On Lawfare Daily, Julia Curlee sat down with Benjamin Wittes to discuss articles she wrote in The Atlantic and Lawfare about the second Trump administration’s purge of the National Security Council and her experience during that time. They talked about both articles, the purge’s impacts, and Curlee’s experience being trans in an administration that badly needed her expertise but didn’t let her use the bathroom.
Trace Ballard, Curlee, and Todd Johannessen reviewed the history of LGBT exclusion, eventual inclusion, and return to exclusion in the CIA. They highlighted the legal and cultural institutions that made greater acceptance possible and why those same institutions are under threat today.
Anna Bower discussed the inner workings of special grand juries and their structures, and considered what it might mean that Jeanine Pirro has empaneled one in D.C. Bower argued that the special grand jury’s defining feature, the ability to issue public reports, is subject to significant limitations that could keep it from delivering the political win Pirro may be hoping for.
On Lawfare Daily, Wittes and Bower discussed how special grand juries work, what federal law actually permits them to do, and why turning one loose to investigate purported crimes can, on occasion, backfire on the prosecution.
On this week’s Lawfare Live: The Trials of the Trump Administration, Wittes sat down with Molly Roberts, Bower, and Eric Columbus to discuss updates in the prosecution of Don Lemon, Disney suing the Federal Communications Commission for its order requiring ABC-owned stations to file early license renewals, the Justice Department appealing the dismissal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s criminal case, and more.
Also on Lawfare Daily, Wittes spoke with Roberts, Bower, and Roger Parloff about a fired Justice Department prosecutor challenging his firing, a nationwide preliminary injunction against President Trump’s mail-in ballot executive order, the new birthright citizenship order, and more.
Peter Beck shared the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel’s new memorandum, which states that the Posse Comitatus Act, which usually prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes, does not prevent military personnel from making arrests near designated “national defense areas,” such as portions of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Curlee and Ariane Tabatabai explained that the war with Iran has entered a bargaining phase where the parties use military force and diplomacy in tandem to seek a favorable negotiated settlement. Curlee and Tabatabai argued that clarity on control of the Strait of Hormuz, the ability of each side’s leadership to sell a deal at home, and potential for allies to act as spoilers combine to determine whether a durable end to the war is possible—and that a deal must address all three issues to hold.
Thomas H. Lee reviewed Kevin Arlyck’s book, “The Nation at Sea: The Federal Courts and American Sovereignty, 1789-1825.” Lee praised Arlyck’s illumination of the often overlooked role of maritime considerations in the courts’ early definition of international law. However, Lee also wished the book had included other key cases and developed key concepts such as sovereignty more fully.
In the latest edition of Lawfare's Foreign Policy Essay series, Fiona Cunningham and Kristin Ven Bruusgaard discussed the conditions under which the three nuclear great powers (the U.S., Russia, and China) might consider first use and why each country’s approach to it is prone to misinterpretation. Cunningham and Ven Bruusgaard argued that preventing nuclear escalation relies on the U.S. understanding its adversaries’ posture and considering how its own might be misread.
Katsiaryna Shmatsina analyzed the mounting tensions between the United States and Lithuania over Lithuania’s enforcement of EU sanctions on potash exports from Belarus. Shmatsina explained that U.S. pressure forces Lithuania to choose between appeasing its key security partner and risking strengthening the Russian ally on its border, sidestepping the EU in the process.
On Lawfare Daily: Anastasiia Lapatina sat down with Yaroslav Hrytsak to discuss the history of Ukrainian-Polish relations, the controversies surrounding the Volhynian tragedy, and how the politicization of history could impact Ukraine’s bid to join the European Union.
Isabel Rowan Scarpino discussed newly elected Colombian President Abelardo de la Espriella’s attacks on the country’s 2016 peace deal and considered what he could actually do to dismantle the institutions it created. Scarpino found that the deal’s design anchors core provisions in Congress and the Constitutional Court, making them difficult to repeal outright. However, she warned that de la Espriella could still erode the deal’s implementation at the edges, undermining its credibility for other armed groups that may weigh a deal of their own.
Adam Hickey, Veronica Glick, Rohith George, and Rachael O’Grady explained that technology companies whose infrastructure, such as data centers, may have both civilian and military applications face a range of threats when operating in conflict zones. The authors considered what international humanitarian law leaves unclear and how contract law may provide protections for companies.
Sarah Willrich shared the Trump administration’s National Security Science & Technology Strategy, which seeks to support the administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy by prioritizing U.S. leadership in emerging technology development.
Richard Salgado argued that Canada’s proposed Bill C-22 may harm its chances of securing a deal with the U.S. under the CLOUD Act. Salgado warned that the bill’s attempts to compel U.S. companies to build surveillance capabilities into their products for Canadian law enforcement could alienate the cybersecurity-focused U.S. government, potentially jeopardizing a deal that would provide more stable access to the cross-border evidence Canada seeks.
Daniel E. Ho and Olivia H. Martin considered how artificial intelligence (AI) could be deployed by courts themselves, not just litigants. While AI models have proved themselves capable at legal analysis, the authors explained the dangers of overreliance on AI-produced analysis, such as hallucinations or scope decisions that drift from the user’s intentions. Ho and Martin argued that the best way forward is a controlled AI “playground” where courts can explore these possibilities while ensuring privacy protections.
On Lawfare Daily, Kate Klonick was joined by Vinh Nguyen, Elham Tabassi, and Kat Duffy to discuss recent calls for a U.S.-led Frontier AI Standards Body. They considered the potential benefits and drawbacks of a FINRA-like model and what it could mean for public trust, especially for allies who may be reluctant to accept a U.S. body as an international standard-setter.
In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren discussed the Trump administration’s plan to authorize private companies to conduct cyber operations against criminal groups, a recent cyberattack conducted by Ukraine, the EU’s new cybersecurity standards, and more.
And on Scaling Laws, Matt Abrams joined Kevin Frazier to explore the impact of AI on the collapse of institutional trust, Abrams’s work rebuilding that trust, and the relationship between AI, information integrity, labor disruption, institutional legitimacy, and democratic resilience.
And that was the week that was.
