The Week That Was

Nick Bednar examined how President Donald Trump has invoked Article II of the Constitution—which vests the “executive power” in the president—to justify actions that contradict or circumvent existing law, including removing subordinate officials, impounding congressionally appropriated funds, dismantling federal agencies, and more. Bednar also discussed how Trump’s interpretation of Article II seeks to undercut Congress and the courts while vastly expanding presidential power.

On March 21 at 4:30 p.m. ET, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Anna Bower, Quinta Jurecic, and Roger Parloff to discuss the status of the civil litigation against Trump’s executive actions, including the Department of Government Efficiency’s incursions on the United StatesInstitute of Peace, the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, the firing of probationary employees, and more.

Paul Colborn broke down a September opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel that argued Congress could not compel an executive official to suspend their duties to appear for a hearing because it would interfere with the president’s exclusive constitutional authority. Colborn suggested that the opinion—combined with a pattern of Supreme Court holdings affirming the president’s exclusive constitutional functions—could diminish congressional oversight of agencies.

Wittes argued that Trump’s dismantling of Voice of America reflects his contempt for a U.S. dedicated to truth, reliability, and the promotion of freedom and democracy throughout the world, representing a broader campaign to reshape American foreign policy.

On Rational Security, Scott R. Anderson sat down with Molly Reynolds and Wittes to talk through the week’s big national security news, including Congress’s narrow prevention of a government shutdown, increased military operations in the Middle East, Trump’s address at the Department of Justice, and more.

Clare Boone considered whether the Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to Elon Musk given his substantial business ventures with foreign states. Boone suggested that the authority and discretion Musk exercises indicates he occupies an “Office of Profit or Trust” covered by the Clause, but noted that enforcement is unlikely given issues with standing and the administration’s resistance to complying with court-ordered remedies.

Wittes offered seven pieces of advice for those looking to defy federal court orders, drawing inspiration from the government’s conduct in ongoing litigation against the administration.

Wittes reflected on the earthshaking changes to the U.S. government and American society in the first two months of the Trump administration. Wittes called upon Americans to continue resisting and standing up for what is right, asserting that the sheer enormity of the situation is not a reason to consider defeat inevitable.

On Lawfare Daily, in a recording of a live conversation on March 14, Wittes spoke to Anderson, Matthew Boaz, and Bower about the status of the civil litigation against Trump’s executive actions, including the freezing of the disbursement of federal funds, the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the firing of probationary employees, and more.

Sam Denney explained how a lagging economy, trepidation over voters’ support for the far-right, wariness of repeating past failures, and more have caused German politicians to lose faith in and fear themselves and their foreign policy instincts, creating a challenging path forward for incoming Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

In the latest installment of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Jason Warner argued that China’s economic-centered, nontraditional approach to military engagement in Africa positions it as the U.S.’s greatest long term rival on the continent. Warner compared China’s strategy to that of Russia—which has provided aggressive military assistance to autocratic regimes.

On Lawfare Daily, Daniel Byman sat down with Steven Heydemann to discuss the fast-changing developments in Syria, including the surge in communal violence the deal between the new Hayat Tahrir al-Sham-led government and Syria's Kurds, Israel's counterproductive interventions, U.S. policy toward the new regime in Damascus, and more.

On Escalation, co-hosts Tyler McBrien and Anastasiia Lapatina covered “The Orange Revolution”—the culmination of Ukrainians’ resistance to Russian interference in the 2004 presidential campaign—and a 2008 NATO summit where the U.S. and European allies formulated a high-risk plan to protect Ukraine.

On March 19, Lapatina, McBrien, and Wittes spoke at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University, where they discussed the making of Escalation, Lawfare’s new narrative podcast that tells the story of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship through interviews with over 50 diplomats, journalists, spies, and key decision-makers. They also shared behind-the-scenes insights and explored what lies ahead for Ukraine.

On Lawfare Daily, Gregory Johnsen joined Byman to discuss the rationale of the Trump administration's decision to bomb Yemen and explain Johnsen’s contention that the Houthis are spoiling for a fight with the U.S. and Israel.

In a recent installment of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Joshua A. Schwartz, John Chin, and Haleigh Bartos suggested that the increasing accessibility of drones can prolong civil wars, increase their severity, and make them easier to ignite but harder to resolve. The authors analyzed the way in which rebels, foreign intervening powers, and other actors utilize drones to advance their interests.

In a review of Edward Fishman’s “Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare,” Alex Zerden praised Fishman’s account of U.S. campaigns of economic warfare against Iran, Russia, and China. Zerden highlighted how Fishman’s years working at the highest level of U.S. sanctions policy offer unique insight into a typically opaque, complex process.

Kevin Frazier broke down Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech on artificial intelligence (AI) at the American Dynamism Summit, which focused on deregulation, national security, and the government's role in shaping markets. Frazier characterized the administration’s doctrine as based on American leadership in AI innovation and a domestic AI industrial base, but questioned whether the administration’s approach will yield those results.

On Lawfare Daily, Frazier spoke to Dan Hendrycks about his recent paper “Superintelligence Strategy,” co-authored with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang, which introduces the concept of a “mutual assured AI malfunction” deterrence regime resembling that of nuclear mutual assured destruction.

In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren discussed the doxing of four Taiwanese military hackers by China’s Ministry of State Security, a new report on Russia's “shadow war against the west,” a White House directive exempting cybersecurity jobs from layoffs, the Federal Communications Commission’s formation of a National Security Council, and more.

Michael Genkin and Joe Devanny described a four year campaign by cybersecurity company Sophos that culminated in Sophos acquiring threat-actor developed malware, as well as the controversy that ensued. Genkin and Devanny argued that Sophos’s campaign aligned with principles for responsible offensive cyber operations and discussed how Sophos’s transparency in its account of the campaign offers lessons about responsible behavior and active cyber defense.

Alissa Cooper and Zander Arnao argued that policymakers seeking to mitigate algorithmic harm should pursue designs that encourage long term user value, informed by guidelines such as user controls and design transparency. Cooper and Arnao explained that two solutions commonly favored by policymakers—chronological feeds and limited personalization—have unintended consequences that render them less effective.

On Lawfare Daily, Derek Thompson joined Renee DiResta and Frazier to discuss the theory of Abundance and its feasibility in an age of political discord and institutional distrust. 

And Meredith Warren explained why—despite the rarity of landmark victories in climate change lawsuits—climate change litigation collectively creates a powerful narrative and communicates climate harm. Warren discussed the increasing prevalence of claims alleging that inaction against climate change violates human rights, cases that seek to compel government action on climate change, the spread of climate change litigation beyond the Global North, and more.

And that was the week that was.