The Week that Was

Nick Bednar explained that, given the lack of Congressionally appropriated funding and a past Supreme Court decision that did not hold the government liable for an unlawful agreement, federal employees resigning via the “deferred resignation program” risk having no viable recourse should the administration renege on its promises.

On Lawfare Daily, Quinta Jurecic sat down with Bednar to walk through the many legal issues raised by the “deferred resignation program” that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has offered to over 2 million federal employees.

In a live webinar and on Lawfare Daily, Scott R. Anderson spoke to George Ingram, Tony Pipa, and Jonathan Katz—all of whom are alumni of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—about the Trump administration’s attempts to absorb the agency into the Department of State, freeze all foreign assistance, and more.

Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman discussed the parallels between Elon Musk’s efforts to acquire control of federal government systems that govern payment, infrastructure and personnel and the United States’ takeover of technical world economic systems in the 2000s. Farrell and Newman warned of the disastrous consequences of Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) actions, but noted that at present, they lack a sophisticated understanding of how to wield this power.

Danielle Citron warned that Musk’s DOGE is a clear threat to privacy and democracy and a manifestation of the dangers the 93rd Congress anticipated when passing the Privacy Act of 1974.

On Feb. 7 at 5 p.m. ET, Benjamin Wittes spoke to Anna Bower, Jurecic, and Roger Parloff about various lawsuits targeting President Donald Trump’s executive actions, including DOGE’s recent actions, the deferred resignation program, and the attempt to fire FBI agents and employees.

On Rational Security, Anderson, Bower, Molly Reynolds, and Wittes discussed the major national security news of the past week, including the Trump’s administration’s consolidation of power in the executive branch, push to end birthright citizenship, and impending purge of FBI personnel.

Jurecic shared 14 memos from Attorney General Pam Bondi to Department of Justice employees on topics including internal personnel matters, potentially widespread investigations into current and former civil servants, immigration enforcement, and more.

Anna Hickey shared a lawsuit filed by six federal employee unions against the Department of Labor, the Acting Secretary of Labor Vince Micone, the U.S. Digital (DOGE) Service, and the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. The plaintiffs allege that DOGE will seek to gain access to sensitive data and processes and request that the court block DOGE-related personnel from gaining unlawful access to the Department of Labor.

Caroline Cornett shared a lawsuit filed by two federal employee unions seeking injunctive and declaratory relief in the face of the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development.

Wittes offered six pieces of advice to recently confirmed Attorney General Pam Bondi, counseling that she rebuild relationships with Department of Justice employees, prevent the department from becoming a conduit for right-wing violence, and more.

Wittes also reflected on the parallels between the state of English government in 1819—as expressed in a sonnet by Percy Bysshe Shelley—and the actions of the U.S. government today.

Parloff discussed how President Donald Trump’s sweeping pardons for convicted Jan. 6 rioters and the Justice Department’s dismissal of ongoing Jan. 6 cases is an attempt to erase history.

Parloff also reported on the firing of 15 federal prosecutors—most of whom were only a few years into their careers and who the administration says can be fired “at will”— for their work on Jan. 6 prosecutions.

Brad Brooks-Rubin and Richard Nephew argued that the United States and allies underutilize sanctions on corrupt actors, which are uniquely able to target and impose financial consequences on individuals. Brooks-Rubin and Nephew further suggested measures the U.S. might take to increase the use of corruption sanctions domestically and internationally.

On Lawfare Daily, Tyler McBrien sat down with Nema Milaninia, a former prosecutor at the International Criminal Court and International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to discuss recent efforts by the U.S. government to sanction the International Criminal Court. They talked through the motivations behind the campaign, criticisms of the Court, why sanctions would benefit no one, and more.

David Bosco argued that the United States should use the threat of sanctions as leverage to push for reforms to the International Criminal Court, which suffers from an overly broad jurisdiction and a low success rate in prosecuting cases.

Anupam Chander, G.S. Hans, and Edward Lee criticized the Supreme Court’s reasoning in TikTok v. Garland that Congress’s data security concerns were sufficient to waive scrutiny of a content-based rationale, warning that the decision risks setting a dangerous legal precedent that national security can supersede the right to free speech.

Kenneth Propp discussed legal challenges to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework in European courts, including privacy class action litigation, litigation about the transfer of personal data from the EU to the United States, and more. Propp suggested that continued legal conflict on data transfer could make it an issue of geopolitical importance.

In this week’s Seriously Risky Business newsletter, Tom Uren highlighted that Chinese cyber espionage actors may use DeepSeek models to enhance their attacks. Uren also discussed a paper on what constitutes an “unforgivable” vulnerability, the European Union’s announcement of sanctions on 2020 intelligence collection operations, and more.

Jean-Marie Guéhenno, Olivia Grinberg, and Jason Healey argued that major technology companies are best poised to create a sustainable model of cyber peace and recommended collaboration between states, international organizations, and the private sector.

Holly Berkley Fletcher argued that while the United States should continue to support humanitarian relief and peacebuilding efforts, the U.S. is unable to end the war in Sudan due to the complexity of the political environment and the dangers of heavy-handed intervention.

On Lawfare Daily, Fletcher joined Daniel Byman to discuss the complex and tragic war and humanitarian crisis in Sudan and her recent Lawfare article “The Sudan War and the Limits of American Power.” They talked about the role of regional powers in the conflict, the challenges faced by the international community in addressing the ongoing violence, and more.

In the latest installment of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Clayton Swope discussed how U.S. success in the great power competition in cislunar space—the region between the Earth and the moon—will depend on closing gaps in international governance, investing in infrastructure, and more.

On Feb. 24, at 10 a.m. ET, the Brookings Center on the United States and Europe and Lawfare will hold a discussion on the war in Ukraine, looking at the path of U.S. and European relations with Ukraine before and during the conflict as well as what lies ahead in 2025 and beyond. The discussion will feature Brookings experts as well as the co-hosts of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo’s new limited series narrative podcast Escalation which chronicles the surreal twists and turns between the United States and Ukraine through the lens of the journalists, diplomats, spies, and ambassadors who crafted the relationship between the two countries. This event will be open to attend in person or watch online. Register for the livestream here.

Jack Goldsmith and Oona Hathaway highlighted the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s (ODNI) recent clarification that former government employees who once held top secret/sensitive compartmented information (TS/SCI) security clearances do not need to submit materials “not reasonably be deemed to contain or be derived from covered intelligence” for prepublication review.

On Lawfare Daily, Hickey spoke to Nayna Gupta about the Laken Riley Act becoming law, its impact on the immigration detention system, and more. 

Ashley Deeks and Madison Rinder detailed the gaps and limitations in U.S. federal, state, and local officials’ authorities to immobilize drones—including coordination challenges, surveillance concerns, and the risk of endangering civilians. Deeks and Rinder discussed the Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System Authority Security, Safety, and Reauthorization Act and other proposed legislation that would seek to resolve these issues.

In a review of Ann Southworth’s “Big Money Unleashed: The Campaign to Deregulate Election Spending,” Robert Boatright examined Southworth’s account of the legal strategies critical to the evolution of the campaign finance system and evaluated her claim that public participation is crucial to regulation proponents’ success moving forward.

And on Lawfare No Bull, Cornett shared the audio from the confirmation hearing of FBI director nominee Kash Patel in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 30.

And that was the week that was.