In
January,
TikTok’s
“vulnerabilities”
were
designated
as
a
major
national
security
concern.
A
widely
used
app
owned
by
a
foreign
government
was
so
apparently
dangerous
that
the
government
decided
they’d
rather
shut
it
down
than
to
let
people
post
their
dancing
vids
and
shock
at
overseas
atrocities
go
uninterrupted.
The
Trump
administration
has
opted
to
kick
the
can
down
the
block
until
they
figure
out
a
solution
to
the
problem
of
a
town
square
that
isn’t
owned
by
an
American
billionaire.
We’re
now
on
our
fourth
extension.
This
is
from
CNN:
Trump
on
Tuesday
signed
an
executive
order
extending
the
enforcement
of
a
TikTok
ban
in
the
United
States
by
another
three
months
–
an
action
that
may
be
superseded
later
if
the
agreement
to
sell
the
social
media
app’s
US
assets
to
an
American-backed
buyer
is
finalized.
The
executive
order
was
necessary
to
avoid
TikTok
going
dark
in
the
United
States
on
Wednesday,
when
the
previous
extension
was
set
to
expire.
The
exact
details
probably
won’t
be
known
until
the
ink
dries
and
we
are
all
notified
via
a
Whitehouse.gov
release,
but
negotiations
appear
to
skew
toward
20%
of
TikTok
being
owned
by
China.
I’m
not
exactly
sure
how
that
does
anything
to
rectify
the
risk
posed
by
a
foreign
government
having
access
to
our
vulnerable
“data”
—
maybe
the
threat
is
lessened
by
the
new
policing
tactics
and
surveillance
that
has
ramped
up
since
the
app
first
came
back
from
going
dark.
Much
like
the
content
that
can
be
found
on
Facebook,
TikTok
has
regulated
and
taken
down
videos
that
discuss
current
controversial
topics
like
abortion,
even
when
the
videos
don’t
violate
any
of
the
terms
of
service.
In
the
meantime,
make
the
most
of
what
remains
of
this
iteration
of
the
TikTok
extension
before
it
becomes
the
next
Truth
Social.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
Forbes
recently
rolled
out
its
second-annual
list
of
America’s
top
lawyers,
and
as
you
might
expect,
it’s
packed
with
familiar
names
from
the
upper
echelons
of
the
profession.
The
ranking
spans
lawyers
from
Biglaw
to
boutique
firms
who’ve
left
their
mark
on
the
past
year’s
biggest
matters,
putting
the
spotlight
on
attorneys
whose
influence,
integrity,
and
litigation
or
transactional
track
records
make
them
stand
out
far
above
the
rest.
Readers
of
Above
the
Law
will
spot
some
well-known
faces,
including
familiar
power
players
across
legal
specialties.
So,
which
lawyers
can
be
found
on
this
list?
Here
are
just
a
few.
Karen
Dunn,
founding
partner
of
Dunn
Isaacson
Rhee,
earned
recognition
for
her
superior
trial
skills
in
the
wake
of
exiting
Paul
Weiss
in
protest
of
the
firm’s
deal
with
the
Trump
administration.
Marc
Elias
continues
to
set
the
pace
in
election
law
and
voting
rights
litigation,
maintaining
his
place
as
the
lawyer
you
want
for
politically
consequential
litigation.
Roberta
Kaplan
of
Kaplan
Martin
is
credited
with
shaping
the
conversation
on
equality
and
accountability
through
impact
litigation.
She’s
cemented
her
place
as
one
of
the
country’s
most
influential
trial
lawyers.
Neal
Katyal
of
Milbank
keeps
his
streak
alive
as
one
of
the
most
prolific
Supreme
Court
advocates
of
all
time,
having
argued
more
than
50
cases
before
the
justices.
His
status
as
a
thoughtful
constitutional
lawyer
has
made
him
a
fixture
in
high-stakes
appeals.
Yvette
Ostolaza,
chair
of
Sidley’s
management
committee,
has
been
recognized
for
her
leadership
in
steering
one
of
the
world’s
largest
law
firms
while
maintaining
an
active
practice
in
complex
litigation.
Mathew
Rosengart
of
Greenberg
Traurig
has
become
a
household
name
for
his
high-profile
advocacy.
Some
of
his
more
public-facing
wins
—
like
his
work
on
Britney
Spears’s
conservatorship
—
underscore
why
he’s
referred
to
as
a
“revered”
litigator.
Faiza
Saeed,
Cravath’s
managing
partner,
has
earned
praise
for
guiding
the
firm
through
a
shifting
legal
market
while
maintaining
her
place
as
one
of
the
most
influential
dealmakers
and
law
firm
leaders
of
her
generation.
Alex
Spiro
of
Quinn
Emanuel
remains
the
go-to
trial
lawyer
for
celebrities
and
CEOs
alike,
having
carved
out
a
reputation
for
himself
for
his
sharp
strategy
and
courtroom
swagger.
This
list
isn’t
just
about
prestige;
it’s
a
signal
of
who’s
driving
the
conversation
in
the
legal
world
right
now.
From
Supreme
Court
advocates
to
transactional
rainmakers,
Forbes
has
captured
a
snapshot
of
the
lawyers
whose
influence
extends
well
beyond
the
courtroom.
Congratulations
to
all
of
the
attorneys
who
made
the
cut
—
whether
you’re
shaping
precedent,
closing
billion-dollar
deals,
or
advising
the
C-suite,
your
work
continues
to
define
what
it
means
to
practice
at
the
very
top
of
this
profession.
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
During
the
2024
election
campaign,
both
presidential
candidates
Donald
Trump
and
Kamala
Harris
proposed
excluding
tips
from
income
taxes.
I
argued
a
year
ago
that
doing
this
would
create
more
problems
than
benefits.
It
will
further
complicate
the
tax
laws,
incentivize
businesses
to
convert
to
a
tip-based
compensation
structure,
deprive
a
subset
of
people
of
future
Social
Security
benefits,
and
exacerbate
tip
culture.
When
Trump
regained
the
presidency,
he
included
a
“No
Tax
On
Tips”
provision
on
his
One
Big
Beautiful
Bill.
So
let’s
examine
what
the
bill
actually
says
and
analyze
whether
it
addresses
the
problems
I
stated
above.
The
“No
Tax
On
Tips”
Law.
From
2025
until
2028,
employees
and
self-employed
individuals
may
deduct
qualified
tips
received
in
occupations
that
customarily
and
regularly
receive
tips.
The
IRS
must
publish
a
list
of
occupations
that
customarily
and
regularly
receives
tips
by
October
2,
2025.
A
qualified
tip
is
a
voluntary,
nonnegotiated
payment
from
the
customer
with
no
consequence
for
nonpayment.
The
maximum
annual
deduction
is
$25,000.
For
self-employed
individuals,
the
deduction
may
not
exceed
the
individual’s
net
income
from
the
trade
or
business
in
which
the
tips
were
earned.
In
other
words,
the
deduction
cannot
be
used
to
create
a
net
operating
loss
(or
negative
income)
which
can
be
carried
forward
to
offset
future
income.
The
deduction
phases
out
for
taxpayers
with
modified
adjusted
gross
income
over
$150,000,
or
over
$300,000
for
joint
filers.
There
are
some
limitations.
Self-employed
individuals
in
a
Specified
Service
Trade
or
Business
(SSTB)
are
not
eligible
for
the
deduction.
A
business
is
considered
an
SSTB
if
the
principal
asset
of
that
business
is
the
reputation
or
skill
of
its
owners
and
employees.
The
treasury
regulations
list
examples
of
SSTBs
which
include
services
in
the
fields
of
health,
law
(emphasis
added),
accounting,
actuarial
science,
performing
arts
(remember
this),
consulting,
athletics,
financial
services,
and
brokerage
services.
Also,
individuals
must
have
Social
Security
numbers
to
claim
the
deductions.
A
person
who
does
not
have
a
SSN
but
instead
has
an
Individual
Taxpayer
Identification
Number
(ITIN)
cannot
use
the
deduction.
Married
taxpayers
cannot
file
separately.
Analysis.
First,
it
is
important
to
note
that
this
a
deduction
from
taxable
income
which
will
reduce
federal
income
tax.
This
deduction
will
not
reduce
payroll
or
self-employment
taxes
which
means
it
will
not
negatively
affect
Social
Security.
Also,
the
deduction
will
not
reduce
adjusted
gross
income
which
is
used
to
determine
things
like
income-based
student
loan
payments.
The
tax
savings
will
vary
based
on
the
individual.
A
taxpayer
who
takes
the
full
$25,000
deduction
and
does
not
exceed
the
income
maximum
of
$150,000
(24%
tax
bracket)
will
save
$6,000
in
taxes.
On
the
other
hand,
a
part-time
employee
who
earns
less
than
the
standard
deduction
amount
of
$15,750
will
get
no
tax
savings.
In
light
of
the
limitations
imposed,
people
receiving
tips
in
cash
will
not
be
inclined
to
report
it,
especially
if
they
have
reached
the
annual
maximum
or
their
income
has
made
them
ineligible.
Next,
let’s
look
at
the
people
who
can
take
advantage
of
this
deduction.
While
the
IRS
has
not
yet
released
its
official
list
of
trades
or
businesses
that
customarily
receives
tips,
the
Treasury
Department
released
a
preliminary
list
in
August.
For
the
most
part,
the
list
is
not
surprising.
In
fact,
in
certain
industries
such
as
food
service,
the
occupation
list
is
very
broad
and
includes
cooks,
food
preparation
workers,
and
dishwashers.
The
list
also
included
occupations
which
may
or
may
not
customarily
receive
tips.
This
includes
—
among
others
—
electricians,
plumbers,
and
locksmiths.
For
those
who
do
not
receive
tips,
they
might
try
adjust
their
business
practices
so
they
can
reclassify
a
portion
of
their
income
as
tips.
Another
unexpected
eligible
occupation
is
the
digital
content
creator.
This
includes
online
video
creators,
social
media
influencers,
and
podcasters.
For
these
people,
the
IRS
will
need
to
look
at
what
these
people
are
doing.
For
example,
are
they
giving
legal
advice
on
their
podcast?
Or
are
they
dancing
or
performing
only
for
their
fans?
If
so,
they
may
be
engaging
in
an
SSTB.
The
list
included
some
occupations
that
could
be
considered
SSTBs
and
thus
ineligible
to
take
the
tip
deduction.
These
include
musicians,
singers,
and
entertainers
which
are
specifically
listed
in
the
treasury
regulations.
When
there
is
a
conflict,
what
is
stated
in
the
treasury
regulations
generally
trump
IRS
notices,
revenue
rulings,
and
memorandums.
The
IRS
will
need
to
clarify
this
conflict
when
it
releases
its
final
list
of
eligible
occupations.
Next,
as
mentioned,
the
customer
has
to
give
the
tip
voluntarily.
This
means
that
giving
a
“suggested
amount”
—
usually
given
so
the
customer
does
not
have
to
calculate
the
amount
themselves
—
is
still
considered
voluntary.
But
there
are
certain
situations
where
a
gratuity
is
required.
Usually
this
is
the
case
where
a
large
party
is
served.
But
some
restaurants
have
begun
to
charge
service
fees
in
lieu
of
tips,
usually
for
tip-sharing
purposes.
Since
these
tips
are
required
and
not
voluntary,
that
could
mean
that
this
tip
income
is
nondeductible.
Lastly,
denying
the
deduction
for
those
who
do
not
have
SSNs
is
meant
to
target
undocumented
immigrants.
Since
this
is
not
a
tax
increase,
they
will
continue
to
file
tax
returns
and
pay
taxes
and
will
likely
continue
their
way
of
life.
Also,
an
argument
could
be
made
that
they
are
paying
more
than
their
fair
share
since
they
are
paying
more
taxes
than
a
similarly
situated
U.S.
citizen
or
permanent
resident.
In
sum,
the
new
law
isn’t
likely
to
change
much.
The
IRS
will
need
to
clarify
potential
conflicts
in
its
upcoming
guidance.
But
it
appears
that
those
with
higher
incomes
will
get
the
most
tax
savings.
Steven
Chung
is
a
tax
attorney
in
Los
Angeles,
California.
He
helps
people
with
basic
tax
planning
and
resolve
tax
disputes.
He
is
also
sympathetic
to
people
with
large
student
loans.
He
can
be
reached
via
email
at
[email protected].
Or
you
can
connect
with
him
on
Twitter
(@stevenchung)
and
connect
with
him
on LinkedIn.
After
the
Notorious
Nine
Biglaw
firms
traded
their
principles
to
curry
favor
with
the
Trump
administration,
the
question
on
everyone’s
mind
remained:
what,
exactly,
were
they
going
to
do
for
the
administration?
The
firms
offered
free
legal
services
—
in
amounts
upward
of
$125
million
each
—
to
vaguely
defined
conservative-friendly
causes.
Publicly,
the
firms
downplayed
the
agreements,
telling
legislators
that
they
would
retain
ultimate
authority
over
their
pro
bono
representations
and,
often,
pointing
to
specific,
benign
causes
like
“veterans’
charities”
as
examples
of
the
work
expected.
We
might
have
a
bit
more
insight
into
this
matter,
following
an
email
sent
around
to
Kirkland
attorneys
seeking
volunteers
to
help
out
with
a
new
engagement
for
the
conservative
think
tank
The
Goldwater
Institute.
Presumably,
if
the
$125
million
bill
ever
comes
due,
this
is
the
sort
of
work
the
firm
will
point
to.
The
right-leaning
think
tank
takes
its
name
from
Barry
“Landslide”
Goldwater,
the
1964
Republican
presidential
candidate
campaign
so
spectacularly
stomped
by
LBJ
because
the
majority
of
the
country
thought
the
odds
were
better
than
even
that
he’d
launch
a
nuclear
war
just
for
kicks.
While
his
defeat
laid
the
groundwork
for
the
conservative
movement’s
later
successes,
Goldwater
remained
something
of
an
unvarnished
libertarian.
He’s
the
sort
of
guy
who
would
look
at
the
Trump
administration
and
declare
“on
second
thought,
maybe
extremism
is
a
vice.”
The
Goldwater
Institute
shares
the
libertarian
tilt,
and
many
of
its
efforts
on
the
part
of
individuals
fighting
stupid
regulations
are
laudable,
like
when
the
organization
fought
for
lawyers
seeking
licenses
held
up
over
stupid
rules
about
foreign
law
degrees.
They
also
launch
stupid
attacks
on
“DEI”
and
campaign
finance
laws.
Libertarians,
like
clocks,
are
right
a
couple
times
a
day
and
we
just
have
to
celebrate
when
that
moment
rolls
around.
The
specific
project
Kirkland
has
taken
on
falls
within
the
Institute’s
more
even-keeled
work.
The
message
from
the
firm’s
Pro
Bono
Coordinator
explains
that
the
firm
is
working
for
the
Goldwater
Institute
to
produce
a
50-state
survey
of
civil
jury
trial
protections.
The
organization
has
a
history
of
fighting
to
protect
the
individual’s
right
to
a
trial
by
jury.
In
practice,
this
amounts
to
pushing
back
against
the
administrative
adjudications
some
states
employ
to
resolve
public
rights
questions
quickly
without
clogging
up
courts
with
inefficient
litigation.
Instead,
civil
jury
trial
purists
would
say,
we
should
bog
down
the
system
with
constant
Bleak
House
property
litigation…
for
freedom!
It’s
bad
policy,
but
in
the
grand
scheme
of
causes
that
a
firm
could
lend
its
services
to
help,
it’s
not
awful.
And
it’s
far
superior
to
Kirkland’s
free
work
as
Junior
Deputies
for
the
Commerce
Department.
That
project
involved
giving
the
administration
direct
services,
a
spiritual
violation
of
the
vague
commitments
to
charitable
work
and
arguably
a
very
real
violation
of
31
U.S.
Code
§
1342,
the
federal
law
that
bars
agencies
from
accepting
unpaid
services
unless
someone
is
literally
on
fire.
The
statute
prevents
the
government
from
accepting
free
services
unless
conditions
“imminently
threaten
the
safety
of
human
life
or
the
protection
of
property,”
and
papering
up
a
trade
deal
doesn’t
come
close.
But
the
test
of
these
agreements
still
hasn’t
arrived.
Volunteering
for
a
conservative
think
tank
or
representing
the
government
will
earn
these
firms
enough
goodwill
to
impress
whichever
Stephen
Miller
intern
is
charged
with
monitoring
Biglaw
compliance,
but
it’s
not
going
to
hit
that
$125
million
figure.
The
moment
of
truth
for
all
these
deals
arrives
when
the
administration
comes
to
the
firm
with
a
specific
request
and
the
firm
has
to
decide
whether
or
not
it
plays
ball.
Maybe
that
day
won’t
come,
but
if
it
does,
it’s
hard
to
believe
the
White
House
is
going
to
be
satisfied
with
“we’d
rather
not
do
that,
please
accept
this
survey
of
state
civil
jury
laws
instead.”
Texas
attorney
Fangzhou
Chen,
aka
Amber
Chen,
was
charged
in
federal
court
with
cyberstalking
and
transmitting
threatening
communications.
Chen
allegedly
sent
25
unsubstantiated
online
tips
to
the
FBI
National
Threat
Operations
Center and
engaged
in
a
campaign
of
online
harassment
directed
at
an
unnamed
Biglaw
partner
based
in
New
York
as
well
as
a
Biglaw
associate
based
in
Los
Angeles.
According
to
the
criminal
complaint,
available
below,
the
partner
never
actually
met
Chen.
The
partner’s
firm,
reportedly
Latham
&
Watkins,
monitors
Chen’s
social
media
(and
provides
him
with
24/7
security),
a
sample
of
which
follows.
•
“If
[the
partner]
does
not
resign
by
Monday,
[the
partner’s
firm]
will
lose
half
of
the
clients”
•
“And
if
you
ever
cross
me
again,
it’s
not
just
calling
feds
5
months
later”
•
“All
[the
partner’s]
sex
files
will
be
made
public
and
non-classified.”
•
“If
any
of
you
stalk
me
again
I’ll
[gun
emoji]
you
to
death”
•
“Never
in
my
lifetime
I
have
ever
heard
an
associate
attorney
can
kill
a
managing
partner”
•
“Sniper
on
site”
•
[The
associate]
is
in
California,
[the
partner]
is
in
Manhattan.
Use
a
silencer.”
•
“Ever
played
a
real
life
Squid
Game?
lol
[laughing
emoji]”
•
“Use
a
silencer.”
It’s
pretty
clear
why
the
firm
felt
the
security
was
needed.
The
firm
also
shared
with
the
FBI
emails
sent
to
the
partner’s
work
address
that
gave
the
partner
a
“last
warning”
to
leave
the
United
States
and
threatened
that
he
“will
be
eliminated
on
the
spot”
if
Chen
saw
him
at
the
firm
again.
According
to
the
complaint,
the
cyberstalking
began
in
October
of
2024.
It
remains
unclear
why
Chen
began
targeting
the
partner
and
associate.
Though
the
State
Bar
of
Texas
lists
Chen’s
office
website
as
Latham’s,
according
to
reports,
Chen
never
worked
at
the
firm.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
Remember
Al
Franken?
He
was
a
distinguished
United
States
senator.
He
is
funny.
He
is
charming.
No
one
else
in
Congress
could
or
can
excoriate
hypocritical
right-wing
nincompoops
quite
so
effectively.
Then
an
old
photograph
circulated
that
showed
him,
during
his
time
as
a
comedian,
with
a
big
goofy
grin
on
his
face
pretending
to
grope
the
breasts
of
a
Playboy
model
who
was
on
tour
with
him
to
help
entertain
the
troops.
Specifically,
she
was
on
the
tour
to
entertain
the
troops
with
her
good
looks,
which
certainly
doesn’t
mean
she
deserved
to
be
the
butt
of
a
bad
joke
executed
while
she
was
sleeping
in
a
flak
jacket.
After
this,
seven
additional
women
accused
Franken
of
unwanted
touching.
While
no
one
should
touch
anyone
else
in
a
way
that
makes
them
uncomfortable,
none
of
these
were
even
close
to
the
most
heinous
allegations
you’ve
heard,
and
Franken
strongly
denied
any
intent
at
least
to
overstep
personal
boundaries.
Franken
was
a
very
public-facing
lawmaker
who
met
thousands
and
thousands
of
people,
including
me,
meaning
that
if
he
really
was
out
there
trying
to
make
a
grope-fest
of
things,
there
probably
would
have
been
a
lot
more
than
seven
complainants.
Then
36
Democrats
demanded
he
resign.
He
succumbed
to
the
pressure.
We
all
got
a
lackluster
replacement.
The
point
of
this
little
stroll
down
memory
lane
is
that
none
of
this
had
anything
to
do
with
Franken’s
performance
as
a
senator.
Sure,
there
is
a
point
at
which
general
misbehavior
should
lead
to
you
losing
your
job,
like
for
instance
when
you’ve
engaged
in
any
one
of
the
dozens
of
felonies
that
the
current
president
has
been
convicted
of
and/or
charged
with.
But
does
anyone
else
out
there
remember
a
time
when
people
would
occasionally
get
fired
for
being
bad
at
their
jobs
instead
of
for
some
other
judgmental
reason
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
their
job
performance?
Think
about
it.
When
was
the
last
time
you
heard
of
someone
getting
fired
for
actually
being
bad
at
their
job?
Coldplay
kiss
cam
couple:
having
an
affair,
probably
bad
spouses,
potential
conflicts
of
interest,
but
seemingly
doing
fine
at
their
jobs
before
anyone
knew
all
this.
Fed
Governor
Lisa
Cook:
maybe
did
mortgage
fraud.
Sandwich
guy:
threw
a
sandwich
at
an
ICE
agent
like
a
f*cking
hero.
All
the
people
let
go
for
gleefully
posting
about
Charlie
Kirk’s
assassination:
I
mean,
I’m
just
going
to
decline
to
comment
on
that
one.
I
could
go
on
all
day
with
these
examples.
Perhaps
“idiot
loses
job
because
he
was
so
terrible
at
it”
simply
does
not
make
the
headlines,
but
even
in
my
real
life
it’s
hard
to
remember
any
recent
terminations
for
actual
performance-related
reasons.
Way
back
in
the
day,
when
I
worked
at
a
law
firm
that
fired
hapless
associates
on
a
whim
nearly
every
month,
there
was
this
guy
who
got
fired
in
large
part
because
he
wrote
a
memo
of
law
in
which
he
intentionally
left
out
the
most
important
controlling
case
on
the
key
issue,
causing
a
partner
who
didn’t
check
the
work
to
get
yelled
at
and
humiliated
in
open
court
during
oral
arguments.
The
guy
said
he
left
the
most
important
case
imaginable
out
because
it
was
such
a
bad
precedent
for
our
side.
On
days
like
that,
it
could
really
feel
like
going
to
law
school
was
worth
it.
Look,
people
should
be
held
accountable
for
particularly
bad
outside-of-the-workplace
behavior.
There
are
lots
of
systems
in
place
for
holding
people
accountable
for
bad
behavior
that
are
not
employers
showing
them
the
door
in
order
to
impose
some
kind
of
faceless
corporate
moral
judgment
on
everyone.
Al
Franken
should
have
apologized,
and
he
did.
Al
Franken
should
have
faced
ethical
inquiries,
and
he
did.
He
should
not
have
lost
his
job.
He
lost
a
lot.
We,
the
American
people,
lost
even
more.
Little
versions
of
Franken’s
saga
play
themselves
out
in
offices
all
across
America
every
day.
So
many
of
them
are
lose-lose
situations,
just
like
it
was
with
Franken.
Between
everyone’s
family
and
everyone’s
social
media
addictions,
it
seems
to
me
we
all
already
have
plenty
of
people
judging
our
every
decision
at
every
moment
without
employers
needing
to
be
in
on
the
game.
It
would
be
nice
if
we
could
go
back
to
employers
worrying
about
how
good
you
are
at
your
job
and
leaving
the
moral
policing
with
the
almighty
where
it
belongs.
Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].
The
House
Permanent
Select
Committee
on
Intelligence
(HPSCI),
chaired
by
Rep.
Rick
Crawford,
R.-Ariz.,
passed
the
intelligence
policy
bill
on
Sept.
10.
While
the
line
item
for
NRO’s
commercial
spending,
like
the
rest
of
the
spysat
agency’s
budget
is
classified,
it
has
previously
been
reported that
NRO’s
commercial
budget
hovers
at
about
$400
million
a
year.
Most
of
that
goes
to
the
Electro-Optical
Commercial
Layer,
and
the
rest
goes
to
study
contracts
for
other
types
of
remote
sensing
—
such
as
synthetic
aperture
radar
that
can
see
through
clouds
—
under
the
agency’s
Strategic
Commercial
Enhancements
Broad
Agency
Announcement
program.
Two
industry
sources
working
on
the
issue
said
that
the
legislation
fully
supports
the
long-running
Electro-Optical
Commercial
Layer
program
to
buy
imagery
from
satellites
equipped
with
visible
and
infrared
cameras.
Congressional
sources,
while
careful
to
avoid
tripping
over
the
classification
line,
concurred.
“In
a
bipartisan
effort,
HPSCI
authorized
funding
for
the
Electro-Optical
Commercial
Layer
program
at
a
strong
level
that
will
send
a
significant
demand
signal
to
the
commercial
imagery
industry.
Commercial
imagery
purchases
are
critical
to
our
national
security
and
provide
key
support
to
both
policymakers
and
warfighters,”
a
spokesperson
for
the
committee
said.
“Crucially,
commercial
imagery
is
not
classified,
so
other
parts
of
the
U.S.
Government
can
use
it
to
support
disaster
relief
efforts,
for
example,
something
our
IC’s
imagery
analysts
are
allowed
to
do.
This
investment
will
continue
to
yield
greater
capacity
and
new,
exciting
capabilities.
This
committee
remains
committed
to
funding
commercial
imagery
procurement
at
a
level
that
meets
the
needs
of
policymakers
and
warfighters,”
the
spokesperson
added.
The
FY26
“passback”
proposal
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
to
chop
an
array
of
NRO
funding
for
commercial
intelligence,
surveillance
and
reconnaissance
data
generated
vocal
push
back
from
the
US
remote
sensing
industry
and
market
analysts,
as
well
as
some
in
Congress.
Critics
argued
that
the
reductions
would
undercut
national
security
and
wreak
economic
havoc
on
the
burgeoning
sector.
Rep.
Seth
Moulton,
D-Mass.,
who
has
expressed
concern
about
the
proposed
reductions,
welcomed
the
move
to
restore
funding.
While
not
a
member
of
the
HPSCI,
Moulton
is
a
member
of
the
House
Armed
Services
subcommittee
on
strategic
forces
that
oversees
Pentagon
space
activities.
“OMB’s
proposed
cuts
to
commercial
space-based
sensing
were
shortsighted.
But
it
is
clear
there
is
strong
bipartisan
support
on
the
Hill
for
restoring
this
funding.
America’s
commercial
space
industry
is
a
major
competitive
advantage,
delivering
speed,
resilience,
and
innovation
at
a
competitive
price.
By
maximizing
our
use
of
commercial
imaging,
we
can
free
up
our
most
exquisite
satellites
to
do
more
of
the
tasks
that
only
they
can
perform,”
he
told
Breaking
Defense.
In
addition,
the
HPSCI
bill
includes
a
new
requirement
for
the
Office
of
the
Director
of
National
Intelligence
to
appoint
a
single
official
to
oversee
buying
all
commercially
available
information
(CAI)
for
all
the
agencies
making
up
the
Intelligence
Community
(IC).
These
include
all
the
military
services,
as
well
as
the
Defense
Intelligence
Agency,
the
National
Security
Agency,
and
the
National
Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency
(NGA).
“After
many
months
of
oversight
briefings
and
hearing
from
a
variety
of
stakeholders,
it
became
abundantly
clear
that
an
official
was
needed
to
oversee
the
acquisition
and
management
of
CAI
by
the
IC
elements.
After
an
official
is
selected
to
oversee
these
responsibilities,
the
designated
official
is
required
to
brief
Congress
annually
for
two
years
on
the
IC’s
acquisition
and
management
of
CAI,”
the
HPSCI
spokesperson
said.
While
the
version
of
the
Intelligence
Act
passed
by
the
HPSCI’s
Senate
side
equivalent
does
not
contain
a
similar
provision
to
create
an
IC-wide
acquisition
czar,
it
does
instruct
the
NRO
and
NGA
to
create
a
joint
program
management
office
for
commercial
GEOINT
data
and
services.
As
neither
the
full
House
or
Senate
have
passed
the
FY26
Intelligence
Act,
it
remains
unclear
when
the
two
sides
will
get
together
to
hash
out
the
differences.
While
there
is
no
guarantee
that
the
House
language
will
stand,
the
industry
sources
said
that
there
is
strong
bipartisan
support
by
the
IC
policy
committees
on
both
sides
of
Capitol
Hill
for
continuing,
and
even
increasing,
acquisition
of
commercial
remote
sensing
for
use
by
the
intelligence
agencies
and
allies.
That
bipartisan
support,
one
of
the
industry
sources
noted,
also
is
echoed
in
the
House
and
Senate
Armed
Services
Committees
that
oversee
the
Defense
Department.
*
Legislators
raise
concerns
over
the
proposal
to
force
JAG
officers
to
serve
as
immigration
judges.
Because
it’s
stupid.
[AP]
*
DOJ
just
removed
a
report
confirming
that
white
supremacist
and
far-right
violence
“continues
to
outpace
all
other
types
of
terrorism
and
domestic
violent
extremism.”
[404
Media]
*
Harvard
Law
School’s
incoming
class
includes
more
Black
students
after
last
year’s
decline.
So
prepare
for
the
White
House
to
slash
more
Harvard
funding.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
*
Judges
looking
beyond
monetary
fines
to
police
AI
hallucinations.
[Reuters]
Biglaw
Partner
Gets
Ear
Pierced
In
Courtroom
After
Saving
Claire’s
From
Bankruptcy:
Fancying
lawyering,
fancier
jewelry!
Trump
Sues
NYT
For
Doing
Their
Jobs:
Again.
Get
a
new
hobby,
man.
Luigi
Mangione’s
Terrorism
Charges
Dropped:
Judge
finds
the
charges
wouldn’t
have
held
up
at
trial.
Perfectionism
Can
Be
A
Downer:
Has
our
expectation
of
perfection
from
associates
become
maladaptive?
AI,
An
Unexpected
Tool
For
Communication:
With
the
time
it
helps
you
save,
you
can
hone
in
on
making
sure
your
message
is
heard.
At
the
biannual
meeting
of
the
Judicial
Conference,
which
Democratic
politician
told
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
the
rule
of
law
“is
at
a
Category
6
code
red,
six
alarm
fire”
due
to
the
Supreme
Court’s
reckless
use
of
the
shadow
docket
during
the
Trump
II
reign?
Hint:
The
representative
serves
on
the
House
Judiciary
Committee,
and
got
his
JD
from Texas
Southern
University Thurgood
Marshall
School
of
Law.
Kathryn
