Today on Lawfare: June 23, 2025
From The Lawfare Editorial Team
Compiled by Mary Ford
Articles
The Chaos and Cruelty of DVD v. DHS
Quinta Jurecic analyzed the Trump administration’s questionable compliance with court orders, applying this to DVD v. DHS, a case that concerns the Trump administration’s removal of non-citizens to third countries rather than the country of their origin. Jurecic argued that litigation over DVD v. DHS is consistent with the administration’s pattern of legalistic noncompliance in immigration cases.
DVD concerns one aspect of the Trump administration’s effort to effectuate Trump’s promised “mass deportations”—in this case, by removing noncitizens to third countries rather than to their country of origin, sometimes with little or no warning...As the complaint in DVD sets out, in late February 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) adopted a policy that directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to examine the cases of noncitizens who had previously been released from immigration detention because, for a variety of reasons, they couldn’t be deported. Then, DHS would identify a new country not previously designated by an immigration judge—described as a “third country”—to remove them to.
Lindsay Freeman analyzed how the Wagner Group’s Telegram channel of self-documented violence in West Africa has become a strategic weapon of the group. Freeman asked why the group has been treated with relative impunity in spite of the mounting evidence of its crimes, and suggested that law enforcement must act to hold the Wagner Group accountable and prevent its cadre of “war influencers” from broadcasting a persistent stream of videos depicting graphic violence.
Much of this Telegram content depicts criminal conduct or provides evidence of crimes, including both domestic and international crimes. The excessive documentation of the atrocities committed by the Wagner Group on a public platform should, in theory, help efforts to hold the perpetrators accountable. Yet there has been a shocking lack of accountability, or even acknowledgment, of the horrors that online researchers are witnessing on a daily basis.
Defining ‘Rebellion’ in 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and the Insurrection Act
Dan Maurer argued that Congress has a responsibility to clearly define the terms and conditions that trigger a president’s use of emergency powers on American soil, including “rebellion,” in the context of President Trump’s federalization of the National Guard over protests in L.A. Maurer analyzed 10 U.S.C. § 12406, a little-known federal law that has been at the center of the legal controversy surrounding Trump’s actions, and explained how it relates to the Insurrection Act.
Therein lies the problem: Whether the president makes, according to the appellate court, a “colorable assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment” depends on whether those facts meet the statutory predicate conditions, like the existence of a “rebellion.” Congress, however, has not defined those predicate terms—making it difficult to imagine a scenario in which a court, giving strong deference to the president, concludes that his assessment of the facts is not at least “colorable.”
Planning for Protracted Violence with China: Five Questions to Ask
In the latest installment of Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Essay series, Sheena Chestnut Greitens argued that the initial setting and circumstances of a potential conflict between China and the United States will shape how such a protracted conflict could unfold. Chestnut Grietens offered five specific questions to consider that could set the terms of a sustained conflict between the rival nations.
Failure to gain a full understanding of the range and type of potential protracted conflicts the United States could face runs the risk that Washington will first fail to prevent a protracted conflict from emerging, and then find itself in a war it is ill-prepared to fight—let alone win. Different parts of the U.S. military and government, as well as American allies and partners, may end up planning based on different assumptions about the future character of conflict, or the entire U.S. defense establishment may find itself fighting a conflict that is not the narrow scenario for which it has planned, trained, and equipped. Either process could produce lethal gaps in capabilities, authorities, and plans once the United States is engaged in actual conflict.
Podcasts
Lawfare Daily: Trials of the Trump Administration, June 20: Natalie Orpett sat down with James Pearce, Anna Bower, Scott Anderson, and Roger Parloff to discuss legal action in response to President Trump’s decision to federalize the California National Guard and deploy them in L.A, the order to release pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, the Supreme Court’s decision to deny an application to consider the legality of President Trump’s tariffs, and more.
Video and Webinars
On June 23 At 11:30 am ET, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes talked to Lawfare Senior Editor Anderson, Lawfare Foreign Policy Editor Dan Byman, and Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution Suzanne Maloney about the American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Material supporters received a link to join the webinar to watch it without ads. It was livestreamed on YouTube for all other viewers. Find the livestream here. If you couldn’t attend the live event, the recording is available on Lawfare’s YouTube channel.
Announcements
The Trials of the Trump Administration, our coverage of President Donald 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.