The Week That Was

Quinta Jurecic analyzed the Trump administration’s questionable compliance with court orders, applying this to DVD v. DHS, a case that concerns the Trump administration’s removal of non-citizens to third countries rather than the country of their origin. Jurecic argued that litigation over DVD v. DHS is consistent with the administration’s pattern of legalistic noncompliance in immigration cases.

Olivia Manes shared the text of the Supreme Court’s opinions in the ruling Trump v. CASA. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court granted the government a stay on universal injunctions issued by federal judges in response to President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

Dan Maurer argued that Congress has a responsibility to clearly define the terms and conditions that trigger a president’s use of emergency powers on American soil, including “rebellion,” in the context of President Trump’s federalization of the National Guard over protests in L.A. Maurer analyzed 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a little-known federal law that has been at the center of the legal controversy surrounding Trump’s actions, and explained how it relates to the Insurrection Act.

Christy Lopez discussed the Trump administration’s latest attempts to strip the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division of its ability to investigate police misconduct and pending consent decrees. Lopez argued that the Trump administration’s success in unraveling a federal civil rights enforcement program three decades in the making may hinge on the judges who preside over these agreements.

On June 27 at 4 pm ET, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Anna Bower and Roger Parloff and Lawfare Legal Fellow James Pearce to discuss the Trump administration’s lawsuit against judges in the district of Maryland, the Supreme Court’s ruling in DVD v. DHS over the removal of immigrants to third countries, and more.

On Lawfare Daily, Natalie Orpett sat down with Pearce, Bower, Scott Anderson, and Parloff to discuss legal action in response to President Trump’s decision to federalize the California National Guard and deploy them in L.A, the order to release pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, the Supreme Court’s decision to deny an application to consider the legality of President Trump’s tariffs, and more.

Wittes argued that his objection to Emil Bove III’s nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is not based on Bove’s qualifications or his ideological inclinations, but rather on his consistent public record of ethical outrages. Wittes broke down key accusations levied against Bove and emphasized that such behavior is unacceptable for a federal judge.

On the latest episode of Rational Security, Anderson sat down with Lawfare’s Wittes, Orpett, and University of Virginia School of Law professor Ashley Deeks to talk about President Trump’s surprise move to join Israel in its strikes on Iran last week, the Supreme Court decision in DHS v. DVD, the whistleblower allegations levied against Principal Associate Deputy General Emil Bove over plans to disregard judicial orders, and more.

Manes shared the text of President Trump’s June 21 letter informing Congress of U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

In The Situation, Wittes argued that he would not necessarily oppose Israeli and American strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities if they were truly effective in dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, but conceded that accepting claims of victory by either country necessitates trust in their leadership. Wittes emphasized his skepticism towards Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump and concluded that assessing the merits of Israel-U.S. military action in the absence of reliable leaders is almost impossible.

On June 23 at 11:30 am ET, Lawfare Editor in Chief Wittes talked to Lawfare Senior Editor Anderson, Lawfare Foreign Policy Editor Dan Byman, and Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution Suzanne Maloney about the American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, the response from within Iran, and whether the strikes are legal under domestic and international law.

Ashlyn Aske and Stephen Prochaska used two cases filed in the lead-up to the 2024 election to argue that performative lawsuits filed by allies of President Trump are part of a larger right-wing strategy to transform online narratives into litigation, popularizing fringe theories in the process. Aske and Prochaska demonstrated that this “legal theater” allows misleading narratives to be legitimized by being heard before a court, and emphasized that the practice reduces the courtroom to one of Trump’s rhetorical strategies.

Charlie Bullock and Mackenzie Arnold argued that the proposed AI Whistleblower Protection Act (AI WPA) serves an important role: providing a minimally onerous avenue through which whistleblowers in a critical industry can report security vulnerabilities and lawbreaking without retaliation. Bullock and Arnold discussed key provisions in the bill, addressed gaps in current federal legislation, and more.

On Lawfare Daily, Alan Rozenshtein sat down with Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Law & AI, Bullock, to discuss the AI Whistleblower Protection Act. Rozenshtein and Bullock talked about why the bill is important, its most important features, and how it prevents companies from using contracts or NDAs to circumvent the whistleblower rights the bill creates.

Dave Aitel and Dan Greer argued that the shift to “vibe coding”—code generated by large language models (LLMs)—has fundamentally changed software engineering. Aitel and Greer examined how the greater emphasis on LLMs has undermined traditional processes for evaluating software security, analyzed the ability of AI to identify vulnerabilities that human reviewers miss, and offered suggestions on how cybersecurity frameworks can be improved.

Amos Toh argued that promoting American AI innovation is not a valid basis to abandon regulatory guardrails. Toh evaluated discrepancies between AI policy under the Biden administration and AI guidance as outlined in President Trump’s most recent memo to the Office of Management and Budget, called for greater transparency in national security AI, and urged Congress to pass legislation that codifies safeguards and defines a process for how AI systems for national security can be enforced and overseen.

In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren analyzed the findings of a report released by the Atlantic Council on zero-day supply chains in the United States and China. Uren also questioned claims made by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine that U.S. Cyber Command provided significant support in U.S. strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities last week.

On Lawfare Daily, Jonathan Cederbaum sat down with senior researcher at ETH Zurich Max Smeets and Lawfare contributing editor Sherman to discuss Smeets’ most recent book, “Ransome War: How Cybercrime Became a Threat to National Security.” They talked about the history and origins of the term “ransomware,” some of the major drivers of innovation within the ransomware space, how the United States and Europe can respond to these threats, and more.

Geoffrey Gertz and Justin Sherman connected the Trump administration’s latest extension of the TikTok ban deadline to a larger pattern of U.S. government reliance on bans as a cybersecurity strategy. Gertz and Sherman suggested that while bans on Chinese-owned technology are sufficient in addressing some national security threats, they are an impractical solution for other forms of risk, and proposed other strategies that policymakers and tech experts can develop to address tech security.

Paul Rosenzweig broke down the Trump-specific changes to cybersecurity and data privacy he expects to see in the next four years. Rosenzweig broadly contextualized these changes by examining U.S.-E.U. cybersecurity and data privacy, offered predictions about the areas of cybersecurity and data privacy the Trump administration will target, analyzed how any potential action taken on these matters will impact E.U. member states, and more.

McKenzie Sadeghi used data from a NewsGuard study to demonstrate that chatbots are unwittingly amplifying disinformation narratives planted by malign actors or state-backed foreign outlets. Sadeghi argued that the articulate and authoritative language of these AI systems represents a new kind of risk in information warfare, applied this to a case study in Ukraine, and explained that languages and contexts with limited mainstream coverage are particularly susceptible to disinformation amplification.

Lucas Robinson used data from a study conducted by the Institute of Global Affairs to illustrate the faultlines plaguing NATO as American foreign policy shifts. Robinson argued that this week’s NATO summit will need to address more than just Europe’s move toward strategic autonomy—America’s changing commitment to the alliance must propel Europe to look toward a future without the United States as the cornerstone of security.

On Lawfare Daily, Mykhailo Soldatenko spoke with Eric Ciaramella, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Samuel Charap, Senior Political Scientist at the Rand Corporation, about the latest developments in Russia-Ukraine Talks. They spoke about the national interests of both parties, whether a negotiated compromise is possible, what a potential agreement may look like, and more.

In the latest installment of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Sheena Chestnut Grietens argued that the initial setting and circumstances of a potential conflict between China and the United States will shape how such a protracted conflict could unfold. Chestnut Grietens offered five specific questions to consider that could set the terms of a sustained conflict between the rival nations.

Lindsay Freeman analyzed how the Wagner Group’s Telegram channel of self-documented violence in West Africa has become a strategic weapon of the group. Freeman asked why the group has been treated with relative impunity in spite of the mounting evidence of its crimes, and suggested that law enforcement must act to hold the Wagner Group accountable and prevent its cadre of “war influencers” from broadcasting a persistent stream of videos depicting graphic violence.

And that was the week that was.