Bertina Kudrin explained how Iran’s escalation of attacks in the Strait of Hormuz exposes gaps in international maritime law, including how existing frameworks struggle to regulate modern economic warfare in a globalized economy where disruptions harm not just belligerents, but also the entire global trade system.
As part of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay Series, Lauryn Williams examined how warfare in the digital domain—including in outer space, the electromagnetic spectrum, the information space, and cyber operations—is playing out in the U.S.-Israel-Iran conflict and argued that warfare in multiple domains is likely to become more central in this and future conflicts.
On Lawfare Daily, Elisa Catalano Ewers joined Ariane Tabatabai to discuss Iran’s intentions and capabilities in the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S.’s response and capability gaps, how allies and partners have participated in the conflict, and more.
In the latest edition of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Ido Levy assessed whether a U.S.-Israeli alliance with Iranian Kurds serving as partners inside Iran would effectively undermine the Islamic regime. Levy wrote that the Iranian Kurdish armed groups’ limited capabilities, regional constraints, and the need for sustained military commitment makes this a risky, long-term proposition rather than a quick solution.
On Lawfare Daily, William "Chip" Usher and Aaron Faust joined Scott R. Anderson to unpack the national security threats presented in Iran from the perspective of two long-time members of the intelligence community. Their discussion covered the potential challenges of large-scale military operations against Iran, where the Trump administration may take the conflict from here, and what Iran may do to respond.
Tabatabai and John Drennan explained how French President Emmanuel Macron’s push for a Europe-based nuclear deterrence strategy reflects growing doubts from allies about the U.S.’s reliability and an increasing desire for greater strategic autonomy.
Drennan and Tabatabai examined how decades of U.S. policy reversals across administrations have damaged NATO allies’ perceptions of U.S. reliability and global order. The duo cautioned that it may be impossible to reset U.S. foreign policy even with a new administration, and that a weakening alliance could harm U.S. and European security.
Anna Bower unpacked the government’s arguments for the warrant to search and seize hundreds of boxes containing 2020 presidential election ballots from the Fulton County election office in Georgia. Bower argued that the seizure omitted exculpatory evidence and rests on weak legal theories and fraud claims, raising broader concerns of institutional integrity in the U.S. justice system.
On Lawfare Live, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Roger Parloff and Bower to discuss the March 27 hearing where the government must defend its search warrant used to seize 2020 presidential election ballots from Fulton County, Minnesota’s lawsuit against the Trump administration for access to evidence related to three shootings by federal agents in January, and more.
Also on Lawfare Live, Kate Klonick, Molly Roberts, and Parloff joined Wittes to debrief a preliminary injunction hearing in Anthropic’s ongoing lawsuit challenging the Department of Defense’s designation of the artificial intelligence (AI) company as a supply chain risk.
On Lawfare Daily, Wittes sat down with Eric Columbus, Roberts, Bower, Parloff, and Klonick to discuss Judge James Boasberg’s opinion quashing the Department of Justice’s subpoenas in the investigation of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, the government’s response in Anthropic's lawsuit challenging the Defense Department’s designation of the AI company as a supply chain risk, a judge’s reinstatement of U.S. Agency for Global Media employees, the newly released video depositions of Department of Government Efficiency employees, and more.
Wittes examined the ongoing lawsuit over the Defense Department's designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk in context of the broader effort by the Trump administration to punish defiance, as seen in the cases against Harvard University, James Comey, Letitia James, Powell, and more.
Joshua Villanueva and Michael Endrias unpacked the key facts, central arguments, notable amicus briefs, and possible decisions in a border asylum case at the Supreme Court. The pair explained that the Court’s decision will have major consequences for asylum-seekers and U.S. immigration policies.
Ashley Deeks and Kristen Eichensehr argued that Congress should pass legislation to prevent the government from demanding additional payments from private companies to secure national security deals or contracts. Deeks and Eichensehr explained that these arrangements distort decision-making, create corruption risks, and undermine national security and economic fairness principles.
On Lawfare Daily, Linda Singh and Chris Mirasola joined Loren Voss to discuss the legal constraints of the Posse Comitatus Act when applied to domestic military deployments, the implications of expanding such deployments for civil-military relations, key issues to watch out for in the future of military deployments, and more.
Wittes explored four important truths established by the Mueller Report’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Wittes argued that these findings remain essential for understanding President Trump’s behavior and second term as president, even if the report never produced legal accountability.
Wittes unpacked how even without the ongoing political turmoil rooted in the actions of the Trump administration, major anxieties—such as the threat of human obsolescence from the rapid advancement of AI and the everchanging landscape of technology in warfare—would still unsettle society. Wittes suggested that even if unconnected, “The Situation” prevents the U.S. from seriously confronting these crises.
Renée DiResta discussed Sen. Eric Schmitt’s (R-Mo.) book entitled, “The Last Line of Defense: How to Beat the Left in Court,” in which Schmitt positions the courtroom as a venue to generate attention rather than to seek justice. DiResta criticized the book’s misrepresentations of evidence, its obfuscation of legal losses, and its manipulation of litigation as a tool for attention and ideological warfare that undermines the merits of the justice system.
Peter Beck reviewed David Morris’s new book, “Stealing the Future,” which links Sam Bankman-Fired’s infamous crypto fraud case to the moral logic of effective altruism. Beck problematized the author’s focus on a single ideology, suggesting instead that Bankman-Fried’s downfall reflects a broader tendency—common in Silicon Valley and beyond—to justify wrongdoing through self-serving narratives.
On Rational Security, Anderson sat down with Tyler McBrien, Roberts, and DiResta to unpack the verdict against Meta for its algorithms causing harm to children’s mental health and facilitating child sexual exploitation, the SAVE America Act, and the rise of open source intelligence and growth of online prediction markets.
Jonathan G. Cedarbaum explained how plaintiffs in cases attempting to hold social media platforms accountable are using product liability law as a novel strategy to circumvent defenses based in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Cedarbaum discussed how the long-term success of this argument depends on how the courts ultimately reconcile Section 230, product liability doctrine, and First Amendment protections.
Michael Goodyear argued that existing and proposed anti-deepfake laws fall short and that the longstanding right of publicity may offer a better solution. Goodyear explained that treating such legislation as an intellectual property right could bypass defenses based in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, enable platform liability, and address both economic and dignitary harms arising from the misuse of people’s likeness.
Merve Hickok unpacked the goals and shortcomings of the Office of Management and Budget’s newly released memo on public trust in AI, which Hickock explained leaves gaps in enforcement that risk entrenching biased and unreliable AI systems across federal agencies.
In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren unpacked the FBI’s confirmation that it has started purchasing Americans’ location data for national security purposes, the Federal Communications Commission’s push for domestic production of consumer router models, the Trump administration’s developing cyber strategy approach, and more.
On Lawfare Daily, Tom Kemp joined Justin Sherman to discuss California’s new Delete Request and Opt-out Platform system, which is part of the state’s ongoing efforts to ensure residents can effectuate their privacy rights. The duo’s conversation also covered interstate collaboration on data privacy issues, the data broker industry, the risk of foreign adversaries accessing Americans’ personal data, and more.
On Scaling Laws, Kevin Frazier sat down with Kendall Cotton to discuss Montana’s groundbreaking Right to Compute Act, a piece of legislation that is part of a larger goal for the state to protect access to AI and related technologies. The duo discussed the history and reach of the act, why other states may want to pass similar legislation, and more.
Also on Scaling Laws, Alan Z. Rozenshtein sat down with Jassi Pannu and Doni Bloomfield to discuss Pannu and Bloomfield’s proposed framework for strengthening biological data governance to reduce the risks of biosecurity attacks powered by AI.
And that was the week that was.
