Uncertain times for big US law firms
Rumours are rife among expatriate US lawyers and their British brethren who work for American firms in the Square Mile — or just those who do business stateside — over whether Donald Trump will train his guns on them.
His administration has hit several large US players with a barrage of executive orders, preventing some from accepting federal government work and from gaining crucial security clearance. Some are fighting, but others have come to an arrangement with the leader of the free world, who, of course, loves a deal.
One US lawyer tells The Times that there is wide confusion over why some firms have agreed to the Trump arrangements, which, it is said, broadly involve doing free work for the administration or the
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
10 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Thousands of UK government laptops, phones and tablets have been lost or stolen
Thousands of UK government laptops, phones and tablets worth more than £1m have been either lost or stolen, freedom of information disclosures have revealed, triggering warnings of a 'systemic risk' to the nation's cybersecurity. The Department for Work and Pensions recorded 240 missing laptops and 125 missing phones in 2024; while in the first five months of this year the Ministry of Defence recorded 103 missing laptops and 387 missing phones. The Cabinet Office, which coordinates government activity, lost or had stolen 66 laptops and 124 phones in 2024. The replacement cost of the more than 2,000 missing devices recorded across 18 Whitehall departments and public authorities in the last year for which figures are available is running at about £1.3m annually, according to Guardian analysis of freedom of information responses. The Bank of England, HM Treasury and the Home Office were among other departments where dozens of phones and laptops went missing. Cybersecurity experts said the losses could enable hackers to create backdoors into government systems even if large parts of the hardware were encrypted. One called it 'a huge national security risk', but the government downplayed the danger, saying that encryption prevented access to bad actors. 'These are surprisingly large numbers,' said Prof Alan Woodward, a cybersecurity expert at the University of Surrey. 'When you are talking about so many [it creates] a large attack surface [for hackers]. If 1% were system administrators who had their phones stolen, that's enough to get in.' He said that if devices were open when stolen, as frequently happens with phones snatched on the street, criminals could keep them open and 'drill down into the device and once the phone is open, by design it is readable and accessible'. The Ministry of Defence said it had robust policies and procedures to prevent losses and thefts. It said: 'Encryption on devices ensures any data is safeguarded and prevents access to the defence network.' The Bank of England said it 'takes the security of devices and data very seriously and has suitable protection in place'. A government spokesperson said: 'We take the security of government devices extremely seriously, which is why items such as laptops and mobile phones are always encrypted so any loss does not compromise security.' It added that every loss or theft was investigated. 'The device loss seems quite high,' said Nick Jackson, the chief information security officer at Bitdefender, a cybersecurity firm. 'It only takes one lost [device] to compromise a network. It poses a systemic risk and is something that could potentially be taken more seriously especially given the access and connections that department will have.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion He said laptops were likely to have encryption, but tablets or phones presented a greater risk. Jackson said: 'The biggest risk is that the devices themselves will have access to sensitive information and authentication tokens. If someone was able to gain access to those they would be able complete authentication processes on any government application or government website that they shouldn't be able to access.' The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which is responsible for cybersecurity, recorded 83 phones and 18 laptops lost or stolen in the year to May 2025. In 2024, the Home Office, which oversees policing, had 147 devices go missing at an estimated replacement cost of more than £85,000. An MoD spokesperson said: 'We treat all breaches of security very seriously and we require all suspected breaches to be reported. All incidents are subjected to an initial security risk assessment, with further action taken on a proportionate basis.' David Gee, the chief marketing officer of Cellebrite, a digital forensics and cybersecurity firm that works with the Metropolitan police, said: 'Missing devices pose a huge national security risk, especially coming from public sector departments where they hold vast amounts of sensitive data. From healthcare departments to defence, staff phones and laptops must be protected at all costs, and keeping data safe in these government agencies should be a top priority.'
New Statesman
14 minutes ago
- New Statesman
How Benjamin Netanyahu beat America First
'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' Donald Trump told the world from inside the White House last night. Earlier that day, B-2 bombers had dropped their bunker-busting payloads on three Iranian nuclear facilities, marking America's entrance into the conflict between Israel and Iran. This is not peace through strength, but peace through war. What happens now depends on the Iranian response. Trump's gamble seems to be that the attack will force a vulnerable Iran to negotiate (which they were doing before Israel assassinated their chief negotiator) because the mullahs know a long bombing campaign risks bringing down the regime itself. But that would mean Ayatollah Khamanei accepting the humiliation of bowing to American power. The alternative is to attack. The 40,000 American troops in the Middle East have been told to prepare for retaliation. The Iranians could also hike the price of oil by attempting to blockade the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 per cent of the world's supply passes. That is why Trump wants this to be the end. Escalation puts his administration's core purpose at risk. The neoconservative mind assumes that America can be insulated from its foreign wars. In contrast, America First sees war as inexorably linked to, and inevitably bad for, Washington's appetite to put Americans first. Hence Maga isolationists have spent the past two weeks lobbying against any strikes. Where is that dissent now? Charlie Kirk, the online Maga influencer, posted: 'America stands with President Trump'. JD Vance stood beside the president as he gave his speech, even as Reuters reported earlier on Saturday that the vice president told senior Israeli officials that the US should not be directly involved in the conflict and that Israel was going to drag the US into the war. The lesson here is that loyalty to the Maga leader sits beneath any moral or strategic gripes someone in Maga might have with the president's decisions. That dissent is rare means the Democrats can take up the anti-war mantle. Bernie Sanders read out news of the attack at a rally yesterday. The crowd erupted into the chant: 'No more war'. 'It is so grossly unconstitutional,' Sanders said, 'the president does not have the right'. Sanders is correct: bombing a sovereign country is a declaration of war, a power that the constitution reserves to Congress. President Trump did not put much effort into winning over the public. Where were the interviews making the case for war? Persuasion was substituted by his own public musings as to whether he would give the order, which is illuminating because it suggests he sees war as something waged by himself alone, and not the nation as a whole. His nationalism, in other words, sits beneath his ego. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe It feels almost quaint to talk about the United Nations in 2025, but Trump has reduced those institutions designed to stop one country forcefully imposing its will on another to farce. Similar disregard for the UN in 2003 was at least accompanied by the pretence – at least partly down to the diplomatic efforts of Tony Blair throughout 2002 – that Bush cared enough about international opinion to enlist Colin Powell to plead the case at the Security Council. That pretence has been read its last rites. The President has not even tried to justify the strike in terms of self-defence. The Labour government has said it supports the strikes, despite pushing diplomacy as the only appropriate course of action beforehand, raising the question: do they support the ends without the means, or do they now support the action simply because it has happened? That call for diplomacy now looks quixotic. Trump is a practitioner of power, not words. As he said this week, 'Europe is not going to be able to help in this'. The timeline of events leading up to Saturday's strike punctures the idea that this was Trump's plan all along. In May he asked Netanyahu not to strike Iran so that negotiations could take place. But once Netanyahu ignored him, Trump's pure machismo need to be in on the action meant he forgave the snub and sent a fleet of B-2 bombers to Iran. The Israelis were reportedly told about yesterday's strike beforehand, and Trump even thanked Netanyahu personally in his White House speech. If international law and diplomacy has lost, Netanyahu has won. He once again judged correctly that America would follow where he led. Remember Joe Biden's 'redline' over Rafah? Netanyahu invaded anyway. The alliance endured. Clearly it still does. [Further reading: Where have all the anti-war Democrats gone?] Related
BreakingNews.ie
15 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Diplomacy not an option, warns Iran after US attacks key nuclear sites
Iran's foreign minister has warned that diplomacy is not an option after a US strike on its nuclear facilities. Abbas Araghchi said while the 'door to diplomacy' should always be open, 'this is not the case right now'. Advertisement The United States attacked three sites in Iran overnight, inserting itself into Israel's war aimed at destroying the country's nuclear programme, and President Donald Trump claimed the facilities had been 'completely and fully obliterated'. The Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran confirmed attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted its nuclear programme will not be stopped. Mr Araghchi said: 'The warmongering, lawless administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far reaching implications of its act of aggression.' He said 'there is no red line' that the US has not crossed, adding: 'The most dangerous one was what happened only last night when they crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities only.' Advertisement Satellite images taken on Sunday show damage to the entrances to the underground site at Fordo. The images, by Planet Labs PBC, also appear to show damage to the mountain itself that Fordo is under. Sealing those entry tunnels means Iran would have to dig out the facility to reach anything inside. The once-brown mountain had parts turned grey and its contours appeared slightly different than in previous images, suggesting a blast threw up debris around the site. That suggests the use of specialised American bunker-buster bombs on the facility. Light grey smoke also hung in the air. Advertisement Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog said there were no immediate signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations following the strikes. It is not clear whether the US will continue attacking Iran alongside its ally Israel, which has been engaged in a nine-day war with Iran. Iran targeted Tel Aviv with missiles in the hours after the US attack (Oded Balilty/AP) Mr Trump acted without congressional authorisation, and he warned there will be additional strikes if Tehran retaliates against US forces. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he said. Advertisement Iran's foreign ministry said Washington had 'betrayed diplomacy' with the military strikes, and that 'the US has itself launched a dangerous war against Iran'. Its statement added: 'The Islamic Republic of Iran reserves its right to resist with full force against US military aggression and the crimes committed by this rogue regime, and to defend Iran's security and national interests.' Hours after the American attacks, Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard said it launched a barrage of 40 missiles at Israel, including its Khorramshahr-4, which can carry multiple warheads. Israeli authorities reported that more than 80 people suffered mostly minor injuries, though one multi-storey building in Tel Aviv was significantly damaged, with its entire facade torn away to expose the apartments inside. Houses across the street were almost completely destroyed. Advertisement Following the Iranian barrage, Israel's military said it had 'swiftly neutralised' the Iranian missile launchers that had fired, and that it had begun a series of strikes towards military targets in western Iran. President Donald Trump addressed the nation from the White House following the air strikes (Carlos Barria/pool/AP) Iran has maintained its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only, and US intelligence agencies have assessed that Tehran is not actively pursuing a bomb. However, Mr Trump and Israeli leaders have argued Iran could quickly assemble a nuclear weapon, making it an imminent threat. The decision to directly involve the US in the war comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel that significantly degraded Iran's air defences and offensive missile capabilities, and damaged its nuclear enrichment facilities. But US and Israeli officials have said American B-2 stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bomb that only they have been configured to carry offered the best chance of destroying heavily fortified sites connected to the Iranian nuclear programme buried deep underground. Mr Trump appears to have made the calculation – at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republicans – that Israel's operation had softened the ground and presented a perhaps unparalleled opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear programme, perhaps permanently. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordo, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Mr Trump said in a post on social media. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordo. All planes are safely on their way home.' — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2025 Mr Trump later added: 'This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!' Israel announced on Sunday that it had closed its airspace to both inbound and outbound flights in the wake of the US attacks. US officials said the attack used bunker-buster bombs on Iran's Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant, while submarines launched about 30 Tomahawk missiles. The decision to attack was a risky one for Mr Trump, who won the White House partially on the promise of keeping America out of costly foreign conflicts and scoffed at the value of American interventionism. But he has vowed he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and he had initially hoped the threat of force would bring the country's leaders to give up its nuclear programme peacefully.
