Good Evening:
I came nose-to-nose with a moose once in the wild. It was not like this. But both I and the moose came away unharmed.
Today on #DogShirtTV, the estimable Holly Berkley Fletcher and I (and the cactus) welcomed the estimable Anastasiia Lapatina and the estimable Steve Vladeck to discuss Trump's decision to impound both domestic and foreign aid appropriations. Steve talked about the legal implications within the US while Nastya told us about the consequences for civil society in Ukraine:
The Situation: The Stakes in Those Justice Department Firings
In my The Situation column today, I warn that the combination of Kash Patel as FBI director and the firing of career prosecutors who worked on the cases against Trump will cement the president’s control over the Department of Justice—and with it, his capacity for political retribution and immunity for his friends:
An FBI which can guarantee the president a measure of impunity is a win for Trump. But Trump’s own repeated statements—and Patel’s—both suggest that it’s not the full win he is seeking. If we take him at his word, Trump wants an FBI that will deliver impunity for friends, investigative woes for enemies.
And here is where impartial, high quality Justice Department attorneys are really a problem. They require things like evidence before you can move against someone. They have obligations of candor before courts—and worse yet, they generally take those obligations seriously. They know the law well. And they spend a lot of time telling you what you can’t do. A good prosecutor actually cares about the civil liberties of Americans. And the senior ones have experience, gravitas, and expertise to meaningfully prevent abuses that may—or may not—be related to Trump’s desire to sweep aside those who get in his way.
Today On Lawfare
A Primer on the Impoundment Control Act
Zachary Price outlines the history and statutory framework of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act (ICA). Price also discusses the constitutional challenges previously levied against the ICA that the Trump administration is likely to reraise:
Though earlier versions of the statute allowed a broader range of deferrals, the ICA today allows deferrals only “to provide for contingencies,” “to achieve savings made possible by or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations,” or “as specifically provided by law.” The upshot is that, absent specific statutory authority, executive officials are not supposed to delay spending based on disagreement with the policy underlying it; they can instead make deferrals only to address practical obstacles or to employ funds more efficiently. As explained below, however, the scope of any authority to delay spending for “programmatic” rather than “policy” reasons has emerged as a recurrent point of controversy.
What DeepSeek r1 Means—and What It Doesn’t
Dean Ball explains why the release of Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company DeepSeek’s new language model—which has led many to question whether export controls failed to contain China—should prompt the U.S. to take action on the patchwork AI regulatory system developing domestically as well as AI governance worldwide:
While DeepSeek r1 may not be the omen of American decline and failure that some commentators are suggesting, it and models like it herald a new era in AI—one of faster progress, less control, and, quite possibly, at least some chaos. While some stalwart AI skeptics remain, it is increasingly expected by many observers of the field that exceptionally capable systems—including ones that outthink humans—will be built soon. Without a doubt, this raises profound policy questions—but these questions are not about the efficacy of the export controls.
Donald Trump and the Presidential Communications Privilege
Paul Rosenzweig discusses how President Donald Trump’s invocation of the presidential communications privilege delayed the Special Counsel’s case against him and asks whether the Supreme Court decision granting presidential immunity renders the privilege absolute:
Had the special counsel challenged the application of the presidential communications privilege, it is likely that the district court (pre-immunity decision) would have rightly found that these communications were not subject to privilege because they were nonpresidential in nature. Under the current Supreme Court view of executive power, however, that conclusion would almost surely be wrong. It would, instead, be clearly within the ambit of the privilege for core executive actions, and presumptively subject to the privilege for other aspects of the president’s actions.
Podcasts
On Lawfare Daily, Alan Rozenshtein speaks with his University of Minnesota Law colleague, Nick Bednar, about the wave of Day 1 executive orders affecting the civil service, which Bednar recently analyzed in a piece for Lawfare. They discuss what the orders say, how they might be challenged in court, and what this means for the next four years and beyond:
Videos
On Jan. 30 at 4 p.m. ET, I will speak to Anna Bower, Quinta Jurecic, and Roger Parloff about the confirmation hearings of Kash Patel to be FBI director, Tulsi Gabbard to be the director of national intelligence, and Robert F. Kennedy to be the health and human services secretary:
Documents
Caroline Cornett shares a memorandum ordering a temporary pause in all federal financial assistance except for Medicare, Social Security, and “assistance provided directly to individuals.”
Tyler McBrien shares an executive order that directs the secretary of defense to update guidelines on the medical standards for military service and reverses a 2021 directive allowing transgender troops to serve openly.
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is a seal in a sealbarrow:
In honor of today’s Beast, let us admire some medieval depictions of its magnificence:

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.