As part of the joint convening held by Lawfare, the Georgetown Institute for Technology Law and Policy, and the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law marking the 40th anniversary of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), Jim Dempsey, Stephanie Pell, Richard Salgado, David Kris, Aaron R. Cooper, Jennifer Daskal, and Paul Ohm proposed revisions and addendums to electronic communications privacy legislation across six different research papers. You can find those papers here. The recording of the live event will be posted at a later time on Lawfare’s YouTube channel.
Scott R. Anderson argued that President Trump’s expanded military campaign against Iran, following the Feb. 28 joint U.S.-Israeli strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, pushes the outer limits of international and domestic law. Anderson urged Congress to assert its war powers and rein in Trump’s actions in Iran before the conflict escalates further.
On Lawfare Live, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Ariane Tabatabai, Troy Edwards, and Anderson to unpack the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran, Iran’s response, and what may happen next.
Olivia Manes shared Trump’s war powers report notifying Congress of the Feb. 28 U.S.-Israeli strikes in Iran. The report comes days after the strike that killed Khamenei, which was carried out without prior congressional authorization.
On Rational Security, Daniel Byman, Wittes, and Tabatabai joined Anderson for an in-depth discussion of the U.S.-Israel military operations against Iran. Their discussion covered the killing of Khamenei, the history of the conflict, the future of Iran without its long-time leader, and more.
Wittes argued that the Trump administration’s launch of attacks on Iran to destabilize the regime, seemingly without a plan for Iran’s future, is a reckless operation. Wittes suggested that even if by luck the operation succeeds, it would be unwise to use it to justify similarly risky foreign policy decisions in the future.
Michael Endrias and Alan Z. Rozenshtein argued that the Department of Defense’s decision to designate Anthropic as a supply chain risk to bar its participation in federal contracts is legally unsustainable because it likely exceeds statutory authority, and violates due process as well as the First Amendment.
Rozenshtein and Wittes explained that the Defense Department’s effort under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to blacklist Anthropic over usage restrictions on its artificial intelligence (AI) model, Claude, is a lawless attempt to coerce a private company into abandoning its contractual and ethical limits.
On Lawfare Live and Lawfare Daily, Wittes sat down with Rozenshtein to unpack the Defense Department’s designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk, the implications of this decision, how other AI companies have responded, the legal challenges ahead, and more.
Also on Lawfare Daily, Wittes sat down with Anna Bower, Roger Parloff, Molly Roberts, Anderson, Edwards, and Rozenshtein to discuss the superseding indictment in the case against Don Lemon and his co-defendants in Minnesota, the standoff between the Defense Department and Anthropic, the firing of FBI agents who worked on the classified documents case, and more.
On Lawfare Live, Wittes sat down with Parloff, Rozenshtein, Roberts, and Edwards to discuss a contempt hearing in Minnesota over actions by the government related to the detention of immigrants, a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s TikTok deal, updates in litigation over the law firm executive orders, and more.
On Lawfare Daily, Anderson sat down with Kathleen Claussen, Peter E. Harrell, and Marty Lederman to discuss the Supreme Court decision that struck down President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The group unpacked the Court’s opinion, its implications for the Major Questions Doctrine and foreign relations law, and potential legal challenges to the other tariff authorities used by the Trump administration.
Omar García-Ponce examined the killing of Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, otherwise known as “El Mencho” and the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, and contended that targeting cartel leaders can backfire and lead to increased violence.
In the latest edition to Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Hilary Matfess explained how the Ethiopia’s National Election Board’s efforts to recognize a new political party—while also barring the longstanding Tigray People’s Liberation Front from participating in elections—contributes to the mounting political insecurity in the Tigray region and may trigger renewed conflict.
Dan Maurer argued that the Office of Legal Counsel’s memo justifying the U.S. military operation to capture Venezuela’s former leader, Nicolás Maduro, relies on philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s concept of “bullshit,” or reasoning unconcerned with truth. Maurer cautioned that such reasoning risks legitimizing major national security decisions without adequate legal analysis.
Roberts reviewed Carol Leonnig and Aaron C. Davis’s book on the politicization of the Department of Justice during the Biden presidency. Roberts considered the authors’ claim that Attorney General Merrick Garland’s policies were a reaction to the erosion of norms during the first Trump administration.
Eric Columbus examined the legal justifications behind Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr’s interpretation of the statute that requires broadcasting stations to provide equal opportunities for legally qualified candidates in an election—otherwise known as the equal time rule—and argued that Carr’s interpretation is consistent with precedent.
Reed Shaw explained how the Trump administration’s efforts to prevent plaintiffs from challenging the Solar for All grant program freeze through contradictory jurisdiction arguments is a veiled attempt to avoid a merits-based argument in the courts that could form the basis for more lawsuits against other questionable grant cancellations.
On Lawfare Daily, Peter Beck sat down with Thomas E. Brzozowski, Steven Monacelli, and Edwards to discuss the ongoing terrorism trial of an alleged Antifa cell in North Texas, the usual practices for domestic terrorism prosecutions, what makes this trial different from other terror prosecutions, and more.
Joe Khawam unpacked the provisions of the bipartisan AI OVERWATCH Act, what it means for Congress’s role in AI technology export policy, how the act balances national security and commercial interests, and more.
Nicholas Felstead examined how fears of antitrust liability can discourage AI developers from collaborating with other companies to improve safety measures and responsible development practices. Felstead proposed the creation of exemptions and clearer guidance for AI companies to allow collaboration on safety without violating antitrust laws.
In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren unpacked the role of cyber operations in the U.S.-Israeli joint strikes on Iran, the rising use of AI in cybercrime, and more.
Samm Sacks examined the lessons global policymakers ought to take away from the debate in China over data privacy, security, and regulation, sparked by the release of the Doubao AI phone by ByteDance, the first-ever smartphone embedded with an AI agent.
On Scaling Laws, Rozenshtein sat down with Cullen O’Keefe and Kevin Frazier to discuss their paper on the use of AI systems to automate regulatory compliance tasks as a way to balance innovation in AI policy with safety concerns. The trio discussed where the burden of compliance costs lies, what tasks AI can automate, objections to automated compliance, and more.
Also on Scaling Laws, Packy McCormick joined Frazier to discuss the power of narratives in tech, the intersection of investment and policy, what it means to build frameworks for the future in an age of rapid technological change, and more.
And that was the week that was.
