The Week That Was

On Lawfare Daily, Scott R. Anderson sat down with William Banks of Syracuse University College of Law, Laura Dickinson of the George Washington University Law School, and Chris Mirasola of the University of Houston Law Center to discuss Trump’s deployment of military troops to Los Angeles. They considered the legal constraints the administration may face, the fate of California’s lawsuit, and implications for domestic deployments elsewhere.

Mirasola explained the theory of presidential authority known as the protective power invoked by President Donald Trump to deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles. Mirasola emphasized that unlike the Insurrection Act, the protective power does not authorize military personnel to undertake law enforcement functions.

Mirasola further explained why Section 12406 may not necessarily require the governor to personally review and issue orders to call members of the National Guard into federal service, as California argued in a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday. However, Mirasola noted the strength of California’s other claims, including that the president’s justification for relying upon Section 12406 did not meet the prerequisites of the statute.

James Pearce described how Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s June 13 hearing in Tennessee will likely unfold, including the government’s request for  pretrial detention. Pearce explained that, rather than argue with the question of detention itself, the defense’s case will likely hinge on whether a detention hearing should be held in the first place.

Mirasola unpacked the Department of Justice’s assertion of the inherent presidential power to protect federal functions, persons, and property as justification for the ongoing military deployment in Los Angeles. Mirasola explained that the history of presidential use of the protective power fails to establish a consistent principle for its invocation, and explained that there is very little in the text of the constitution itself to suggest such an inherent authority—especially given its incongruence with statutory prohibitions on the domestic use of military force.

On Rational Security, Anderson sat down with Molly Reynolds, Quinta Jurecic, and Mirasola to talk through the week's major national security news, including the Trump administration’s deployment of the California National Guard and active duty Marines to Los Angeles, the rescissions package before Congress, Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States and indictment on criminal charges, and more. 

Benjamin Wittes shared a list of observations about the situation in Los Angeles, including the legality and lack of wisdom of the federal response, the effects of violent and nonviolent political expression, Trump’s attempts to inflame tensions, and more.

On June 13 at 4 pm ET, Wittes sat down with Anderson, Anna Bower, Quinta Jurecic, Roger Parloff, and Pearce to discuss the status of the civil litigation against the Trump administration, including the Thursday hearing on California’s lawsuit challenging the federalization of National Guard personnel, a judicial ruling on the validity of the Alien Enemies Act proclamation, and more.

Bertina Kudrin examined two of Trump's executive orders that combined revoke 91 of former President Joe Biden’s actions—including those related to climate, industrial policy, civil rights, and more—as well as the broader trend of presidents using executive orders to dismantle the policies of previous administrations.

Aziz Huq considered the far-reaching consequences of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision in Trump v. United States. Huq contended that the Court’s reasoning—which anticipated “routine” partisan prosecutions without some form of presidential immunity—was flawed, and maintained that the decision has corroded respect for rule of law throughout the executive branch.

Wittes considered the indictment of Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.)—whom the Trump administration has accused of assaulting law enforcement during an oversight visit to an immigration facility. Wittes highlighted the political convenience of this case—and others like it—and their weakness compared to those traditionally seen in the federal criminal system.

Wittes discussed the similarities between Harvard University’s lawsuit over an executive order banning international students and the 1972 case Kleindienst v. Mandel, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch’s denial of a visa is not subject to First Amendment scrutiny.

On Lawfare Daily, Wittes sat down with Bower, Parloff, and Pearce to discuss a Supreme Court opinion blocking discovery in a lawsuit against the Department of Government Efficiency, the criminal indictment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Trump’s recent executive order targeting Harvard, and more.

On Lawfare Daily, Renee DiResta sat down with Daphne Keller, Dean Jackson, and Joan Barata to discuss the transition of European Union’s Disinformation Code of Practice into a legally binding obligation under the Digital Services Act, the far right’s criticisms that the change marks an end to free speech, and more.

On Lawfare Daily, Christina Knight joined Kevin Frazier to discuss testing and evaluating frontier artificial intelligence models, the status of international coordination on those efforts, and more.

In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren discussed a June 6 executive order signed by President Trump that would roll back American cybersecurity efforts, a recent OpenAI report examining how the platform was used in a North Korean IT worker scam, and a series of classified documents stolen from Russia's Federal Security Bureau by an online crime group that warns of the security threats posed by China.

Henry Farrell reviewed Adam Becker’s “More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity.” Farrell found Becker’s analysis of the philosophies and narratives underpinning conceptions of AI compelling, providing insight into the gap between speculative visions of an AI-driven future and the reality of the technology as it exists today.

Thomas Renard and Méryl Demuynck discussed their research on the nexus of migration and terrorism in Europe, which found that terrorist attacks by immigrants have not increased in frequency since 2017 and that migrants are much more likely to be victims of political violence than perpetrators.

In the latest installment of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Shareen Joshi discussed the cycle of retaliatory violence, rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in India, and fractures in the ruling party following the April 22 attack in Kashmir. Joshi warned that India’s lack of international support compared to Pakistan and issues in India's media and information ecosystem leave it vulnerable to future crises.

David Mansfield suggested that satellite imagery can provide unique insights into the causes of global conflict, enabling better policy solutions for its prevention and mitigation. Mansfield used his research on the May 2023 conflict at the Iraq-Afghanistan border as a case study, demonstrating that the discourse surrounding conflict can often obscure nuance and preclude meaningful solutions.  

Luke Baumgartner discussed the bombing of a fertility clinic in Palm Springs as part of a disturbing trend of extremism fueled by nihilistic ideologies. Baumgartner highlighted the significant challenges law enforcement and policymakers face in responding to the violence emerging from fringe online communities that lack a clear political agenda.

On Lawfare Daily, DiResta sat down with Clay Risen to talk about his book, “Red Scare: Blacklists, McCarthyism, and the Making of Modern America.” They discussed the erosion of civil liberties during the Red Scare, the role of political opportunism during the era, and the parallels that can be drawn to the modern day.

And Shibley Telhami discussed the results of a May survey that found more Americans see the campus protests as driven by anger with Israeli actions rather than by antisemitism. Telhami noted that when first asked about measures the administration has taken toward universities over the protests, respondents’ sympathy for the protesters increased.

And that was the week that was.