The Week That Was

Scott Anderson considered the legal limitations President Trump is likely to face in his response to renewed tensions between Israel and Iran. Anderson argued that the requirements of international law—which would generally prohibit military action except in cases of self-defense—are unlikely to sway the president towards non-intervention, and explained that President Trump’s broad interpretation of executive deference means it is doubtful he will view himself as legally constrained by Congress from aiding Israel’s campaign.

On Lawfare Daily, Natalie Orpett sat down with Director of the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, Suzanne Maloney, and Managing Director of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, Joel Braunold, to discuss the recent escalation between Israel and Iran. They talked about the nature of U.S. involvement, how the conflict is progressing, and why Israel chose this moment to attack.

On June 20 at 4 PM ET, Orpett sat down with Anderson, Anna Bower, and Roger Parloff to discuss legal challenges to President Trump’s federalization of the National Guard in California, IEEPA tariffs, and more. If you would like to be able to submit questions to the panelists and watch the livestream without ads, become a material supporter of Lawfare on Substack or Patreon. The discussion was livestreamed on YouTube for all other viewers. If you were unable to attend the live event, the recording is available on Lawfare’s YouTube channel and will be available later on the Lawfare Podcast feed.

Daniel Byman considered four key questions surrounding Israel’s recent military strikes on Iran’s nuclear and missile facilities: whether Iran can respond effectively, how quickly it can rebuild its nuclear facilities, whether the conflict is likely to spread, and if the U.S. will choose to engage with the conflict. Byman asserted that these questions are central to determining the strategic soundness of Israel’s attack.

On Rational Security, Anderson sat down with Byman, Tyler McBrien, and Dana Stuster to discuss the week’s big news surrounding Israel and Iran. They talked about Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear weapons program; Israel’s decision, after years of tension, to attack during this moment; and rumors of Israel’s real intentions in Iran: regime change.

On Lawfare Daily, Benjamin Wittes sat down with James Pearce, Bower, Quinta Jurecic, and Roger Parloff to discuss the legality of President Trump federalizing of the California National Guard to send them to L.A., the pretrial detention hearing of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Alien Enemies Act litigation, the indictment of Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), and more.

On Lawfare Daily, Anderson sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor and Brookings Institution Senior Fellow, Molly Reynolds, to discuss President Trump’s rescissions package. They talked about what’s in the package, its connection to litigation over the administration’s attempts to cut U.S. foreign aid, and what this package indicates about how the administration plans to handle impoundments moving forward.

Moira Whelan and Lauren Van Metre addressed the growing number of investigations and policy actions launched by Republican members of Congress against nonprofit organizations accused of supporting terrorist activity. Whelan and Van Metre argued that these attempts amount to a coordinated movement by Republican lawmakers to pass domestic terrorism legislation that quiets dissent, drawing on global examples of abuses of counterterrorism laws.

Erich Grunewald explained why the creation of a whistleblower incentive program to help enforce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) export controls—as proposed by recent legislation—is necessary. Pointing to widespread violations of export controls due to a lack of transparency, Grunewald endorsed a bipartisan bill that would incentivize people to report violations through financial rewards and a protection guarantee.

On Lawfare Daily, Pearce sat down with former Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Greg Rosen to discuss his experience  prosecuting federal crimes, focusing mostly on his work in response to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6. They talked about how the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office conducted the largest investigation in the nation’s history and navigated the investigative and logistical challenges the prosecution posed, and what the Office looks like under the second Trump administration.

In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren explained how digital information has been used to locate and stalk political targets, as was the case in the killing of Democratic state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband last Saturday. Uren also broke down a massive hack by Predatory Sparrow, a purported pro-Israeli hacktivist group who may have deleted an Iranian bank, causing historic disruptions to Iranian financial services.

Peter Salib responded to Kevin Frazier, Dean Ball, and Alan Rozenshtein's recent Lawfare articles in which they objected to state-level AI regulation. Salib argued that while no AI bill is perfect, targeted AI regulation—such as New York’s RAISE Act and California’s SB-1047—is nonetheless needed.

Jane Bambauer suggested that efforts to regulate social media through platform design, rather than content itself, will face roadblocks. Bambauer explained that not only is this strategy unlikely to sidestep First Amendment concerns, immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act may preclude such lawsuits—even as such an approach would undermine a goal of increased competition in the digital marketplace.

Maya Nicholson discussed Ukraine’s use of in absentia trials to prosecute Russian war crimes. Nicholson argued that while the trials may provide some accountability, pursuing justice while remaining within the bounds of international law is a precarious balancing act.

Samuel White, Daniel Skeffington, and Geoffrey Corn tracked a subtle shift across AUKUS, the security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States: Courts are increasingly willing to consider cases on foreign policy or defense operations. White, Skeffington, and Corn argued that the doctrine of nonjusticiability is eroding in all three AUKUS countries, presenting legal vulnerabilities that could translate into strategic paralysis for the pact. 

Robert Deedman and Kenneth Propp argued that while the U.S.-U.S. Data Access agreement faces challenges, both its successes and failures can help shape ongoing negotiations for other data access agreements. They provided background on the agreement, difficulties with its implementation, and legal roadblocks it has encountered as instructive in crafting a future e-evidence agreement with the EU.Excerpt in blue box text

In the latest installment of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Nilay Saiya suggested that while Buddhism is often perceived as a fundamentally nonviolent religion, it can be used to perpetrate violence against religious minorities when governments come to rely on it for moral authority. Relying on recent historical examples such as the persecution of religious minorities by Buddhist-majority governments in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, Saiya argued that the institutional relationship between religion and the state—rather than religious doctrines themselves—can empower violent extremists.

And that was the week that was.