“the “national security” argument clearly has been foundational to Trump’s trade policies. Higher tariffs will make America’s military more self-sufficient and capable against future threats; that’s the White House’s point of view.
One problem: that’s not how the people actually in charge of America’s national security see it.
“The Defense Department routinely acquires items and materials from foreign sources indispensable to meet defense needs that are not readily available or produced in sufficient quantities within the United States,” wrote John Tanaglia, director of pricing, contracting, and acquisitions for the Pentagon, in a memo dated August 25.
The memo instructs other officials at the Pentagon to provide “duty-free entry certificates” to military purchases that would otherwise be subject to tariffs. Doing so, the memo explains, will “maximize the Department’s budget to meet warfighter needs.”
First and foremost, that’s yet more proof that tariffs are raising costs for American purchasers of foreign goods. And it is true, of course, that Trump’s tariffs are straining budgets everywhere. Being able to ignore those costs must be nice—many, many businesses across the United States surely wish they had the power to simply wave away those costs as easily as the Pentagon apparently can.”
“Since Rubio took over the NSC, he has shrunk its staff by more than half. It now has fewer than 100 people, according to a person familiar with the NSC process. Arguably more importantly, Rubio has imposed changes to what’s called “the interagency process” — a key function of the NSC that involves coordinating policy and messaging across government agencies and departments.
That process, two people told me, is now one in which important meetings aren’t held, career staffers are often in the dark about what’s expected of them and some people or their institutions try to take advantage of power vacuums. I granted many of those I spoke to anonymity to discuss internal administration dynamics.
Some U.S. diplomats and other national security professionals are worried that the current structure means small crises will explode into big ones because they don’t get early attention, and that key officials who deal with priority issues, such as Ukraine, are being iced out of important conversations.
One of the people familiar with the AUKUS situation said the broken process was already fueling turf fights, such as with Colby, a man known for challenging status quo thinking.
“It’s Game of Thrones politics over there,” the person said.”
“In most modern presidencies, the National Security Council, led by the national security adviser, has outmuscled other institutions to lead on key foreign policy and national security issues. But Waltz struggled to get approval even for staff, and some of his picks were fired after complaints from a far-right influencer about loyalty — a startling example of weakness.
Neither the State Department nor the Pentagon has managed to seize the mantle, even as the NSC floundered. This is surprising, given that both departments often resented the outsized role the national security adviser has played in past administrations, especially the micromanagement by the NSC.
Foreign officials, unsure who has the most sway over Trump, have resorted to talking to as many people with links to the president as they can. The hope is that at least one of those contacts can be an effective whisperer in Trump’s ear on everything from Iran nuclear talks to tariffs.”
…
“Rubio has gone so far to please Trump — abandoning positions he’s held in the past, sometimes in harsh terms — that he’s almost unrecognizable now. Maybe his willingness to bend to Trump’s will, even suggesting he’d defy a judge, has made Trump more inclined to rely on him, including having him lead the NSC for now. At the same time, it could mean that Trump views him as a doormat he can walk all over. (I got the sense from most people I spoke to that many believe Trump likes keeping his national security aides weak because he wants to be the only source of any power.)”
“President Donald Trump has fired several White House National Security Council officials after he was urged by far-right activist Laura Loomer to purge staffers she deemed insufficiently loyal to his “Make America Great Again” agenda, several people familiar with the matter said Thursday.”
“The cartels are now engaged in activities that make control over territory and local authorities a business imperative. Politicians and policemen are reluctant to stand up to them or are in their pockets. That helps explain why the Catholic Church stepped in to end the violence here. And Chilpancingo is the seat of the regional government, on the surface at least with the evident trappings of state authority. In the more remote hills around here and down to the Pacific coast around Acapulco, there are places run fully by the cartels. In nine municipalities they pick the mayor and police chiefs, according to a local security consultant who, out of fear for his safety, insisted we not use his name. Resistance is dangerous. Two years ago, in San Miguel Totolapan, the mayor and 20 other people were gunned down at his house and the town hall after defying a local cartel.
“The gangs love territorial control,” says Eduardo Guerrero, a former senior government security official who runs a consulting business. “You can do many kinds of business once you control territory. They seek political support. They intervene in elections aggressively. At the local level, we are losing sovereignty.””
…
“Mexico’s criminal networks and their ability to whittle away at state power here present a national security threat to both Mexico and the U.S. These groups are growing in sophistication, corrupting state institutions and people, arming up and seeping into communities on both sides of the border. They pose a challenge to Mexico’s still fledgling democracy, at the federal level just 24 years old, and hence the stability of America’s southern neighbor. They have enabled a record number of migrants, mostly from other countries, to get north through Mexico. They’re responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in both countries. Some 26 per 100,000 people are killed in Mexico every year, the highest homicide rate among the world’s larger countries. Fentanyl, recently the most lucrative drug that the Mexican criminal groups traffic into the U.S., is responsible for the deaths of some 70,000 Americans every year.
Seen through the prism of violence there and its impact on the U.S., Mexico is the rich Afghanistan next door, a place where the central authorities have lost control over key territory to armed groups. Imagine if al Qaeda were killing that many Americans? “It may be the most important national security issue facing America, with the least amount of attention,” says Hank Crumpton, who ran the CIA’s covert operations in Afghanistan after 9/11 and works in security out of Texas. “I think of [the cartels] as enemies that exhibit in structure and behavior the same characteristics of terrorist networks and of an insurgency.”
Mexico’s narco-state problem matters for larger strategic reasons. Security is the biggest hurdle to Mexico fully becoming part of North America in more than a geographic sense — an economic and demographic engine for the region, and a strong and stable American ally in the global competition against China.
This more hopeful vision of Mexico can give you whiplash. The country is a daily contradiction. But put aside preconceptions and look even more closely at Mexico. The last couple decades have brought stunning violence — and stunning economic gains.”
…
“If there was an easy solution, it would’ve been tried by now. The security expert Eduardo Guerrero, like some other experts on both sides of the border, says the Mexican authorities alone can’t handle the challenge from the cartels. “If we don’t stop them they will take over several key Mexican states at this rate,” he says. “We need help. We aren’t able to control these groups alone.”
Some polls in Mexico show support for U.S. help, including even the deployment of troops, which won’t be politically workable with the current government. Its critics are trying to nudge the option on the table.
What’s indisputable is that this isn’t only the Mexicans’ problem.”
“The constitutional law here appears straightforward: Congress can’t outright ban TikTok or any social media platform unless it can prove that it poses legitimate and serious privacy and national security concerns that can’t be addressed by any other means. The bar for such a justification is necessarily very high in order to protect Americans’ First Amendment rights, Krishnan said.”
…
“members of Congress have not provided concrete proof for their claims about Chinese digital espionage and seem to have little interest in offering any transparency: Before the committee voted to advance the bill Thursday, lawmakers had a closed-door classified briefing on national security concerns associated with TikTok.”
“More than 100 classified documents relating to Ukraine, China, the Middle East, the Pacific, and terrorism are now believed to be in the public domain after they were posted in an obscure internet forum last month.
It comes after White House officials said they were investigating the appearance of highly classified briefing documents related to Ukraine on Twitter on Thursday.
The US Department of Justice said it had launched an investigation into the leak.
American officials said Russia or pro-Russian elements were likely behind the leak, but did not give further details.”