Today on Lawfare: July 14, 2025
From The Lawfare Editorial Team
Compiled by Mary Ford
Articles
Jason Healey and Tarang Jain used data from ongoing public policy research at Columbia University to define what it means to “win” in cyberspace and analyzed existing metrics of successful cyber defense and vulnerabilities within the software ecosystem.
This article, based on the work of an ongoing project at Columbia University involving stakeholders in academia, government, and industry, offers a framework that categorizes—from the vast sea of metrics—the few that shed light on whether defenders are winning by shifting advantages away from attackers. To do so, we first examine what it means to “win” in cyberspace and then conduct a deeper dive into indicators across threat, vulnerability, and consequence (see Table 1).
What to Make of the Justice Department’s Denaturalization Initiative
Eric Columbus responded to concerns over a key enforcement priority identified in a July 11 memorandum—issued by head of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice Brett Shumate—which prioritized denaturalization. Columbus argued that while the actual application of the policy remains unclear, it will scare already naturalized U.S. citizens and discourage others from naturalizing to begin with.
A throughline of the Trump administration’s immigration policy is to deprive immigrants of the assurance of having some spot they can call their own. The extent to which the administration is able to extend that deprivation to citizens is yet to be seen. But it will be sure to terrify some naturalized citizens without cause and may dissuade others from naturalizing or coming to the United States in the first place. This is not a bug—it is a feature.
The Situation: The Case of Erez Reuveni
Benjamin Wittes examined the case of Erez Reuveni, the whistleblower who levied allegations against appellate judge nominee Emil Bove, and asked if checks and balances matter if those with the power to use them fail to hold officials accused of misconduct accountable to the law.
And this brings me to another common theme of all of these cases: the sadly open question of whether anyone who matters cares. Of course, the district judges care. But the appellate courts so far seem more concerned about whether district courts are exceeding their jurisdictional reach in policing executive branch compliance with court orders and contemptumaceous lies than in the underlying executive conduct itself. Right now, in fact, it is unclear whether any contempt proceedings in any of the three cases will take place.
Podcasts
Lawfare Daily: The Trials of the Trump Administration, July 11: Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Anna Bower, Roger Parloff, and Scott Anderson to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. AFGE, the latest updates in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, and more.
Announcements
The Trials of the Trump Administration, our coverage of Trump’s executive actions and their legal challenges, now includes a page devoted to tracking the status of Alien Enemies Act cases in federal courts. Find the page here.
Lawfare’s work is only possible through the support of our readers. Support Lawfare through our ongoing Givebutter campaign!
Support Lawfare
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Become a material supporter on Patreon. Sign up to receive Lawfare in your inbox. Check out relevant job openings on our Job Board.