In the new Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 (section 8009), Congress mandated that no new, highly classified special access programs may be created without 30 day advance notice to the congressional defense committees.

But in signing the bill into law last Friday, President Trump said he would not be bound by that restriction.

“Although I expect to be able to provide the advance notice contemplated by section 8009 in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise in which I must act promptly while protecting certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information. In these situations, I will treat these sections in a manner consistent with my constitutional authorities, including as Commander in Chief,” he wrote in a May 5 signing statement.

More generally, Trump suggested that his power to classify national security information is altogether independent of Congress. “The President’s authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority,” he wrote.

This is a paraphrase of language in the 1988 US Supreme Court opinion in Department of the Navy v. Egan (The President’s “authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security… flows primarily from this Constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.”)

But left unsaid in President Trump’s signing statement was that the Supreme Court has also held that Congress could modify existing classification procedures or create its own secrecy system.

Thus, in EPA v. Mink (1973), the Supreme Court stated: “Congress could certainly have provided that the Executive Branch adopt new [classification] procedures, or it could have established its own procedures — subject only to whatever limitations the Executive privilege may be held to impose upon such congressional ordering.”

And, as noted by Jennifer Elsea, Congress has in fact legislated a classification regime for nuclear weapons-related information in the Atomic Energy Act.

So the newly legislated notification requirements concerning special access programs appear to be well within the constitutional authority and power of Congress.

The Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2017 was incorporated into the Consolidated Appropriations Act as “Division N” and enacted into law.

President Trump’s reservations about various provisions in the new appropriations act were presented in the first signing statement issued by the current Administration (h/t Charlie Savage).

A previously unpublished account of life in the Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory in the early 1950s describes a community determined to achieve, and to present, a semblance of conventional suburban life. It was circulated last month by Los Alamos historian Roger A. Meade. “In 1954 an unknown author drafted a report, reprinted below, describing the Laboratory and the community as they existed in late 1953,” Meade wrote. “This report, perhaps intended to be crafted into a public relations document, is valuable because it gives us an autobiographical look at Los Alamos during the first half of the 1950s.” “First-time visitors to Los Alamos often come with a preconceived notion that the will find something awesome and abnormal about the Los Alamos community,” the report says. “They leave, however, with the feeling of having visited an interesting but a perfectly ‘normal’ American community.” “Los Alamos has fourteen churches representing nearly all denominations. Land for church buildings is available on 99-year leases at a nominal fee.” “Los Alamos offers a wide selection of cultural and recreational activities. Presentations are made regularly in the commodious Civic Auditorium by such groups as the Civic Orchestra, the Concert Association, the Little Theatre, the Film Society, and the Los Alamos Concert Band. There are frequent lectures and forums; many distinguished speakers have appeared at the Civic Auditorium. Two motion picture theaters have continuous daily showings.” See Notes on Los Alamos, Report No. LA-UR-17-22764, published April 5, 2017.

Given its length, complexity and limited availability, it is unlikely that most members of Congress actually read the full text of the American Health Care Act that passed the House of Representatives today.

But the Congressional Research Service prepared a report, updated today, that includes an overview of all of the provisions of the Act. See H.R. 1628: The American Health Care Act (AHCA), May 4, 2017.

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

Frequently Asked Questions About Prescription Drug Pricing and Policy, May 2, 2017

Revitalizing Coastal Shipping for Domestic Commerce, May 2, 2017

Trade Implications of the President’s Buy American Executive Order, CRS Insight, May 2, 2017

Presidential Appointee Positions Requiring Senate Confirmation and Committees Handling Nominations, updated May 3, 2017

The United States Withdraws from the TPP, CRS Insight, updated May 4, 2017

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF): Program Overview and Issues, updated May 3, 2017

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting: Federal Funding and Issues, updated May 3, 2017

How to Develop and Write a Grant Proposal, updated May 2, 2017

Net neutrality, or unfettered and non-discriminatory access to the Internet, is the subject of current litigation, regulation and legislation. Background to the issue is presented in a newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service. See The Net Neutrality Debate: Access to Broadband Networks, May 1, 2017.

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

The Office of the Parliamentarian in the House and Senate, updated May 2, 2017

Patent Boxes: A Primer, May 1, 2017

The Financial CHOICE Act (H.R. 10) and the Dodd-Frank Act, CRS Insight, May 1, 2017

Executive Order for Review of National Monuments, CRS Insight, May 1, 2017

Are offensive cyber operations an act of war?

“I would say specifically to your question what defines an act of war [in the cyber domain]– that has not been defined. We are still working towards that definition across the interagency,” said Thomas Atkin of the Office of Secretary of Defense at a congressional hearing last year.

He elaborated in newly published responses to questions for the record:

“When determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the U.S. Government considers a number of factors including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction of, or damage to, property. Besides effects, other factors may also be relevant to a determination, including the context of the event, the identity of the actor perpetrating the action, the target and its location, and the intent of the actor, among other factors.” See Military Cyber Operations, hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, June 22, 2016.

If cyberwar is in fact war, would civilians who support military cyber operations be lawful combatants? They might not be, Mr. Atkin said.

“During armed conflict, some civilians who support the U.S. armed forces may sit at the keyboard and participate, under the direction of a military commander, in cyberspace operations. The law of war does not prohibit civilians from directly participating in hostilities, such as offensive or defensive cyberspace operations, even when that activity would be a use of force or would involve direct participation in hostilities; however, in such cases, a civilian is not a ‘lawful combatant’ and does not enjoy the right of combatant immunity, is subject to direct attack for such time as he or she directly participates in hostilities, and if captured by enemy government forces may be prosecuted for acts prohibited under the captor’s domestic law.”

But any such danger to unlawful civilian cyber-combatants is probably not an imminent hazard, he added. “Most, if not the great majority, of our civilian cyber workforce involved in providing support to cyberspace operations during armed conflict will not be serving on the battlefield where they may be the object of attack or risk being detained by the enemy. Instead, most will be providing their support remotely from areas outside the area of hostilities, are not easily identifiable as an individual, and are likely serving in the United States.”

A new report from the Congressional Research Service describes the gene editing technology known as CRISPR-Cas9 and its dramatic implications for genetic engineering. The report also introduces the ethical, regulatory and policy questions that this technology is raising. See Advanced Gene Editing: CRISPR-Cas9, April 28, 2017.

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

Law Enforcement Using and Disclosing Technology Vulnerabilities, April 26, 2017

Renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): What Actions Do Not Require Congressional Approval?, CRS Legal Sidebar, April 27, 2017

Softwood Lumber Dispute Lumbers On: Preliminary Countervailing Duties on Canadian Softwood Lumber Announced, CRS Legal Sidebar, April 28, 2017

Department of Defense Contractor and Troop Levels in Iraq and Afghanistan: 2007-2017, updated April 28, 2017

American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, updated April 26, 2017

Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response, updated April 26, 2017

U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications, updated April 27, 2017

The Greek Debt Crisis: Overview and Implications for the United States, updated April 24, 2017

Iran’s Nuclear Program: Status, updated April 27, 2017

“You can lie all you please when you tell other folks about the Rangers,” advised Major Robert Rogers in 1759, “but don’t never lie to a Ranger or officer.”

That guidance is recalled in a newly updated Ranger Handbook published by the U.S. Army last week.

The Handbook is a compilation of doctrine, tactics, history and lore associated with the Army’s elite Ranger special operations force.

One learns, for example, that “Proficiency with knots and rope is vitally important for Rangers, especially in mountaineering situations. Familiarity with the terminology associated with knots and rope is critical.” Various knots are helpfully explained and illustrated, though the descriptions alone will hardly make the reader proficient.

The Army Ranger Regiment “is a lethal, agile and flexible force, capable of conducting many complex, joint special operations missions. . . . Their capabilities include conducting airborne and air assault operations, seizing key terrain such as airfields, destroying strategic facilities, and capturing or killing enemies of the nation.”

Two Army Rangers were killed in action in Afghanistan on April 27, the Department of Defense announced today.

A newly updated report from the Congressional Research Service “provides an overview of Mexico’s free trade agreements, its motivations for trade liberalization and entering into free trade agreements, and trade trends with the United States and other countries in the world.” See Mexico’s Free Trade Agreements, updated April 25, 2017.

Other new and updated Congressional Research Service reports include the following.

Mexico: Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking Organizations, updated April 25, 2017

Argentina: Background and U.S. Relations, updated April 25, 2017

China’s February 2017 Suspension of North Korean Coal Imports, CRS Insight, April 25, 2017

Deferred Maintenance of Federal Land Management Agencies: FY2007-FY2016 Estimates and Issues, April 25, 2017

The “Better Way” House Tax Plan: An Economic Analysis, April 25, 2017

Could imported steel pose a threat to U.S. national security? The Trump Administration thinks so. Last week, President Trump directed the Secretary of Commerce to conduct an investigation under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 “to determine the effects on national security of steel imports.”

Yesterday the Congressional Research Service reviewed the issue skeptically, noting that such investigations almost never produce a meaningful outcome. “Perhaps one reason these investigations are infrequently conducted may be that such investigations rarely result in a finding that certain imports threaten to impair national security,” CRS wrote. See A Steely Look at Steel: Commerce Directed to Prioritize Investigation of the Effects of Steel Imports on National Security, CRS Legal Sidebar, April 24, 2017.

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

New Executive Order Directs Agencies to Revise or Rescind Climate Change Rules and Policies, CRS Legal Sidebar, April 20, 2017

U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America: Policy Issues for Congress, April 12, 2017

Cuba: U.S. Policy in the 115th Congress, April 21, 2017

China-U.S. Trade Issues, updated April 24, 2017

Turkey: Erdogan’s Referendum Victory Delivers “Presidential System”, CRS Insight, April 20, 2017

U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations: Comparative Statistics of Two-Term Presidencies Since 1945, CRS Insight, April 24, 2017

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act: Background and Summary, updated April 21, 2017

Cost-Benefit Analysis and Financial Regulator Rulemaking, April 12, 2017

Cybersecurity: Critical Infrastructure Authoritative Reports and Resources, updated April 21, 2017

FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS): Description and Effect on Generic Drug Development, April 11, 2017

New Canadian Dairy Pricing Regime Proves Disruptive for U.S. Milk Producers, CRS Insight, April 20, 2017

Iran Nuclear Agreement, updated April 21, 2017

The Budget Control Act and the Defense Budget: Frequently Asked Questions, updated April 21, 2017

“The Nation must prepare to mitigate an unpredictable global security and national emergency environment,” the White House said in a report to Congress this month.

The report, transmitted by President Trump on April 3, provided principles for reform of the selective service process by which young Americans enter the military. The report was required by section 555 of the 2017 defense authorization act.

“The Nation must be ever mindful of the unpredictable global security environment that requires an effective and efficient means to provide manpower to the national security community, including military and non-military support in a national emergency,” the President’s report said.

How to prepare in practice for the unpredictable is not clear, except that it involves flexibility.

“Any system, process, or program used to identify, recruit, and employ additional skill sets should be effective in times of peace, war, and other levels of conflict or emergency response. Associated initiatives, systems, and processes must be seamless, robust, and able to expand and contract as needed,” the report said.

Congress established a new National Commission to consider changes to the selective service system, and to develop “the means by which to foster a greater attitude, ethos, and propensity for military services among United States youth.”

Public debate over the legal authority for the April 6 U.S. missile strike on a Syrian airbase is reviewed in a new brief from the Congressional Research Service, which stops short of proposing a conclusion of its own.

“It remains to be seen whether the Trump Administration will release a statement explaining its legal basis for the missile strike under international law, but even if such a statement is forthcoming, it seems unlikely that it would put an end to this debate,” the CRS brief said. See U.S. Strike on Syrian Airbase: Legal under International Law?, CRS Legal Sidebar, April 17, 2017.

Other new reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

The Marshall Plan: 70th Anniversary, CRS Insight, April 18, 2017

U.S.-UK Free Trade Agreement: Prospects and Issues for Congress, April 14, 2017

France’s 2017 Presidential Election: In Brief, April 13, 2017

Border-Adjusted Consumption Taxes and Exchange Rate Movements: Theory and Evidence, April 18, 2017

The Revenue Baseline for Tax Reform, CRS Insight, April 14, 2017

Congressional News Media and the House and Senate Press Galleries, April 13, 2017

NASS and U.S. Crop Production Forecasts: Methods and Issues, April 13, 2017

Dressed to the Nines: What’s Next for the Nine-Justice Supreme Court, CRS Legal Sidebar, April 10, 2017

Westinghouse Bankruptcy Filing Could Put New U.S. Nuclear Projects at Risk, CRS Insight, April 19, 2017

A declassified U.S. Government documentary history of the momentous 1953 coup in Iran, in which Central Intelligence Agency personnel participated, had been the object of widespread demand from historians and others for decades. In recent years, it finally seemed to be on the verge of publication.

But now its release has been postponed indefinitely.

Last year, “the Department of State did not permit publication of the long-delayed Iran Retrospective volume because it judged the political environment too sensitive,” according to a new annual report from the State Department Historical Advisory Committee (HAC). “The HAC was severely disappointed.”

“The HAC was unsuccessful in its efforts to meet with [then-]Secretary Kerry to discuss the volume, and now there is no timetable for its release,” the new report stated.

The controversy originally arose in 1989 when the State Department published its official history of US foreign relations with Iran that somehow made no mention of the 1953 CIA covert action against the Mossadeq government, triggering protests and ridicule.

That lapse led to enactment of a 1992 statute requiring the Foreign Relations of the United States series to present a “thorough, accurate, and reliable” documentary history of US foreign policy. The State Department also agreed to prepare a supplemental retrospective volume on Iran to correct the record. The retrospective volume is what now appears to be out of reach.

In truth, a fair amount of documentation related to the events of 1953 in Iran has been declassified and released. It is unclear how much more of significance remains to be disclosed. (Those who have read the missing volume say there is at least some new substance to it.)

But the position taken by the Obama State Department that 60 year old policy documents are too politically sensitive to be released is disheartening in any case.

Instead of disrupting relations with Iran, which are already fraught, an honest official U.S. account of events in 1953 might actually have elicited a constructive response. But that argument, advanced by the Historical Advisory Committee and its Chairman, Prof. Richard H. Immerman, did not get the serious consideration it deserved.

More broadly, the new annual report of the HAC did identify a few bright spots. One volume of the Foreign Relations series that was released last year met the statutory deadline for publication within 30 years of the events it describes. That hasn’t happened for two decades.

Overall, however, “the declassification environment is discouraging,” the HAC report found.