A teachable moment on digital communication security

An editor at The Atlantic was accidentally added to a high-level Signal group chat where Trump administration officials were planning military strikes in Yemen.

Yes, you read that right. A journalist, in a chat with top government officials, while they were actively discussing where and when to launch missiles.

It's an appalling breach of national security. It’s also a teachable moment for employers.

If the highest of federal officials can accidentally include a reporter in a thread outlining imminent military action, your company's employees can accidentally include the wrong person in a message about a client, a deal, a product launch, or a sensitive HR issue.

WIRTW #752: the 'this is 40' edition

"Could the President decide that he wasn't going to appoint or allow to remain in office any heads of agencies over 40 years old?"

"I think that that would be within the President’s constitutional authority under the removal power."

That exchange took place earlier this week between Judge Karen Henderson, a Reagan appointee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur during proceedings over the termination of board members from two independent federal agencies, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The claim that Trump has the constitutional authority to fire employees based on their age is appalling on its own. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which protects employees 40 and older, has plenty to say about that claim.

Even more disturbing, however, are the broader implications of the government's argument. Replace "over 40" with "Black," "female," "gay," "lesbian," "transgender," "Muslim," "Jewish," "disabled," or any other protected class. By McArthur's reasoning, those terminations would be just as lawful under Trump's "constitutional removal power." The government is arguing that Trump has the constitutional authority to remake the federal workforce into one only comprised of while, male, cisgender, under 40, non-disabled, Christians.

That argument isn't just legally dubious—it's a direct attack on the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination that underpin our society and our democracy. If accepted, it would open the door to a federal workforce shaped entirely by a President's personal biases, rather than merit, experience, or the law. The Constitution does not grant any President unchecked power to purge employees based on protected characteristics. This isn't about removal authority. It's about whether the rule of law still applies, even when the President finds it inconvenient to his agenda.

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

EEOC issues guidance on "DEI-related discrimination," but doesn't bother to define it

What is "DEI-related discrimination at work?" No one knows, including the EEOC.

Late yesterday, the EEOC released two new policy documents aimed at eliminating "unlawful DEI" in the workplace: What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work and What To Do If You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work (the latter even available as a poster-sized PDF).

The most revealing line appears in the opening sentence of the "What You Should Know" document: 

"Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is a broad term that is not defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Of course it's undefined, because DEI is not illegal.

This is what a constitutional crisis looks like

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose." – Chief Justice John Roberts

Translation: If you don't like a court ruling, you appeal. You don't ignore it. You don't retaliate against the judge. And you don't call for their impeachment.

And yet… here we are.

Yes, segregation is still illegal, and also amoral

Image via wiki commons, cc license

I can't believe I have to say this in 2025, but here we are … it's illegal and amoral to have racially segregated facilities in your business.

Why you shouldn't hate lawyers (or at least not all of us)

The LinkedIn comments on my recent post about Donald Trump targeting the Perkins Coie law firm really caught me off guard. I expected some debate and pushback. What I didn't expect, however, was the level of vitriol directed at lawyers and the legal profession in general. The anger, the contempt, the full-blown hatred, just for people doing their jobs.

I get it. Lawyers aren't winning any popularity contests. We're perceived somewhere between used car salesmen and that guy who takes up two spots in the parking lot. The lawyer jokes never stop. ("What do you call 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start." "Why don’t sharks attack lawyers? Professional courtesy." I've heard them all.)

Properly functioning boards of directors must hold CEOs accountable for their words and actions

Boards must hold CEOs accountable for their words and actions. Case in point: last week Tesla/SpaceX CEO Elon Musk resharing a post suggesting that Hitler wasn't responsible for the Holocaust, shifting blame instead to "public sector workers."

It's a statement as reckless as it is offensive, and it raises a bigger question: When a CEO behaves like this, where is the board of directors?

WIRTW #751: the 'losing' edition

"The Government's arguments … threaten to upend fundamental protections in our Constitution. But ours is not an autocracy; it is a system of checks and balances. Our Founders recognized that the concentration of power in one branch of government would spell disaster."

So wrote Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in her order granting summary judgment in favor of Susan Tsui Grundmann and restoring her to her position as one of the three members of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. On February 10, 2025, President Trump had abruptly terminated her without explanation, notice, or a hearing, and termination which Judge Sooknanan concluded was unlawful and in violation of the FLRA's enabling statute.

If you want to follow the status of all of the lawsuits currently pending against Donald Trump and his administration, check out Just Security's Litigation Tracker. If you're keeping track at home, As of yesterday, 119 lawsuits (and counting) have been filed against the current Trump administration challenging its actions. Trump has lost most thus far.

---

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.