-
Requiring the FBI to get a court order before it looks at its own legally acquired information is not just unnecessary—it’s also dangerous to our national security.
-
What happened after the presidential elections in Guatemala?
-
Putin is trying to exploit a gray area between withdrawal and noncompliance.
-
Your weekly summary of everything on the site.
-
The report reveals that U.S. and partner engagements with Iraqis have been limited following Oct. 7.
-
The regulations are flawed, and pouring sensitive investigative impressions into the public domain is almost always a bad idea.
-
The new policy requires written assurances from foreign governments before receiving arms that they will not commit human rights abuses with U.S. weapons.
-
The latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, now on Lawfare.
-
The rise in anti-Jewish and anti-Arab/Muslim incidents since Oct. 7 has provided fertile ground for the spread of extremism domestically.
-
What happened at the Supreme Court yesterday?
-
What the advocates argued, what the justices asked, and where the Court may go from here
-
Despite uncovering evidence that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials,” Hur did not conclude it “established Biden’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
-
This week, Quinta Jurecic and Scott Anderson reunited with Alan Rozenshtein to discuss the week’s big national security news.
-
Listen to the oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson here.
-
What is the global citizenship industry?
-
Will Congress pass a military aid package that includes aid to Ukrainen?
-
A guide to where each of the amici land on core Section 3 interpretation questions, if their brief addressed it explicitly
-
What is the impact of the D.C. Court of Appeals' ruling that rejects former President Trump's claim to absolute presidential immunity?
-
Episode 3 of The Aftermath looks at how Trump and his supporters used social media to orchestrate Jan. 6—and how social media companies failed to stop them.
-
The D.C. Circuit reached the right result—but its reasoning heightens the case for Supreme Court review.