The Week That Was: All of Lawfare in One Post

During a Lawfare live discussion on Friday, June 5, at 5 p.m. ET, Benjamin Wittes, Anna Bower, Scott R. Anderson, Quinta Jurecic, Stephanie Pell, and Roger Parloff discussed the indictment of former President Donald Trump in connection to the improper removal of classified documents from the White House to Mar-a-Lago. They discussed what to make of the reported charges, the case’s reported venue, the Classified Information Procedures Act, and more:

Anderson and Wittes discussed the indictment of Trump. Because the indictment was not released at the time, Anderson and Wittes refrained from evaluating its strength or substance. Instead, they explained the indictment’s seven counts relating to Trump’s improper retention of classified material and conspiracy to obstruct the special counsel investigation.

Katherine Pompilio shared the unsealed indictment of former President Donald Trump and Trump aide Waltine Nauta in connection with the improper removal of classified documents from the White House to Mar-a-Lago.

Anna Hickey shared Special Counsel Jack Smith’s statement on the indictment of former President Donald Trump in connection with the investigation into the improper removal of classified documents from the White House to Mar-a-Lago.

On the Lawfare Podcast, Wittes sat down with Anderson, Jurecic, and Parloff to analyze the recent discovery of an audio recording in which Trump acknowledges that he knowingly held on to a classified Department of Defense document that detailed a plan for a potential attack on Iran. The panel discussed what exactly Trump said on the tape, if he violated the Espionage Act, how this changes Special Counsel Smith’s investigations, what it means for Trump’s reelection campaign, and more:

On the Lawfare Podcast, Wittes sat down with Bruce Brown and Gabe Rottman—two officials of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press—to discuss the Justice Department’s new guidelines on compulsory process to members of the press in criminal and national security investigations. Their pieces for Lawfare on this subject are available here and here:

On Rational Security, Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Jurecic, and Anderson discussed the week’s national security news stories, including the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in Ukraine, updates on Special Counsel Smith’s investigation into former President Trump, and the new landscape of the Republican presidential nomination race:

Tom Dannenbaum explored the implications of numerous international human rights laws and international criminal laws in the context of the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam. Assuming it was a deliberate act by the Russians, he analyzed the applications of three special protections codified in Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions and concluded that war crimes related to attacks on dams and natural environment damage are likely implicated while starvation war crimes involve more complex issues of the intent behind the dam’s destruction.

On the Lawfare Podcast, Wittes sat down to analyze the destruction of the Kakhova Dam that caused massive flooding and severe environmental damage in southern Ukraine. He discussed the extent of the damage caused by the dam break with Eric Ciaramella, the possible military implications with Dmitri Alperovitch, and what it means for the Russia-Ukraine war going forward with Shane Harris:

Mykhailo Soldatenko presented a counterargument to Gregory Novak’s recent Lawfare article arguing that the Black Sea Grain Initiative is a treaty. He highlighted the ambiguous legal nature of the Black Sea Grain Initiative in its terminology and rhetoric, concluding that the Grain Deal’s flexibility of commitments both permitted its creation and renders it fundamentally fragile.

Jason Healey continued his analysis of the Biden administration’s new National Cybersecurity Strategy. He analyzed how the new strategy directly combats fundamental challenges of cybersecurity that historically granted cyber attackers advantages over defenders, concluding that the new strategy takes vital steps toward a more secure and defensible cyberspace.

Jeremy Straub offered a critique of the Federal Trade Commission’s use of algorithm disgorgement to punish companies that use illegally-sourced data in algorithm development and training. He argued that full disgorgement presents severe implementation problems, and throws away potential societal gains, whereas publicly releasing the improperly-sourced data would retain these gains and punish the firm by giving its competitors access to the algorithms.

On the Lawfare Podcast, Pell sat down with Justin Sherman to discuss the data broker ecosystem and two bills from a previous Congress—discussed in Sherman’s recent piece on Lawfare—that aim to give consumers more control of information about them collected and sold by data brokers:

Sherman examined two bills from the previous congress—the American Data Privacy and Protection Act and the Data Elimination and Limiting Extensive Tracking and Exchange Act—that would create a national, public registry of companies that could potentially be engaged in data brokerage. Sherman compared the bills and their shortcomings and concluded that while neither is perfect, both help to reduce harms caused by the data brokerage ecosystem.

Sam Keller, Stephen Coulthart, and Michael D. Young explored the ability of artificial intelligence large language models such as ChatGPT to supplement the work of intelligence analysts. They argued that while ChatGPT successfully assists in summarizing information, brainstorming, and critiquing analysis, it poses significant risks due to false training data and relies heavily on prompt engineering.

Ashley Deeks and Matthew Waxman discussed the constitutionality of a draft bill that seeks to prevent federal funds from being used by nuclear command and control for fully autonomous artificial intelligence systems.

Almudena Azcárate Ortega argued that distinguishing between dual-use and dual-purpose space systems can mitigate ill-informed concerns about threats to space security.

Tal Mimran and Lior Weinstein evaluated the Israeli parliamentary response to the Israel National Police’s use of NSO Group spyware against Israeli nationals. They considered the efficacy of the Israeli parliament’s establishment of a subcommittee to lead an inquiry into the unauthorized deployments of spyware, other modes of institutional monitoring, and Israel’s potential involvement with international spyware governance efforts.

Aaron Arnold and Daniel Salisbury discussed lessons learned about export control enforcement from the case of Karl Lee, a Chinese national largely regarded as the “principal supplier” to Iran’s ballistic missile program and who was reportedly arrested in China in 2019. They concluded that while the long-arm enforcement of export controls has limits, export controls—when used correctly—can help keep advanced technologies out of the hands of U.S. adversaries.

In Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Daniel Arnon, Richard McAlexander, and Michael Rubin discussed the phenomenon of preemptive displacement in the context of the 1948 Palestinian refugee crisis. They argued that the decision to leave was facilitated by strong social ties and that stakeholders involved in humanitarian relief efforts should work to understand the specific implications of this phenomenon.

On the Lawfare Podcast, Saraphin Dhanani sat down with Brian Winter to discuss Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s first 100 days in office. Roughly 150 days after insurrectionists stormed government buildings in Brazil, they analyzed Lula’s vision for reinstating Brazil’s place in the global arena and the political opposition he still faces:

And on Chatter, David Priess sat down with Lisa Maddox to discuss how she turned her intelligence experience into a career as a professional genealogist. They discuss her entry into the national security world, her work at the CIA as an analyst and manager of analysts, her decision to start a genealogy business, and more:

And that was the week that was.