The Purge at the FBI Continues
A political witch hunt claims a scalp
Good Evening:
On The Case of Mike Feinberg
I will have something to say, perhaps a lot in the long-run, about the purge at the FBI that last week triggered the resignation of my friend Mike Feinberg—a 15-year veteran counterintelligence specialist who was serving most recently as assistant special agent in charge in the Norfolk field office. The New York Times has the story here, and the estimable Adam Goldman got it right:
Critics say Mr. Patel and Mr. Bongino, who are clear about their loyalty to the president and lack the experience of their predecessors, are simply doing what they railed about for years under the previous administration: weaponizing the bureau. In a statement addressing his decision to step down, Mr. Feinberg denounced the agency as an organization that had begun “to decay.”
The F.B.I. declined to comment.
The case of Mr. Feinberg appears to be another example of retribution, former officials said. In his statement, he said that in late May, he was threatened with an investigation and the possibility of a demotion because of his friendship with Peter Strzok, a longtime counterintelligence agent who was fired in 2018. “I was informed that, because I maintain a friendship with a former F.B.I. executive who is a critic and perceived enemy of the current administration, I would not be receiving any of the promotions for which I was currently being considered, and that I should actually steel myself to be demoted,” he said.
Mr. Feinberg added that the F.B.I. had intended to have him take a polygraph, or a lie-detector test, about the nature of his ties to Mr. Strzok, which he said are entirely social.
I am, however, mostly going to defer writing or talking about the matter, as this is Mike’s story to tell, not mine.
Mostly. For now, I will just say this. Counterintelligence at the FBI is something that takes exquisite training. A good counterintelligence agent often has language skills—Mike has Chinese—and a lot of experience over time with investigations that nobody else does. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino drive people like Mike out of government at no small peril to the country’s interests and capacity to deal with real threats.
I am also a friend of Pete Strzok. Strzok mentored many of the bureau’s finest counterintelligence specialists. Keeping in touch with Pete violates no FBI rules, which do not prohibit social contact with former officials, even those who have been nonpersoned by the current authorities.
I also want to share Mike’s LinkedIn post on his plans:
I’ll also note that those who want to support Lawfare’s public service fellowship program can do so here.
Friday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable
and I thoroughly enjoyed ourselves gossiping about the Trump-Elon breakup. Taylor Swift lyrics were involved. Then the estimable Marichka Hlyten joined us to discuss the last week in Ukraine news:Poll Results
A whopping 72 percent of poll respondents did not share ’s instincts on this.
The Situation
In my “The Situation” column on Friday, I continued my ruminations on the President’s war against Harvard University:
“You are not a bad lawyer, Wittes,” wrote my correspondent, fully aware that I am not now and never have been a lawyer at all. “Query whether [Trump] gets help from the doctrine of consular non-reviewability from Kleindienst v. Mandel, which I suppose turns on whether these justifications count as facially neutral.”
It had been a while since I had thought about Kleindienst v. Mandel, a 1972 Supreme Court case in which the government had denied entry to a Belgian Marxist who had been invited to give lectures at Stanford and elsewhere around the country. The guy had sued, but more importantly, various professors who had invited him to give lectures around the country had joined the suit, arguing that the government’s refusal to give Mandel a visa was violating their First Amendment rights to hear what he had to say.
The Supreme Court in Kleindeinst refused to consider First Amendment questions at all.
Friday On Lawfare
Compiled by the estimable Olivia Manes
The D.C. Circuit Has Quietly Set the Rules for Dismantling Government
Scott R. Anderson explains why several recent statements by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could provide important insight into how it is likely to approach ongoing litigation over the Trump administration’s deregulatory actions. Anderson provides background on Widakuswara v. Lake, in which the court suggested that congressional direction matters in funding and personnel action—posing implications for judicial scrutiny in other cases.
Underlying both the funding and personnel elements of the en banc D.C. Circuit’s approach in Widakuswara is a common constitutional understanding: that Congress’s directions—at least where enacted into statute—matter when it comes to the operations of federal agencies. While the president undoubtedly has substantial constitutional authority to manage and direct the executive branch, the court does not view this as superseding his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” nor Congress’s authority to appropriate funds, set the rules for federal employment, or otherwise determine an agency’s structure and functions.
Coming Soon? U.S. Cyber Command in Domestic Networks
Jason Healey and Paul Rosenzweig warn that President Trump faces few constraints if he chooses to initiate domestic military cyber operations against those he deems enemies. Healey and Rosenzweig outline existing jurisprudence regarding Trump’s use of emergency powers to domestically deploy the military, and consider how these authorities might be applied to the cyber domain, including to monitor the Defense Department, disrupt immigrant-related electronic networks and communications, and surveil political opponents.
Orders to the military to conduct domestic offensive cyber operations would be “awful but lawful”—Trump’s lawyers would likely assert that they are presumptively legal, rooted in long-standing congressional authorities, though used in novel ways. And as demonstrated by the seemingly arbitrary and capricious firing of Gen. Timothy Haugh, the commander of U.S. Cyber Command and director of the National Security Agency, apparently for not being quite loyal enough, Trump’s administration would not hesitate to summarily (or anticipatorily) replace those who might delay implementation by waiting for a legal ruling.
Walking Into Spiderwebs: Unpacking the Ukraine Drone Attack
Nicholas Weaver breaks down “Operation Spiderweb,” Ukraine’s June 1 attack on Russian military infrastructure that inflicted extensive damage on Russian air bases, pointing out that the operation—which hid drones in ISO containers—has consequences beyond the immediate conflict. Weaver suggests that this new strategy will require costly defensive action on Russia’s part and instigate widespread paranoia—and that it may result in a shift in how warfare is conducted globally.
Operation Spiderweb has effects that will continue to inflict remarkable damage long after June 1. Russia now has to consider any ISO container a potential Ukrainian aircraft carrier, necessitating significant economic investment and carrying consequences for national morale. The Ukrainian attack is unlikely to be the last, as technological innovations make the possibility of a fully autonomous strike increasingly probable—with implications extending beyond the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Law Enforcement Is Finally Making Progress on Ransomware
In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren discusses how Operation Endgame—a multinational joint law enforcement operation—is making headway in combating ransomware operations, recent findings that a mobile spyware app may have played a central role in the collapse of the Assad regime, and a new report from The Insider that traces how Russia’s GRU Unit 29155 evolved from a military intelligence group to a cyber operations organization.
So, in just one month, Endgame has carried out significant actions that disrupt the services that cybercriminals use to find credentials, test malware so they are sure it won't be detected, and get access to networks. It's not just doing this by onesies and twosies, either. In each category, it is knocking off the major player completely or landing hits on a range of participants in the field.
It's great to see ransomware being tackled holistically.
Podcasts
On Lawfare Daily, I sit down with Anna Bower to discuss her recent article chronicling her search for the administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). While the article is partly humorous, Bower and I talk about the serious questions raised by her quest.
Videos
On June 6 at 4 p.m. ET, I sat down with Bower, Roger Parloff, and James Pearce to discuss challenges to the Trump administration’s mass reductions in force and litigation over deportations and detentions.
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is the opossum, seen here as a minibus:
In honor of today’s Beast, hug your mother. She deserves it.
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is not this Beast, which is excluded from consideration on account of not being alive, but which is nevertheless a Beast worthy of recognition:
This Beast is Irish and probably from the 15th century. I love its feet so very, very much. It currently lives at the Hunt Museum in Limerick.
Since this Beast lives in Limerick and it is a Beast of great worth and distinction, I think it deserves a limerick composed in its honor. I call upon you, loyal readers. Honor this Beast properly.
Best entry wins a WITAOD hat.
Oh, yeah, speaking of which, there is now WITAOD merch at the Lawfare Store!
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
|