The Week that Was

On Feb. 14 at 4 p.m. ET, Benjamin Wittes spoke to Scott R. Anderson, Anna Bower, and Roger Parloff about the status of the civil litigation against President Trump’s executive actions, including the attempts to dismantle United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, his firing of inspectors general, and the attempt to fire Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents and employees.

Jack Goldsmith discussed how the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States constitutes a “maximalist theory of executive power.” More specifically, Goldsmith explained that the Court’s ruling provides the executive with exclusive power over law enforcement, expands the president’s power to fire executive officials at will, and sets the stage for the Trump administration to claim broad executive authority in its efforts to reshape the government.

On Lawfare Daily, Alan Rozenshtein sat down with Goldsmith to discuss his recent Lawfare article about the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States and its implications for executive power. They talked about how the ruling extends beyond presidential immunity, the broader shift toward a maximalist theory of executive authority, what this means for the future of American democracy, and more.

Jody Freeman and Sharon Jacobs evaluated the Trump administration’s unprecedented push to weaken the federal government—including dismantling agencies, and asserting control over the civil service—through the lens of structural deregulation. Freeman and Jacobs noted that even if Congress and the courts successfully intervene, the damage that has already been done will have long lasting consequences.

Bower reported from a Feb. 5 status conference in Alliance for Retired Americans et al. v. Secretary of the Treasury, concerning the lawfulness of the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) access to the Department of the Treasury’s payment systems. Bower highlighted three key disputed factual issues in the case—including who has access to the data in question, the nature of this access, and DOGE’s role in all of this–and the lack of clarity the government was able to offer about them.

Nick Bednar discussed the history of and discrepancies between the Administrative Leave Act and Biden-era Office of Personnel Management regulations used to justify the Trump administration’s purge of the federal workforce. Bednar highlighted problems that arise from inconsistencies in administrative leave across the government, as well as the constitutional concerns the administration’s use of it creates.

Wittes discussed the spate of resignations by federal prosecutors following the Department of Justice’s directive to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Wittes acknowledged their bravery but emphasized how this shows the extent to which the Trump administration has destroyed the ethical norms within the department and in doing so, the ability of those within the department to pursue justice. 

Wittes also explored the capacity of the federal judiciary to act as a bulwark against President Donald Trump’s attacks on the rule of law, noting that despite the deficiencies that plague the courts, the judiciary is the only mechanism available to address this “ongoing spree” of lawlessness.

On Lawfare Daily, Natalie Orpett sat down with Wittes to discuss his recent Lawfare article “Are the Courts Up to the Situation?” They talked about the courts' role in the face of unprecedented assertions of executive power, how they're faring so far, and what comes next.

On Rational Security, Anderson, Bower, Tyler McBrien, Nastya Lapatina, and Joel Braunold discussed the major national security news of the past week, including Trump’s assertion that the U.S. will “own” Gaza, his plan to end the conflict in Ukraine, the Department of Justice’s dismissal of corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, and more.

Wittes discussed Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) letter alleging that Kash Patel directed the firings of FBI personnel and the accompanying revelation that he may have perjured himself when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On Lawfare Daily, Wittes spoke to Bower, Quinta Jurecic and Parloff about various lawsuits targeting Trump’s executive actions as of Friday, Feb. 7. They talked about DOGE’s attempts to access federal systems, efforts to dismantle USAID, plans to fire FBI agents and employees, and more.

Chris Mirasola explained that the Trump administration’s disregard for established law—including statements supporting a maximalist theory of executive power and the recent detention of migrants at Guantanamo Bay—signals that the administration is dangerously close to deploying the military for immigration enforcement.

Ania Zolyniak outlined the history of the Alien Enemies Act and the power it vests in the president. Zolyniak explained that although Trump’s justification for invoking it is tenuous, challenges to it also face an uphill battle given courts’ deference to foreign relations exceptionalism and the political question doctrine.

Lapatina described the severe effects of the Trump administration’s dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on Ukraine. Lapatina emphasized the role that USAID has played in developing Ukraine’s economy, civil society, and media, and warned of the drastic consequences already happening as a result of the freeze.

Jonathan Fredman warned that the Central Intelligence Agency’s submission of partial employee information to the White House via unclassified channels significantly increases the chance that foreign adversaries can identify these personnel.

In Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay Series, Julia Dickson and Emily Harding outlined how the United States can collaborate with regional partners in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia to coordinate law enforcement and use local resources to combat cybercrime.

In the latest installment of Water Wars, Aaron Baum, Zolyniak, and Nikita Salagme analyzed recent developments in Indo-Pacific geopolitics. They discussed the Trump administration’s meeting with leaders from Australia, India, and Japan, the president’s rhetoric on the Panama Canal, attacks on Taiwan’s undersea cables and cyber infrastructure, patrols off the Philippines' coast and in the South China Sea, and more.

On Lawfare Daily, Minna Ålander joined Lapatina to discuss NATO’s efforts to enhance Europe’s maritime security after four incidents of damaged underwater infrastructure in the Baltic Sea.

McBrien shared an executive order directing the secretary of state to reform recruiting, performance, evaluation, retention, and other diplomatic service standards, effectively reshaping the Foreign Service.

Rozenshtein evaluated the continued non-enforcement of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACCA), as evidenced by the recent decisions of Apple and Google to restore TikTok to their app stores. Rozenshtein expressed concern about the broader implications of the non-enforcement, particularly the seeming ability of the executive branch to choose which laws to enforce. 

Jeffrey Vagle detailed how Elon Musk and the DOGE’s access to government systems violates fundamental principles of cybersecurity and endangers critical government information infrastructure.

Anthony Rutkowski discussed how the Federal Communications Commission’s recent attempt to declare cybersecurity authority highlights the need for effective public network infrastructure cybersecurity in the United States.

Kevin Frazier described how–if implemented correctly—artificial intelligence (AI) can modernize and improve government operations. However, Frazier criticized the DOGE’s attempts to use AI on the grounds that they likely violate the Privacy of Act of 1974.

Ritwik Gupta and Andrew Reddie argued that the overly broad provisions of the Decoupling America’s Artificial Intelligence Capabilities from China Act of 2025 (DAICCA) will harm American innovation because of the restrictions DAICCA places on open-source software, global AI projects that integrate Chinese researchers, and more.

In the latest installment of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Ruby Scanlon discussed how Beijing’s investments in artificial intelligence (AI) contributed to the success of Chinese AI company DeepSeek. Scanlon assessed that the United States must further develop its tech ecosystem to match China’s progress and secure AI dominance.

Mark Thomas asserted that the United States’s reliance on tools such as financial sanctions, export controls, and investment screening in the technological competition with China assumes a level of U.S. dominance that no longer necessarily exists. Thomas argued that a more diversified toolkit that recognizes China’s technological prowess is better suited to advancing U.S. interests.

In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business newsletter, Tom Uren discussed Apple’s refusal to obey a United Kingdom government order requesting access to encrypted data, a widespread decrease in ransomware payments, Israeli mobile spyware company Paragon’s decision to cut ties with the Italian government, and more.

On Lawfare Daily, Chris Miller and Marshall Kosloff joined Frazier and Rozenshtein to discuss AI, supply chains, and the Abundance Agenda.

David Sullivan described the strengths and weaknesses of the risk assessments mandated by the European Union’s Digital Services Act and suggested that they may provide insight into how the DSA can better moderate illegal and harmful content.

And in the latest paper for Lawfare’s Security by Design Paper Series, Sezaneh Seymour and Daniel W. Woods argued that Secure by Design (SbD) policies should be calibrated to the actual risks faced by small businesses, rather than focusing primarily on software vulnerabilities. Seymour and Woods offered four recommendations for implementing SbD, including the deployment of multi-factor authentication and the remediation of insecure configurations.

And that was the week that was.