The Week That Was

On May 2 at 4 p.m. ET, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Scott R. Anderson, Anna Bower, Roger Parloff, and James Pearce to discuss the status of the civil litigation against President Donald Trump’s executive actions, including the legal challenges to deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.

Pearce detailed the facts of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan’s arrest and analyzed the two charges levied against her. Pearce also discussed the government’s unusual decision to use a criminal complaint in these circumstances and the potential obstacles the government may encounter as the prosecution proceeds.

Bower analyzed a recent court filing showing that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) directed Department of Justice officials to terminate contracts with an immigrant rights center. Bower emphasized that the administrative records appear to substantiate concerns that the government—which has maintained that DOGE advises, but does not direct agencies—has misrepresented DOGE’s role to the court.

On Lawfare Daily, Molly E. Reynolds sat down with Matt Lawrence, Eloise Pasachoff, and Zachary Price to discuss executive branch attempts to control the process of allocating federal funds at the expense of Congress, how the Trump administration’s actions compare to past efforts, current litigation on these issues, and more. 

Tyler McBrien reported on a recent Joint Staff memorandum showing widespread support for the Women, Peace, and Security program (WPS) among combatant commands in the United States military. McBrien highlighted the inconsistency between the recommended course of action in the memorandum and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s claims about the program.

Parloff shared notes from an April 23 hearing on outcome-determinative motions in Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr v. Executive Office of the President, in which U.S. District Judge Richard Leon questioned parties about the issue of severability, problems related to separation of powers, suspending clearances on a non-individualized basis, and more.

On Rational Security, Reynolds and Pearce joined Anderson to talk through the week’s big national security news, including Trump’s first 100 days in office, Trump’s frequent turn to the appellate courts, reports that Elon Musk could avoid billions in regulatory costs through his involvement with DOGE, and more.

Nicholas Handler explained the ramifications of a March 28 executive order that seeks to bar many federal employees from unionizing and strip them of collective bargaining rights under the pretext of national security, as allowed by the Civil Service Reform Act. Handler discussed how labor rights serve as an important check on the president’s power, the status of litigation against the executive order, and more.

Wittes highlighted a presidential action for each of the 100 days since Trump took office, ranging from tariffs to attacks on law firms.

On Lawfare Daily, Wittes sat down with Bower, Quinta Jurecic, Parloff, Pearce, and Preston Marquis to discuss the status of the civil litigation against Trump’s executive actions.

Dan Maurer explored the ramifications of a presidential memorandum empowering the military to build and operate military installations at the U.S.-Mexico border, including the use of lethal force against those crossing into U.S. territory and violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement.

On Lawfare Daily, Jurecic sat down with Kathleen Romig and Devin O'Connor to discuss the Social Security “Death Master File,” the implications of officials using it to mark immigrants as dead, the Trump administration’s repeated attacks on Social Security, and more.

Bertina Kudrin, Megan Thomas, and Niharika Vattikonda examined the tension between the anti-commandeering doctrine established by the Supreme Court and the Trump administration’s attempts—both in his first and second term—to use mandates and funding conditions to force states to comply with federal immigration law. They further discussed voluntary collaboration through 287(g), the broader battle of federalism, and more.

Caroline Cornett shared an executive order directing the attorney general to “maximize the use of federal resources” to “aggressively police crime.”

On Lawfare Daily, Kevin Frazier sat down with Andrew Bakaj to discuss a declaration by National Labor Relations Board employee Daniel Berulis that DOGE facilitated the exfiltration of potentially sensitive information to external sources, the merits of whistleblower protections, and more.

Frazier discussed the need for greater artificial intelligence (AI) literacy in the U.S. and the inadequacy of current efforts to ensure widespread AI proficiency. Frazier proposed the creation of an AI Education Corps—an initiative that embeds AI education in K-12 schools through expert support and resources—to prepare a workforce that is resilient to AI-driven threats and able to compete with China.

Matthew Tokson explained how AI law enforcement facilitates authoritarianism by concentrating power, increasing corruption, deterring political protest, and more. Tokson suggested ways that courts and lawmakers can use the Fourth Amendment to check growing AI surveillance in the U.S. and prevent AI-driven authoritarian drift.

In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren discussed the threats to security firms in supply chain attacks, a Semafor report revealing the extent to which top Trump officials and supporters use Signal and WhatsApp group chats, ​​J.P. Morgan Chase’s demand for secure software, and more.

On Lawfare Daily, Tanvi Madan joined Daniel Byman to discuss the April 22 terrorist attack in Kashmir, how the crisis has evolved, the escalation options available to India, the limited influence of the U.S., China, and others to contain the crisis, and more.

Wittes discussed the unrealistic expectations in the Trump administration’s Ukraine policy and the false moral equivalences in the administration’s rhetoric, and reflected on the suffering that Ukrainians have endured while the administration has pursued an unreasonable deal.

Edward T. Swaine reviewed Curtis Bradley’s “Historical Gloss and Foreign Affairs: Constitutional Authority in Practice,” which explores how presidential and congressional practices shape interpretation of the Constitution. Swaine praised Bradley’s discussion of how historical gloss tends to augment presidential authority and highlighted further issues to consider, including criteria for gloss and the consequences of gloss.

Nas Lawal and Matthew Salavitch summarized the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., in which the Court considered whether foreign governments must have some connection to the U.S. before a U.S. court may exercise jurisdiction over them for the purposes of enforcing an arbitral award. Lawal and Salavitch broke down the system of arbitration, award enforcement, and sovereign immunity that gave rise to the case and the ramifications its outcome could have for international arbitration.

And Michael Pusic and Vattikonda outlined the arguments parties made before the Court in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, in which the Court considered whether American gun manufacturers can be held liable when their firearms are unlawfully acquired by Mexican cartels.

And that was the week that was.