The Week That Was

Roger Parloff reported on the June 13 detention hearing in the criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Parloff emphasized that the government’s goals in its criminal case and civil litigation against Abrego is not about upholding the rule of law, but rather contributing to President Trump’s political messaging. 

On July 8 at 10:30 am ET, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Anna Bower and Parloff to take stock of updates in the Abrego case, the July 7 hearing in the case, and more

Wittes discussed the forced resignation of Michael Feinberg from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and pondered who or what will hold Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino accountable to the law. 

On Lawfare Daily, Michael Feinberg joined Wittes to discuss his career, his decision to resign from the FBI, the current climate inside the Bureau, and more.

Wittes responded to reporting by Fox News that former intelligence leaders James Comey and John Brennan are under criminal investigation for alleged wrongdoing related to the 2016 probe into election interference, casting doubt on if it is a legitimate investigation and instead referring to it as a “ghost” investigation.

Alan Rozenshtein responded to the release of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s letters to major American tech companies about continued business with TikTok. Rozenshtein argued that the battle over TikTok presents a rule-of-law crisis, as the Department of Justice has advanced an expansive interpretation of presidential authority to rationalize the extension of the TikTok ban deadline in the United States.

John Keller responded to claims that both Paramount Global’s $16 million settlement with President Trump and agreements between top global law firms and the Trump administration amounted to bribery. Keller argued that these scenarios threaten to erode constitutional rights, but are not instances of criminal bribery because they do not have a corrupt mens rea.

On Lawfare Daily, James Pearce spoke with Keller about the basics of bribery law, if three instances from the start of the second Trump administration could plausibly be considered bribery, the dismissal of the criminal indictment against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, and more.  

Patrick Hulme maintained that the “imperial presidency” thesis—the notion that the executive has amassed ever-increasing power such that the will of Congress is bypassed—falls short in explaining the “war-making” power. Hulme emphasized that war-making is a place where executive authority reaches its limits, using data from previous administrations to support his analysis.

In the latest Lawfare research report, David Noll argued that the courts are not powerless against a defiant executive because they have enforcement mechanisms that are independent of the executive branch, including non-custodial sanctions, arrest powers, and more.

Andrew O’Donohue, citing evidence from other democracies such as Mexico and Türkiye, explained that public opinion is insufficient in safeguarding the judiciary from executive overreach and that societal mobilization is a more powerful protector.

On July 11 at 4 pm ET, Wittes sat down with Bower, Parloff, and Scott Anderson to discuss ongoing litigation targeting actions taken by the Trump administration.

Renee DiResta revisited the results of the 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian election interference, arguing that CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s response to a recently released Tradecraft Review of the ICA report presents a not-so-subtle rewrite of historical narrative.

On Rational Security, Anderson sat down with Molly Reynolds and Rozenshtein to talk through the contents of President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” that was passed last week, letters the Justice Department sent to major American tech companies over the extension of the TikTok ban, the Supreme Court decision in CASA v. DHS, and more.

Kevin Frazier looked back at a 1955 congressional report on automation and argued that the report provides a robust blueprint for artificial intelligence governance.

On the latest episode of Scaling Laws, Frazier and Rozenshtein spoke with Ethan Mollick about new research on artificial intelligence (AI) adoption, the trajectory of AI development, ongoing policy discussions surrounding AI, and more.

On Lawfare Daily, Rozenshtein was joined by Ashley Deeks, Class of 1948 Professor of Scholarly Research in Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, to discuss her most recent book, “The Double Black Box: National Security, Artificial Intelligence, and the Struggle for Democratic Accountability,” the use of AI in the national security space, and more.

In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren detailed the successes of Scattered Spider, how leaks from Chinese cyber espionage firms are sold to the highest bidder, and more.

Nicholas Weaver argued that it is time for the United States or another Western ally to revive in-sourced weapon development. Weaver examined the major roadblocks to efficient weapons development as well as the main points of the “Springfield Dronery,” a plan for a government-led operation focused on the development of low-cost, tightly integrated small drones.

On Lawfare Daily, Winnona Bernsen, nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Cyber Statecraft Initiative and founder of DistrictCon, joined Lawfare Contributing Editor Justin Sherman to discuss Bernsen’s most recent report, “Crash (Exploit) and Burn: Securing the Offensive Cyber Supply Chain to Counter China in Cyberspace,” the U.S. offensive in the cyber industry, and more.

Susan Landau explained that—as demonstrated by a recent Office of the Inspector General report—the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) isn’t sufficiently prepared to respond to ubiquitous technical surveillance concerns, a vulnerability that has enabled foreign adversaries to exploit advancing technology and expose operations.

Anastasiia Lapatina compared the most recent Russian and Ukrainian peace plans and explained that the plans clearly illustrate why President Trump’s belief in an imminent peace agreement was misguided.

And in the latest installment of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Kim Cragin acknowledged that the United States is willing to accept certain risks from Russia, Iran, North Korea, and terrorist groups in order to focus energy on deterring Chinese aggression, and considered the U.S.’s current approach to assessing threats such as extremism.

And that was the week that was.