MARA Book Club Shorts Meeting This Evening at 5:00 pm: Two Antigones

Plus, this week’s Rule O’ Law Roundup

Good Afternoon:

Absolutely.

You’re getting old. Eventually you’re gonna die. Stare it in the face. It’s liberating. Really.

Also, try wearing a dog shirt.

---

A reminder that today at 5:00 pm, there will occur a meeting of the Make America Read Again (MARA) Book Club. We will be discussing today with the estimable Andrew Steele two plays called “Antigone,” one by Sophocles and the other by the French dramatist Jean Anouilh.

MARA Book Club events are for paid subscribers only, but you can become one of those at any time and join us at the link below the paywall at the bottom of this post.

You know how to do it.

---

Wednesday on #DogShirtTV, the world is a casino now! That is not a good thing:

Thursday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable Shane Harris came by to discuss Trump administration intelligence fuck-ups:

And Friday on #DogShirtTV, Pete Hegseth is praying for the deaths of his enemies. We discuss:

---

The Situation

The Situation on Tuesday remembered the four enduring truths of the Mueller Report.

Yesterday evening, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin of the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction stopping Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s vendetta against Anthropic.

The 43-page opinion will not come as any surprise to folks who have been reading or listening to or watching Lawfare over the past few weeks. Judge Lin finds—as was patently obvious—that the Pentagon’s, the president’s, and Hegseth’s actions against the AI company were retaliatory for First Amendment protected expression, unauthorized by any statute, and wrongful in treating an American company whose product has never been found to pose security problems like a foreign sabotage threat.

The case is far from over. Its sister litigation remains pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. A quick appeal of Judge Lin’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seems all but certain; indeed, Judge Lin stayed her own ruling for seven days by way of facilitating that. And some kind of emergency docket trip to the Supreme Court seems likely in the immediate term.

That said, I’m having a little trouble imagining the courts coming to a different conclusion from Judge Lin’s, at least based on the current record. As with the law firm cases the administration insists on appealing, you can dress this case up with a lot of fancy appellate lawyering, but it doesn’t change what is ultimately a simple fact pattern.

A company makes a product. The government wants to use that product. The government and the company cannot come to terms over the circumstances in which the government can and cannot use the product—with the company, rightly or wrongly, attaching conditions the government finds unacceptable. The company speaks publicly about the dispute. The government responds not merely by ceasing use of the product, which it has every right to do, but by labeling the product a “supply chain risk” and forbidding entities that have business ties to the company from doing business with the government. The government takes this step with specific and repeated reference to the company’s criticisms of the government and the positions it took in contract negotiations. The government has to twist the relevant statute into a pretzel to make it even remotely authorize its behavior—and even then has to acknowledge that some of the steps it took are beyond any statutory authorization.

It’s a simple fact pattern that cannot be reconciled with a non-corrupt, market economy functioning in a civilized democratic society in which one is allowed to criticize one’s government.

And it’s a fact pattern on which the government will not prevail—not even before a conservative Supreme Court.

All of which raises the question: What is the government trying to accomplish here? What is the point of creating needless friction with a major up-and-coming tech giant, during a war no less, in order to set up a humiliating defeat in court at the hands of that tech giant?

Here are two things I don’t believe this is really about: lethal autonomous weapons and mass surveillance of Americans. Don’t get me wrong. These two broad categories are what the dispute is about for Anthropic; indeed, they have become the focal point of the dispute because they happen to be Anthropic’s red lines. But I actually don’t believe that the government picked this fight because it has some top-secret drone it wants to fly that it needs Claude to pilot. And I don’t believe either that there are programs of mass surveillance targeted at Americans—at least not as the government defines “mass surveillance”—that the government regards as lawful and needs Claude to help it manage. We may be evolving towards such things, but I doubt that there is an actual surveillance program, much less an actual weapons program, that the government genuinely wants to operate but is currently stymied from doing so because of Anthropic’s terms of service.

Here’s a third thing I don’t believe this is really about: the principle that Anthropic cannot interpose itself in military operational decisions. If it had been about that, a quiet disengagement between the military and Anthropic would have been all that was necessary. Nobody—not the judge and not Anthropic either—doubts the military’s authority to cease doing business with a company that won’t provide its services on terms acceptable to the military. (That, by the way, is true of every customer.) If Hegseth’s true bottom line here was that he needs frontier AI models that will be available for all lawful uses and can’t have pesky woke tech guys imposing their values on military decisionmaking, all he had to do was take his business elsewhere. He didn’t have to set up a loser of a case in court that’s going to make the woke tech dudes into civil liberties martyrs.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is nothing more than a dominance play.

Harvard didn’t submit. It had to be crushed.

Perkins Coie didn’t submit. It had to be crushed.

James Comey and Letitia James didn’t submit. They had to be crushed.

Six Democratic members of Congress didn’t submit. They had to be crushed.

A guy threw a sandwich, rather than submitting. He had to be crushed.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia didn’t submit. He had to be crushed.

Jerome Powell didn’t submit. He had to be crushed.

Anthropic didn’t submit. It has to be crushed.

The case isn’t really about anything more than that. The underlying issue is simply the lack of submission. And the point is not to win. The point is to emphasize to the next recalcitrant entity, person, company, or institution that it will have to defend itself if it asserts its rights—because the government will relentlessly come at those who don’t submit. It will come at the little guy. It will come just as relentlessly at the multibillion dollar corporation or the university with the endowment the size of the GDP of a small country. If you’re the little guy, they will keep coming until some court lets them send you to Liberia. And if you’re a frontier AI company with the temerity not to submit, they will use the opportunity of destroying you to create opportunities for businesses associated with friendlier billionaires who know to stay on side.

The key is to keep pushing—to raise the cost to everyone of defiance.

That is one way of reducing defiance and enduring that The Situation continues tomorrow.

---

Recently On Lawfare

Compiled by the estimable Marissa Wang

Fulton County’s Battle for Ballots: A Primer

Anna Bower unpacks the government’s arguments for the warrant to search and seize hundreds of boxes containing 2020 presidential election ballots from the Fulton County election office in Georgia. Bower argues that the seizure omitted exculpatory evidence and rests on weak legal theories and fraud claims, raising broader concerns of institutional integrity in the U.S. justice system.

The affidavit supporting the Fulton County search warrant does not hold up under scrutiny. Its theory of probable cause relies on allegations that are legally uncertain, factually unsupported, or directly contradicted by prior investigations—investigations whose exculpatory findings it consistently omits. These and other deficiencies will be tested at the evidentiary hearing on Friday, as Judge Boulee considers whether they are sufficient to satisfy Rule 41(g)’s demanding “callous disregard” standard. That determination may hinge in part on whether the judge requires Evans to testify, potentially shedding light on what he knew—or should have known—when he swore out the affidavit supporting the warrant.

But what unfolds in Judge Boulee’s courtroom on Friday cannot address the deeper institutional questions this episode raises. A ruling returning the ballots would still leave unanswered how a warrant so fundamentally flawed—built on stretched legal theories and cherry-picked facts—cleared internal Justice Department review and received a magistrate’s approval to authorize the extraordinary seizure of ballots from more than half a million voters in a state whose election the president had sought to overturn.

Potential Partners on the Ground in Iran

In the latest edition of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Ido Levy assesses whether a U.S.-Israeli alliance with Iranian Kurds serving as partners inside Iran would effectively undermine the Islamic regime. Levy writes that the Iranian Kurdish armed groups’ limited capabilities, regional constraints, and the need for sustained military commitment makes this a risky, long-term proposition rather than a quick solution.

Even if they do begin operating in Iran, Iranian Kurdish groups are not likely to conduct significant operations outside the Kurdistan region. An armed uprising to overthrow the regime in other areas could certainly benefit from a Kurdish rebellion, pulling regime attention to multiple fronts, but the Kurdish groups will most likely not do it by themselves. They might cooperate with other opposition groups in this endeavor, sharing intelligence and know-how with those seeking to rebel. But it is not certain this would happen, and there are opposition groups concerned that a Kurdish offensive could encourage secessionism and lead to civil war or a breakup of Iran.

Ban Pay-to-Play National Security Approvals

Ashley Deeks and Kristen Eichensehr argue that Congress should pass legislation to prevent the government from demanding additional payments from private companies to secure national security deals or contracts. Deeks and Eichensehr explain that these arrangements distort decision-making, create corruption risks, and undermine national security and economic fairness principles.

But the current administration’s move to demand payments for national security-related approvals is unique to it. These payment demands are among the most pernicious and most dangerous features of the NCE. Although we think that trying to foster national security by relying on corporate actors raises certain risks to public law values generally, the payment demands do something different. They turn national security into what Senator Warner called a “tradable item.”

White House Takes Aim at Biased AI in Government, Leaves Key Gaps

Merve Hickok unpacks the goals and shortcomings of the Office of Management and Budget’s newly released memo on public trust in artificial intelligence (AI), which Hickock explains leaves gaps in enforcement that risk entrenching biased and unreliable AI systems across federal agencies.

More and more agencies will use LLMs for their mission operations. Each deployment will impact the organizational efficiency, quality, and reliability of public services. The Public Trust AI Memo is a good starting point for demanding these systems are trustworthy and free of bias. However, the Public Trust AI Memo fails to put in controls to ensure the outcomes actually reflect the aspiration. It enables flexibility in the information vendors should provide, and allows them to self-evaluate their performance. These shortcomings will impact how effectively the new requirements protect Americans’ rights. More worryingly, the Trump administration provides a free pass to existing LLM contracts and is hesitant to hold current vendors accountable.

The Transatlantic Relationship You Knew Is Gone

John Drennan and Ariane Tabatabai examine how decades of U.S. policy reversals across administrations have damaged NATO allies’ perceptions of U.S. reliability and global order. The duo caution that it may be impossible to reset U.S. foreign policy even with a new administration, and that a weakening alliance could harm U.S. and European security.

In recent years, U.S. policymakers have often treated credibility with allies as renewable: A new administration recommits to alliances after coming to power, and trust is therefore restored. But expectations no longer reset after an election. Instead, a pattern of repeated U.S. policy reversals across administrations in recent decades (accelerated since the first Trump administration) has altered how allies interpret U.S. politics. Now, allies are coming to view U.S. political volatility as a structural condition, not a one-off aberration. Instead of waiting for stability, U.S. allies now must plan for its absence.

Does Product Liability Offer a Route Around Section 230?

Jonathan G. Cedarbaum explains how plaintiffs in cases attempting to hold social media platforms accountable are using product liability law as a novel strategy to circumvent defenses based in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Cedarbaum discusses how the long-term success of this argument depends on how the courts ultimately reconcile Section 230, product liability doctrine, and First Amendment protections.

The KGM verdict has made headlines, and rightly so. But it is only one of dozens of cases in which plaintiffs in recent years have made use of a novel legal theory—product liability—and newly developed evidence—about the addictive nature of social media use and the harms that may flow from it—in an attempt to impose costs on social media companies for their dangerous offerings. For these plaintiffs to succeed, courts will have to rethink not just the scope of Section 230 but also basic elements of product liability law and the proper way to apply the First Amendment to many online activities. The conflicting answers courts have given so far suggest that it will be several years before we know whether this strategy for holding social media companies to account will prove effective.

Sam Bankman-Fried and the Lies We Tell Ourselves

Peter Beck reviews David Morris’s new book, “Stealing the Future,” which links Sam Bankman-Fried’s infamous crypto fraud case to the moral logic of effective altruism. Beck problematizes the author’s focus on a single ideology, suggesting instead that Bankman-Fried’s downfall reflects a broader tendency—common in Silicon Valley and beyond—to justify wrongdoing through self-serving narratives.

In the end, the greatest moral of Morris’s tale may lie not so much in the ills of effective altruism as in the powerful appeal of believing our own lies. Bankman-Fried is likely as much a Republican, deregulation stalwart today as he was an effective altruist icon and the movement’s super hero donor before. He may have believed that his fraud at FTX was morally justified by effective altruism’s tenets, but effective altruism may also have been, as with so many justifications for criminal acts, a convenient facade. Tying Bankman-Fried’s crimes solely to the movement ignores the agency of a man who appears willing to contort his beliefs for a pardon today. Unfortunately, that susceptibility to one’s own often self-serving moral narratives is not unique to effective altruists, Silicon Valley, or Bankman-Fried.

Kodak to Deepfakes: Publicity Rights and Abuse of Our Likenesses

Michael Goodyear argues that existing and proposed anti-deepfake laws fall short and that the longstanding right of publicity may offer a better solution. Goodyear explains that treating such legislation as an intellectual property right could bypass defenses based in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, enable platform liability, and address both economic and dignitary harms arising from the misuse of people’s likeness.

While the world of AI-generated deepfakes and the internet would have been unimaginable to Warren and Brandeis, their concerns about the combined dangers of reproductive and sharing technologies were prescient. The parallels between the Kodak camera and deepfakes offer a valuable historical model for responding to the current moment. By navigating platform liability and dignitary harms, the right of publicity may offer the best hope for meaningfully curtailing deepfakes.

FBI Says Why Get a Warrant When You Have Kash

In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren unpacks the FBI’s confirmation that it has started purchasing Americans’ location data for national security purposes, the Federal Communications Commission’s push for domestic production of consumer router models, the Trump administration’s developing cyber strategy approach, and more.

In a Senate hearing last week, FBI director Kash Patel said the bureau is buying data that can be used to track Americans. The risk that the federal government could abuse purchased data was previously theoretical but now feels more immediate. Lawmakers should act to protect Americans’ civil liberties.

Podcasts

On Wednesday’s Lawfare Daily, Tom Kemp joins Justin Sherman to discuss California’s new Delete Request and Opt-out Platform system, which is part of the state’s ongoing efforts to ensure residents can effectuate their privacy rights. The duo’s conversation also covers interstate collaboration on data privacy issues, the data broker industry, and the risk of foreign adversaries accessing Americans’ personal data.

On Thursday’s Lawfare Daily, Linda Singh and Chris Mirasola join Loren Voss to discuss the legal constraints of the Posse Comitatus Act when applied to domestic military deployments, the implications of expanding such deployments for civil-military relations, and key issues to watch out for in the future of military deployments.

On Rational Security, Scott R. Anderson sits down with Tyler McBrien, Molly Roberts, and Renée DiResta to unpack the verdict against Meta for its algorithms causing harm to children’s mental health and facilitating child sexual exploitation, the SAVE America Act, and the rise of open source intelligence and growth of online prediction markets.

On Friday’s Lawfare Daily, William “Chip” Usher and Aaron Faust join Scott R. Anderson to unpack the national security threats presented in Iran from the perspective of two long-time members of the intelligence community. Their discussion covered the potential challenges of large-scale military operations against Iran, where the Trump administration may take the conflict from here, and what Iran may do to respond.

On Scaling Laws, Kevin Frazier sits down with Kendall Cotton to discuss Montana’s groundbreaking Right to Compute Act, a piece of legislation that is part of a larger goal for the state to protect access to artificial intelligence (AI) and related technologies.

Videos

At 4 pm ET on March 27, I sat down with Anna Bower, Molly Roberts, and Roger Parloff to discuss the March 27 hearing where the government must defend its search warrant used to seize 2020 presidential election ballots from Fulton County, Minnesota’s lawsuit against the Trump administration for access to evidence related to three shootings by federal agents in January, and more.

Announcements

Lawfare is now accepting applications for our Summer 2026 internship! This is a critical role that supports Lawfare’s editorial team. Undergraduate students in their sophomore, junior, or senior year are encouraged to apply. Learn how to apply here.

---

Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is the possum, seen here amidst other Australian native fauna:

The AP reports:

A browsing passenger first spotted a living Australian brushtail possum peering out from among the kangaroos on the display shelf at the departure terminal shop at Hobart Airport in Tasmania state on Wednesday, an airport retail manager Liam Bloomfield said on Thursday…

A staff member took a video of the possum with her phone before the animal grew wary of the growing attention and left the shop…

How the possum got into the store and how long it spent there are also unknown.

It was unlikely to have been placed there as a prank. Someone would have had to put the possum through X-ray screening to get it into the secure departure terminal area.

In honor of today’s Beast, make yourself comfortable.

The Rule O’ Law Roundup: March 29, 2026

It was a relatively light week in the department of major court actions and filings. That said, there are a few notable ones, no week being without action during The Situation.

• Newhouse v. USAGM, 1:26-cv-00980 (DDC, filed March 23) — Four journalists for Voice of America and three press freedom organizations are suing USAGM, the agency that operates the network, and its leadership alleging that they are:

us[ing] governmental authority to control VOA’s substantive output—the content of its broadcasts and publications—by suppressing coverage of events that it wishes had not occurred, and, separately, by directing that its own partisan messages be passed off to viewers and listeners as “news.” Censorship and propaganda are two sides of the same coin. All of this violates the federal statutes that govern VOA, and the Constitution itself; and all of this undermines the credibility of the United States in the eyes of the world.

The complaint is distinct from the Widakuswara litigation, which challenged the shutdown of VOA and the dismissal of large numbers of its personnel. By contrast, this case challenges what the administration is doing with the reconstituted operation.