by
Andrew
Harnik/Getty
Images)
President
Donald
Trump
demolished
the
East
Wing
of
the
White
House
without
going
through
any
government
approval
process. The
administration
said
that
it
didn’t
need
anyone’s
approval
to
demolish
the
old
building;
it
needed
approval
only
for
constructing,
not
destroying,
buildings.
Now,
when
opponents
have
filed
a
lawsuit
to
prevent
the
construction
of
the
ostentatious
Trump
Ballroom
to
replace
the
old
East
Wing,
the
government
says
that
courts
should
reject
that
objection
because
the
absence
of
a
building
on
the
site
of
the
East
Wing
poses
a national
security
concern.
I
have
a
question: Didn’t
Trump
just
create
that
national
security
problem
by
tearing
down
the
old
East
Wing?
I
mean: There
was
no
national
security
concern
six
months
ago,
when
the
old
East
Wing
existed. And
now
there’s
a
national
security
concern
caused
by
the
absence
of
the
building.
So
Trump
has
to
solve
a
national
security
concern
that
he
just
created?
(We’re
having
a
sale: 50%
off
prices
we
recently
raised
50%!)
Shouldn’t
he
have
thought
about
national
security
before
he
tore
down
the
original
building?
National
security
seems
to
be
coming
up
a
lot
these
days. In
January,
Trump
issued
an
executive
order
stopping
all
leases
for
wind
farms. A
few
weeks
ago,
a
federal
judge
threw
out
that
order. Last
week,
Trump
again
halted
all
leases
for
wind
farms,
but
now
he
claims
that
those
wind
farms
cause
“clutter”
on
radar,
which
is
a national
security concern.
The
National
Ocean
Industries
Association
was
not
amused.
NOIA
President
Erik
Milito told
Axios that
the
national-security
ramifications
of
the
offshore
projects
had
previously
been
appraised
as
part
of
a
regulatory
process
and
“every
project
under
construction
has
already
undergone
review
by
the
Department
of
Defense
with
no
objections.”
It’s
almost
like
the
administration
is
ginning
up
national
security
concerns
that
don’t
really
exist,
huh?
Remember: Trump
has
justified
his
tariffs
in
part
because
of
national
security
concerns.
That
justification
is
correct
in
certain
contexts: We
need
a
domestic
steel
industry
for
purposes
of
defense;
in
times
of
war,
we
should
have
domestic
capacity
to
build
tanks.
If
we
impose
a
tariff
to
ensure
that
our
steel
industry
doesn’t
collapse,
that
seems
legitimate. But
does
it
truly
involve
national
security
to
impose
tariffs
on
toys
and
food
and
to
retaliate
for
Brazil
having
chosen
to
prosecute
Jair
Bolsonaro?
I
personally
think
that
the
world
is
better
off
when
government
officials
who
have
committed
crimes
are
put
in
jail,
although
I
understand
why
Trump
might
disagree
with
me
on
that
issue.
Trump
has
also
invoked
national
security
as
a
justification
for
beefing
up
border
enforcement;
designating
drug
cartels
as
foreign
terrorist
organizations
(which
justifies
using
military
force
against
the
cartels);
imposing
sanctions
on
Venezuela;
screening
new
immigrants;
and
so
on.
This
poses
a
problem
for
courts. The
president’s
power
should
legitimately
be
at
its
most
robust
in
areas
of
national
security. Defending
the
country
may
be
the
president’s
highest
priority.
Courts
properly
defer
to
presidents
who
act
to
solve
national
security
concerns.
But
what
should
courts
do
with
a
president
who
is
a
fabulist
and
asserts
“national
security”
to
justify
any
stray
policy
he
wants
to
enact?
Perhaps
courts
should
look
more
closely
at
whether
assertions
of
national
security
are
grounded
in
fact?
Otherwise,
to
borrow
from
Andy
Borowitz,
the
government
will
soon
invoke
national
security
as
the
reason
for
having
renamed
the
Trump-Beethoven
Seventh
Symphony.
Mark Herrmann spent
17
years
as
a
partner
at
a
leading
international
law
firm
and
later
oversaw
litigation,
compliance
and
employment
matters
at
a
large
international
company.
He
is
the
author
of The
Curmudgeon’s
Guide
to
Practicing
Law and Drug
and
Device
Product
Liability
Litigation
Strategy (affiliate
links).
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected].