order

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a March presidential memorandum to revoke the security clearance of prominent Washington attorney Mark Zaid, ruling that the order — which also targeted 14 other individuals — could not be applied to him.

The decision marked the administration’s second legal setback on Tuesday, after the Supreme Court declined to allow Trump to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area, capping a first year in office in which President Trump’s efforts to impose a sweeping agenda and pursue retribution against political adversaries have been repeatedly slowed by the courts.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington granted Zaid’s request for a preliminary injunction, after he sued the Trump administration in May over the revocation of his security clearance. Zaid’s request called it an act of “improper political retribution” that jeopardized his ability to continue representing clients in sensitive national security cases.

The March presidential memorandum singled out Zaid and 14 other individuals who the White House asserted were unsuitable to retain their clearances because it was “no longer in the national interest.” The list included targets of Trump’s fury from both the political and legal spheres, including former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, New York Attorney General Letitia James, former President Joe Biden and members of his family.

The action was part of a much broader retribution campaign that Trump has waged since returning to the White House, including directing specific Justice Department investigations against perceived adversaries and issuing sweeping executive orders targeting law firms over legal work he does not like.

In August, the Trump administration said it was revoking the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials. Ordering the revocation of clearances has been a favored retributive tactic that Trump has wielded — or at least tried to — against high-profile political figures, lawyers and intelligence officials in his second term.

Zaid said in his lawsuit that he has represented clients across the political spectrum over nearly 35 years, including government officials, law enforcement and military officials and whistleblowers. In 2019, he represented an intelligence community whistleblower whose account of a conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy helped set the stage for the first of two impeachment cases against Trump in his first term.

“This court joins the several others in this district that have enjoined the government from using the summary revocation of security clearances to penalize lawyers for representing people adverse to it,” Ali wrote in his order.

Ali emphasized that his order does not prevent the government from revoking or suspending Zaid’s clearance for reasons independent of the presidential memorandum and through normal agency processes. The preliminary injunction does not go into effect until January 13.

Zaid said in a statement, “This is not just a victory for me, it’s an indictment of the Trump administration’s attempts to intimidate and silence the legal community, especially lawyers who represent people who dare to question or hold this government accountable.”

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

A transgender employee of the National Security Agency is suing the Trump administration and seeking to block enforcement of a presidential executive order and other policies the employee says violate federal civil rights law.

Sarah O’Neill, an NSA data scientist who is transgender, is challenging President Trump’s Inauguration Day executive order that required the federal government, in all operations and printed materials, to recognize only two “immutable” sexes: male and female.

According to the lawsuit filed Monday in a U.S. District Court in Maryland, Trump’s order “declares that it is the policy of the United States government to deny Ms. O’Neill’s very existence.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The order, which reflected Trump’s 2024 campaign rhetoric, spurred policies that O’Neill is challenging, as well.

Since Trump’s initial executive action, O’Neill asserts the NSA has canceled its policy recognizing her transgender identity and “right to a workplace free of unlawful harassment,” while “prohibiting her from identifying her pronouns as female in written communications” and “barring her from using the women’s restroom at work.”

O’Neill contends those policies and the orders behind them create a hostile work environment and violate Section VII of the Civil Rights Act. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that Section VII’s prohibition on discrimination based on sex applied to gender identity.

“We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex,” the court’s majority opinion stated. “But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”

O’Neill’s lawsuit argued, “The Executive Order rejects the existence of gender identity altogether, let alone the possibility that someone’s gender identity can differ from their sex, which it characterizes as ‘gender ideology.’ ”

In addition to restoring her workplace rights and protections, O’Neill is seeking financial damages.

Trump’s order was among a flurry of executive actions he took hours after taking office. He has continued using executive action aggressively in his second presidency, prompting many legal challenges that are still working their way through the federal judiciary.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

The executive order calls on the US attorney general to expedite federal reclassification, creating fewer barriers for studies.

United States President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to federally reclassify marijuana as less dangerous.

The move on Thursday requires Attorney General Pam Bondi to expedite the process under the Drug Enforcement Administration for reclassifying marijuana.

In the US, drugs and other chemical substances are divided into a five-tier classification system, with Schedule I representing the most restricted tier and Schedule V the least.

Marijuana was previously in the Schedule I category, where it was classed alongside potent narcotics like heroin and LSD. With Thursday’s order, it would be fast-tracked down to Schedule III, in a class with ketamine and anabolic steroids.

Trump said the change “is not the legalisation” of marijuana, and he added that it “in no way sanctions its use as a recreational drug”.

The change, however, will make it easier to conduct research on marijuana, as studies on Schedule III drugs require far less approval than for Schedule I substances.

Speaking earlier in the week, Trump told reporters the change was popular “because it leads to tremendous amounts of research that can’t be done unless you reclassify, so we are looking at that very strongly”.

The change is in line with several states that have moved to legalise marijuana for both medical and recreational use. That has created a patchwork of state-level regulations at odds with federal law, wherein marijuana remains illegal.

Former US President Joe Biden had taken several steps to lessen federal penalties related to marijuana, including a mass pardon for those handed harsh sentences for simple possession.

Such convictions had disproportionately affected minority communities and fuelled mass incarceration in the US.

The Biden administration had also begun the process of reclassifying marijuana to Schedule III, but the effort was not completed before the Democratic president left office in January.

Trump has faced some pushback from within his party about the classification shift. Earlier this year, 20 Republican senators signed a letter urging the president to keep the more severe restrictions.

The group argued that marijuana continues to be dangerous and that a shift would “undermine your strong efforts to Make America Great Again”, a reference to Trump’s campaign slogan.

Meanwhile, public support for legalising marijuana for recreational use has nearly doubled in recent years, increasing from 36 percent support in 2005 to 68 percent in 2024, according to Gallup polls.

Dec. 15 (UPI) — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday said President Donald Trump’s executive order last week seeking national rules on artificial intelligence doesn’t prevent states from imposing laws on the use of the technology.

Speaking at an AI event at Florida Atlantic University, DeSantis said Florida will move forward on AI policies he has dubbed a “Citizen Bill of Rights for Artificial Intelligence.”

“The president issued an executive order. Some people were saying, ‘well, no, this blocks the states,'” DeSantis said, according to The Hill. “It doesn’t.”

Trump signed an executive order Thursday seeking to give the United States a “global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework.”

“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” the order says. “But excessive state regulation thwarts this imperative.”

Politico reported the Trump administration has said it’s prepared to file lawsuits and without funding to states that interfere with federal AI plans.

DeSantis said, though, that an executive order can’t block states.

“You can preempt states under Article 1 powers through congressional legislation on certain issues, but you can’t do it through executive order,” he said.

“But if you read it, they actually say a lot of the stuff we’re talking about are things that they’re encouraging states to do. So even reading very broadly, I think the stuff we’re doing is going to be very consistent. But irrespective, clearly we have the right to do this.”

Switzerland will cut back its order for 36 Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fighters in response to the program’s ballooning costs. The announcement puts a question mark over the future of the procurement. It also comes at a time when other customers are also looking at the stealth jet in terms of the value it gives for the considerable investment, not just in terms of upfront costs, but especially sustainment throughout the aircraft’s service life.

Following a cabinet meeting, the Swiss government today said it had instructed the defense ministry to buy the highest possible number of F-35As within the previously agreed budget of six billion Swiss francs ($7.54 billion). Reports suggest that, while the Swiss government viewed this as a fixed price, the United States later refuted that and claimed it was a misunderstanding.

“Due to foreseeable cost overruns, maintaining the originally planned number of 36 F-35As is not financially feasible,” the government said in a statement.

It’s presently unclear how many jets the Swiss budget will cover, but it’s worth noting that Finland’s order for 64 F-35As, budgeted at $9.4 billion, worked out with an equivalent cost-per-jet of around $82 million. However, additional costs of infrastructure, weapons, maintenance equipment, spare parts, training, and other systems and services need to be factored in. In the case of the F-35, in particular, these costs are uniquely high.

The original Swiss budget for a new fighter was narrowly approved by the public in a 2020 referendum.

A referendum is an unusual quirk of Swiss procurement, with the most expensive arms purchases first having to win the backing of the country’s voters. In this way, the maximum spend of six billion Swiss francs was approved before the type had been selected.

The F-35 fought off competition from the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, and Eurofighter Typhoon.

After what was described as a “comprehensive technical evaluation,” Switzerland’s Federal Council announced in 2021 that it planned to recommend to the country’s parliament that it procure 36 F-35As as part of the Air2030 program. The package also includes five Patriot air defense systems from Raytheon, which will provide the Alpine nation with a new long-range ground-based air defense capability.

“An evaluation has revealed that these two systems [F-35A and Patriot] offer the highest overall benefit at the lowest overall cost,” the Federal Council explained in a statement. “The Federal Council is confident that these two systems are the most suitable for protecting the Swiss population from air threats in the future.”

The F-35 will replace the Swiss Air Force’s existing fleet of 30 ‘legacy’ F/A-18C/D Hornets, scheduled to be withdrawn in 2030, as well as its aging F-5E/F Tiger II jets, which are slated for retirement in 2027. The first new F-35As were once expected to arrive in the country from 2025, a date that has already been pushed back.

Ironically, Swiss media reports at the time suggested that the F-35 was selected as it offered the best value for money.

“According to insiders, Switzerland can buy a larger number of F-35s with the budgeted six billion Swiss francs [$6.53 billion] than would be the case with the three competitors,” Swiss broadcaster SRF reported, citing anonymous sources.

According to the Federal Council’s findings, as of 2021, the fleet of 36 F-35As would cost around $5.48 billion, well within the price cap.

Now, at the current exchange rate, the budget cap stands at 7.54 billion, which is no longer sufficient for 36 of the stealth jets.

Meanwhile, regardless of unit price, the cost of actually sustaining the jets once in service has long been a cause for concern.

There’s also the issue of the delayed Block 4 upgrade and the lack of clarity around how much customers will actually pay for this. Block 4 supports a brand-new radar and a host of other capabilities. Among them are increased missile capacity, new weaponry, advanced electronic warfare capabilities, and improved target recognition. 

As we pointed out in the past, Block 4 might only start to become available after the Swiss begin receiving their jets, which would require them to either upgrade or decide against getting that capability boost.

It’s also far from clear what will happen next in Switzerland’s F-35 procurement; a lot will depend on how many of the jets can actually be obtained within the stipulated budget.

In the past, Switzerland has not been averse to walking away from fighter procurements entirely.

A previous fighter competition that sought a partial replacement for the F-5 fleet saw the Saab Gripen E/F being chosen, with a decision to buy 22 examples, before the entire project was rejected by a referendum in 2014.

At the same time, it’s likely that at least some Swiss Cabinet members would prefer a European fighter, and critics of the F-35 have previously suggested another referendum to potentially overturn the decision to buy American. This issue has only become magnified since the Swiss decision, with European countries increasingly uncertain about buying U.S. defense products.

There’s also a big question over whether Switzerland needs such a sophisticated, low-observable multirole fighter, since its primary responsibility will be day-to-day air policing. The Swiss Air Force also sits outside of NATO, so it doesn’t make operational deployments outside of its borders.

Another option could see a push for a cheaper ‘complementary’ fighter, or light combat aircraft, to provide additional combat (and advanced training) ‘mass’ alongside a reduced fleet of F-35s. This would parallel the existing order of battle in which F-5s operate alongside F/A-18s.

There is also the possibility that Switzerland determines that it needs the full 36 F-35s. The Swiss government also recently said that the deteriorating security situation in Europe means that the Swiss Air Force could need between 55 and 70 new fighter jets.

If that becomes policy, another referendum might be required on the total budget. The question could be put to the Swiss public, with a decision again to be made independent of aircraft type.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Dec. 11 (UPI) — President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday night that limits states’ ability to regulate artificial intelligence companies.

The order is designed “to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI,” according to a release on the White House website.

“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” the order says. “But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative.”

Trump has been a strong proponent of U.S. leadership in AI development, and said at the executive order signing ceremony Thursday night that AI companies “want to be in the United States, and they want to do it here, and we have big investment coming. But if they had to get 50 different approvals from 50 different states, you could forget it.”

The order instructs Attorney General Pam Bondi to establish an “AI Litigation Task Force” within 30 days whose “sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws” that don’t align with the Trump administration’s minimal approach to regulation.

It could also revise existing state laws, and directs Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to identify state laws that “require AI models to alter their truthful outputs,” which aligns with Trump’s efforts to prevent what he describes as “woke AI.”

Trump has also used federal funding as an incentive to encourage states with such laws not to enforce them. Under terms of the executive order, federal AI law would preempt state regulations. State AI laws designed to protect children would not be affected.

The executive order comes after congress voted in July and November against creating a similar policy.

Critics of the plan created by the executive order call it an attempt to block meaningful regulation on AI and say congress is not equipped to replace state-specific laws with a single, nationwide standard.

Tech companies have been supportive of efforts to limit the power of states to regulate AI. The executive order marks a victory for tech companies like Google and OpenAI, which have launched campaigns through a super PAC, and have as much as $100 million to spend in an effort to shape the outcome of next year’s midterm elections.

The order is also seen as a move to thwart Democrat-led states such as California and New York from exerting state laws over AI development