What happened

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said Monday that President Donald Trump ordered her to Atlanta last week for a controversial FBI raid to seize 2020 ballots and voter information from Fulton County. She also acknowledged, in a letter to the top Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees, that she “facilitated a brief phone call” between Trump and the Atlanta FBI team working on the politically charged case, part of the president’s effort to relitigate his 2020 loss to former President Joe Biden. Trump on Monday suggested Republicans “take over” and “nationalize” voting, in contravention of the Constitution.

A lawyer for an intelligence community whistleblower also accused Gabbard of withholding from Congress a complaint about her conduct filed eight months ago. Gabbard’s spokesperson said the number of classified details in the complaint made it “substantially more difficult” to clear it for congressional review.

Who said what

The whistleblower complaint, “which is said to be locked in a safe,” evokes a “cloak-and-dagger mystery reminiscent of a John le Carré novel,” involving not just Gabbard but also another federal agency and perhaps the White House, The Wall Street Journal said. Gabbard “has been an enigmatic figure in the Trump administration, sidelined from major national-security matters and tasked with investigating the results of the 2020 election.”

After a “rocky start,” Gabbard has been “boosting her standing within the administration” by “pursuing Trump’s election integrity priorities,” CNN said. But it is “unusual for America’s top intelligence official to be included in a domestic law enforcement operation” like the Atlanta raid, Reuters said. In her letter to Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), Gabbard said she was observing the FBI operation at Trump’s request and “under my broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate and analyze intelligence related to election security.” Warner’s office said Gabbard’s letter “raises more questions than it answers.”

What next?

The Atlanta FBI squad leader “primarily fielded” Trump’s queries during Gabbard’s “outside the bounds” speakerphone call, The New York Times said, citing three people with knowledge of the meeting. Gabbard said in her letter that Trump “did not ask any questions, nor did he or I issue any directives.” But by speaking “directly to the frontline agents doing the granular work of a politically sensitive investigation in which he has a large personal stake,” the Times said, Trump “may have provided significant ammunition to any future defense should the investigation yield criminal charges.”

The proposed Chinese embassy in London is once again under intense scrutiny as the government struggles to balance opportunity with security concerns in its approach to Beijing.

Following multiple delays, Keir Starmer is set to approve plans for the biggest Chinese embassy in Europe, after MI5 and MI6 declined to raise formal objections. But concerns persist over the site on the Royal Mint Court complex, next to “some of Britain’s most sensitive communications cables”, said The Times. These carry financial data to the City of London, as well as “email and messaging traffic for millions of internet users”.

According to unredacted blueprints seen by The Telegraph, China plans to build a network of “secret rooms” beneath the embassy, including a “hidden chamber” over these cables, “raising the prospect that they could be tapped”.

What did the commentators say?

“China won’t say what the basement is for,” Alan Woodward, security expert at the University of Surrey, told The Telegraph. It could be “legitimate classified communications equipment”. But the demolition of the basement wall is a “red flag”. One possibility is that “China plans to install extensive computer infrastructure as part of an espionage operation”, said the paper. Security services have warned that Beijing is “carrying out mass espionage against British targets”, said The Times. The head of MI5 has previously described Chinese state actors as a daily national security threat.

A group of Labour MPs has written to Steve Reed, the housing, communities and local government secretary, “urging the government not to approve” the embassy. Concerns remain “significant and unresolved”, including fears the complex could be used to “step up intimidation against diaspora and dissidents”.

“There have been a lot of examples before, where China used diplomatic premises to harass citizens or force people to travel back to China to face trials,” Carmen Lau, a prominent activist from Hong Kong who has been living in Britain since 2021, told Le Monde. “When I first arrived here, I felt safe. Not anymore.”

Approval of the complex could also jeopardise intelligence sharing with the US and the Five Eyes alliance, said the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. Last year, a senior Trump administration official said the US was “deeply concerned about providing China with potential access to the sensitive communications of one of our closest allies”. Any reduction in sharing between two of the world’s most advanced intelligence agencies “would have serious consequences for both countries’ national security”.

But consolidating the seven sites in London that currently comprise “China’s diplomatic footprint” would “clearly bring security advantages”, the prime minister’s spokesperson said in December. China is “engaged in surveillance and interference operations, whether it has a new embassy or not”, Nigel Inkster, from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told Le Monde. “And it will probably be easier for British intelligence services to monitor its activities if they are all grouped together in one place.”

What next?

“National security is our first duty and government security experts have been involved throughout the process so far,” a government spokesperson told The Telegraph. All security implications “have been identified and addressed”.

China’s London embassy did not respond to The Telegraph’s requests for comment on the unredacted blueprints, but Beijing has previously denied all allegations of espionage at the site, saying that “anti-China elements are always keen on slandering and attacking China”.

Starmer will approve the plans by 20 January, ahead of his trip to Beijing, where a £100 million scheme to renovate the ageing British embassy is awaiting approval by the Chinese authorities.

What happened

President Donald Trump yesterday announced he was working with the U.S. Navy to design and build a “Trump class” fleet of “battleships” that would form a centerpiece of America’s revamped “Golden Fleet.” The new warships will “be the fastest, the biggest and by far 100 times more powerful than any battleship ever built,” Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago, standing alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Navy Secretary John Phelan and renderings of the proposed vessel. The last U.S. battleship was decommissioned in 1992.

Who said what

Trump said construction would begin “almost immediately” on the first of up to 25 Trump-class ships, the USS Defiant, which would be delivered in “two and a half years.” A U.S. official told The Associated Press that construction was planned to begin in the early 2030s. “There is no funding in the current Pentagon budget” for the warships, Politico said.

The new ships, as described by Trump, “will be armed with hypersonic missiles, nuclear cruise missiles, rail guns and high-powered lasers,” the AP said, “all technologies that are in various stages of development by the Navy,” with some previously abandoned as impractical. Massive new $5 billion warships are “exactly what we don’t need” to defend “against the Chinese threat,” retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, now at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told The Wall Street Journal. “They are focused on the president’s visual that a battleship is a cool-looking ship.”

What next?

“This ship is never going to sail,” Mark Cancian, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told The Washington Post. He predicted it would “take four, five, six years” to just develop the ship. Trump said he would meet with defense contractors in Florida next week to accelerate production.

What happened

The Interior Department yesterday said it was “pausing — effective immediately” — all “large-scale offshore wind projects under construction” in the U.S. “due to national security risks” identified by the Pentagon in “recently completed classified reports.” The announcement effectively halts five wind energy projects off the East Coast from Virginia to New England, leaving just two operational wind farms in U.S. coastal waters.

Who said what

Halting the wind farms was the “most sweeping broadsides yet against the renewable energy source” most directly in President Donald Trump’s “crosshairs,” Axios said. Trump has boosted fossil fuels and hampered renewable energy throughout his time in office, but he has been on a personal “crusade” against wind power “ever since, 14 years ago, he failed to stop an offshore wind farm visible from one of his golf courses in Scotland,” The New York Times said. Now his administration is “essentially gutting” America’s “nascent offshore wind industry.” 

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum cited the classified “emerging national security risks” in a statement, but White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said Trump “has been clear” that “wind energy is the scam of the century.” Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D), whose constituents were among the 2.5 million households and businesses expected to benefit from the blocked wind farms, said Trump’s “erratic anti-business move” would “drive up the price of electricity” across the region. 

Trump’s “bogus ‘national security risks’” excuse will also “set back the cause of generating enough energy to meet the demands of the AI boom,” The Washington Post said in an editorial. A federal judge two weeks ago struck down Trump’s executive order blocking wind energy projects, calling it illegal, “arbitrary and capricious.” But the “administration’s decision to cite potential national security risks could complicate legal challenges” going forward, The Associated Press said.

What next?

Burgum said on Fox News he was working with wind farm companies “to see if there’s a way to actually mitigate this.” But the indefinite “pause” has already “threatened to stymie a long-debated bipartisan energy permitting bill winding its way through Congress,” Politico said, and the “rising electricity prices” from sidelining nearly complete “major new power sources” could pose a “political problem for Trump’s party.” 

What happened

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth risked the lives of military personnel when he disclosed highly sensitive information about a pending military strike in Signal group chats in March, the Pentagon inspector general found in a classified report shared with Congress Wednesday, according to lawmakers and multiple news organizations. Hegseth violated Pentagon rules, the watchdog reportedly found, but it could not be determined if he improperly shared classified information, since the defense secretary can unilaterally declassify such material.

Who said what

“No classified information. Total exoneration. Case closed,” Hegseth said on social media. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said the “objective, evidence-based” inquiry “leaves no doubt” that Hegseth “endangered the lives of American pilots” and “created unacceptable risks” to their mission by “sharing classified operational details on an unsecure group chat.” Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, called the report a “damning review of an incompetent secretary of defense who is profoundly incapable of the job.”

The report’s release “comes at a delicate time for the former Fox News host, as scrutiny intensifies of his leadership,” especially over potentially illegal strikes on alleged drug traffickers, Reuters said. “Hegseth and his inner circle have been bracing for months” for the report’s release, hoping it “would mark the final chapter” of this “prolonged political headache,” CNN said. But instead, it could “compound existing concerns voiced by lawmakers from both sides of the aisle about Hegseth’s judgment.”

What next?

President Donald Trump “stands by” Hegseth, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday. An unclassified, redacted version of the inspector general’s report was expected to be released publicly today.

Climate change doesn’t just pose an existential threat to our planet. It’s also ratcheting up national security risks. With increasing food insecurity, resource scarcity and unstable borders, climate change could lead to a rise in political tensions both within the U.S. and between other countries.

How is climate change a security risk?

An unpredictable climate “leads to heightened risks of interpersonal and intergroup violence,” said the World Economic Forum. A one-degree Celsius uptick in temperature can “increase interpersonal violence by approximately 2%, while intergroup conflict risk” can increase by “2.5% to 5%.” This is largely attributed to resource loss. With a two-degree change, “not only will there be continual extreme weather events, but the average climate will have changed so that crops now grown can no longer survive; water shortages will become widespread; and food will be in short supply,” said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, at Newsroom.

As a result, there will be climate refugees deepening “regional conflicts that could explode to encompass many countries,” said Trenberth. Climate change “takes things that we were already worried about, like extremism or terrorism, and exacerbates the scale or nature of those threats,” Scott Moore, a practice professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania, said to Time. “If you have these intensified climate change impacts, they place stress on things like food systems, and worsen already existing tensions within countries.”

The U.S., in particular, faces a “compounding threat when it comes to conflict, disease, migration, poverty,” as well as the “ability of the American military to operate effectively globally,” said Jake Sullivan, former President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, to The New York Times. In addition, playing a “leading role in the innovation and manufacturing of clean energy technologies” is “vital” for the U.S. economy.

What is the government doing about it?

The threat of climate change on national security has been identified on both sides of the U.S. political aisle, at least until recently. It was first acknowledged by President George W. Bush in 1991, and first listed as a threat by the U.S. national security community in 2008. However, in the U.S. intelligence community’s 2025 Annual Threat Assessment, any mention of climate change was noticeably absent for the first time in more than a decade. Instead, they focused on the “most extreme and critical direct threats to our national security," said Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, in a Senate Intelligence Committee meeting when questioned about the climate change exclusion.

The Trump administration has been known to deny climate change and curtail programs dedicated to the environment or aid. It has “defunded climate science, shut down USAID, cut billions from foreign aid,” as well as “withdrawn America from the Paris Climate Agreement,” said William S. Becker at The Hill. Unfortunately, failing to acknowledge the threat climate change poses will make the administration's national security sector “less nimble,” said Mark Nevitt, an associate professor of law at Emory University, to Time. “You can’t just wish climate change away.”

What happened

Federal prosecutors in Maryland Thursday charged John Bolton, the longtime Republican national security official who worked for and then became a critic of President Donald Trump, with mishandling classified information. The 18-count indictment alleges that Bolton emailed more than 1,000 pages of “diary-like entries” to his wife and daughter while working as Trump’s national security adviser in 2018 and 2019.

Who said what

The prosecution of Bolton, the third Trump “adversary” charged in the last month, will “unfold against the backdrop of concerns that the Justice Department is pursuing the president’s political enemies while at the same time sparing his allies from scrutiny,” The Associated Press said. But this indictment is “significantly more detailed in its allegations than earlier cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.”

Bolton “insists on his innocence,” The Washington Post said in an editorial. But “even if the case was as strong as the 26-page indictment suggests,” Trump’s conduct “inevitably casts a cloud over the charges.” There is “little doubt that the underlying motivation for this prosecution is retribution,” The Wall Street Journal said in an editorial. If Bolton had “praised” Trump, “it’s safe to say he wouldn’t have been indicted.”

What next?

Bolton was expected to make an initial court appearance today. Meanwhile, Trump’s “unprecedented effort to pressure the Justice Department into prosecuting his perceived enemies” continues apace, the Post said, with prosecutors “pursuing investigations into a sitting U.S. senator, former top leaders of the FBI and CIA and the Georgia prosecutor who charged Trump in a massive 2020 election conspiracy case.”

“It has all the makings of a gripping spy novel,” said Gaby Hinsliff in The Guardian. Two young men – one a parliamentary researcher, the other a teacher – are accused of passing secrets to China; but amid “swirling political intrigue” the case mysteriously collapses weeks before going to trial.

The government has been forced to deny that it intervened in the case to appease China, after the Crown Prosecution Service accused it of failing to provide the necessary evidence to prosecute both Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry. The two men had been charged under the Official Secrets Act, accused of passing parliamentary information to Beijing between 2021 and 2023. The current government and the last one have blamed each other for failing to officially designate China a threat to national security – without which, it is argued, the case would have been thrown out.

Yesterday, No. 10 released three witness statements from Keir Starmer’s deputy national security adviser outlining the UK’s handling of espionage allegations that led to the case collapsing. These clearly state that China has been carrying out “large scale espionage” against the UK, but stressed the need for a “positive economic relationship” with Beijing.

‘Who knew what?’

“Key questions remain,” said The Telegraph, including “why did Starmer do nothing to prevent the case collapsing?” and “did the Chinese government make any representations to the UK about this case?”

Another “crucial question”, said Tom Peck in his political sketch for The Times, is “who knew China had become a threat and by when?” That matter “took over Prime Minister’s Questions” yesterday despite MPs admitting privately that they “don’t actually understand” the issue.

‘More confidence needed’

“You don’t need to be George Smiley to know that Beijing is doing everything it can to compromise our security,” said Michael Gove in the Daily Mail. Its spies “bribe, bully, honeytrap and eavesdrop” in order to acquire state secrets and intellectual property.

As well as a profound threat, China is also a crucial partner, said Josh Glancy in The Sunday Times. So Labour’s balanced policy makes sense: engage, but “proceed with extreme caution”. What seems to be lacking is “confidence” in our values; there’s “an undue fear of ruffling China’s feathers”. Look at Germany. Its trading relationship with China is three times larger than ours, and yet last month a German national was imprisoned for spying for Beijing, without any trade bust-ups. Engagement is well and good, but with a nation as ruthless as China, “it works best in tandem with strength”.

What happened

DOGE operatives uploaded a full copy of a crucial Social Security database to a vulnerable cloud server only they can access, putting the personal information of hundreds of millions of Americans at risk, Social Security Administration Chief Data Officer Charles Borges said in a whistleblower complaint Tuesday. The database contains every Social Security number plus corresponding full names, addresses, birthdates and other information coveted by identity thieves.

Who said what

Borges said in his complaint, filed by the nonprofit Government Accountability Project, that DOGE workers ignored internal warnings and copied the Numident database to the digital cloud in June, after the Supreme Court lifted a block on Elon Musk's government downsizing operation accessing Social Security data. Borges said he only learned about the data transfer afterward by piecing clues together.

If "bad actors gain access" to the database, "Americans may be susceptible to widespread identity theft" and loss of "vital health care and food benefits," and would likely need "a new Social Security Number, at great cost" to taxpayers, Borges said in the complaint. The DOGE actions "potentially violated multiple federal statutes," he added.

What next?

An SSA spokesperson said the "data referenced in the complaint" is "walled off from the internet," and the agency was "not aware of any compromise" to the servers. Borges "would not risk his career" if "he did not think that this was a huge security risk for the American public," his attorney Andrea Meza told The Washington Post. The complaint asked Congress and the Office of Special Counsel to "take appropriate oversight action."

What happened

An imposter used artificial intelligence to mimic Secretary of State Marco Rubio in voice and text messages to high-ranking officials including three foreign ministers, a governor and a member of Congress, according to a State Department cable obtained by The Washington Post.

Who said what

The unknown "actor" left voicemails for officials on the Signal messaging app, favored by the Trump administration, after a fake account with the display name marco.rubio@state.gov was created in mid-June. "In one instance," the imposter "sent a text message inviting the individual to communicate on Signal," the July 3 cable said. In addition, "other State Department personnel were impersonated using email," said the Post.

AI was used to impersonate Rubio earlier this year, when a deepfake video appeared to show him saying he wanted to "cut off Ukraine's access to Elon Musk's Starlink internet service," said The Associated Press. The "impersonation campaign" underscores the scale of the threat posed by "bad actors harnessing quickly evolving voice-cloning technology," said Axios. This "isn't a very sophisticated thing," said Ana Cabrera on MSNBC. "It doesn't take a tech guru to pull this off."

What next?

The State Department told the Post it would "carry out a thorough investigation" into the Rubio security breach "and continue to implement safeguards to prevent this from happening in the future."

Soon after former National Security Adviser Mike Waltz appeared at the center of a major scandal over the use of messaging app Signal, the White House found itself in trouble again when Waltz was photographed using another messaging app, TeleMessage. The latter was recently hacked and then suspended its service, causing more concern among national security experts.

What happened with the app?

The app in question, TeleMessage, was infiltrated by a hacker, who stole data containing the "contents of some direct messages and group chats sent using its Signal clone, as well as modified versions of WhatsApp," according to tech outlet 404Media, which first reported the incident. The app was reportedly used by high-level members of the Trump administration, including Waltz, Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

The hacker has "not obtained the messages of cabinet members, Waltz," or other White House officials, said 404Media. But TeleMessage confirmed the hack and "worked quickly to contain it and engaged an external cybersecurity firm to support our investigation," the app's parent company, Smarsh, said in a statement. Out of an "abundance of caution, all TeleMessage services have been temporarily suspended."

What is the White House connection?

The TeleMessage hack comes days after a "photograph of Mike Waltz, then the national security adviser, showed that he was using the application to read Signal messages on his phone," said The New York Times. The picture, taken by a Reuters photographer, depicted Waltz looking at what appeared to be the app while in a Cabinet meeting.

Experts raised issues over Waltz's use of TeleMessage due to potential security concerns surrounding encrypted messages. This also occurred after Waltz created a chat room on Signal to "discuss strikes on Houthi militants in Yemen, but inadvertently added a journalist from The Atlantic to the group," said the Times, which many believe may have contributed to Waltz's ousting as national security adviser.

Adding scrutiny to Waltz's use of TeleMessage during the Cabinet meeting is the fact that the photo "appeared to show chat logs on Waltz’s phone with Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, among others," said CNN. Questions of TeleMessage's vulnerabilities have also been raised. Unlike Signal, which "automatically encrypts messages as they travel between users," the "details around TeleMessage's encryption and security protocols aren't fully clear," said NBC News.

Signal is "highly regarded by cybersecurity experts, but the federal government has specific systems and protocols for transmitting sensitive information and messages," said NBC. Using encrypted messages "poses a problem for officials subject to laws that require them to save their correspondence — creating a tension between the need for secrecy and archiving." TeleMessage previously had a message on its website that it was "conceived for just such a reason," said NBC, but this message no longer appears.

TeleMessage was "designed to capture the messages once they've been decrypted so they can be preserved and stored," said Reuters. That "functionality can be useful for complying with government rules on document retention but if poorly implemented it can introduce security risks."

What happened

President Donald Trump said Thursday he had removed Mike Waltz as national security adviser and would nominate him to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in the first major Cabinet shakeup of his second term. Trump said Secretary of State Marco Rubio would temporarily add Waltz's former job to his portfolio.

Who said what

Waltz "lost favor" with Trump and senior advisers after he accidentally added a journalist to a war-planning Signal chat with other top Cabinet officials, "a crisis that dominated headlines and became one of the first major embarrassments for the administration," The Wall Street Journal said. The "Signal episode hurt Waltz," The Associated Press said, but not as much as "attacks" by far-right influencer Laura Loomer and Waltz's own "hawkish views on Iran and Russia."

Loomer, believed to have convinced Trump to fire much of Waltz's staff last month, texted "Loomered" to Politico after the site reported Waltz's exit. Trump reportedly "wanted to get to the 100-day mark in his term before firing a Cabinet-level official," Reuters said. Now, "after three months of relative restraint," said Politico, "Trump may be ready to fire others." He churned through four national security advisers in his first term.

Rubio, meanwhile, is now "secretary of everything," The New York Times said. There are "precedents — sort of" — for being both secretary of state and national security adviser, though that 1973-75 Henry Kissinger "experiment" was "considered a failure." But Rubio is also acting administrator of USAID and acting archivist of the National Archives, a "proliferation of titles" that "raises questions" about whether he can "play any substantial role in the administration."

What next?

Instead of giving Waltz a "quiet exit," Trump is "sending him through the gauntlet of a Senate confirmation process" to be U.N. ambassador, Axios said. Waltz can expect a "potentially explosive" hearing, The Washington Post said, with Democrats grilling him on the Signal debacle and other "recent national security blunders."

What happened

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared detailed, sensitive plans for an imminent attack on Yemen with a second Signal group chat that included his wife, brother and personal lawyer, The New York Times and other news organizations reported Sunday.

The new revelations capped a "month of total chaos at the Pentagon," newly departed Hegseth spokesperson John Ullyot said Sunday in an essay at Politico.

Who said what

Hegseth posted "essentially the same attack plans" in the newly uncovered group text as he had shared with Trump's top national security officials at "roughly the same time" on March 15, the Times said. Unlike the "Signalgate" group, some of the 13 participants in Hegseth's "Defense | Team Huddle" chat had no "apparent need to be given real-time information" on a forthcoming strike on the Houthis, and this time Hegseth "used his private phone, rather than his government one."

Along with Hegseth's wife, Jennifer, and brother Phil — a Pentagon liaison with the Homeland Security Department — the group chat included top Hegseth aides Dan Caldwell, Darin Selnick and Joe Kasper. Caldwell, Selnick and a third top Pentagon aide, Colin Carroll, were escorted out of Pentagon last week and fired on Friday, accused of leaking unauthorized information — a charge they denied in a statement on Saturday.

What next?

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) asked the Pentagon inspector general's office to "include this latest incident in its ongoing investigation of Mr. Hegseth's mishandling of classified information." Other Democrats called for his ouster. Given the "dysfunction" and "disarray under Hegseth's leadership," Ullyot said at Politico, it's "hard to see" him "remaining in his role for much longer."

President Donald Trump's second administration has not been lacking in scandal. One of the largest incidents recently occurred among high-ranking administration officials and has been dubbed "Signalgate." But this is far from the White House's only controversy related to national security.

Signalgate

On March 24, Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, revealed that he had been added to a group chat in the messaging app Signal about an upcoming U.S. strike against the Houthis in Yemen. Members of the chat included Vice President J.D. Vance, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and others.

Soon after Goldberg was added to the chat, bombs began falling in Yemen, confirming that the conversation was real. It is "not uncommon for national security officials to communicate on Signal," said Goldberg in his initial article. But the app is "used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters — not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action." The discussion "concerned the timing and rationale of attacks on the Houthis" and eventually "veered toward the operational," Goldberg said in a follow-up article.

The White House defended the use of Signal for these classified conversations, and Waltz later claimed that Goldberg had been "sucked into" the group chat. "Nobody was texting war plans," Hegseth later told reporters, an assertion that turned out to be false. But the event represented "what national security experts say is one of the most serious White House national security breaches in years, if not decades," said USA Today. Both Republicans and Democrats expressed concern over the leak, and some vowed to get to the "bottom of whether the security breach violated laws like the Espionage Act, which prohibits gathering, transmitting or losing national defense."

Use of Gmail

Following Signalgate, Waltz found himself in more hot water after a report in The Washington Post alleged that he used Gmail to conduct government business. Most damningly, a "senior Waltz aide used the commercial email service for highly technical conversations with colleagues at other government agencies." This included emails concerning "sensitive military positions and powerful weapons systems relating to an ongoing conflict." The aide reportedly used their personal Gmail account, while other agency colleagues used their government Gmail accounts.

Waltz himself has had "less sensitive, but potentially exploitable information sent to his Gmail, such as his schedule and other work documents," according to the Post. Gmail counts millions of users and is much less secure than even Signal, so the incident "risks further damage to the standing of Waltz" and "places further scrutiny" upon U.S. intelligence agencies, said The Guardian. It marks the "latest example of questionable data security practices by top national security officials," said the Post.

NSA firings

Trump has taken drastic steps to reduce the size of the federal government, and some of these moves have generated national security concerns — most notably, a series of firings at the National Security Agency (NSA). The most significant axings were of U.S. Cyber Command head and NSA Director Gen. Timothy Haugh and NSA Deputy Director Wendy Noble. Haugh was "ousted because Laura Loomer, a far-right wing conspiracy theorist and Trump adviser, had accused him and his deputy of disloyalty," said The New York Times.

Haugh and Noble were two of "several national security officials fired" on Loomer's advice, said the Times. Members of Trump's National Security Council were also let go, and the "criterion Loomer appears to be using as she looks to oust people she sees as disloyal is their connections to critics of the Trump administration." Congress members from both sides of the aisle expressed concern over the firings, though more of this anger came from Democrats. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) "raised alarm about Laura Loomer's influence in the Trump administration," said The Hill.

The firings "severely compromise our ability to keep Americans safe" and it is "inexplicable that the administration would remove the senior leaders of NSA/CYBERCOM without cause or warning, and risk disrupting critical ongoing intelligence operations," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in a statement. Russia and China are "laughing at us because we just fired the absolute best leaders," said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) to CBS News.

Defense cuts

Beyond slashing jobs, budget cuts could also cut into the country's national security apparatus, experts say. Trump has overseen a "systematic degradation of its national security apparatus in just two months," said Time, part of a $580 million cut in spending for the Department of Defense. This has led to "diminished cyber offensive and defensive operations" that "offer adversaries unnecessary relief and expose the U.S. to new threats. It's part of a weakening of government institutions that leaves American national security at risk, according to analysts.

When it comes to the fired Defense Department employees, it remains "unclear how many, if any, will be exempt due to national security considerations, and that it is still unclear how people will be contacted," said NPR. The "list of priorities and possible cuts has troubled some on Capitol Hill who could see their own priorities come to an end." The list of total budget cuts includes at least 80 CIA workers, and the White House is reviewing a list of 3,600 FBI employees, including those involved in the FBI's Jan. 6 investigation and members of the FBI's counterterrorism division, for potential dismissal," said Time.

Database consolidation

Many details about the lives of the 330 million Americans are held in disconnected databases across the federal government — but that could change if Trump and DOGE head Elon Musk get their way. The White House is "now trying to connect the dots of that disparate information," according to The New York Times. This includes sensitive data such as gross income, Social Security numbers, medical records, gambling debts and "at least 263 more categories of data."

Trump has signed an executive order calling for the "consolidation of unclassified agency records" throughout federal agencies as part of his plan to weed out fraud. But this raised the "prospect of creating a kind of data trove about Americans that the government has never had before, and that members of the president's own party have historically opposed," said the Times.

Musk and DOGE have reportedly attempted to access large swaths of Americans' personal information in order to consolidate it, ignoring the "objections of career staff, data security protocols, national security experts and legal privacy protections," said the Times. While the "unclassified agency records" do not contain classified data, they included "personally sensitive information on virtually everyone in America." If Trump and Musk's plan came to fruition, it could "create a national security vulnerability that could be targeted by hostile nation states."

What happened

China Tuesday claimed the U.S. National Security Agency carried out "advanced" cyberattacks on critical infrastructure and athletes during the Asian Winter Games in February. Police in Harbin, which hosted the games, accused three Americans allegedly affiliated with the NSA of carrying out the hacks, as well as cyberattacks on Huawei Technologies.

Who said what

China's "detailed allegations" about NSA theft of sensitive data of athletes and essential industries come as Beijing and Washington "spiral deeper into a trade war," Reuters said. The U.S. "routinely accuses" China of cyberattacks on "critical infrastructure and government bodies."

Chinese officials "acknowledged in a secret December meeting" in Geneva that "Beijing was behind a widespread series of alarming cyberattacks" on "U.S. ports, water utilities, airports and other targets," The Wall Street Journal reported last week. The "first-of-its-kind" tacit admission "startled American officials" used to hearing Chinese officials blame the campaign "on a criminal outfit or accuse the U.S. of having an overactive imagination."

What next?

U.S.-China relations "have sunk to a new low" since the December meeting, the Journal said, and top Trump administration officials say the Pentagon will "pursue more offensive cyber strikes against China" as Beijing continues to "mine its extraordinary access to U.S. telecommunications networks."

What happened

President Donald Trump reportedly fired Gen. Tim Haugh, head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command, Thursday and sacked at least five National Security Council officials, a day after far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer had recommended the firings in a closed-door Oval Office meeting, according to Loomer and multiple White House officials.

Who said what

Trump confirmed Wednesday's meeting Thursday but "downplayed Loomer's influence on the firings," The Associated Press said. Loomer later "appeared to take credit." Haugh and his civilian deputy, Wendy Noble, "were "fired" because they "have been disloyal to President Trump," Loomer said on X. "The NSC officials I reported to President Trump are disloyal people."

Loomer brought to the Oval Office a "sheaf of papers attacking the character and loyalty of numerous NSC officials" and "vilified" several "by name," The New York Times said. Remarkably, Loomer, "viewed as extreme" even by some of Trump's "far-right allies," apparently wields "more influence over the staff of the National Security Council" than their embattled boss, Michael Waltz.

What next?

Lt. Gen. William J. Hartman, Haugh's deputy at Cyber Command, will reportedly serve as acting NSA director. Trump told reporters Thursday, en route to a golf gala in Miami, that "we're letting go" of "people that we don’t like or people that we don't think can do the job or people that may have loyalties to somebody else."

The Trump administration's "Signalgate" scandal remains very much in the "questions" phase as the White House struggles to explain how The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg was added to a secret, unsecured group chat of national security officials. Since the news broke, politicians and pundits have argued over everything from the semantics of "top secret" designations to the looming question of what consequences those responsible for the breach might face.

Prompted by the administration's insistence that it has done nothing wrong, Goldberg has continued to release details about his experience as an unseen observer to military coordination among Cabinet secretaries. Initially withheld by Goldberg for fear of endangering U.S. troops and exposing their operational capacities, the tranche of specifics published by The Atlantic not only seems to disprove the government's denials but also brings into sharper focus the operational dangers this chat may have caused. Given the latest revelations, there are tactical risks that have national security experts worried.

What did the commentators say?

The unredacted texts shared by Goldberg contained "very specific details of the timing of the launches from carriers of the planes that were to strike Houthi targets" in Yemen, said national security reporter Julian Barnes at The New York Times. Typically, information about the timing of a pending airstrike is "closely guarded" to "ensure that the targets cannot move into hiding" or even "mount a counterattack" while the attack is underway. If the details discussed in the chat had been seen "at the wrong time by the wrong person," said former Naval aviator Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) on X, it could have put active-duty soldiers at "serious risk of being harmed or killed."

The "specific attack details selecting human and weapons storage targets" shared by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth may not have been official "war plans," a term that carries a "specific meaning," said The Associated Press. But it was "likely informed by the same classified intelligence" as those officially designated documents and risked "tipping off adversaries of the pending attack." The details shared by Hegseth could have allowed adversaries to "evacuate targeted areas ranging from command and control centers, to communication sites and firing positions," said CNN, or even to "mass anti-aircraft and anti-missile weapons to overwhelm U.S. pilots."

More broadly, sharing "targeting plans and the employment of American forces" as well as the sequence of such an attacks — information that would in other circumstances likely be highly classified — can provide "insights on how the U.S. conducts sensitive military operations" at large, said The Wall Street Journal. "Our adversaries are watching and learning," said Brig. Gen. Peter Zwack (Ret.) to News Nation. The incident offers "unprecedented insight into U.S. military decision-making processes for China, Russia and Iran."

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who was included in the group chat, pushed back on the assertion that foreign adversaries could have capitalized on the information shared by Hegseth. "There were no sources, methods, locations or war plans that were shared," Gabbard said during a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Wednesday. The fact that the Yemen operation was successful is proof that no serious harm was done by those participating in the chat, the White House has claimed.

What next?

Beyond any political ramifications for the Trump administration and growing questions about how it coordinates and secures sensitive conversations over commercial software, Signalgate could lead to concrete operational challenges for the intelligence community. There is potential for "significant damage" to crucial international intelligence sharing operations, said The Hill, "particularly with the Five Eyes alliance" of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the U.S. and the U.K. Both allies and adversaries will likely ask themselves: "can the U.S. government keep sensitive information in a secure manner?" said former Assistant Defense Secretary Mara Karlin to the BBC.

"Intelligence cooperation and sharing relies on trust," former State Department spokesperson Ned Price said at Foreign Policy. "Something like this really erodes the fabric of trust that friendly intelligence agencies have with us" and will make allies "think twice" about divulging their own secrets.

What happened

The Atlantic Wednesday published the full Signal group chat on Yemen strikes between President Donald Trump's top national security officials and, inadvertently, the magazine's editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.

The White House and top intelligence officials continued to insist that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had not disclosed "war plans" or "classified information" on the unsecured messaging app, but few people outside the administration appeared to follow their lead.

Who said what

The information Hegseth shared about the imminent strike on Houthi targets was "jaw-dropping in its specificity and includes the type of information that is kept to a very close hold to protect the operational security of a military strike" and the safety of pilots, The Associated Press said. Even "routinely pro-Donald Trump figures pushed back" on Trump's "handling of the Signal scandal" and called for those responsible to be fired, Politico said.

"The White House is in denial that this was not classified or sensitive data," Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said. "They should just own up to it and preserve credibility." What Hegseth disclosed was "of such a sensitive nature that based on my knowledge, I would have wanted it classified," Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). Mistakes "should be acknowledged."

Trump has "privately expressed frustration about the incident," The Wall Street Journal said, but he made the "strategic decision to paper over his annoyance" and "attack, attack, attack." The president did "tentatively" blame national security adviser Michael Waltz Wednesday, Politico said, but continued to "vigorously defend" Hegseth. Waltz "claimed responsibility," and "I always thought it was Mike," Trump said. But "how do you bring Hegseth into it? He had nothing to do — look, look, it's all a witch hunt."

What next?

Wicker Wednesday "became the first member of his party to call for an independent review" at the Defense Department, The New York Times said. "But it is unclear who would oversee such an investigation," as Trump "fired the inspector general at the Pentagon" in his first week back in office.

What happened

President Donald Trump downplayed the seriousness of his top national security officials discussing operational details of an imminent military strike on Yemen in a Signal group text chat, calling it a "glitch" that "turned out not to be a serious one." Democrats disagreed and called for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and national security adviser Michael Waltz to step down.

Who said what

"I take full responsibility" for building the unsecured group chat that inadvertently included The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Waltz said on Fox News Tuesday night. "It's embarrassing. We're going to get to the bottom of it." Trump said he would not fire Waltz, calling him "a good man" who "has learned a lesson," and told reporters "there was no classified information, as I understand it."

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe similarly said in a Senate hearing Tuesday that no classified information was shared in the group chat, "bewildering Democrats and former U.S. officials, who regard that kind of targeting information as some of the most closely-held material ahead of a U.S. military campaign," Reuters said. But the intelligence chiefs also "shifted the spotlight back" to Hegseth, who shared the Yemen attack details, saying he "would be the one to determine what defense information is classified."

It's "total amateur hour," Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) told podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen. "This is what happens when you have basically Fox News personalities cosplaying as government officials."

What next?

At least four Senate Democrats called for Hegseth to resign and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) urged Trump to fire him. Some GOP lawmakers "called for an investigation," The New York Times said, but "most have shied away from criticizing" Trump's team or "calling on any officials to step down."

What happened

A group of top Trump administration officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, discussed detailed operational plans on striking Yemen in a group text conversation on Signal, Jeffrey Goldberg said at The Atlantic Monday.

Goldberg, the magazine's editor in chief, said he knew about the secret group chat because he was added to the conversation, presumably by accident, by national security adviser Michael Waltz.

Who said what

The White House is "reviewing how an inadvertent number was added" to what "appears to be an authentic message chain," National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes said. "I don't know anything about it," President Donald Trump told reporters. "You're telling me about it for the first time."

Hegseth criticized Goldberg and insisted that "nobody was texting war plans." Hegesth "can say that it wasn't a war plan," Goldberg replied on MSNBC, "but it was a minute-by-minute accounting of what was about to happen," including "precise details" like targets and weapons.

Discussing "sensitive war plans" on a "publicly available encrypted messaging service" was an "extraordinary" and "mind-boggling security breach" that highlighted the Trump team's "lax handling of America's secrets," Axios said. "Well, somebody f--ked up," said Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.). "Heads should roll," Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) told Axios.

What next?

Goldberg's revelations "triggered furious discussion inside the White House" that Waltz "may need to be forced out," Politico said, though Trump will "ultimately make the decision" as he "watches coverage of the embarrassing episode." Two people on the chat, Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, will face questions on the breach when they appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday and House Intelligence Committee Wednesday.

The world's major powers are locked into an artificial intelligence arms race. But new rules announced by the White House on Monday seek to guarantee American supremacy in that race.

The Biden administration's "unprecedented new export controls" intend to keep AI technology from falling into Chinese hands, said The Washington Post. The controls restrict the sale of AI-capable chips to "most countries in the world," part of an effort to keep Beijing from repurchasing American-made chips sold to third-party countries. America "leads the world in AI now, both AI development and AI chip design," said Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, "and it's critical that we keep it that way."

Biden is "rushing" to restrict AI chip exports because recent developments suggest that China is "catching up in the race" to create massively powerful AI systems, said Time. The Chinese company DeepSeek recently released an open-source AI model that "outperformed any American open-source language model." The development surprised officials "who had believed China lagged behind in terms of AI capabilities." The new rules are a "decisive move to make life much harder for China's AI ecosystem," said Greg Allen of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The 'contest for geopolitical superiority'

America and China are in "grim competition" with each other, and "both intend to be prepared for war," Ezra Klein said at The New York Times. AI superiority is now seen as "central to both sides of the conflict." DeepSeek's new model is part of a new wave of AI systems that can be built cheaply and stored on personal computers. But calls for restraint in the AI arms race will probably take second place to the "contest for geopolitical superiority," Klein said. America is the "leading power when it comes to artificial intelligence," said Jake Sullivan, Biden's national security advisor. "And we intend to keep it that way."

To do that, the new rules "strangle competition" in the tech marketplace, Chris Stokel-Walker said at Fast Company. Banning exports to China "makes sense, given how integral AI will be to shaping our future." But blocking exports to 120 other countries is harder to justify. That seems less about protecting America and "more like an overtly protectionist trade policy." That makes it "more likely countries will look towards China" to power their own AI efforts, Stokel-Walker said.

How long will U.S. lead last?

It's not just chip exports: Biden on Tuesday signed an executive order to ensure that AI data centers and clean-power facilities that supply them energy "can be built quickly and at scale," said The Associated Press. "We will not let America be out-built" in the AI industry, Biden said.

American chipmaker Nvidia and the European Union have both "expressed their displeasure" with the new rules, said Karl Freund, founder and analyst at Cambrian-AI Research, at Forbes. The winner? Beijing. China's chips are slower "but at least you can get them." For AI developers in Africa, South America or Asia, the Biden administration rules mean Chinese technology might "become your best and perhaps only choice." The new rules will slow down China's AI development, Freund said. "But for how long?"

An alleged Chinese spy who reportedly sought to gain influence in the UK by becoming a close confidant of Prince Andrew was named today as Chinese businessman Yang Tengbo.

The suspected agent, previously only identified as "H6", was banned from the UK last week. Yang, also known as Chris Yang, appealed against his initial ban in March 2023, but the decision was upheld by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. In a published ruling, the judge said that the then home secretary, Suella Braverman, was "entitled to conclude that [H6] represented a risk to the national security of the United Kingdom".

This is not the first time questions have been raised about those attempting to get access to members of the royal family. An alleged Russian spy met Prince Charles and Prince William in the late 2000s after working for MI6, the Daily Mail reported earlier this year.

And before he became King, Prince Charles faced scrutiny over his access to confidential cabinet papers, information that was only revealed after a three-year battle under freedom of information legislation.

What did the commentators say?

The Duke of York has long been "dogged by questions about two overlapping problems – his judgement and his finances", said the BBC. The latest revelations are a reminder "of how the royals can be targeted by those wanting to build links either for their own personal ambition or for a strategic political agenda".

Prince Andrew is no longer a working royal and "operates outside the royal fold". A letter found in Yang's possession "suggests the risks of such a position", describing the prince as "in a desperate situation and will grab onto anything".

Indeed, the letter reveals just how blind Andrew is to his own "vulnerability" from a national security perspective, said The Guardian "The alarm bells didn't ring for him," constitutional law expert Craig Prescott told the paper. "He could ultimately have been put in a very, very compromised position had MI5 not raised the alarm, ultimately."

The revelations that the alleged Chinese spy "was able to befriend Prince Andrew and enter Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace and Windsor Castle at his invitation is scarcely believable", said The Sunday Times in an editorial.

But the affair goes beyond the Duke of York's conduct and speaks to deeper issues with a royal family whose chief members "instinctively loathe transparency" and "supine" MPs who are all too willing to overlook "dubious associations and opaque finances".

What next?

Prince Andrew's office has said he has "ceased all contact" with Yang after receiving advice from the government, and claimed the two never discussed sensitive matters.

Yang today issued a statement in which he said he has "done nothing wrong or unlawful". He added: "The widespread description of me as a 'spy' is entirely untrue."

But the allegations are likely to cause some trouble for Keir Starmer and his bid to establish closer ties with Beijing. Labour MPs are "among those urging caution about the government's warmer approach to China", said The Guardian.

'Elon Musk is a national security risk'

Andrew Couts at Wired

Elon Musk's deleted X post "could be interpreted as a call to murder President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris," says Andrew Couts. It was the "latest in a long line of increasingly incendiary political posts from Musk, whose substantial defense contracts with the U.S. government may give him access to highly sensitive information." The government's "reliance on companies controlled by Musk has repeatedly raised the hackles of national security experts," and his "post further complicates matters."

Read more

'Vance had better buckle up: His debate might go as badly as Trump's'

Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post

J.D. Vance has had the "most disastrous vice-presidential run in memory," and "it could get worse" during the vice presidential debate, says Jennifer Rubin. Vance's "record is littered with gaffes, extreme statements and offensive slurs." But the "larger problem for Vance, however, may be that he has not accomplished anything (other than getting on the MAGA ticket) in his two brief years in elected office." His "lack of gravitas and substance may be painfully obvious."

Read more

'Modern wars are wars of attrition'

Sean Durns at The American Conservative

Often it is "attrition that is decisive in modern warfare," says Sean Durns. "Quick wars and conclusive victories, such as Israel's 1967 Six-Day War, are the exception." People are "drawn to the idea of decisive battles," but "focusing on engagements and personalities and failing to appreciate the attritional nature of modern warfare can lead to overly optimistic assessments." Claims that the "latest weapon will make a pivotal difference in the Russian-Ukrainian War should merit skepticism."

Read more

'Is Eric Adams' luck about to run out?'

Ross Barkan at The Nation

There has "never been a mayor like Eric Adams in the modern history of New York City," says Ross Barkan. It "would be too soon to declare Adams' political career over," but he is "deeply unpopular with many voters across the city." Incumbent mayors "almost always win reelection, but Adams is much more damaged than any of his recent predecessors." However, he "can take some solace in the weaknesses of his current challengers."

Read more

Police are investigating the "unexplained death" of a former Royal Marine charged with spying for Hong Kong's intelligence services.

The body of Matthew Trickett was found in a park in Maidenhead, Berkshire on Sunday evening, days after he was released on bail. The 36-year-old, originally from Poole in Dorset, was employed by Immigration Enforcement in February, and had previously worked for Border Force UK.

In court proceedings it emerged that Trickett, who served in the Royal Marines between 2007 and 2013, had attempted to end his life while in custody, said The Times. 

Trickett and co-defendants Chi Leung Wai and Chung Biu Yuen were accused of carrying out surveillance on Hong Kong pro-democracy activists living in the UK on behalf of the region's government. Wai was also employed by Border Force UK and runs a private security company, while Yuen is a retired Hong Kong police officer now working as a trade official in London.

On Monday, they were charged under the National Security Act with offences relating to "information gathering, surveillance and acts of deception that were likely to materially assist a foreign intelligence service". They were also separately charged with "trying to break into the home of a Hong Kong dissident living in Pontefract" on 1 May, The Telegraph said.

All three were granted bail, subject to conditions including a prohibition on foreign travel, restrictions on internet access, and weekly registration at their local police station. The Thames Valley police has referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct due to the death following police contact, as is standard in such cases. 

China "reacted angrily" to the charges, condemning what it called an "unwarranted accusation", said The Telegraph. 

Relations between Hong Kong and its former colonial ruler Britain have "soured" in the wake of pro-democracy protests in the Chinese city in 2019 and 2020, said CNN.

The British government has "criticised Hong Kong’s Beijing-backed crackdown" on opposition activists while Hong Kong authorities have "bristled at Britain providing a safe haven" for pro-democracy leaders tracked by Hong Kong police.

The Home Office is understood to have ordered "a review of Border Force and Immigration Enforcement recruitment, vetting and supervision procedures" in light of the arrests, said The Telegraph.

Europe needs to be ready to go it alone. After decades of relying on the United States and NATO to shoulder the burden of its defense, Reuters said, French President Emmanuel Macron last week declared that the continent must build "stronger, more integrated European defenses." That means building industrial capacity and its own anti-missile shield. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has made the need clear, Macron said. "There is a risk our Europe could die. We are not equipped to face the risks." 

Nuclear weapons may also be part of the mix. France already has an atomic arsenal, The Wall Street Journal said, but it may be time to "Europeanize" those weapons to protect the country's allies from attack, Macron said over the weekend. "This deterrence contributes to the credibility of European defense," he said in an interview. Other European countries might be ready to go along: Some German officials are reportedly looking to France and the U.K. to provide a nuclear umbrella for the continent "should the U.S. no longer be willing to fulfill that role."

That willingness (or lack thereof) was hovering over Macron's remarks. Former President Donald Trump might be in the White House next year, and he has made clear his antipathy to NATO. "Macron has no illusions about the future of U.S. commitment to European security," Gérard Araud said at the Atlantic Council blog. Even if President Joe Biden wins reelection, some level of "disengagement" by America is probably coming: "Brutal with Trump, gradual with Biden."

What did the commentators say?

"Europeans need to get their act together on defense," Kate Hansen Bundt said at Carnegie Europe. But that should be in the context of a "strengthened European pillar" of NATO — not a Europe-only approach. Post-Brexit Britain is part of NATO but not the European Union, so moving forward with an EU-centric defense strategy would mean excluding "Europe's strongest military power." France should take the lead in coordinating "true European capabilities" within NATO, to make Macron's vision become reality. "Visions are one thing; concrete action is what matters."

Macron has been calling for "European security and strategic autonomy" since he first took office in 2017,  Carine Guerout and Jason C. Moyer said at the Wilson Center. Russia's attack on Ukraine spurred his original vision into something closer to reality. Now "military budgets are reaching unprecedented levels." With his latest speech, Macron has positioned himself as a "disruptor" to decades of received wisdom about European security arrangements. "At the very least he does not accept the current order and is willing to openly question it."

The French leader "is determined to make a lasting impact on the EU," Ania Nussbaum said at Bloomberg. Macron is "well positioned to advocate for Europe" but the next step requires that his "ideological victories translate into concrete action." That might be a problem. Macron's peers think he's better at grandstanding than "quiet diplomatic coordination" with his colleagues. And while France has increased its defense production, the "continent is nowhere near being the 'war economy' that Macron proclaimed in the summer of 2022."

What next?

There is some action, however. Britain last week pledged to boost its own defense budget by £75 billion over six years to "pile pressure on European allies to follow suit," said Politico. "We can't keep thinking America will pay any price or bear any burden if we are unwilling to make sacrifices for our own security," Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said during a visit to Poland.  

But it's not clear when — or if — Europe will be able to stand on its own. "Many E.U. officials believe there is currently no credible alternative to the U.S. military umbrella," said NBC News. But Macron insists the continent has no choice but to prepare. "The United States has two priorities: the United States first and the China question second," he said. "The European question is not a geopolitical priority." 

Here's a paradox: Donald Trump faces trial for mishandling national secrets. But as the GOP's presidential nominee, he will be eligible for regular intelligence briefings by the federal government in the months leading up to November's election. The Biden administration is sticking with that "normally humdrum" tradition, Politico said, even though the briefings are "fraught with unusual risk this year due to the pending court case." Said one former intelligence official: "I'd be afraid about giving him stuff."

It's not just his history of cavalier treatment of classified docs, The Guardian said. Trump's "bromance" with Russian leader Vladimir Putin also raises concerns in the intelligence community. "I think Trump and Putin are natural bedfellows," said Douglas London, a retired CIA operations officer. That is why some Democrats are sounding the alarm. "There is literally nothing about Trump that suggests he would put our country's interests ahead of his own interests under almost any circumstances," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

One of Trump's former underlings is urging the White House to reconsider. "I don't think it makes any sense,” said John Bolton, who served as national security adviser before a highly publicized break with Trump. He was "perplexed" by the Biden administration's willingness to provide the briefing to Trump.

What did the commentators say?

"Trump is an anti-American, debt-ridden, unstable man who has voiced his open support for violent seditionists," Tom Nichols said at The Atlantic. For most Americans seeking security clearances to view classified information, the former president's history would be a deal-breaker. Trump has already proven he "cannot be trusted with classified information." This is why President Joe Biden's administration should skip the tradition of providing classified briefings to presidential nominees. "If Trump were a federal employee, he'd have likely already been stripped of his clearances and escorted from the building."

"If there's anyone in American politics less deserving of access to sensitive security information, I can't think of them," Steve Benen said at MSNBC. Trump has already spent years "carelessly and recklessly sharing sensitive national security information" — remember when he revealed secret info to Russian officials during an Oval Office visit in 2017? That makes a fresh round of briefings an "exceedingly dangerous idea."

"This decision is one of many where Biden is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't," Frederick Baron said at CNN. If briefings must be given, it should be with strict protocols in place — perhaps briefing Trump alone, without staff members, so that "if leaks occur he will be pinpointed as the obvious source." But it's important for Biden to uphold norms and traditions, even where Trump is concerned. Preserving American democracy means upholding the "balanced standards that have long sustained our system of government." And that means letting Trump have the briefings.

What next?

Trump doesn't seem to be doing much to allay concerns. His campaign is hiring Paul Manafort, The Washington Post said — the former lobbyist and Trump adviser whom a 2020 Senate report called a "grave counterintelligence threat" because of Manafort's links to a Russian spy. (Trump pardoned Manafort in 2020 for convictions on "money laundering, obstruction and foreign lobbying violations.") Manafort would give other prospective presidents pause, but the move would be "characteristically defiant" for Trump.

Some officials are urging the intelligence community to hold back a little bit, The Hill said. "I have to hope, and knowing the Intelligence Community as I do, that they will dumb down the briefing for Donald Trump," said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Why? "He's been so reckless."

In the meantime, the documents case against Trump isn't going away. Judge Aileen Cannon last week rejected an attempt by the former president's attorneys to dismiss the charges, said NPR. But there's a good chance that an actual trial in the case might be delayed until after the November election — by which time Americans will have decided if Trump gets to continue receiving classified briefings.

What happened

The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a bill to ban TikTok on national security grounds unless its Chinese owner, ByteDance, sells the app to a non-Chinese company.

Who said what

TikTok is a "valuable propaganda tool" the Chinese Communist Party can exploit, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) said, and its in-app push alert to lobby lawmakers against the bill is "just a small taste of how the CCP weaponizes applications it controls" to "further its agenda." "It's a ban based on zero evidence," TikTok spokesperson Jodi Seth said. 

The commentary

TikTok's security threat has "far less to do with who owns it" than "who writes the code and algorithms," the opaque ByteDance-owned "magic sauce" that makes "TikTok tick," The New York Times said. China will not sell its algorithm.

What next?

The bill faces an uncertain fate in the Senate. President Joe Biden has said he would sign the legislation. But Former President Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok when in office, reversed course last week and opposed any ban after pressure from a Republican megadonor with a $15 billion stake in ByteDance.

'Congress should force China to sell TikTok'

National Review editorial board

The House should pass its proposed legislation to force ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese owner, to "divest itself of the company financially," says the National Review editorial board. Yes, TikTok is a popular social media app. It also "is spyware" controlled by a "hostile rival superpower." And China showed it "is willing to weaponize" TikTok against us when it pressured thousands of "wailing" young users into flooding congressional phone lines to protest against "their favorite toy being taken away."

Read more

'This is what happens when you smash great expectations'

Bryce Covert in The New York Times

The economy "seems robust on paper, yet Americans are dissatisfied with it," says Bryce Covert. There are many reasons. Inflation has fallen but prices remain "uncomfortably high." Obtaining basics like housing or child care has become harder. Republicans "may just not like an economy run by a Democratic president." But a major factor is that "the country created the most robust safety net we had seen in decades" during the pandemic, then "took it all away."

Read more

'Trump and his MAGA movement stormed the Republican establishment. Now they have become it.'

Jonah Goldberg in the Los Angeles Times

The national Republican Party "is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Trumpism," says Johan Goldberg. Former President Donald Trump has long dominated the GOP, but his clinching of a third presidential nomination supercharged his "takeover" of the party, "culminating with the Trumpian captivity of the Republican National Committee." Now that his cronies and family control the RNC, the GOP establishment Trump set out to challenge is gone. MAGA is the Republican establishment now. 

Read more

'It sure seems like the courts have placed Christianity above other faiths'

Steve Kennedy in Slate

The conservative legal movement's push for "religious freedom" has resulted in big wins for "Christian legal interests," says Steve Kennedy. The courts have not been as kind to "religious practitioners outside of the 'Judeo-Christian' tradition." An appeals court recently ruled against the nonprofit Apache Stronghold in its suit against the sale of sacred Apache land to copper mining interests. It is "absurd" to argue that selling land tied to a specific "spiritual practice" doesn't inhibit religious freedom.

Read more

China is boosting its defense budget. It is ratcheting up its rhetoric against Taiwan. And also: It is trying to get its economy growing again. The country will boost its military spending by 7.2% this year, Reuters said, "fueling a military budget that has more than doubled under President Xi Jinping's 11 years in office." The announcement came at the National People's Congress, a "rubber-stamp parliament" that also officially adopted new language that drops any mention of "peaceful reunification" with Taiwan. All of this comes amid an entrenched economic slump: The rise in defense spending "comes in well above the government's economic growth forecast for this year," which has been targeted at 5%.

"Few things — not even a budget deficit of 3% of gross domestic product — will stand in the way of Beijing increasing defense spending," said the Financial Times. China's military budget has more than doubled under President Xi Jinping (though it still trails American defense spending) and that increase has been "matched by a growing number of regional disputes." But Xi has pledged to give his country a "world-class force" by 2027, and that means the military will "grow regardless of the economic health of China."

That health is shaky, CNN said. China's economy has been battered by a "troubled property sector, deflationary pressures, an exodus of foreign capital, a battered stock market and a record low birth rate." Hitting the 5% target, said one expert, is "ambitious but achievable."

'Gearing up for war'

The continued military spending — along with the change of rhetoric — suggests that Beijing is "gearing up for war," said Business Insider. China hasn't always used the word "peaceful" to describe its goal of reunification with Taiwan, but it's clear the country's leaders are now intent on "taking a tougher approach" to the island. The defense budget shows that leadership "wants to grow its military to the point where it is prepared to win a war if it has no choice but to fight one," said Li Mingjiang, a defense scholar at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, to Reuters.

Other observers are playing down the increase, saying it reflects a focus on "military readiness, not imminent war," said the South China Morning Post. "The cost of high-tech equipment is rising and the increase in military spending is normal to adapt to the advancements in military equipment," said a "former equipment expert" for the People's Liberation Army. That doesn't mean war is on the horizon. "The current situations in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea are controllable and preventable," said Yue Gang, a retired PLA colonel.

"Alarms should be ringing" in Taiwan and the United States, defense analyst Ben Lewis said in The New York Times. China's military has ratcheted up provocative air and naval activity around Taiwan in recent years, raising the "risk of an accidental confrontation." Increased military spending only makes that confrontation more likely, Michael Beckley and Hal Brands said at Foreign Policy. "One reason China has become more combative is because it can." 

No 'policy bazooka'

Sustaining that increased spending on the armed forces will be a lot easier, though, if the Chinese economy grows along with it. That's not a sure thing. While officials have set that "ambitious" economic growth target of 5%, they offered no "showstopping moves" to get there, The New York Times said. "Anybody who is looking for the policy bazooka is going to be disappointed," said Andrew Polk, the co-founder of Trivium China. The focus, it seems, is on actual bazookas. 

That's because Xi is giving "priority to strategic autonomy over economic growth," said The Wall Street Journal. Building the military is more important than building the economy. Why? It's all about power. "Xi clearly believes that a stringent focus on security can fend off any threats to his power stemming from China's current economic challenges," said Craig Singleton, the senior director of the China Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The next year could determine if Xi is right. 

What happened? 

House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Turner (R-Ohio) on Wednesday publicly urged President Joe Biden to "declassify all information" about a "serious national security threat." Officials later said Turner's unusual, cryptic warning referred to Russia's incomplete development of a space-based nuclear weapon to destroy satellites.

Who said what?

Turner is flagging a "serious" but "medium-to-long term" threat, so there's no "cause for panic," said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said he was "surprised" by Turner's statement, because he's "personally" briefing Turner and the other Gang of Eight lawmakers Thursday.

The commentary

If Russia were to deploy such a "satellite-killing weapon," it would violate the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, The New York Times said. And currently, the U.S. couldn't counter it. This kind of space weaponization from Russia and China is "one of the primary reasons" the U.S. Space Force was established, The Associated Press said. Russia's departure from the Outer Space Treaty could "open the floodgates" to nukes in space, said nuclear expert Steven Andreasen. And countries can use orbital nukes "for more than taking out satellites."

What next?

Russia is trying to challenge America's "space supremacy," but "the ingenuity of U.S. engineers" seems up to the task, David Ignatius said at The Washington Post. "It's a safe bet that the cycle of punch and counterpunch in space is just beginning."

American officials have spent the last few months warning against the possibility of a "wider war" in the Middle East. The deaths of three American soldiers in Jordan may prove a critical moment in that effort.

National security hawks are urging President Joe Biden to launch an attack on Iran, which backs the militias that launched the deadly drone attack in Jordan. "Hit Iran now," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote this week on social media. "Hit them hard." (Iran, for what it's worth, denied direct involvement in the attacks.) Politico reported that Biden administration officials are trying to figure out how to maintain a tricky balance with a response that "forcefully deter other attacks while also not further inflaming a smoldering region."

Iran-backed militias have attacked other U.S. bases in the region since the Israel-Hamas war began in October, Reuters observed, but never to such deadly effect. But Biden has avoided targeting Iran directly "out of fear of igniting a broader war." That's the biggest risk at the moment, observers say. "When you do things overtly you represent a major escalation for the Iranians," said the Center for a New American Security's Jonathan Lord.

This means that Biden's options "range from the unsatisfying to the highly risky," The New York Times reported. "There are no good choices, but the deaths and wounds of so many U.S. troops and SEALs demand a strong response," said one retired admiral. The U.S. and Iran have long been rivals, but have spent decades avoiding a direct war for fear of a never-ending "cycle of strikes and counterstrikes once an all-out conflict began." The attack in Jordan may have triggered that cycle. 

What did the commentators say?

"The sorry truth is that these casualties are the result of the President's policy choices," The Wall Street Journal editorialized. Iranian proxies have attacked American targets more than 150 times since the Israel-Hamas war started in October, inviting only "limited airstrikes" in response. The best choice now is to use "devastating force" against Iranian military and commercial targets. Will Biden make that decision? Maybe not. "The president has put his anxieties about upsetting Iran and risking escalation above his duty to defend U.S. soldiers abroad."

"Has the point of no return been reached?" Simon Tisdall asked at The Guardian. A military attack by the U.S. in Iran would have devastating ripple effects — prolonging the Gaza fighting, bringing Iran-backed Hezbollah into the war against Israel, and more broadly destabilizing the region. It's in nobody's interest to see that series of events. "Direct American military retaliation against Iran itself would be a disaster."

"Fortunately, Biden is thinking carefully" about the U.S. response, David Ignatius argued at The Washington Post. Any retaliation would aim to reduce the threats against U.S. forces. Attacking Iran, meanwhile "would risk a much wider war." The best way to end those threats would be to "broker a deal" that ends the fighting between Israel and Hamas. What's clear: Biden faces hard choices. "He's likely to take decisive action, but think hard about the consequences of the option he chooses."

What next?

American officials are trying to signal balance. "We're not looking for another war, but we absolutely will do what we have to do to protect ourselves," said the National Security Council's John Kirby. But it's clear they hold Iran responsible for the attack. "We're mindful" of Iran's "destabilizing behavior," Kirby said, as well as "the influence that they have in the region."

The response is coming soon. On Tuesday morning, Biden told reporters he holds Iran responsible for the Jordan attack — and that he has made a decision about how to respond. "They're supplying the weapons to the people who did it," he said, but added: "I don't think we're looking for a wider war in the Middle East, that's not what I'm looking for."

Kim Jong Un is rattling cages again.

The North Korean leader "could take some form of lethal military action against South Korea" in the near future, The New York Times reported, after engaging in a "pattern of provocations" and abandoning a long-held policy of trying to engage the United States diplomatically. Is a full-blown war imminent? Maybe not, but Kim "could carry out strikes in a way that he thinks would avoid rapid escalation."

Among the provocations: North Korea this week test-fired a new cruise missile — potentially capable of carrying both nuclear and conventional warheads — with several launches aimed toward the Yellow Sea. That came after Pyongyang ordered the destruction of the Arch of Reunification, a symbol of hopes for peace on the Korean peninsula. Newsweek reported that North Korea even released a series of propaganda posters with alarming slogans: "Let us destroy the U.S. imperialists and the clan of the Republic of Korea without mercy!"

Most importantly, The Associated Press reported, Kim earlier this month announced he had abandoned "the existential goal of reconciling with rival South Korea." That was a move that came as a shock, but was also the "inevitable culmination of years of building tension." And that has raised concerns. "Is Kim Jong Un about to take North Korea to war?" asked NBC News. It might seem like old news: "Threats and angry rhetoric" are an old family tradition for Kim. But some observers say his latest rhetoric goes beyond the usual posturing.

What did the commentators say? 

"We believe that, like his grandfather in 1950, Kim Jong Un has made a strategic decision to go to war," Robert L. Carlin and Siegfried Hecker wrote at 38 North, a website that tracks developments on the peninsula. One reason is the failure of diplomacy. Kim met with then-President Donald Trump in 2019 — an unprecedented summit between the two sides — in hopes of achieving what his predecessors never could: Normalization with the United States. "When that failed, it was a traumatic loss of face for Kim." And that makes the situation unstable. "Pyongyang could be planning to move in ways that completely defy our calculations."

"There's another, more plausible explanation for the despot's behavior," Josh Rogin argued at The Washington Post. Kim's "real priority" is to build his relationship with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, who has been buying and using North Korean weaponry in the war against Ukraine. Raising tensions in Asia lets Kim "justify his use of North Korea's money and industry for its weapons business rather than feeding its people."

Harsh rhetoric from Pyongyang might actually be a way to get diplomatic attention, John Feffer suggested at Responsible Statecraft. This means Kim's provocations might be "perversely, a determination to restart peace talks with newly attentive adversaries." But some analysts believed the same thing about Putin as he threatened war against Ukraine in the waning months of 2021. The lesson? "Beware wishful thinking."

What next?

Whether or not war develops, Voice of America reported, Kim's belligerence — along with his growing ties with Russia — is proving "disruptive to Beijing's efforts to improve its relationship with Washington." And it complicates an already tender picture in the Pacific. "North Korea making trouble for the U.S. is in China's interest," said one expert, "as long as it does not get out of control and risk war that China does not want — at least not until China is ready." 

In the meantime, officials in Washington and Seoul are downplaying the possibility of conflict, Reuters reported. War would be bad for North Korea, too. Count Sydney Seiler, a former U.S. intelligence officer, among the skeptics. "This," he said, "is not a country that is going to a war footing."

The head of the British Army has said that the UK should train a "citizen army" ready to fight a future land war.

Highlighting the threat from Russia, and noting steps being taken by other European nations such as Sweden and Germany to put their populations on a "war footing", General Patrick Sanders said that "we must similarly prepare – and that is a whole-of-nation undertaking.

"Ukraine brutally illustrates that regular armies start wars, citizen armies win them."

Who would be involved?

Sanders, who is chief of the general staff, was not advocating for conscription or for an imminent call-up of volunteers, but his speech at a military conference this week was intended to be "a wake-up call for the nation". 

He was "urging Britain to prepare for a mass mobilisation of tens of thousands of people, should war break out", said the BBC's defence correspondent Jonathan Beale. So a citizen army would almost certainly be comprised of individuals who are not career soldiers but rather civilians who can be called upon in times of need.

During the Second World War, the age range of those called up for service was 18 to 41, but in Ukraine, men aged 27 to 60, even without military experience, can currently be called up to fight. 

Women have been allowed to serve in all combat roles in the British Armed Forces since 2018, so it is likely that women would be called up.

Military experts hope that Sanders's call will help create a "second echelon" of reserve forces that could number up to half a million trained volunteers, said the London Evening Standard.

What would they do?

A Whitehall source told The Times that the British military’s role in training Ukrainian civilians and soldiers could act as a "mission rehearsal" for the UK. British troops have trained more than 30,000 Ukrainians, "many of them civilians who have never fired a weapon".

These Ukrainians, including "former lorry drivers and shopkeepers", were "put through an intensive five-week course" and Ministry of Defence officials believe there are "useful lessons" for preparing a future "citizen army" in the UK.

Those taking part should be "trained and equipped" to fight, said Sanders. But people in a citizen army would not be automatically sent to the frontlines, because there are now a "myriad of roles" that previously did not exist on the battlefield, said the Daily Mail.

These include "more specialised missions" by special forces, as well as drone pilots, vehicle technicians and emergency physicians, plus "high-tech" roles "far away from the frontlines".

Who would be exempt?

Although there are no plans for a mandatory call-up, the demography of people conscripted in the past gives a steer on the make-up of a possible citizen army. 

People who work in key industries that are regarded as vital to keeping the country running would probably be made exempt in the event of a war. In WWII, these included baking, farming, medicine, coal mining and engineering.

Based on current British armed forces rules, anyone who suffers from "deprivation of the senses", such as issues related to hearing or vision, would also probably be exempted, along with people suffering from psychiatric or cardiovascular issues, or from bone and joint problems, said LBC.

What has the reaction been?

Downing Street "does not seem keen" on the idea, said the BBC, after a spokesperson said that General Sanders' hypothetical scenarios were "not helpful". 

The plan is "unpopular and unaffordable", said The Guardian in an editorial.

According to a poll of 2,000 people reported in the Daily Mail, less than 10% of Britons would be willing to take up a combat role if the country faced a military threat. The researchers found just 27% would "unquestionably" join a war effort if the nation came under attack in a similar way to Ukraine.

Sanders said the Cold War peace dividend was over, noting that "over the last 30 years, the army has been halved in size" and that "in the last 12 years, we’ve absorbed a 28% reduction".

Military experts believe that "in the time of war", far more people would be motivated "to sign up to defend their nation", said The Times. 

General Nick Parker, a former Commander Land Forces, told Times Radio that the UK must "make sure that we are as resilient as we possibly can be, and to be prepared to question whether the forces that we have are the right ones for what may happen in the future".

Elon Musk has made little secret of his personal interest and engagement in Russia's year-and-a-half-long invasion effort against Ukraine, and that country's ongoing counteroffensive against their would-be occupiers. He has publicly admitted to "trying my hardest to de-escalate this situation and obviously failing," and mused to his more than 100 million followers on X, formerly Twitter, about which parts of Ukraine should be formally annexed into Russia, even while supplying thousands of his proprietary "Starlink" communications terminals to the region at the behest Ukrainian officials desperate for internet access to coordinate their military maneuvers. "Starlink is indeed the blood of our entire communication infrastructure now," Ukraine's digital minister told The New York Times this summer, highlighting the degree to which that country is technologically dependent on Musk's products — and by extension, Musk himself.

That dependency took on a particularly urgent note this week, with a revelation from Musk biographer Walter Isaacson that the billionaire had personally intervened to withhold Starlink services from a planned Ukrainian offensive against Russia's Black Sea fleet in occupied Crimea. Musk himself later confirmed the report — excerpted from Isaacson's upcoming biography, and first published in The Washington Post — by claiming on X that "SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation" had he complied with Ukraine's request for satellite connectivity in the region. However, by acknowledging that he himself had thwarted a sovereign country's military in what has essentially become a war of existential survival, Musk has inadvertently re-energized a long-simmering criticism that he has personally amassed too much power for a single, largely unaccountable, individual.

What the commentators said

Musk's decision allowed Russia to continue its naval bombardment of Ukrainian cities, Ukrainian official Mykhailo Podolyak said on X, calling it "the price of a cocktail of ignorance and big ego." Podolyak's criticism is an exception though, as "few nations will speak publicly about their concerns, for fear of alienating Mr. Musk" according to various intelligence and cybersecurity officials who spoke with The New York Times. Despite Musk being neither "a diplomat or statesman," one Pentagon official who spoke with The New Yorker's Ronan Farrow said he felt compelled "to treat him as such, given the influence he had" in the ongoing Ukrainian-Russian conflict. But rather than condemn Musk to outright villainy, Farrow placed the ultimate blame on "the systems around him."

It is "vast economic systems and political trend lines" that have created the opportunity for "a single mega-billionaire of this type" to be able to "fill the spaces that are going fallow at the hands of the state," Farrow explained on The New Yorker's The Political Scene podcast, citing Musk's dominance of both the private space travel and communications industries. "This is insane that we've let it get to this," agreed The Daily Beast's Andy Levy, placing similar blame on the vacuum ceded by the government in certain industries that allowed Musk to concentrate such acute power in himself — even to the detriment of his own companies. After intense negotiations to charge the Pentagon to keep Starlink services available to the Ukrainian military in 2022, Musk backtracked, having "succumbed to the bullshit on Twitter and to the haters at the Pentagon who leaked the story," SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell told Isaacson. "The Pentagon had a $145 million check ready to hand to me, literally."

What next?

Think of Musk as "a conglomerate," CNN's Seth Fiegerman urged at the onset of the billionaire's Twitter takeover. By controlling so many interconnected industries, "each arm of his empire potentially gives him more leverage, real or imagined, in advocating for the others." Operating against a "backdrop of crumbling infrastructure and declining trust in institutions," Musk excels at identifying "crucial areas where, after decades of privatization, the state has receded" and filling those voids with his own products," Farrow said. Moreover, "efforts to rein him in have had limited success," he explained to The Political Scene. Quoting an FAA official who declined to punish Musk for an unauthorized rocket launch, Farrow explained, "look, the guy is just so rich a fine doesn't hurt a company that he's running."

Six days after the FBI raided former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in August 2022 and removed boxes of classified documents he had refused to turn over, Trump issued a statement claiming all the documents he retained were declassified under a "standing order" he had issued when he was president. National security experts and former Trump administration officials were highly skeptical of the claim, and Bloomberg News reported Thursday that, in fact, no order was ever filed with the relevant federal agencies.

Some of those documents are at the center of the 37 felony counts the Justice Department has filed against Trump.

Bloomberg's Jason Leopold had filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Justice Department's national security division soon after Trump issued his statement, seeking a copy of Trump's standing order. The government said it could neither confirm nor deny that such a document existed, citing the ongoing criminal case against Trump.

On Thursday, after a court ruling in a similar case in Massachusetts threw out that rationale for withholding the information, government attorneys told Bloomberg that each agency "possesses no records responsive to your request" for Trump's alleged order.

The "standing order" claim is only one of many explanations Trump has given for his allegedly unlawful retention of highly classified documents. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) said Wednesday that based on his long acquaintance with Trump, he believes Trump just creates new lies about the documents each timed he's backed into a corner. The government's case against Trump doesn't require that the documents be classified in any case, only that they contain sensitive national security information.

On Thursday afternoon, federal officials arrested 21-year-old Jack Teixeira, a member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard, at his home in Dighton, Mass, charging him on Friday with having collected and disseminated a large batch of national security information and classified materials. The leak, which consisted largely of documents relating to Ukraine's ongoing defense against Russia's invasion, has prompted a major Pentagon and State Department scramble to address the fallout from the sudden airing of various national security secrets, while (once again) raising questions about how the United States keeps — and grants access to — its classified materials.

While Teixeira himself is hardly the first member of the amorphous national security "blob" to allegedly leak government secrets, the particulars of his actions — allegedly releasing the documents on a private Discord server occupied largely by teenage gamers — have placed this latest breach in a unique position; absent any statement of motivating ideology to explain his alleged actions so far, Teixeira has become a blank slate for pundits and politicians alike, upon which they have begun projecting their own spin on just who he is, and why he did what he's been accused of doing.

Is he a possible foreign asset?

Before Teixeira was identified and arrested, theories swirled that the massive breach of U.S. military and diplomatic secrets was in some way the work of a foreign government, with a Kremlin spokesperson telling The New York Times that "We all know that there is in fact an inclination to always blame Russia for everything, and to attribute everything to Russia."

Speaking with Reuters a week before Teixeira's arrest, three separate U.S. officials also pointed to "Russia or pro-Russia elements" as "likely" to be behind the leaks, noting that Russian casualty counts in the documents seemed to have been lowered — at least at some point during their dissemination — according to their "informal" assessments. Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, also initially identified the leak as having Russian origins, telling Reuters in a separate interview that "these are just standard elements of operational games by Russian intelligence. And nothing more. Russia is looking for any ways to seize back the initiative. To try to influence the scenarios for Ukraine's counteroffensive plans."

Is he a patriotic hero?

In an interview the day before his arrest, one of his off-line friends described Teixeira to The Washington Post as "patriotic, a devout Catholic and a libertarian with an interest in guns and doubts about America's future."

"He loved America but simply didn't feel confident in its future," the friend claimed. "At the end of the day he would side with this country over any other."

The narrative that Teixeira was acting out of some sense of patriotic duty, or at least with a measure of right-wing-infused incredulity about the country's trajectory, has taken hold among certain conservative circles who have lauded the leak for revealing "the truth," as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) wrote on Twitter shortly after he was identified as a suspect.

In part, Teixeira's alleged leaks have dovetailed with a pre-existing MAGA Republican hostility to the Ukraine-Russian war in general, prompting figures like Greene and Donald Trump Jr. to capitalize on the political fallout for the White House from the documents' release as reason to laud the leaker himself as a fundamentally anti-Biden figure.

During his eponymous program the night of Teixeira's arrest, Fox News host Tucker Carlson also framed the accused leaker in a positive, or at least justified, light, saying "the news media are celebrating the capture of the kid who told Americans what's actually happening in Ukraine. They are treating him like Osama Bin Laden, maybe even worse actually, because, unlike Al Qaeda, apparently, this kid is a racist."

Far-right actor-turned-MAGA-celebrity Randy Quaid also hailed Teixeira as an "American hero" and a "whistleblower," seemingly placing him on the level of more overtly ideologically motivated national security leakers like Chelsea Manning and Daniel Ellsberg.

As Vice News reported on Friday, that sentiment has seeped into far-right message boards across the internet, where "among the numerous threads dedicated to his arrested were ones titled: 'Fucking Legend,' 'May God Watch Over Him,' and 'American Hero Busted for Telling the Truth.'"

Is he a 'right-wing-chud poster'?

"I would definitely not call him a whistleblower. I would not call OG a whistleblower in the slightest," one member of the Discord channel where Teixeira allegedly shared his leaks told the Washington Post, using the internet handle he'd used in the group. Instead, the Post said, "the classified documents were intended only to benefit his online family" and shouldn't be compared to those leaked by Ellsberg or Edward Snowden.

"OG didn't leak for patriotism, principle, or even money," longtime national security reporter Spencer Ackerman wrote in his Forever Wars newsletter shortly before Teixeira's arrest. Instead, he allegedly "leaked for that most ineffable thing, something nonmaterial but nevertheless hyper-real in the logic of the poster, and particularly the right-wing-chud poster: clout."

Noting that Teixeira's purported internet presence was typical of a certain style of perpetually online right-wing follower, Ackerman concludes that we will likely see more of this type of leak in the future.

The Justice Department has offered limited immunity from prosecution to Kash Patel, a top adviser to former President Donald Trump, as part of the government's investigation into Trump's unauthorized retention of classified documents, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Guardian reported Wednesday, citing people familiar with the matter. The decision to shield Patel from his own potentially incriminating testimony paves the way for him to answer questions before a federal grand jury in the case.

Patel was summoned before the grand jury in October to testify about what he knows about Trump's improper removal of documents from the White House after he left office, including how the files got to Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, how Trump and his team responded to requests and court orders for their return, and Trump's and Patel's unsubstantiated claims that Trump declassified sets of documents before he left office.

"I was there with President Trump when he said 'We are declassifying this information,'" Patel told Breitbart News in May. Trump's lawyers have declined to repeat these claims in court, where there would be penalties for lying.

Patel reportedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions before the grand jury. Federal prosecutors "asked a federal judge to compel him to testify," arguing that "Patel had no reasonable expectation that he would be prosecuted based on the kinds of questions they were asking," the Journal reports. U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell disagreed, and prosecutors applied for an order granting him immunity and essentially voiding his Fifth Amendment claims. That order was granted Wednesday.

It isn't clear how Patel's testimony would have opened him up to criminal exposure. "If Trump didn't declassify the documents, Kash would be admitting to lying in Breitbart, which is not only not a crime, but it is generally assumed of columns that appear in Breitbart," Marcy Wheeler writes at Emptywheel. "If Trump actually did declassify these documents with Kash as a witness, Kash has no legal exposure whatsoever."

Patel's immunity offer comes "as prosecutors have increased their pressure on recalcitrant witnesses who have declined to answer investigators' questions or have provided them with potentially misleading accounts" about Trump's handling of the government documents, the Times reports. Trump could face charges of mishandling classified documents and obstruction, depending in part on the testimony prosecutors can obtain.

The legal team representing former President Donald Trump requested Monday that a federal judge deny the Justice Department's request to continue reviewing documents marked classified that investigators seized from his Mar-a-Lago property. According to The New York Times, this move was another attempt to delay the investigation into whether Trump criminally mishandled files after his presidency.

Trump's legal team renewed their request for an independent third-party reviewer, or "special master," to be assigned to comprehensively review the documents that agents seized from Trump's Florida residence. They asked the presiding judge, Aileen M. Cannon, to uphold her order blocking FBI investigators from viewing any of the documents until the special master completes the independent review.

The lengthy filing contested the DOJ's inquiry into whether Trump or his staff illegally housed national secrets at his personal property. Trump's lawyers addressed the investigation as "a document storage dispute that has spiraled out of control," claiming that investigators are going out of their way to criminalize Trump. They also implied that officials may have leaked information about the content of the files in question, per the Times.

Prosecutors argue that the judge's order hinders the criminal investigation's progress. The group of about 100 documents that are marked as classified makes up a small percentage of the nearly 13,000 papers gathered from Mar-a-Lago during a court-sanctioned search on Aug. 8.

The Justice Department on Thursday asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to stay part of her controversial ruling granting former President Donald Trump's request for a "special master" to review more than 10,000 documents the FBI removed from Trump's Mar-a-Lago club under a search warrant. Specifically, the department asked Cannon to return access to the 100-plus classified files taken from Mar-a-Lago and bar them from review by a special master, citing national security and other concerns.

The Justice Department gave Cannon until next Thursday to stay the flagged parts of her ruling before it asks the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene. Cannon gave Trump's legal team until Monday to respond.

Cannon barred the Justice Department from using the seized documents in its investigation of Trump's handling of classified records, but allowed a parallel review of the classified material by intelligence agencies to assess any harm to national security. The Justice Department said this "bifurcation" makes no sense, because the FBI is an integral part of the intelligence community and because investigators "must assess the likelihood that improperly stored classified information may have been accessed by others and compromised," which is "a core aspect of the FBI's criminal investigation."

The Justice Department told Cannon the intelligence community has halted its national security assessment due to "uncertainty regarding the bounds of the court's order." A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence confirmed the temporary pause to Politico. "Without a stay, the government and public also will suffer irreparable harm from the undue delay to the criminal investigation," the Justice Department added.

"The DOJ filing amounts to a full-throated rebuke of the ruling by Cannon, a Trump appointee," Politico reports. Among other concerns, the Justice Department lawyers "delivered an unsparing assessment of Cannon's contention that Trump might have a legitimate executive privilege claim over some of the seized documents," especially the classified records.

Still, the Justice Department did offer Trump some concessions, saying it plans to give his lawyers copies of "all unclassified documents recovered during the search — both personal records and government records," and return Trump's "personal items that were not commingled with classified records and thus are of likely diminished evidentiary value."

The National Archives and Records Administration waited until May 12 to give the FBI access to the highly classified documents retrieved from former President Donald Trump in January, despite the Justice Department's "urgent" requests for the materials, according to a letter from National Archivist Debra Wall released late Monday by conservative journalist John Solomon, one of Trump's two authorized NARA liaisons.

The May 10 letter to Trump's lawyers also affirms that the National Archives found more than 700 pages of classified documents, including "special access program materials" — among the most highly classified secrets in government — in the 15 boxes recovered from Trump's Mar-a-Lago complex. More classified material was taken from Mar-a-Lago by the FBI in June and August.

Much of the letter covers Wall's rejection of a request by Trump's lawyers to shield the documents from the FBI on executive privilege grounds. The White House counsel said President Biden "defers to my determination," Wall wrote, and after discussions with the Office of Legal Counsel, "the question in this case is not a close one."

"The executive branch here is seeking access to records belonging to, and in the custody of, the federal government itself," Wall wrote, "not only in order to investigate whether those records were handled in an unlawful manner but also, as the National Security Division explained, to 'conduct an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported and take any necessary remedial steps.'"

The letter released by Trump's team is "extraordinarily damning for Trump" and his team, Politico's Kyle Cheney marveled on Twitter. "Trump allies pointed to this letter as some kind of evidence of Biden White House meddling," but "what it shows is officials expressing extreme alarm about national security damage based on records being held by Trump."

The NARA letter is "damning" to Trump "on any number of levels," including its "lack of any reference to a claim by Trump's representatives that he had declassified any of the classified materials," adds University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck. "It's also telling that, even though this letter really hurts the Trump version of events, it wasn't released by the Biden Administration or NARA. It was released by Trump's own team — both a self-inflicted wound and further proof of how the government has been playing by the rules."

The FBI agents who executed a search warrant Monday at former President Donald Trump's Florida home Mar-a-Lago were looking for classified documents related to nuclear weapons, among other items, several people familiar with the matter told The Washington Post.

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity, and did not give the Post any additional details on the documents, including whether they involved weapons belonging to the U.S. or another country. They also did not reveal whether the documents were recovered during Monday's search of Mar-a-Lago, which is also a private club and holds events like weddings and fundraisers.

Experts told the Post documents about nuclear weapons are so sensitive that usually just a handful of government officials have access to them, and authorities would move as fast as possible to get this top-secret information back if it was no longer secure.

The Department of Justice on Thursday filed a motion to unseal the search warrant, which would likely reveal some information on what the agents were looking for at Mar-a-Lago and the crimes they could be linked to, the Post says. Trump, who along with his allies has called the search politically motivated, could release the warrant himself to share with the public. His lawyers have until 3 p.m. ET Friday to tell the court whether Trump objects to the unsealing.

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday said he personally authorized the decision to seek the search warrant, but did not give any details on what the agents were searching for or the investigation. The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment to the Post, and a Trump spokesperson did not immediately respond to their request for comment.

My personal superpower is that I always somehow pick the slowest line to stand in. I had occasion to muse on this fact on Sunday night ahead of a concert at New York's United Palace Theatre, when I hopped over to what appeared to be the shorter bag-check queue — only, inevitably, to end up behind someone who wanted to argue with the security guard over the venue's bag policy. Just my luck.

But my irritation at the hold-up turned into astonishment as I eavesdropped on the conversation: The guard was telling the ticketholder she couldn't enter unless she threw away her Ricola cough drops.

Now, I'm not a security expert, but it's hard to imagine how cough drops endanger to anyone's safety at a concert. (Examining the venue's lengthy list of prohibited items later, my only guess is that they qualified as "drugs.") But it's also not the first time I've been astonished at the strict — and arbitrary and out-of-control — bag policies at stadiums.

Anecdotally, if anything, they seem to be getting more egregious. Last year, I was almost denied entry to an Arizona Diamondbacks game when the guard insisted on measuring my iPhone-sized clutch (I passed, but just barely). I'm already in the process of shopping for a semi-stylish see-through bag just so I can be allowed into Mets games this season with my phone, keys, pencil, and scorebook.

Yes, stadiums are a place where security ought to be high. But culturally, we're perhaps unduly haunted by fears of bags, from the backpack that smuggled the weapon into Columbine High School to the pressure cooker bombs hidden near the Boston Marathon finish line. But today's increasingly elaborate bag policies are largely a case of security theater. It also unfairly targets women (who tend to be the primary carriers of bags even in mixed-gender groups and whose clothes have smaller pockets for accommodating things like keys or large smartphones); new parents (diaper bags); and people with special needs or disabilities who need to bring along extra gear.

It's not even evident that bag policies work. "Let's be honest: There's one hundred ways to bring a gun or a knife into an NFL stadium, and no clear bag is going to stop that," one commenter told Sports Illustrated in 2019. "If two boys can sneak into the Super Bowl and make a YouTube video documenting it, I'm pretty sure someone can sneak a weapon in." Another grumbled, "You can carry a purse on an airplane, but you can't bring it into a football game." Both are fair points.

And while a small or clear bag might ostensibly speed up the screening process to get into the venue, clear bags still need to be "searched" like an opaque bag would be: "You have to look inside to see if anything contains a firearm," Michael Dorn, the executive director of the school safety nonprofit Safe Havens International, explained to Bloomberg in relation to schools adopting clear bag policies. Besides — as Bloomberg goes on to elucidate — "pistols and knives can be hidden in transparent bags just as easily as tampons can … [i]nside tennis shoes, or wrapped up in T-shirts."

The bizarrely restrictive rules about what otherwise normal items you can put inside those bags are no better, and those unintuitive distinctions further complicate the search process. Is that unmarked blister pack holding forbidden Benadryl or acceptable chewing gum? We'll have to check.

There have been too many tragedies at mass gatherings to skip stadium security altogether. But that doesn't mean anything and everything is reasonable, and bag policies in America have crossed the line. I should be able to attend a concert or baseball game with more than a glorified ziplock. Because where else would I keep my Ricola?

What's a tactical nuclear bomb? It is — drumroll please — a nuclear bomb.

But please don't worry; they're small ones. Some are "only" the size of the weapons that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some are smaller than that. Some are so small they can be launched as artillery shells. Some can be dropped by airplanes or put on the tips of short(ish)-range missiles. Some tactical nukes could even be carried on your back, though it probably wouldn't be good for you.

There's been a fair amount of conversation online about the "tactical weapons gap." The United States has 230 of these smaller nukes, with reports that around 100 of those are in Europe. Russia has as many 2,000, most already in the European theater, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has seemed to indicate a willingness to use them, most likely if he felt himself to be losing in Ukraine, or if NATO joined the fight.

So, what would this gap really mean? Would it be decisive in a war?

No. "If we were to unleash a couple of hundred versus a couple of thousand [tactical nukes] it would be a distinction without a difference," Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Robert Latiff told The Week.

The sheer destructive power of each side renders the details significantly irrelevant. Tit for tat, by the time the U.S. is outgunned, we're at 460 nukes launched. It's enough to destroy every tank in this war. It's certainly enough to kill millions of civilians. The Russians could keep going from there, but now we're into madness land. And having run out of the little nukes, and afraid of losing, would we really stop without resorting to one — just one — strategic bomb?

If that happens, a war like we've seen before becomes a war unlike anything we've ever seen before. A tactical nuclear strike has taken us into an unwinnable strategic nuclear war.

The truth is no one is sure what would happen if even one of these tactical nuclear bombs were used in war. According to Latiff, the international reaction would differ if it happened in Ukraine itself or, say, in Poland. But the only people who really know how escalation would work aren't telling. The strategy for reacting to a small nuclear provocation is top secret, Latiff said.

Does that uncertainty make it more likely or less Putin would use one of these bombs? He may bank on a sub-nuclear NATO reaction. Or he may hold back because he can't bank on that. There are a lot of generals paid to think about these things. All the world can do is hope they're thinking clearly.

The COVID-19 pandemic began, for me, on Tuesday, March 10, 2020.

I'd first written about "the novel coronavirus," as we were calling it, in late February, when Carnevale ended early in Venice. The disease felt distant then; my husband and I had bought our bucket of lentils, but we didn't seriously anticipate more than a couple months' disruption. After all, there had been epidemics before — SARS, Ebola, that other respiratory thing that wasn't SARS — which never seemed to reach daily life for the vast majority of Americans, us included.

So on Sunday, March 8, we went to church as usual. I joked about COVID on Instagram. But by the next morning, we learned multiple COVID cases had been confirmed in our state. Sports cancellations started. Restaurants began to close. The World Health Organization declared a pandemic that Wednesday. A week later, our governor shuttered schools "for at least eight days." I guess this is a real thing, we said to our friends. I guess it's happening.

And so it did. Today we find ourselves at the start of the third year of COVID, measured by that mark, with a strange mishmash of restrictions and norms and an acute new crisis in Europe drawing our attention away from the chronic one here. The looming question now is not whether the pandemic will happen but how it will end — or if it has ended already? — or if it can end at all? Will we keep the rules we made forever?

I discussed pandemic measures in connection to our response to the 9/11 attacks in May of 2020, and I think the comparison remains useful now. One value is in the contrast: For most of us who neither lived in New York, Washington, or Pennsylvania nor personally lost someone to the attacks, 9/11 was a single day. Yes, there were those scares about anthrax and the lingering worry that any public space could be hit next. But in retrospect, it was a day, and then it was the aftermath, both awful but clearly demarcated. A new era begun in mere hours.

With COVID, however, the bounds of the crisis itself are a point of deep contention. Some speak of COVID in the past tense. For others, that word choice announces membership in a "death cult."

Another contrast is in what we know. We were surprised by 9/11, and the policy response was predicated on the attacks' secrecy and malintent: Some unknown bad people were out there (or in here!) plotting to do some unknown evil to an unknown group of us, and our government's mass surveillance, airport security, and invasions were supposed to find and stop them.

But COVID is not likewise secret or malicious, and we all have the data. We can all get numbers on how many people are infected and dying daily from the national level on down to our county, or even neighborhood. There's no color-coded threat chart handed to us from on high. We can all make our own risk assessments — assessments that, especially 24 months in, vary very widely.

Thus it's not impossible to answer the questions I've raised. On the contrary, we are awash in answers. Everyone has their own. And if we're only talking about how, when, and whether the pandemic can end, perhaps that doesn't matter. Reasonable people can disagree about many things in good faith. Here's one more for the pile.

But it matters for the rules, and the degree to which it matters rises in proportion to the scope and authority of those rules, which means it matters a great deal when the rules in question are laws, executive orders, and other mandates enforced by our federal government, the single most powerful state on Earth. My final question, then, could be refined. Not: Will we keep the rules we made forever? But: Whose risk assessment will decide if we keep these rules?

Last month, I took a trip, my first real vacation in three years thanks to a combination of the pandemic and having 2-year-old twins. It was good, restful — until the journey home, a miserable safety charade staged by the United States government.

First, Customs. An enormous room with more people than patience. Ceilings too low and Border Patrol staff too few, though the volume of travelers (and the staff needed to process us) could've been precisely determined in advance.

Then we retrieved our checked bag only to immediately recheck it. What's the security rationale for giving travelers mid-journey access to their luggage? Beats me! But we got it, lugging the bag we paid not to lug while also lugging (did I mention?) twin toddlers.

Last, the peak absurdity: Though we'd stayed inside security that whole time — after a screening apparently adequate to let us into the country and permit us to touch our checked bags at will — we were herded to a third line, a line of easily 1,000 people, to be screened by the TSA again.

But why? Why are we still doing this? The TSA's incompetence, corruption, indecency, cruelty, and deception have all been reported ad nauseam. Why is it still with us, 20 years on, with no apparent avenue for meaningful reform?

Some of it is that organizations of more than 50,000 people aren't easily disbanded. But the real force behind the TSA's continued function is not inertia but a constant, nagging, T-shirt-tag-itch fear: What if we scale down airport security and there's another 9/11? Do you want to die? Are you asking other people to risk their lives because you find it inconvenient to take off your shoes? To put your laptop in a box? Because you really wanted to keep drinking your water? Because you chose to take your whiny kids on vacation and then decided it was just too much trouble to take one hour out of an entire week to deal with a simple process to prevent mass death? Do you really think it's worth the risk?

As a matter of fact, I do. I do think we should get rid of the TSA and return to less invasive models of airport security, like those we had before 9/11 and which many other countries retain to this day. I think we'd sacrifice little to nothing in security (Americans wildly overestimate TSA effectiveness, despite all that reporting) and gain a lot in privacy, liberty, and ease, all of which are real goods worth preserving.

But my risk assessment isn't making the rules. And you can imagine — not that you need to, because it actually happened — how those fearful questions can be repurposed to prolong COVID measures long-term, even after risk assessments should change, after ever more people decide the pandemic is indeed over, after a third year of COVID. Or after 20.

The National Archives found documents clearly marked as classified, including at the "top secret" level, among the 15 boxes of papers and mementos former President Donald Trump improperly took home from the White House, The Washington Post reports. Those documents are now being kept in secure storage by the Justice Department while officials determine the next step.

A "top secret" classification, according to the Archives, applies to documents in which unauthorized disclosure "could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security." Even if the Justice Department doesn't launch a criminal investigation into how such materials ended up at Trump's not-secure club, former federal prosecutor Brandon Van Grack tells the Post, "the FBI would want and need to review the information and conduct an investigation to determine what occurred and whether any sources and methods were compromised."

One key question for federal or congressional investigators is how highly classified information ended up in Trump's Mar-a-Lago boxes.

One person familiar with the scramble to pack up Trump's belongings suggested some of the documents Trump piled up in the White House residence may have inadvertently ended up at Mar-a-Lago. But multiple people close to the former president told the Post that "Trump was very secretive about the packing of boxes that were retrieved from Mar-a-Lago last month, and did not let other aides — including some of his most senior advisers — look at them."

And "Trump has been loath to return the boxes of documents he took from the White House, despite repeated efforts by the National Archives to obtain them," starting last summer, when archivists noticed some high-profile records were missing, The New York Times reports. Eventually, "officials at the National Archives threatened to send a letter to Congress or the Department of Justice if he continued to withhold the boxes," and Trump started going through the files in December.

Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich told the Post that "a normal and routine process is being weaponized by anonymous, politically motivated government sources to peddle Fake News," and the National Archives could "credibly dispute this false reporting" but isn't.

The "top secret" document report comes atop other new revelations about Trump's habitual mishandling of presidential records, including frequently tearing up documents, possibly trying to flush printed paper down the toilet, and using personal cellphones that avoided White House call logs.

The Islamic State operating out of Afghanistan may have the capability to attack the United States in as soon as six months, a senior Pentagon official told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, said that U.S. intelligence assesses that while ISIS-K, as the group in Afghanistan is called, and al Qaeda both want to "conduct external operations, including against the United States," neither has the ability to do so right now. For ISIS-K, they could "generate that capability in somewhere between six or 12 months," Kahl said, while it could take "a year or two" for al Qaeda to be able to carry out attacks outside of Afghanistan.

Since the Taliban took over Afghanistan in August, ISIS-K has conducted several suicide bombings in the country, primarily targeting the Shia minority. "It is our assessment that the Taliban and ISIS-K are mortal enemies," Kahl said. "So the Taliban is highly motivated to go after ISIS-K. Their ability to do so, I think, is to be determined."

The U.S. intends to disrupt ISIS-K and al Qaeda so they aren't able to strike, Kahl said, and drones capable of hitting their targets are being flown into the region, Reuters reports.

Twelve National Guard members have been removed from inauguration duties and sent home, following screenings to see if any of the troops were involved in extremist activity, Defense Department officials confirmed on Tuesday.

Two of the troops made threatening comments about politicians via text and on social media, Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson, chief of the National Guard Bureau, told reporters. He would not reveal the exact threats, only saying they were "inappropriate." The other 10 National Guard members were removed due to domestic abuse, criminal investigations, and outstanding complaints, The New York Times reports.

In the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, officials have been looking to root out any troops with anti-government or white supremacist sympathies, and the FBI helped the military vet the more than 25,000 National Guard members being deployed to D.C amid the inaugural festivities. "At this point, we don't have the time to rundown every single piece of information," Hokanson said. "But there's enough information for us to determine to remove them from the Capitol."

Hokanson and other officials stressed that most of the National Guard troops are dedicated to protecting the United States, with Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) saying in a statement they "put their lives on hold to answer the call to service. They will defend the U.S. Capitol with their lives, and I trust them implicitly with mine."

After serving 17 years of a 20-year sentence, John Walker Lindh, the American captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and convicted of providing support to the Taliban, is set to be released from an Indiana federal prison on Thursday.

Lindh was 20 when he was arrested. After converting from Catholicism to Islam at 16, he left the U.S. to study Arabic in Yemen at 17. He made his way to Pakistan and Afghanistan, where he was a Taliban volunteer at an al-Qaeda training camp. Because he is an American citizen, Lindh was tried in federal court, and at his sentencing decried acts of terrorism and said he was wrong to join the Taliban.

Two leaked documents show that the government questions whether Lindh has shed his extremist views, The New York Times reports. A May 2016 memo said Lindh "continued to advocate for global jihad and to write and translate violent extremist texts," and a 2017 Federal Bureau of Prisons intelligence assessment states he made positive comments about the Islamic State.

Under his terms of release, Lindh will not be allowed to go online or own a device that can access the internet without permission from his probation officer, the Times reports. He also can't travel internationally or communicate with "any known extremist," and must go through mental health counseling.

Seamus Hughes, deputy director of George Washington University's program on extremism, told the Times the government doesn't have a system in place to deal with people like Lindh, and the best move would be to "team him up with a mentor, somebody who perhaps had the same experiences as he may have had and came out on the other side better off because of it."

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said on Thursday that as soon as the Department of Justice learns that an American company, private organization, or person has been hacked or otherwise covertly attacked by a foreign entity trying to influence an election, they will be notified.

"Exposing schemes to the public is an important way to neutralize them," Rosenstein said at the Aspen Security Forum. "The American people have a right to know if foreign governments are targeting them with propaganda." Microsoft executive Tom Burt told forum attendees that his team has already determined that the Russian military agency GRU has targeted at least three candidates running for office in the November midterm elections.

This new policy comes in the wake of the disinformation campaign waged by Russia during the 2016 presidential election, and it's a good start, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Washington Post. "If this disclosure requirement had been around in 2016, I firmly believe that it would have served as a meaningful deterrent after Russia's interference was first discovered, and it would have informed voters more quickly and more forcefully that a foreign government was trying to effect their vote," he said.

Documents obtained by CNN show that as of November, more than 100 staffers in the Executive Office of the President were still operating on interim security clearances, including high-profile senior advisers Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner and former White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter.

People with full permanent clearances are supposed to be careful about the information they share with those operating on an interim basis, but as staff secretary, Porter saw a wide range of documents and ultimately decided what papers should go to President Trump's desk. It's not clear how many staffers have since been granted full clearances or if it was a backlog that caused the delay in approving clearances or the background checks.

In November, Ivanka Trump, Kushner, and Porter were all still operating with interim access to both Top Secret information and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), CNN reports. Of the staffers who still had interim clearances in November, at least 24 began working for the Trump administration on Jan. 20, 2017. Read more about the clearance process at CNN.