Scott R. Anderson

As predicted, here is Judge Lamberth’s order suspending the RIF at USAGM and VOA. He pulls no punches; worth a read:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

We don't know the exact scope of what Judge Lamberth will issue. But he did ask plaintiffs for a proposed order, and was asking questions about whether the applicable standard changes if he enjoins the RIF directly versus enforcing his prior injunction. So, odds of RIF being enjoined seem good.

Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake, 25-5144 - CourtListener.com Docket for Patsy Widakuswara v. Kari Lake, 25-5144 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

The stayed prong 1 of the injunction re: RIFs is also on appeal to the D.C. Circuit, which hear oral argument in the matter last week.

But prong 3 presents separate issues not yet before the appellate court (though it no doubt will be soon).

www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940...

This overlooked case is the absolute tip of the spear in terms of how district courts are going to have to manage the Trump administration's legally questionable dismantling of agencies.

We've been following in our weekly Lawfare Live discussions here:

www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawf...

While it stayed another part of the injunction that previously enjoined RIFs, the en banc D.C. Circuit previously suggested prong 3 (which was never challenged by the gov't) could be a basis for enjoining RIFs.

I wrote about it here:

www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

This would enforce prong 3 of the original injunction, which mandates VoA to resume its statutory minimum functions. The gov't maintains it's in compliance, but Lamberth has made clear he doesn't agree, allowing for, inter alia, the deposition of Kari Lake and other VoA officials.

WIDAKUSWARA v. LAKE, 1:25-cv-01015 - CourtListener.com Docket for WIDAKUSWARA v. LAKE, 1:25-cv-01015 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

In today's hearing in Widakuswara v. Lake re: the dismantling of Voice of America, Judge Lamberth just indicated he intends to issue an order later today enforcing his prior preliminary injunction, which—if as requested by plaintiffs—would pause RIFs there.

www.courtlistener.com/docket/69846...

This was a follow-up to this piece I wrote for @lawfaremedia.org last week, just after the strike:

www.lawfaremedia.org/article/did-...

Joined @gregsargent.bsky.social of @newrepublic.com on his "The Daily Blast" podcast to talk through the big legal questions raised by President Trump's recent lethal strike on Tren de Aragua. Listen here:

Did the president's Venezuelan "boat strike" violate the law?

By applying the tools of war to civilians, writes @sranderson.bsky.social, the Trump administration is entering unprecedented—and deeply problematic—legal territory.

Read the piece here: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/did-...

I joined the @lawfaremedia.org gang today to discuss the legal implications of the U.S. “drug boat” strike. Thanks to @benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org and @sranderson.bsky.social for having me on —

Lawfare Live: Trials of the Trump Administration, Aug. 29 YouTube video by Lawfare

In 1 hour, join @benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org, @sranderson.bsky.social, @annabower.bsky.social, James Pearce, Loren Voss, and @qjurecic.bsky.social will discuss the legality of the White House canceling $4.9B in foreign aid, this morning's hearing over Fed gov. Lisa Cook's firing, and more.

Lawfare's 15-Year Anniversary Celebration A milestone moment for Lawfare—and the impact you have made possible

RSVP today to join Lawfare on Sept. 19 to celebrate our 15 year anniversary—a decade and a half of rigorous analysis, trusted insight, and independent journalism at the intersection of national security, law, and policy!

givebutter.com/lawfare15

Lawfare Live: Trials of the Trump Administration, Aug. 15 YouTube video by Lawfare

In 1 hour, watch @benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org, @annabower.bsky.social, @rparloff.bsky.social , @sranderson.bsky.social, and @chrismirasola.bsky.social discuss today's hearing in D.C.'s suit challenging the Trump admin's take over of the police department, the hearing in Newsom v. Trump & more.

Washington Journal
#CSPAN #CSPANWJ
Skeet at @c-span.bsky.social and cspanwj.bsky.social

Brookings Institution's Scott Anderson
@sranderson.bsky.social on Constitutional authority Presidents have to deploy National Guard, role of Armed Forces in domestic situations.

LIVE: tinyurl.com/ye924826

They are absolutely unreal, and I feel like a fool for having ever doubted @smittenkitchen.bsky.social.

I'm sure it varies a bit place to place, but highlighting a demonstrated capacity for rigorous analytical thinking, work ethic, and/or a commitment to broader justice issues (however construed) is usually useful!

Come Work With Us—As Our New Associate Editor! The Lawfare Institute—publisher of information and insight at the intersection of national security, law and policy—seeks a motivated full-time associate editor based in Washington, DC.

Come work for Lawfare!

We are hiring a new associate editor.

Associate editors work with authors to edit articles, host podcasts, have opportunities to write articles, and more! The deadline to apply is Sep. 2, 2025. www.lawfaremedia.org/article/come...

Today's Lawfare Daily is 2 conversations @sranderson.bsky.social had at the Aspen Security Forum. First he spoke with @shashj.bsky.social discuss the new dynamics surrounding European security. Then he sat down with Iris Ferguson (@csis.org) to discuss the strategic significance of the Arctic.

It's the "Live from Aspen edition!

@sranderson.bsky.social sat down with @shaneharris.bsky.social, @markleongoldberg.bsky.social, and @alexward.bsky.social live from the Aspen Security Forum to discuss what foreign ministers were talking about, the hottest topic at the form, AI, and more.

I'm in @lawfaremedia.org on DOJ's new citizenship-stripping initiative. Will they try to denaturalize Mamdani, Musk, Rosie O'Donnell? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But there's a long history here, and (for now) real legal limits.

BONUS: I link to a relevant Mamdani rap track.

www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what...

My friends and former colleagues at the State Department are some of the most committed public servants I know. They've committed careers to our country and in many cases put their lives on the line for it.

They deserve so much better than this arbitrary and capricious nonsense.

1/I’ve obtained a farewell note a person in the human rights bureau sent out to his colleagues after being fired from the State Department today. A few tidbits from it:

Don't even get me started on artificial strength, dexterity, constitution, and charisma.

Regardless, I don't think this is a major green light as some are saying.

Instead, it just means agencies will be able to develop RIF and downsizing plans to implement the EO and OMB directive—and once they do, those plans can be challenged and enjoined.

Indeed, that's what I expect to happen.

But I'm not surprised to see the Court be cautious about enjoining executive branch conduct that doesn't yet raise legal concerns on its face.

And I generally think it's better that it tread lightly in restricting other co-equal branches' otherwise lawful conduct, even if I see the logic here.

Indeed, that's the gist of Jackson's dissent: that the PI was a reasonable prophylactic step given the administration's clear pattern of conduct and apparent intent at the relevant agencies, and the district court's judgment in that regard should be respected.

Personally, I sympathize with it.

This sort of narrow tailoring may seem ridiculous given how brazen the Trump administration has been about gutting agencies in legally dubious ways.

Plaintiffs just have to wait until the Trump administration actually makes clear its intent to do so, then challenge that.

In the Court's view, the EO and OMB directive here are too open-ended and express in directing that any implementation stay within legal limits to warrant such treatment.

Now I have no doubt the Trump administration is going to do far more, in ways that raise major legal questions.

But the Court takes pains to make clear that, when it does so, those specific agency plans can still be legally challenged and then made subject to future PIs.