support his nomination, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who said he was “concerned that [Ghalib’s] stated public positions are markedly in conflict with the views of President Trump and with the positions of the United States.”
Ghalib replied, “I wouldn’t go against the President and his policies.”
Other Republican senators also said they’re worried Ghalib’s perspectives on the Middle East will contradict the messages the Trump administration hopes to convey overseas.
Sens. Dave McCormick (R-Penn.) and Cruz questioned Ghalib about allegedly liking a social media post comparing Jewish people to monkeys.
Ghalib called his previous social media activity, including his tendency to like every comment underneath his posts, a “bad habit.” He also said many of his controversial posts were made while he was a “private citizen,” before he was elected Hamtramck Mayor in 2021.
Multiple senators also referenced a post in which Ghalib allegedly called Saddam Hussein, the former leader of Iraq, a “martyr.” Ghalib said he made the post “in a moment of anger” after Iran launched missile strikes aimed at U.S. troops in Iraq in response to the U.S. killing of top Iranian general Quassem Suleimani in January 2020.
“As a private citizen, it is fine for you to have those views,” Sen. Shaheen said. “But it is very different when you are an ambassador representing the United States of America, particularly in a country that Saddam Hussein invaded.”
“I complimented Saddam because he kept Iran in check,” Ghalib said, “and probably that’s the only positive thing he did in his life.”
Ghalib, a Democrat and immigrant from Yemen, endorsed Trump for president and campaigned with him in Hamtramck in October 2024. Trump credited the Hamtramck Mayor with helping him win Michigan and nominated Ghalib for the ambassador role in March.
Ghalib is the third Michigander appointed to a diplomatic position in the Middle East by the Trump administration this year. Bill Bazzi, former mayor of Dearborn Heights, was confirmed as the U.S. Ambassador to Tunisia this month. This week, Trump also appointed Mark Savaya, owner of Leaf and Bud dispensaries throughout southeast Michigan, as the U.S. special envoy to Iraq.
According to Ghalib, the president personally reaffirmed his commitment to the nominee earlier in the month following criticism from several groups. “President Trump has just called me and emphasized his unwavering support to me to serve as the next Ambassador of the United States to the state of Kuwait, and he thanked our community for their support,” Ghalib wrote in a Facebook post.
Ghalib’s confirmation could take weeks or even months. Ghalib must receive a majority of votes from the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations before his nomination can be voted on by the full Senate. It is unclear when that will take place.
Published in conjunction with 
‘Judge, jury and executioner’: Legal experts, senators condemn U.S. strikes on alleged ‘narco-terrorist’ boats
WASHINGTON — U.S. forces struck two alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Pacific Ocean on Wednesday, eliciting international outcry as the Trump administration continues its campaign against alleged “narco-terrorists.”
Since early September, U.S. Special Operations forces have conducted nine confirmed strikes against alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific Ocean, killing at least 37 people and prompting intense legal scrutiny.
Without providing evidence, the Trump administration has framed the strikes as necessary to prevent members of Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and other cartels from smuggling illicit drugs across U.S. borders.
Experts in international law, national security law and presidential power have largely deemed the strikes illegal, citing human rights law, U.N. treaties and congressional war powers.
“President Trump is the judge, the jury and the executioner,” said Notre Dame Law School Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell, who specializes in international law. “He’s just ordered summary execution of people about whom he knows almost nothing in a context in which they have the right to life.”
That uncertainty has been a significant sticking point with critics. The White House has not released any evidence to support its claim that the boats carried fentanyl bound for the U.S.
Critics of the strikes, including Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), have raised concerns that the increased U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean could signal the administration’s intent to topple Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government.
Trump has stated publicly that he does not want Maduro in power, and acknowledged that he authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela, leaving many worried about potential regime change efforts.
The administration has attempted to provide a legal justification for the recent strikes.
In two September notifications to Congress, the White House said the attacks were acts of “self-defense” and alleged that the cartels’ actions amounted to an “armed attack” against the U.S.
According to international law experts, Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which recognizes countries’ right to self-defense following an “armed attack,” has historically been interpreted only to extend to attacks by other countries. Though the U.N. extended this right to include attacks from nonstate groups following 9/11, this recognition remains controversial.
“The real question is whether or not there’s an armed attack against the United States by international narcotics activities, and that’s a highly unlikely proposition,” said Antonio F. Perez, a law professor at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law.
Following one strike, Colombian President Gustavo Petro accused the U.S. of killing an innocent Colombian fisherman. O’Connell said that if this allegation is true, the strikes run afoul of the internationally-recognized right to life.
She added that the strikes may also violate the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which establishes a legal framework for international waters. The U.S. has not ratified the convention, but military advisors have for decades stated that the U.S. would “act in a manner consistent with its provisions.”
“We have a very narrow set of situations where military force can be used,” O’Connell said. “They’re not present in the Caribbean, they’re not present in Venezuela, they’re not present in Colombia.”
The White House is also facing discontent among lawmakers, who remain largely in the dark about many details of the strikes.
“We’re shut down on any concrete information on the basis of the intelligence,” Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) told Medill News Service.
Many Senate Democrats, along with Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), have balked at the administration’s apparent rejection of congressional authority.
“I think there is an obligation under the Constitution to consult with Congress,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told Medill News Service.
Last month, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced a joint War Powers Resolution to prevent Trump from taking military action against Venezuela without congressional authorization. Republicans ultimately tanked the bill.
“I support the administration,” Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told Medill News Service when asked about the boat strikes.
“I’m concerned about the escalation we’ve seen over the years with drugs poisoning our communities,” he added.
A group of U.N. experts condemned the strikes, and Russian and Chinese leaders have publicly expressed support for Venezuela. Maduro, meanwhile, confirmed that the Venezuelan military is preparing for a U.S. invasion and threatened an “armed fight.”
As the strikes challenge preexisting norms of domestic and international law, experts warn they could go largely unchecked, but could have lasting consequences on future military interventions.
“If this is correct, if Donald Trump has this authority, it would mean he could order the killing of anyone anywhere,” said Chris Edelson, an assistant government professor at American University. “If he believes that there are drug traffickers anywhere, why would it be limited to the Caribbean?”
Legislators discuss potential ramp up of Hezbollah drug trafficking in Latin America
WASHINGTON – Senators on both sides of the aisle expressed deep concern over Hezbollah’s narcotics trafficking in Latin America on Tuesday as the terrorist organization looks for new funding avenues, as its previous sources start to dwindle due to Israel’s decimation of its leadership and the reduction of Iranian funds.
“Iran’s looking more inward, and Hezbollah is cash starved,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) at a hearing for the Caucus on International Narcotics Control.
Hezbollah has extensively collaborated with Venezuela in securing arms, infrastructure, identification documents and pipelines for moving operatives and equipment, according to a study shared by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).
Experts also highlighted Hezbollah’s engagement with Venezuela’s free trade zones. This comes amid the Trump administration conducting bombings on Venezuelan “drug boats” and after the administration declared an “armed conflict” on drug cartels in early September. The administration has not stated a clear motive or clarified the number of people killed in the bombings.
“Officially, our position is we’re there to stop narco-terrorists,” a senior administrator from the White House told Axios. “We’re going to blow up their boats. And we’re going to be patient about it. No one is in any rush.”
Expert witnesses like Matthew Levitt, the director of Reinhard Program on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, also described Hezbollah’s actions in Latin America as “narco-terrorism.”
Levitt said studying Hezbollah’s previous actions can help predict their future ones.
“When Hezbollah is under stress, they traditionally reach out to their list of financial networks around the world,” Dr. Levitt said. “We know that we can anticipate, not that they will, but that they are doubling and tripling down on that network right now.”
Levitt did not provide any current evidence that Hezbollah has recently accelerated its efforts.
Marshall Billingslea, former Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, advised not to turn a blind eye on Venezuela because it’s a “willing safe haven” to Hezbollah.
Cornyn expressed hope that this hearing would provide clarity on the Trump administration’s recent actions.
“I think this will also help people understand why the Trump administration and Secretary Rubio have focused so much on Venezuela,” Cornyn said.
Defense Secretary Hegseth announces overhaul of military complaint, Inspector General programs at speech to senior military officials
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a massive overhaul of the reporting processes for military servicemembers to file whistleblower complaints and report discrimination during a speech last Tuesday, September 30, in Quantico, Virginia.
“I call it the ‘no more walking on eggshells’ policy,” Hegseth said to an audience of top-ranking generals and military officials.
According to memorandums that Hegseth signed, the Department of Defense will be reforming the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs that servicemembers and civilian employees of the military use to file complaints regarding discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and other personal characteristics. For example, a servicemember who is denied a promotion based on what they believe to be racial discrimination would file a Military Equal Opportunity complaint.
Hegseth also announced reforms to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the military, which deals with investigations of fraud, waste and abuse of power or government funds.
“We are overhauling an Inspector General process, the IG, that has been weaponized, putting complainers, ideologues and poor performers in the driver’s seat,” Hegseth said.
Hegseth emphasized in both his speech and the memorandums that the Department of Defense will punish those who file false and duplicate complaints. According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it is already illegal to file a false complaint, for example, forging a document to use as evidence in a case.
Military lawyer Brenner Fissell said he agrees that the Inspector General process has been abused and needs reform.
“I have, in my experience, seen how the whistleblower and IG complaint system is used as a generalized employment grievance repository, and it doesn’t seem like it’s functioning in the way that it really should be, which is for waste, fraud and abuse on a systemic level,” said Fissell, who serves as the vice president of the National Institute of Military Justice.
The new rules for the OIG set a 7 day time limit to determine if a complaint merits investigation.
For MEO and EEO complaints, that credibility review process will now be limited to 30 days. However, Fissell said that these processes can take months, suggesting 90 days to be a more reasonable time frame.
“It’s an aggressive timetable to be sure. It’s pretty easy to implement that (reform) because it means you’re just going to throw out a lot of stuff if there’s not credible evidence. The overall effect is they’re going to be throwing out more claims,” Fissell said.
Another change to the MEO program mentioned in a memorandum removes anonymous reporting options and replaces them with a confidential complaint reporting option. This means that complaint filers would have to disclose their name in the complaint, even if it is kept confidential.
The Department of Defense’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) made it clear in an update on their website that the changes to anonymity reporting “do not pertain to Restricted Reporting of sexual assault.”
Hegseth stated in his speech that infractions like racial discrimination and sexual harassment will continue to be “ruthlessly enforced.”
Elisa Cardnell, president of Service Women’s Action Network, works on supporting active duty and veteran women service members report sexual harassment, find mental health resources and file Veterans Affairs claims. She said that even though the sexual assault reporting process is separate and has not been directly affected by the new directives, she is keeping an eye on future changes.
“Any time you set that culture where, instead of being open to hearing when something happens, you are shutting these things down preemptively, you may see some hesitancy to report assaults, harassment, and other crimes,” Cardnell said.
Carnell said that the stigma associated with reporting assaults or whistleblower complaints as well as the consequences of taking time off work or family already prevent many people from filing complaints.
“There is a barrier to submitting those complaints regardless of whether it’s for the sexual assault or whether it’s for the equal opportunity side or an OIG investigation,” Cardnell said. “While, of course, we do know that false complaints exist, they are not the problem that they have been made out to be.”
Rep. Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.) said that Hegseth is attempting to get rid of accountability in the military as part of a broader movement to remove DEI initiatives and eliminate “wokeness.”
“He views anyone who wants to call out misdeeds or call out discrimination as somehow “being woke,” when in fact, the application of justice and fairness is part of why people want to serve,” Strickland said.
Medill Today | Thursday, February 19, 2026