It is a time-honored tradition that high-ranking U.S. government officials are – a few easily surmountable legal limitations notwithstanding -- permitted to cash in on their public service when they leave Uncle Sam and enter or reenter the private sector. Even modern-day presidents have done so; some more than others (can you say, the “Clinton Foundation?”), but all have gained significant wealth after leaving office.
The circumstances involving Barack Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who apparently has signed on as a lawyer representing a Chinese drone-manufacturing corporation, however, raises concerns that go beyond post-public service profiteering and impact our national security. Not only is Lynch serving as an attorney for Shenzhen DJI Innovation Technology Co., Ltd. (“DJI”) – the world’s largest manufacturer of commercial drones – but she has sued the U.S. Department of Defense on behalf of her Chinese client.
This is troubling in a number of ways, most importantly because the Chinese drone manufacturing company DJI has for the past few years been listed by the Pentagon as a company with which our government should not deal, because of problematic relationships with the communist Chinese military. Apparently this is of less concern to our former attorney general that what is certain to be a significant retainer her firm is receiving for representing the company.
The close relationship between “private” Chinese companies and the communist-controlled government in Beijing and its military arm, the People’s Liberation Army or “PLA,” is well-established and open to no real dispute. Despite superficial steps orchestrated by President Xi in recent years to appear more benign and market-oriented, according to experts these relationships in fact are more significant today than in years past.
The reality is that Chinese-controlled companies located in mainland China are not “private” in the same sense as are American companies. And while a company such as DJI may not be an outwardly and fully “State Owned Enterprise” (“SOE”) like large Chinese energy, mining, or shipping companies, the hand of either the Chinese military or the ruling communist party (or both) is almost certain to be present to a degree; this is especially so if the products (like drones) being manufactured are capable of military as well as civilian uses (so-called “dual use” technology). At a minimum, the common presumption by U.S. companies doing business in China or partnering here in the U.S. with Chinese companies, is that information gained by virtue of such business relationships is — directly or indirectly — available to and shared with Chinese government officials.
While Lynch and her colleagues at the Washington, D.C. based law firm Paul, Weiss may not see or accept the reality of this unhealthy relationship, we should be glad our military leaders do understand how Beijing operates, which is why DJI has been placed on the restricted list.
Lynch, of course, is not the first attorney general who has left office, entered private practice, and then challenged government policies or actions. Her predecessor, Eric Holder, openly sued at least three government entities, alleging civil rights violations. Well-known peacenik Ramsey Clark, who served as President Lyndon Johnson’s attorney general, in 2015 joined a lawsuit against various members of former President George W. Bush’s administration for their roles in the war in Iraq.
Representing a Chinese company like DJI in a direct confrontation with the U.S. Department of Defense, however, is a new and concerning wrinkle on an old problem.
In her lawsuit, Lynch is demanding that our government be ordered to justify, beyond the Pentagon’s reasonable assertion that selling drones possessing military applicabilities manufactured by a company headquartered in mainland China is not a great idea.
In making such demands in court filings, Lynch joins the ACLU, which complains that strong enforcement of federal laws permitting the U.S. government to list Chinese companies as potential threats to our national security, infringes the constitutional rights of such companies -- a rather head-scratching argument to make in behalf of companies operating under the umbrella of the largest and most powerful anti-civil liberties regime of modern times.
Bob Barr represented Georgia’s Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He served as the United States Attorney in Atlanta from 1986 to 1990 and was an official with the CIA in the 1970s. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia, serves as head of Liberty Guard, and currently is president of the National Rifle Association.