Compiled by Sarah Willrich.
Articles
U.S. v. Ullah and the Problem With the ‘Lone Wolf’
Peter Beck, Troy Edwards, Alexandra Hughes, and Barry Jonas analyzed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Ullah, which held that Akayed Ullah, who attempted a suicide bombing inspired by ISIS in 2017, could not be charged with providing material support to a terrorist organization. The authors posited that the decision substantially undermines a critical instrument the Justice Department needs to prosecute lone wolf actors, which is particularly concerning as terrorist groups increasingly turn to digital channels to inspire recruits.
The decision has significant implications for future material support investigations and prosecutions. Many terrorists do not directly communicate with FTOs. Far from being “lone wolves,” though, they facilitate or, worse, directly carry out violent acts following instructions FTOs provide, spreading FTO symbols and messages, and doing it all in the FTOs’ names. After Ullah, absent another federal offense, investigators and prosecutors may have their hands tied until these kinds of subjects either attempt to, or succeed in, making direct contact with a terrorist group, commit another violation, or commit the attack itself. This may result in longer, riskier investigations and will require law enforcement to have sufficient investigative tripwires in place to know when subjects’ conduct establishes an arrestable offense. This article discusses the Ullah prosecution, the material support statute designed to stop terrorists earlier, and the potential ramifications of this decision for future counterterrorism cases.
GAO Goes After State (Again) for Treaty Practice
Duncan B. Hollis unpacked the Government Accountability Office’s recent report finding that the State Department significantly delayed reporting U.S. international agreements to Congress and the public. Hollis explained the State Department’s failure to meet its Case Act reporting requirements is due to systemic issues, such as an out-of-date website and high administrative burdens, but emphasized that despite these problems, such reporting is critical to maintaining transparency in U.S. foreign policy.
I’m not sure the State Department has earned the benefit of the doubt given the decades of difficulties it has had in meeting the Case-Zablocki Act’s requirements. If the need to get agencies to confirm their own compliance is novel, history suggests such novelty is warranted. Short of funding delays, there are insufficient incentives to report treaties. The reality is that careers get made in negotiating and concluding agreements, but reporting them to Congress is a thankless, entirely administrative task.
Podcasts
Lawfare Daily: Taking Stock of the Ukraine-Russia Talks: Mykhailo Soldatenko sat down with Eric Ciaramella and Samuel Charap to take stock of the U.S.-led negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. They discussed the improvements in Ukraine’s position, the structure of the negotiations, territorial questions, security commitments to Ukraine, and more.
Scaling Laws: New Paths to Social Mobility with Joe Seddon: Joe Seddon joined Kevin Frazier to discuss artificial intelligence (AI), social mobility, higher education, and the future of opportunity. They explored whether AI can scale the kinds of guidance and tutoring that have historically been available only to students with strong networks, the role of universities in preparing students for an AI-transformed labor market, and whether AI will disrupt entry-level white-collar work.
Announcements
Lawfare is hiring a new Associate Editor, two new Data Journalism Fellows, and a Fall 2026 intern. Learn how to apply here, here, and here.
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.