Compiled by Maya Nicholson
Articles
The Pros and Cons of the House’s Data Broker Bill
Justin Sherman evaluated the new data broker bill passed by the House, Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024, which aims to limit the sales of U.S. persons data to entities or individuals in North Korea, China, Russian and Iran. To further the bill’s effectiveness, Sherman argued that the Senate—which will soon consider the bill—should make amendments to the legislation to broaden its scope beyond just a national security framework.
The bill purports to tackle a problem similar to what the executive order is already addressing under existing law—except by creating a new law, and with an ultimately narrower scope, fewer measures to counteract circumventions, a different and non-national security-focused enforcement agency in charge, and a significantly slower timeline for identifying and mitigating national security risks. If Congress is going to spend time writing a new law focused on the data brokerage ecosystem, it should aim bigger and look beyond a national security framework to avoid coming away with a narrower and weaker enforcement regime, with less benefit to national security, than the executive branch can build under current law. The bill’s drafters are focused on important data brokerage problems, and they should be commended for injecting data brokerage into the too narrowly focused policy conversation dominated by debates about TikTok and non-U.S. apps. But the Senate should force a significant amendment and strengthening of the bill before pushing it forward and trying to address the privacy and security risks the House has highlighted.
Jawboning and the Limits of Government Advocacy
Ori Lev argued that as the 2024 presidential election approaches, the Supreme Court should take the opportunity to establish clear legal rules on when government “jawboning” violates the First Amendment. Lev examined two cases before the Court, National Rifle Association (NRA) v. Vullo and Murthy v. Missouri, and argued that the former case is a more effective vehicle for instituting a legal standard to clearly identify abuses of power.
One of the cases—involving government encouragement of, or involvement in, content moderation decisions by social media platforms—garnered many of the headlines. That’s understandable given the central role of such platforms in modern political discourse. But the second case—involving alleged abuses of power by New York state officials targeted at the National Rifle Association (NRA) because of the group’s gun advocacy—raised similar questions of when the government crosses the line from (permissible) persuader to (impermissible) coercer. And for reasons discussed below, it may well be the NRA case that provides the better mechanism for the Court to provide a clearer sense of the legal rules that apply when government engagement with private parties relates to protected speech.
Podcasts
The Lawfare Podcast: Conditioning Arms to Israel with Sarah Harrison: Tyler McBrien sat down with Sarah Harrison to discuss the conditionality of U.S. offensive arms transfers to Israel, given the recent outrage from democratic members of the House of Representatives to President Joe Biden over an Israeli airstrike that killed seven aid workers from the World Central Kitchen. They talked about the laws and policies that govern U.S. security assistance, what recent reporting may or may not tell us about Israel’s law of war compliance, and more.
Rational Security: The "Eldritch Portents" Edition: Alan Rozenshtein and Quinta Jurecic were joined by Molly Reynolds to talk over the week’s national security news. They discussed how Congress is still arguing over whether and to what extent the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act should reform the bulk surveillance authority, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson’s prolonged dispute with his caucus over the U.S. aid to Ukraine, a single software engineer that prevented a catastrophic cyber attack after stumbling upon malicious code inside a key piece of Linux software, and more.
Chatter: The Pentagon’s Alliance with the Country Music Industry with Joseph Thompson: Shane Harris spoke with Joseph Thompson to discuss his new book, “Cold War Country,” which focuses on the close relationship between country music and the U.S. military, showing how the leaders of Nashville’s Music Row found ways to sell their listeners on military service, at the same time they sold country music to people in uniform. They talked about how Nashville and the Pentagon “created the sound of American patriotism,” how singers like Roy Acuff, Elvis Presley and Merle Haggard forged the close bonds between their genre and the military, and more.
Videos and Webinars
On April 11 at 4 p.m. ET, Jurecic sat down with Roger Parloff and Anna Bower for this week’s episode of “Lawfare Live: Trump’s Trials and Tribulations.” If you couldn’t attend the live event, the recording will be available immediately afterward on Lawfare’s YouTube channel or over the weekend on the Lawfare Podcast feed.
Announcements
On April 3, Lawfare announced another auction item on the Givebutter campaign— the “Black Hole of Awful” Post-It by Jurecic, one-of-a-kind Lawfare sketch born from a conversation with Benjamin Wittes that illustrates the extent to which trial delay is advantageous to former President Donald Trump. Other items of exclusive Lawfare merchandise up for auction include an autographed Lawfare jigsaw puzzle and Wittes’s Twitter sensation and protector of democracy #BabyCannon. Place your bids to support Lawfare’s Trump Trials coverage. You can also support Lawfare’s Trump Trials coverage by making a contribution here.
Support Lawfare
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Become a material supporter on Patreon and Substack or make a one-time tax-deductible contribution on Givebutter. Sign up to receive Lawfare in your inbox. Check out relevant job openings on our Job Board.