Baby Kakapo!
And a drone obstacle course
Good Evening:
I have a lot of photography from my two weeks in Ukraine. Some of it I used in my two photo essays earlier. A lot of it I didn’t. Some of it I will use in a pile of Lawfare articles I mean to write. Some of it, however, will go by the wayside. This is a classic mission for the Good Morning image—or, in this case, the Good Evening image.
I started the Good Morning image back when I was still on Twitter. Every morning, I would post a single photograph with the words “Good Morning” and no explanation. When I abandoned Twitter and moved over here, I brought it with me as the opening of each post. Sometimes the images are silly and fun. Sometimes they are deadly serious. Sometimes, as in this case, they are simply informative.
Ideally, they would not have a caption at all—but in this case, I very much doubt the viewer would have any idea what the image represents without a word of explanation.
At any rate, I have a bunch of cool images from a variety of locales in Ukraine and will be greeting you with them until I exhaust them.
Monday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable Holly Berkley Fletcher and I welcomed the estimable Brittany Martinez of Principles First to tell us about her organization and the summit meeting it is about to host here in Washington:
Yesterday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable Holly Berkley Fletcher, the estimable Mike Feinberg, and I started talking without any particular topic in mind and ended up discussing everything from T.S. Eliot to Huey Long:
Sunday evening, we held the February MARA book club with the extremely estimable Kori Schake:
The Situation
The Situation on Friday considered the role of punctuation in a judicial opinion.
Today, I want to translate Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich Security Conference into plain simple English.
Speeches in diplomatese can be hard for normal English speakers to parse, so I thought a good translation would be helpful to those who might not understand the code in which the secretary of state was speaking.
Don’t thank me.
Rubio begins by harkening back to communism to remind European listeners that they owe us, that we saved them from a terrible fate, and that we are thus the good guys who command the moral high ground irrespective of current behavior:
We gather here today as members of a historic alliance, an alliance that saved and changed the world. When this conference began in 1963, it was in a nation—actually, it was on a continent—that was divided against itself. The line between communism and freedom ran through the heart of Germany. The first barbed fences of the Berlin Wall had gone up just two years prior.
At that time, victory was far from certain. But we were driven by a common purpose. We were unified not just by what we were fighting against; we were unified by what we were fighting for. And together, Europe and America prevailed and a continent was rebuilt. Our people prospered. In time, the East and West blocs were reunited. A civilization was once again made whole.
Translation: In the good old days, we had a common enemy. We were one civilization fighting the bad guys. We were one, you and I—brotherly nations, one might say. Remember that. You owe us. You should do what I say. Because it was in our unity, which is to say your doing what I say, that we won and protected our civilization.
It was in this victory, in Rubio’s fable, that the problem arose:
[T]he euphoria of this triumph led us to a dangerous delusion: that we had entered, quote, “the end of history;” that every nation would now be a liberal democracy; that the ties formed by trade and by commerce alone would now replace nationhood; that the rules-based global order—an overused term—would now replace the national interest; and that we would now live in a world without borders where everyone became a citizen of the world.
Note a few things about this passage. First, that it is a total parody of what anyone actually ever believed. Sure, there were delusions at the end of the Cold War era. But the phrase “The End of History” never meant the list of things that follow in Rubio’s account. And few people actually subscribed to the list of things that follow. Second, note as well the evident contempt for the idea of a rules-based order, a phrase Rubio derides as “overused.” Of all phrases in the post-Cold War world to single out for derision, it’s a curious choice. A lot of the rules-based order worked pretty well, after all.
”And [the delusion] has cost us dearly,” he goes on. It was because of “this delusion,” he says, that “we embraced a dogmatic vision of free and unfettered trade, even as some nations protected their economies and subsidized their companies to systematically undercut ours.” It was because of this vision that we “increasingly outsourced our sovereignty to international institutions while many nations invested in massive welfare states at the cost of maintaining the ability to defend themselves.” It was because of this vision that, to “appease a climate cult, we have imposed energy policies on ourselves that are impoverishing our people, even as our competitors exploit oil and coal and natural gas and anything else—not just to power their economies, but to use as leverage against our own.” And most perniciously, “in a pursuit of a world without borders, we opened our doors to an unprecedented wave of mass migration that threatens the cohesion of our societies, the continuity of our culture, and the future of our people.”
Rubio continues: “We made these mistakes together, and now, together, we owe it to our people to face those facts and to move forward, to rebuild.”
Rubio is smarter than to go to Europe and speak in the accusatory second person. He leaves that to J.D. Vance and to the National Security Strategy documents. You guys are in civilizational decline, those documents say and the vice president says.
Rubio fashions himself cleverer. He states it all in the first person plural. We are one, he says, and we are all in civilizational decline together.
Doesn’t that feel better?
But we’re not quite one. Because the United States, unlike Europe, is facing the music—and facing it like a man:
Under President Trump, the United States of America will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration, driven by a vision of a future as proud, as sovereign, and as vital as our civilization’s past. And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe.
Note here both the bravery and the inclusiveness. Rubio is willing, if it truly necessary, to take on the hard task of renewal and restoration all by ourselves. We are men, after all. If Europe is truly committed to abandoning its heritage, America will pick up the mantle and carry the banner of our collective civilization’s past without help—like Byzantium did for Rome for a thousand years. But it is “our preference” to do it together—which, again, means that you do what I say.
Rubio here goes into a strange reverie about “Western civilization,” about how America inherited it, and how President Trump wants a strong Europe: “We care deeply about your future and ours. And if at times we disagree, our disagreements come from our profound sense of concern about a Europe with which we are connected—not just economically, not just militarily.”
This is why we tried to annex Greenland, you see. It was because we care. It was because “We are connected spiritually and we are connected culturally.”
He goes on in this vein for a long time. He covers Mozart and Da Vinci and the Beatles and the Sistine Chapel and the creation of universities. The whole rest of the speech is oriented around this idea that we—the United States and Europe—are one civilization that we collectively have to protect together. Yet he chronically returns to this idea that we must protect it by resisting trade liberalization and mass migration and international organizations and that other rot that crept in after the Cold War.
Rubio must think himself very clever indeed. He went to Europe and both flattered Europe and defended Trump administration policies assaulting Europe in the same speech, and he got himself a standing ovation from the Europeans along the way.
The trouble, as the avowedly hard-headed Rubio must understand at some level, is that Europeans can only care so much what the American secretary of state says about how much he loves them and cares about them. They see the way America behaves. When you’re threatening to annex Greenland and destroy NATO and when you’re slapping tariffs on allies, it doesn’t matter very much whether you’re speaking in the first person plural about a shared cultural and civilizational history. In fact, such talk can start to sound a whole lot like Russian claims of a shared civilizational history with Ukraine.
When you’re deriding the rules-based global order while killing civilians in international waters, it’s no great comfort that you dress up the American protection racket vis-à-vis Europe as some kind of belief that Europe should be strong and that President Trump cares enough to be direct about it.
Because however Europeans might have applauded, not a single person in the room could possibly believe that any aspect of this bears the slightest resemblance to the truth.
Here’s an honest translation of Rubio’s speech:
American policy has changed. It is now wholly transactional and roots in no principles whatsoever. We want things from countries and will demand them and will use all kinds of coercive powers to get them. We have few inhibitions in this respect.
But all of that is rude to say. And it makes us look bad. And it makes you all worry. So let’s collectively indulge the polite fiction that we have more in common than we do. Let’s overstate a shared history. Let’s pretend we agree on shared challenges. And let’s pretend I’m not saying that the basis for our future cooperation is that you submit to our will. The first step in this regard is that I flatter you. The second step is that you applaud for me.
And then I will fly home.
And The Situation will continue tomorrow.
Recently On Lawfare
Compiled by the estimable Marissa Wang
The Constitutionality of the Civil Service
Nick Bednar analyzes the constitutional theory expanding presidential control over the federal workforce embedded within Office of Personnel Management’s new rule implementing Schedule Policy/Career. Bednar explains that the rule would gut federal tenure protections and weaken the professional federal workforce.
Lurking within the final rule, however, is a constitutional theory about the degree of control the president can exercise over the federal workforce. The rule stops short of asserting that tenure protections are unconstitutional across the entire federal workforce, but its text reveals how far the Trump administration believes unitary executive theory extends. If accepted, that theory would upend nearly 150 years of civil service law and Supreme Court precedent.
Reinvigorating Proportionality to Protect Hospitals During War
As part of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law’s conference on precision lethality and civilian harm mitigation, Leonard Rubenstein argues that elevating the legal duty of proportionality to shield hospitals from attacks during wartime would, at minimum, significantly reduce the devastating civilian death toll during armed conflict.
Despite these challenges, the proportionality rule has the potential to be a powerful mechanism for preventing or mitigating the grievous harms to patients, staff, and facility functioning in assaults on hospitals in armed conflict, including instances where such attacks are justified by allegations of their use to commit acts harmful to the enemy. As Michael Schmitt puts it succinctly, the proportionality rule means that in some circumstances “militarily necessary gains may not be pursued because the civilian cost is too high.” He notes, too, that if there is to be an attack, proportionality controls “the nature and extent of the forcible response.”
The Sovereignty Gap in U.S. AI Statecraft
Pablo Chavez explains that the United States promotes sovereign artificial intelligence (AI) for its allies as deployment control built on American technology, while partner nations interpret AI sovereignty as reducing long-term dependence on U.S. technology and supply chains. This mismatch—as demonstrated by hybrid approaches in countries such as India—creates a gap that could weaken U.S. influence in global AI governance.
But there is an irony to this: The concept of AI sovereignty is one that many countries are developing specifically to reduce their reliance on the United States. The traction that sovereign AI is gaining around the world reflects, in significant part, unease about U.S. policy. Many countries developing AI systems are hedging against the possibility that Washington will change the rules, restrict access, or use technology dependence as leverage. That hedging is pushing partners toward notions of sovereignty that may be incompatible with what the administration is prepared to offer. That offer might look like a reasonable middle ground in a more stable policy environment, but it’s less attractive in a period marked by tariff disputes with allies and partners, questions about multilateral commitments, and rising tensions within alliances.
Cities Church Arraignment Signals Early Battles Over FACE Act and § 241
Peyton Baker reports from the arraignment of journalist Don Lemon and other defendants charged under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and the conspiracy against rights statute related to their presence at the Jan. 18 protest at Cities Church in Minneapolis.
The court then turns to conditions of release. Though Judge Micko indicates that he intends to impose standard conditions, the government wants more. Specifically, it requests an additional restriction barring Lemon from returning to Cities Church—the church he is alleged to have “attacked.” At this suggestion, Lowell raises his eyebrows; Lemon visibly clenches his jaw.
Announcing his decision, Judge Micko declines to impose the additional restriction. The standard conditions are sufficient, he says.
Asked for his plea, Lemon removes his glasses, flashes a smile, leans into the microphone, and responds: “Not guilty.”
What Will It Take to Rebuild the Government in Post-Maduro Venezuela?
In the latest edition of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Omar García-Ponce lays out the challenges ahead—purposefully fragmented armed forces, corruption of the state by criminal and non-state armed actors, and the vulnerability of the oil sector—for a new Venezuelan government, whether transitional, U.S.-backed, or democratically elected.
What does it mean to “run” Venezuela? Any interim arrangement must confront three fundamental governance challenges. First, Venezuela’s security apparatus has been deliberately fragmented to prevent unified command, a process begun by the Chávez government to protect itself but that now hinders its operation. Second, the country’s territorial order is characterized by criminal and non-state armed actors performing core governance functions, often in collusion with the state. And third, the oil sector that has received so much of Trump’s attention will be technically slow to recover, but the bigger risk will be its vulnerability to capture by those non-state actors, which can use it to reinforce their power at the expense of the government. Any authority in Caracas—whether a transitional government, a U.S.-backed administration, or a democratically elected successor—will have to face these realities.
Humanitarian Aid Is Prolonging War—Can We Stop It?
Netta Barak-Corren and Jonathan Boxman explain how new requirements set by major donors of humanitarian aid, such as mandatory security by UN peacekeepers or accredited guards and sunset clauses, can help prevent the misappropriation of aid by armed groups and authoritarian regimes to subsidize war and conflict.
Over the next decade, climate shocks, urban sieges, and rising food prices will push aid needs past $50 billion a year. Without reform, much of that money will feed armies, not children. Worse, every scandal—oil-for-food in Iraq, stolen wheat in Ethiopia, kidnapped aid workers in Yemen—erodes public support in donor states, making future interventions politically toxic. The choice is stark: Tighten the taps now or watch the well run dry later.
The Trump Administration’s Grok Dilemma
J.B. Branch compares the U.S.’s quick implementation of xAI’s Grok artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot in government operations to the marked caution and restraint shown by U.S. allies after Grok’s nonconsensual imagery scandal. Branch argues that the integration of Grok in U.S. federal systems is discordant with the Trump administration’s proclaimed policy goal to champion safe, controlled, and reliable AI use.
Taken together, these dynamics make U.S. AI governance look less like a model for the world and more like a cautionary tale. U.S. inaction is hollowing the credibility of U.S. AI leadership. The Trump administration’s hypocritical approach to Grok and xAI is causing the world to dismiss any proclamations of AI leadership. The cumulative effect is a real risk that U.S. AI governance comes to be seen internationally not as a benchmark to follow, but as an example of what happens when rhetoric outruns accountability.
Podcasts
On Tuesday’s Lawfare Daily, Anastasiia Lapatina sits down with Eric Ciaramella and Francis Farrell to look back at the first year of the second Trump administration’s approach to the war in Ukraine. The trio also discussed the role of Europe in supporting Ukraine, the future of Ukraine and Russia, and the ongoing peace talks.
On Wednesday’s Lawfare Daily, Justin Sherman joins Jonathan Cedarbaum to discuss the former’s new book on the proliferation of U.S. national security programs designed to safeguard technology and data transactions.
On Scaling Laws, Andrew Freedman and Gillian K. Hadfield joins Kevin Frazier to discuss why traditional AI regulation models struggle to keep up with rapid AI innovation, the usefulness of hybrid governance, how regulatory markets fit into AI governance, and the future of adaptive AI policy design.
Announcements
Lawfare, the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy, and the Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology will host a one-day convening marking the 40th anniversary of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The event will take place at the Georgetown Law Center, 125 E St NW, Washington, D.C., from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Friday, March 6. Learn more and register here.
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is the baby kakapo, which made its first appearance in four years last weekend:
The New Zealand Department of Conservation reports:
Kākāpō Yasmine hatched an egg fostered from kākāpō Tīwhiri on Valentine’s Day, bringing the total number of kākāpō to 237 – though it won’t be officially added to the population until it fledges.
DOC Operations Manager for kākāpō/takahē Deidre Vercoe says the first chick of the breeding season is an exciting moment on the long road to recovery for this critically endangered species.
“These exceptionally rare taonga only breed every 2–4 years, so it’s a long time between chicks. We have more breeding-age birds than ever before this season, so we’re anticipating many more chicks to come.”
Deidre says fostering eggs and chicks between different kākāpō mums is one way to improve nest success rates.
“Kākāpō mums typically have the best outcomes when raising a maximum of two chicks. Biological mum Tīwhiri has four fertile eggs this season already, while Yasmine, an experienced foster mum, had no fertile eggs.”
Kākāpō face a range of challenges with low hatching success being a key obstacle. So far this season there are 187 eggs, and 74 of them are fertile. Of those, not all will hatch, and not all chicks will survive through to fledging.
“The kākāpō population was once down to just 51 birds which created a genetic bottleneck we are still managing today,” says Deidre.
“Kākāpō are one of the most intensively managed species in the world and while numbers are still so low, the breeding season requires a lot of intervention.
“Priority goes to the eggs and chicks that are less well-represented across the gene pool, and we have a more hands-off approach with those that are well represented. This approach helps us answer questions around what a natural breeding season might look like one day.”
Congratulations to today’s Beast on its birth and its profound ugliness! In honor of today’s Beast, pet something fuzzy.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Dog Shirt Daily to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
 | A guest post by
|