If you’ve spent any time on Twitter or Facebook over the last week, you’ve probably heard the term “national defense” used a lot.
But how much does it really mean?
The definition of the term, and how it can be applied in federal law, is complicated by the fact that the government is often given broad authority to regulate the Internet and other technologies, like the internet itself.
For example, in 2012, the Department of Defense issued guidance calling for the creation of an “Internet Defense Agency” that would be tasked with overseeing “national cybersecurity efforts.”
In the context of a presidential administration, that’s technically called a Presidential National Security Council, and while the term doesn’t directly apply to the Trump administration, it’s likely to be taken as meaning a council that’s tasked with making sure that federal agencies aren’t used for the improper purposes of the president’s agenda.
The problem, though, is that the definition of national defense that Congress created in 1887 has been largely ignored by federal courts, even though the term has become increasingly relevant in the past decade.
The definition has been criticized by academics and experts, including the White House, and is considered a key legal basis for the federal government to regulate technology and its users.
But how much is really the definition?
A lot, experts say, and it’s an important question for policymakers, who are trying to figure out how to best apply the federal definition to various technologies, such as the internet and social media, while also balancing the needs of privacy and the need for law enforcement.
“This is an issue that has been debated and debated over the years, and Congress has had the ability to create the definition that it did,” said Michael D. Levenson, a professor of law at the University of Maryland and the co-director of the Internet Technology Law Project.
“It’s very hard for judges to make a ruling that would strike down the law because the definition has remained essentially the same for so long.”
The term “National Security”In the 19th century, the term ‘national security’ was used to describe a particular political or military threat, and in the 20th century it was used more broadly to describe any act of state or federal government, or a federal agency.
In recent years, however, the definition, which was first proposed in 1917, has been used more narrowly.
In an analysis of the law published last year by the Institute for Constitutional Studies, legal scholars at the Heritage Foundation found that the federal statute defining the term only applies to “any act of the United States government” and that its use was limited to a specific “government.”
The authors also noted that the term is often used to refer to the “national economy” or the “state or federal economy,” and that the use of the word “national” is “often used as shorthand for national defense.”
The Heritage report, however (pdf), said the government definition of ‘national defense’ is not only “contradictory,” but also “a very problematic” one.
“The ‘national government’ definition is the most widely used, because it has the most broad and broadest definition of what the government does,” the report said.
“But the federal court system is also very interested in applying that definition.”
“The government’s definitions are often too broad,” added Andrew Kim, a law professor at the Federalist Society.
“The government, like most other institutions, is interested in controlling the information flow.
That’s the way to go, and that’s what the ‘national’ government definition is.”
But how does the definition relate to the administration’s goals?
In a statement, the White Trump campaign has repeatedly used the phrase “nationalsecurity” in relation to the 2016 presidential election.
The campaign cited the work of “security experts” who have found that a Russian-backed attack on the US election system was designed to interfere with the outcome, a claim that has also been widely debunked.
The Trump campaign’s statement also said the Trump Administration will continue to work with Congress to “develop a strong, comprehensive and permanent national security framework” to “ensure the security of the American people.”
But a number of experts and experts from the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee and the Department for Homeland Security disagreed.
“A strong national security defense is not a partisan issue, and has been the bedrock of our foreign policy for decades,” Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks said in a statement to Recode.
“We will continue working with Congress and the rest of the administration to develop a strong and comprehensive and temporary national security posture to defend the country from the most dangerous threats.”
Hicks did not respond to requests for comment from Recode on the scope of the “temporary” national security strategy.
But it’s clear that Trump and his campaign have not embraced the definition.
A 2016 campaign ad from Trump’s running mate, Indiana Gov.
Mike Pence, featured a shot of an officer pointing a gun at a picture of the U.S. flag