I Took My First Waymo
I did my part to deprive humans of jobs
Good Afternoon:
Yesterday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable
decided that we should explore a different authoritarian populist take-over, so she invited on the estimable Francesco Galietti, an Italian political analyst, to tell us about how Italy’s current authoritarian populist government is doing:
Don’t drink it
Recently On Lawfare
Compiled by the estimable Isabel Arroyo
How Existing Liability Frameworks Can Handle Agentic AI Harms
Maarten Herbosch argues that existing negligence and products liability frameworks are well-equipped to address the novel harms posed by artificial intelligence (AI) agents.
This narrative—that existing liability regimes are inadequate—follows a familiar pattern. Often when a new technology emerges or society evolves, scholars and policymakers warn of exceptional risks, highlight allegedly unique technological properties, and call for bespoke legal regimes. Yet long-standing legal frameworks, which have adapted to profound social and technological change over decades or centuries with minimal overhaul, are often overlooked. As I argue in a recent article, today’s AI agents may resemble traditional products far more than is commonly assumed, and existing negligence and products liability doctrines can, with targeted adjustments, be well equipped to address AI-related harms rather than require sweeping reform.
China’s Turn to National Security Lawfare
Weijia Rao explains how China’s latest export controls, sanctions, and cybersecurity review processes borrow from the U.S.’s own geopolitical lawfare playbook. Rao analyzes how China’s choice to codify these retaliatory and escalatory measures in law changes the dynamics of U.S.-China competition.
Just as countries amass arms and mobilize troops in traditional warfare to signal their resolve to fight, in today’s lawfare, China has developed a full arsenal of legal tools modeled on the U.S. system to signal its resolve to strike back against foreign economic restrictions. In today’s interdependent world, the threat of deploying these legal tools gives China leverage in bilateral negotiations. The goal is deterrence—which, if successful, would allow China to balance nationalism with economic interests. However, if deterrence fails and further economic restrictions continue, nationalist pressures may intensify, pushing the party-state toward more aggressive responses that carry significant economic costs for both sides. Such escalation could lead to an unpredictable path of Sino-U.S. decoupling.
Whiskey Rebellion as Precedent for Recent National Guard Deployments?
Joshua Braver assesses the value of the Whiskey Rebellion as precedent for modern deployments of the National Guard, examining both the rebellion itself and the procedure that early American leaders followed in quashing it. Braver argues that, contrary to its invocation in Oregon v. Trump, the history of the Whiskey Rebellion undermines the president’s claim to a freestanding “protective power” authorizing broad domestic deployments.
In the three pending domestic-deployment cases—including the appeal on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket and the en banc appeal of Oregon v. Trump, in which Judge Nelson concurred—the courts should not repeat Nelson’s historical inaccuracies. The Whiskey Rebellion, as carried out under the 1792 Militia Act, is poor precedent for broad, unreviewable presidential power over domestic deployments for four reasons: (a) The Whiskey Rebellion adhered to a norm of deploying the militia only as a last resort; (b) the original law was hedged with multiple guardrails missing from the statute at issue today; (c) the protective power doctrine played no role in the militia’s deployment, nor was it even invoked as a possible legal authority; and (d) the 1792 Militia Act is not the parent statute for 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which descends from the Dick Act. Nelson grounds his opinion in the “old soil” of the 1792 Militia Act, but he fails to contend with the rocks and roots that once constrained unilateral presidential deployments.
Evaluating the ICJ’s UNRWA Advisory Opinion
Yuval Shany and Amichai Cohen argue that, while the International Court of Justice’s recent advisory opinion correctly determines that Israel violated international law by cutting ties with the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, it does not give enough weight to Israel’s legitimate interest in the neutrality of relief operations.
In our view, Israel’s handling of the humanitarian relief scheme during the Gaza war is one of the most problematic aspects of the conduct of the war, and one that will continue to be litigated before various international courts. The ultimate conclusion of the ICJ—that is, that Israel violated international law when it decided to close UNRWA’s operations without first providing a practical alternative—seems therefore to be correct. Yet, in reaching this conclusion, the court also made some broader observations regarding UNRWA’s operations and the protections due to it, which we question. Some of these observations seem to go beyond what is warranted by international law. Specifically, the court stressed the obligation of the belligerent parties to provide adequate humanitarian protections, while underplaying their right to protect their legitimate military interests and to insist on the actual neutrality of relief operations. In doing so, the court seems to have expanded the state’s obligations vis-a-vis UN organs, without carefully analyzing the implications of this approach for complex battlefield situations like the one involving UNRWA in Gaza.
F5, SolarWinds, and the Lethargy of the FAR Council
Nick Leiserson explains why the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council’s failure to issue timely rules on federal software procurement makes it easier for attackers to carry out supply chain attacks, including high-profile attacks such as F5 and SolarWinds.
The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council), which administers federal procurement law by issuing rules to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation, has three cases on its docket, pending since 2021, that could have played a role in preventing an incident such as F5 by providing enhanced cybersecurity requirements for the company’s software development processes. As a matter of policy, President Trump’s June cyber executive order leaves in place the bulk of the secure-by-demand requirements, yet the FAR Council does not predict initial action on secure-by-demand rules until mid-2026.
The failure to change acquisition regulations, despite bipartisan support in Congress and across two administrations, calls into question the idea that government, as the biggest purchaser of information technology in the country, can act as a key lever to make software used across the country more secure—unless and until changes are made to the FAR Council.
Podcasts
On Wednesday’s Lawfare Daily, Roger Parloff sits down with Reynolds Holding and Jed Rakoff to discuss the role of district judges in our justice system and the attacks those judges are now enduring from the Department of Justice, the White House, Congress, and members of the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Rational Security, Natalie Orpett, Eric Ciaramella, and I sit down with Scott R. Anderson to discuss the Trump administration’s shifting plans for ending the Russia-Ukraine War, Pete Hegseth’s reported order to “kill everybody” in the first strike on an alleged narcotic-smuggling boat this September, and the Defense Department’s avenues for retaliation against six congressmen who urged troops to refuse illegal orders.
On Thursday’s Lawfare Daily, Ariane Tabatabai sits down with John Drennan and Matthew Sharpe to discuss the looming expiration of New START, the bilateral nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and Russia due to expire in February 2026. The three weigh the significance of arms control architecture in ensuring stability between the U.S. and Russia, what the end of New START might mean for relations between them, and what sort of arms control regime might take New START’s place.
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is the crow, seen here engaged in advanced spatial reasoning:
In honor of today’s Beast, eat an extra cookie.
Tell Me Something Interesting
A couple days ago on #DogShirtTV, the estimable
raised the important issue of the unconscionable profusion of countries called some variation of “Guinea.” investigates: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
|