Good Morning:
Yesterday kind of got away from me, between a friend’s court appearance that took up my morning and some appointments and a Lawfare Live in the afternoon. So this is really yesterday’s dog shirt.
Thursday on #DogShirtTV, I got to discuss a hilarious piece of journalistic history involving Ted Kennedy’s BANANA in the course of explaining what’s going on right now with the Wall Street Journal and Trump. Then the estimable Carol Tsang came back on to talk about Japanese history and the origins of totalitarianism:
The Situation
In Wednesday’s “The Situation” column, I argued against the release of the Epstein files, explaining that doing so is legally dubious and would do little to quell conspiracy theories.
No amount of disclosure will tamp down the conspiracy theories. For all of the reasons mentioned above, any document dump would be rife with redactions. Documents would be withheld. Names would be blacked out. Indeed, even the proponents of greater transparency in Congress leave room for such things in the name of protecting victims.
But the conspiracy theories will immediately reassemble themselves around any redactions or withheld materials. You cannot sate the conspiracy beast with disclosure. Its appetite is totally unquenchable.
Thursday On Lawfare
Compiled by the estimable Mary Ford
Reductions in Force Challenges in the Federal Courts
Nick Bednar analyzes how federal courts are addressing challenges to the Trump administration’s reductions in force (RIFs). Bednar finds that district courts have been receptive to RIF challenges, but the Supreme Court has largely cleared the way for President Trump’s RIFs to continue.
The week after deciding Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, the Supreme Court cast further doubt on the viability of RIF-related claims. In McMahon v. New York, the Court stayed Judge Joun’s injunction blocking RIFs at the Department of Education. The majority provided no reasoning. Justice Sotomayor, however, implicitly suggested that the majority’s rationale rested on a finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Again, justiciability has been the primary point of contention within the district courts. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has not yet issued a definitive ruling on whether state and organizational plaintiffs have standing to challenge RIFs in district court.
How Appropriations Are Transforming the Defense Department’s Domestic Operations
Chris Mirasola explains how congressional appropriations and Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” grant the Department of Defense the ability to exercise greater discretion over migrant detention and immigration enforcement.
It’s little surprise, then, that the Trump administration’s most significant tool to cement the Defense Department’s role in deportations and border security is also appropriations law. The “big, beautiful bill” will transform the Defense Department in two ways: first, by providing an unprecedented source of multiyear funding for activities related to immigration enforcement, and second, by funding Defense Department priorities unrelated to immigration and deportation, thereby opening room for the Pentagon to redirect existing funds toward immigration and deportation support.
Privacy, Consent, and National Security After the 23andMe Bankruptcy
J.B. Branch discusses the sale of 23andMe’s DNA database to TTAM Research Institute, arguing that it degrades public trust and sets the harmful legal precedent of treating personal biological information as a corporate asset.
This moment presents a crucial inflection point in data governance, one that demands a clear legal response. Existing privacy, bankruptcy, and bioethics frameworks are ill-equipped to handle the transfer of sensitive genetic data through bankruptcy courts, leaving individuals vulnerable to privacy invasions, discriminatory misuse, and national security risks. Policymakers should prohibit the commodification and sale of DNA data during bankruptcy proceedings, recognizing that genetic information is unique, immutable, and deeply personal. Otherwise, the 23andMe sale may set a dangerous precedent—treating DNA like any ordinary corporate asset and eroding public trust in genetic research and data stewardship.
Podcasts
On Lawfare Daily, Anna Hickey sits down with Nicholas Kristof to discuss the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Kristoff’s reporting trips in western and central Africa, and the national security implications of cuts to U.S. foreign assistance.
On Scaling Laws, Eugene Volokh joins Kevin Frazier to examine libel in the age of artificial intelligence (AI) and the implications for platforms under Section 230.
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is a toad defending an orange:
Tell Me Something Interesting
Much though I (
) like to present AI as nothing but an absurdity generator, sometimes people use it to do cool things. For instance, a joint German-Iraqi project just used it to reconstruct a previously unknown but apparently quite important piece of Babylonian literature.Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Dog Shirt Daily to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.