The Week That Was

Renee DiResta and Quinta Jurecic discussed the Trump administration’s overtly political campaign to dismantle guardrails against foreign interference in American politics, as well as the underlying false narrative of “deep state censors” promulgated by President Donald Trump.

Benjamin Wittes confronted Trump’s betrayal of Ukraine and embrace of Russia and Vladimir Putin. Wittes warned of the dramatic and dire consequences this policy reversal will have for the United States’s international reputation and its trustworthiness.

On Lawfare Daily, Eric Ciaramella joined Wittes to discuss the U.S. statements on Ukraine at the Munich Security Conference, the U.S.-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia, Ukraine’s domestic politics, and more.

Darren Linvill and Patrick Warren detailed the process by which Russia creates and disseminates disinformation about Ukraine and the success they have had eroding U.S. support for Ukraine.

On Rational Security, Scott R. Anderson sat down with Tyler McBrien, Roger Parloff, and Claire Meynial to discuss the week’s major national security news. They talked about Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, what the Department of Justice’s move to dismiss charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams tells us about the administration’s use of prosecutions to advance a political agenda, litigation over Trump’s ban on transgender service members, and more.

In the latest installment of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Daniel DePetris explained why a military operation against cartels in Mexico—a policy which many Trump administration officials support—will fail to limit the flow of drugs across the border and instead imperil U.S.-Mexico relations.

Jonathan Shaub criticized an op-ed by Randy Barnett and Ilan Wurnell suggesting that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th amendment can be construed as excluding persons who have unlawfully entered the U.S. Shaub argued that this language enshrines the right to expatriation, not the “allegiance-for-protection” theory that Barnett and Wurnell invoked.

On Lawfare Daily, Chris Mirasola joined Natalie Orpett to discuss his recent article for Lawfare on the legality of Trump’s plan to deploy the U.S. military to enforce the administration's immigration policies.

On Feb. 21 at 4 p.m. ET, Wittes spoke to Anderson, Anna Bower, and Parloff about the status of the civil litigation against President Trump’s executive actions, including the attempts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, the firing of probationary employees, and more. Lawfare material supporters were able to submit questions to the panelists and watch the livestream without ads. Become a material supporter of Lawfare on Substack or Patreon.

Nick Bednar explained the complex regulations governing reductions in force, a mechanism by which Trump seeks to reduce the federal workforce. Bednar highlighted the intricacies of the process—in which employees compete for positions that were not cut—and the consequences it can have on agencies, including lower morale and the loss of young talent.

Bower reported from a hearing in the Southern District of New York on the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss a federal corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, in which Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove—whose directive to dismiss the charges prompted at least seven federal prosecutors to resign—was the sole representative for the government.

Bednar highlighted issues with the transparency and accuracy of Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) data purporting to show cost savings, including the termination of payments to maintain late President Jimmy Carter’s office space, which is attributable to his death, not DOGE action.

Jurecic sat down with Wendy Edelberg and Jacob Leibenluft to discuss the implications of political appointees and DOGE gaining access to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s payment systems, and what it reveals about the administration’s political goals.

Addar Levi evaluated Peter Harell’s recent argument for the major questions doctrine (MQD) as a challenge to tariffs imposed through International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), asserting that courts’ reluctance to contradict presidential national emergency declarations make use of the MQD unlikely. Levi suggested IEEPA limits on the action to address an emergency are a more promising avenue for legal challenges to wide ranging tariffs.

Olivia Manes shared an executive order that expands presidential oversight of agencies and their rulemaking functions and asserts “authoritative interpretation” of executive branch law by the president.

Manes also shared an executive order that directs agencies to work with DOGE to deconstruct “the overbearing and burdensome administrative state” by rescinding “unconstitutional” regulations and “de-prioritizing” their enforcement.

Caroline Cornett shared an executive order dismantling four “unnecessary government entities,” including the Inter-American Foundation and the U.S. Institute of Peace. The order also terminates the Presidential Management Fellows Program and several committees in various agencies.

Bertina Kudrin, Kristina Lorch, and Omid Ghaffari-Tabrizi broke down the Bipartisan House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence’s recent report, which is set to inform the development of artificial intelligence (AI) policy in the current Congress. Kudrin, Lorch, and Ghaffari-Tabrizi detailed the report’s findings on national security, government use of AI, data privacy implications, effects on businesses, and more.

Kevin Frazier outlined the negative effects that the Trump administration’s plan for a mass layoff of probationary employees at the National Institute of Standards and Technology will have on domestic AI infrastructure, AI governance, and American dominance in AI.

On Lawfare Daily, Matt Perault joined Frazier to discuss the current AI policy landscape and the Little Tech Agenda, and to explore how adoption of the Agenda may shape AI development across the country.

Jim Dempsey argued that although the Trump administration and the Make America Great Again movement typically favor deregulation, government action and regulation of software security would help achieve their goals of protecting against Chinese cyberattacks, incentivizing innovation, and reducing waste and fraud.

Zeve Sanderson, Sol Messing, and J. Scott Babwah Brennen explained how TikTok’s recommendation algorithm allows foreign actors to influence the platform’s users. Sanderson, Messing, and Brennen argued that TikTok should improve transparency by providing data access for independent researchers, committing to robust data-sharing, and more.

In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business newsletter, Tom Uren discussed retaliation strategies for Salt Typhoon’s compromise of U.S. telecommunications networks, the Samoan government’s cyber threat advisory for Chinese hacker group APT40, an Australian intelligence operation targeting bulletproof hosting service Zservers, Russian threat actors’ use of "device code phishing" to hack Microsoft 365 accounts, and more.

Katherine Pompilio shared a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court in Republic of Hungary et al. v. Simon et al., which held that commingling funds “without more, cannot satisfy the commercial nexus requirement” of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s “expropriation exception.

Mietek Boduszyński and Susan Henneberg drew from Tunisia, Libya, and Iraq’s implementations of transitional justice to make recommendations for how Syria can use transitional justice to shape a democratic post-Assad future, including refraining from retributive justice, prioritizing victims, and more.

And Robert Rakove examined Amin Saikal’s account of the failed state-building efforts in Afghanistan in “How to Lose a War: The Story of America’s Intervention in Afghanistan.” Rakove highlighted Saikal’s discussion of the U.S. campaign in the context of Afghan history and early strategic mistakes as particular strengths of the book.

And that was the week that was.