Originally published Jan. 21, 2025, and frequently updated.

A. Resources

Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions 

B. “What Just Happened” Series

Mark Nevitt, Trump, the National Guard, and the District of Columbia: What You Need to Know (Aug. 18, 2025)

Kathleen Claussen, What Just Happened: The Tariff Litigation Advances (Jun. 4, 2025)

Chiraag Bains, What Just Happened: The Trump Administration’s Dismissal of Voting Rights Lawsuits (May 27, 2025)

Dani Schulkin, Tess Bridgeman and Andrew Miller, What Just Happened: The Trump Administration’s Reorganization of the State Department – and How We Got Here (Apr. 22, 2025)

Stefanie Feldman, What Just Happened: The Trump Administration Repealed Zero Tolerance Policy for Rogue Gun Dealers (Apr. 15, 2025)

Kathleen Claussen, What Just Happened: The Trump Administration’s Latest Moves on Tariffs (Apr. 3, 2025)

Ahilan Arulanantham and Adam Cox, Explainer on First Amendment and Other Legal Issues in Deportation of Pro-Palestinian Student Activist(s) (Mar. 12, 2025)

Brett Holmgren, What Just Happened: Security and Foreign Policy Implications of Pausing Intelligence Sharing with Ukraine (Mar. 6, 2025)

Nicholas Bednar, What Just Happened: Musk-OPM Send Email to Federal Employees Asking for Five Accomplishments (Feb. 22, 2025)

Roderick M. Hills, What Just Happened: Purges at the DOJ and FBI – How Do and Don’t the Civil Service Laws Apply (Feb. 14, 2025)

Alex Finley, What Just Happened: Security Implications of Trump’s Efforts to Trim the CIA Workforce (Feb. 7, 2025)

Jonathan Hafetz and Rebecca Ingber, What Just Happened: At Guantanamo’s Migrant Operation Center (Feb. 6, 2025)

Kathleen Claussen, What Just Happened: New Tariffs on Products from Mexico, Canada, and China (Feb. 5, 2025)

Tess Bridgeman, What May Be About to Happen: Can the President Dissolve USAID by Executive Order? (Feb. 1, 2025)

Brad Brooks-Rubin, What Just Happened: Trump’s Termination of West Bank Settler Sanctions (Jan. 30, 2025)

William Banks, What Just Happened: The Framing of a Migration “Invasion” and the Use of Military Authorities (Jan. 29, 2025)

Ilya Somin, What Just Happened: The “Invasion” Executive Order and Its Dangerous Implications (Jan. 28, 2025)

Tom Ellison, What Just Happened: Trump’s Executive Actions on Environment and Implications for US Climate Security (Jan. 24, 2025)

Ahilan Arulanantham, What Just Happened: Sanctuary Policies and the DOJ Memo’s Empty Threat of Criminal Liability (Jan. 23, 2025)

Andrew Weissmann, What Just Happened: What Trump’s Hobbling Privacy Oversight Board Portends for Exercise of Surveillance Powers (Jan. 22, 2025)

Justin Hendrix, What Just Happened: Trump’s Announcement of the Stargate AI Infrastructure Project (Jan. 22, 2025)

Tom Joscelyn, What Just Happened: Trump’s January 6 Pardons and Assaults on Law Enforcement Officers By The Numbers (Jan. 22, 2025) 

Mark Nevitt, What Just Happened: Unpacking Exec Order on National Emergency at the Southern Border (Jan. 21, 2025)

Tess Bridgeman and Rebecca Hamilton, What Just Happened: With ICC Sanctions (Jan. 21, 2025)

Sue Biniaz, What Just Happened: Withdrawing from Paris and other International Environmental Agreement Actions (Jan. 21, 2025)

C. Analysis and Perspectives

Elizabeth Goitein, Trump v. Illinois: A Narrow Supreme Court Decision with Broad Implications (Jan. 9, 2026)

Harold Hongju Koh, Bruce Swartz, Madeline Babin, Saavni Desai, Samantha Kiernan, Ananya Agustin Malhotra, Pete Nelson, Jake Reagan, Summia Tora and Julian Watrous, A SCOTUS Bench Memo for the Trump Tariff Case: Separation of Powers, Delegation, Emergencies, and Pretext (Nov. 3, 2025)

Kelsey Merrick, The Use of Tariffs to Raise Revenue is a Choice for Congress, not the President (Nov. 3, 2025)

Thomas E. Brzozowski, How Designating Antifa as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Could Threaten Civil Liberties (Oct. 27, 2025)

Cathy Buerger, Repression as Rescue: The Authoritarian Logic of Trump’s Early Executive Orders (Sept. 25, 2025)

Himamauli Das, Rethinking IEEPA Accountability and Oversight (Sept. 18, 2025)

Conner Bender, America’s Missile Shield Raises Legal and Cybersecurity Concerns (Aug. 27, 2025)

Devika Hovell, Raising the Cost of U.S. Coercion Against the ICC (Aug. 26, 2025)

Jordan Ascher, The APA Authorizes “Universal” Stays of Agency Action Under 5 U.S.C. § 705 (Aug. 22, 2025)

Andrew Miller and Kelly L. Razzouk, Save the PMF Program or Risk Losing a Generation of Public Servants (Aug. 1, 2025)

Michael Schiffer, Congress Shrinking from the World: the Constitution’s Article I in the Shadow of Trump 2.0 (July 23, 2025)

Ryan Goodman, Understanding DHS’s and ICE’s New Powers in Comparative Perspective (July 21, 2025)

Samuel Estreicher and Andrew Babbitt, Court of International Trade’s Flawed Ruling in Striking Down Trump’s Tariffs (July 14, 2025)

Lisa Larrimore Ouellette, The Trump Administration’s Multi-Front Assault on Federal Research Funding (July 9, 2025)

Bruce Swartz, Will to Resist: What Dartmouth Teaches Harvard About Protecting American Freedom (July 7, 2025)

John Lewis and Jordan Ascher, Pathways to “Universal” Relief after Trump v. CASA (July 3, 2025)

Harold Hongju Koh, Alan Charles Raul and Fred Halbhuber, After CASA: The Administrative Procedure Act Option for Challenging the Birthright Citizenship and Other Illegal Executive Actions (June 30, 2025)

Rebecca Hamilton, The Trump Administration’s Use of State Power: Keeping Track of the Big Picture (updated June 30, 2025)

Ilya Somin, Nondelegation and Major Questions Doctrines Can Constrain Power Grabs by Presidents of Both Parties (June 26, 2025)

Elizabeth Goitein, Federal Troops in Drug Raids Outside of Los Angeles: An Alarming Escalation (June 25, 2025)

Ryan Goodman and Steve Vladeck, The Posse Comitatus Act Meets the President’s “Protective Powers”: What’s Next in Newsom v. Trump  (June 20, 2025)

Adam Grogg and John Lewis, The Legal Defects in the Trump Administration’s Attempts to Deregulate Without Notice and Comment (Jun. 17, 2025)

Rachel Levinson-Waldman and Melanie Geller, How DHS’s New Social Media Vetting Policies Threaten Free Speech (Jun. 17, 2025)

Cathy Buerger, Unequal Before the Law: How Trump’s Death Penalty Order Codifies Dangerous Speech (Jun. 6, 2025)

Suzanne Summerlin, Too Big to Be Lawful: A Federal Court Halts Mass Layoffs Across the Civil Service (Jun. 3, 2025)

Kristin A. Collins, Gerald Neuman and Rachel E. Rosenbloom, Another Reason Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order is Unlawful (May 15, 2025)

Mark Nevitt, The New “National Defense Area” at the Southern Border: What You Need to Know (Apr. 29, 2025)

Harold Hongju Koh, Fred Halbhuber and Inbar Pe’er, No, the President Cannot Enforce the Law-Firm Deals (Apr. 28, 2025)

Paul M. Barrett, Justice Department Fails to Address Central Point in VOA Case (Apr. 24, 2025)

Ahilan Arulanantham, Deportation to CECOT: The Constitutional Prohibition on Punishment Without Charge or Trial (Apr. 23, 2025)

Aadhithi Padmanabhan, The Fox TV Problem with Deporting International Students (Apr. 21, 2025)

John Mikhail, Birthright Citizenship and DOJ’s Misuse of History in Its Appellate Briefs (Apr. 18, 2025)

Paul M. Barrett, Unpacking the Voice of America Litigation (Apr. 10, 2025)

Harold Hongju Koh, Fred Halbhuber and Inbar Pe’er, No, the President Cannot Issue Bills of Attainder (Apr. 9, 2025)

Francisco Bencosme and Michael Schiffer, America’s Absence in Myanmar’s Early Earthquake Response: A Moral and Strategic Failure (Apr. 4, 2025)

Marty Lederman, Remarkable Things in the Government’s Alien Enemies Act Briefs to the Supreme Court (Apr. 3, 2025)

Stephanie Psaki and Beth Cameron, Dropping U.S. Biodefenses: Why Cuts to Federal Health Agencies Make Americans Less Safe (Apr. 3, 2025)

Edgar Chen and Chris M. Kwok, The Trump Administration’s 14th Amendment Retcon: ‘Wong Kim Ark’ Does Not Limit Birthright Citizenship (Mar. 28, 2025)

Mary B. McCord, Dissecting the Trump Administration’s Strategy for Defying Court Orders (Mar. 25, 2025)

Rebecca Hamilton, The Imperative of Solidarity in Response to Assaults on Legal Services, Universities, and Independent Media (Mar. 24, 2025)

Andrew Weissmann, The New “Blacklists” Work When Law Firms Stay Silent (Mar. 24, 2025)

Katherine Yon Ebright, The Courts Can Stop Abuse of the Alien Enemies Act – The Political Question Doctrine is No Bar (Mar. 20, 2025)

Rebecca Ingber and Scott Roehm, The Trump Administration’s Recent Removals to El Salvador Violate the Prohibition on Transfer to Torture (Mar. 20, 2025)

Mark Pomar, Trump Move to Eliminate VOA, RFE/RL Ignores Lessons of Global Power (Mar. 20, 2025)

Jean Garner, Journalists Who Took Risks for US-Funded Broadcasters Threatened Anew by Trump Shutdown (Mar. 18, 2025)

Ambassador Daniel Fried, The US Government’s Self-Harm in Killing Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (Mar. 17, 2025)

Faiza Patel, U.S. AI-Driven “Catch and Revoke” Initiative Threatens First Amendment Rights (Mar. 18, 2025)

Steve Vladeck, 5 Big Questions in the Alien Enemies Act Litigation (Mar. 16, 2025)

Noor Hamadeh and David McKean, Suspension of FCPA Enforcement Is Bad for U.S. and Global Business (Mar. 13, 2025)

Brian O’Neill, The President’s Declassification Power is a Double-Edged Sword (Feb. 28, 2025)

Michael Schiffer and Anka Lee, Trump’s China Tariff Now Treats Hong Kong the Same as the Mainland, a First in US Policy (Feb. 27, 2025)

Bill Frelick, The Racial Twist in Trump’s Cutoff of Refugee Admissions (Feb. 27, 2025)

Daniel Jacobson, The Trump Administration Cannot Use Award Terms and Conditions to Impound Funds (Feb. 24, 2025)

Mark Nevitt, How the Pentagon Personnel Firings Threaten Our Apolitical Military (Feb. 24, 2025)

Brian Finucane, U.S. Military Action in Mexico: Almost Certainly Illegal, Definitely Counterproductive (Feb. 20, 2025)

Tobias Barrington Wolff, The Attempt to Purge Trans Members from the Armed Services (Feb. 19, 2025)

Elizabeth Goitein and Katherine Yon Ebright, Trump’s Doubly Flawed “Invasion” Theory (Feb. 19, 2025)

Seth Binder, Sheridan Cole, and Haydn Welch, The Disastrous Costs of the Foreign Foreign Aid Freeze on US Interests in the Middle East and North Africa (Feb. 14, 2025)

Laura Booth, Can the President Dismantle the Department of Education by Executive Order? (Feb. 14, 2025)

Scott Busby, Freezing Support to Democracy and Human Rights Activists Undermines US Interests (Feb. 13, 2025)

Laura Thornton, Supporting Freedom and a Foreign Aid Freeze are Incompatible – But Perhaps the Point? A Case Study (Feb. 13, 2025)

Donell Harvin, The Need for Course Correction: The Risks of Treating Drug Cartels as Terrorist Threats (Feb. 12, 2025)

Winona Xu, As Sexual Violence Surges in Goma, US Aid Remains Crucial (Feb. 12, 2025)

16 US Human Rights Experts, Current and Former Members of UN Bodies, “The Trump Administration’s Attacks on International Law and Institutions”: Public Statement of American Human Rights Experts, Current and Former Members of UN Bodies (Feb. 10, 2025)

Simon Lomax, Greg Clough, Morgan Bazilian, Restarting US LNG Permitting Brings Geopolitical Benefits and the Potential for Climate Progress (Feb. 10, 2025)

Rebecca Hamilton, Connecting the Dots: Trump’s Tightening Grip on Press Freedom (Feb. 6, 2025)

Rachel Levinson-Waldman, The Dangerous Sweep of Trump’s Plan to Designate Cartels as Terrorist Organizations (Feb. 5, 2025)

Marty Lederman, The Most Indefensible Aspects of DOJ’s Briefs in the Birthright Citizenship Cases (Feb. 4, 2025)

Suzanne Summerlin, Federal Employee Rights: What Probationary Employees Need to Know (Jan. 31, 2025)

Faiza Patel, Trump’s Executive Order on Foreign Terrorists: Implications for the Rights of Non-Citizens (Jan. 31, 2025)

Sara Zdeb, The Real Reason Trump’s Purge of Career DOJ Officials Should Alarm You (Jan. 30, 2025)

Suzanne Summerlin, Beware the “Deferred Resignation” Offer: A Legally Dubious Proposal for Federal Employees (Jan. 29, 2025)

Stuart Gerson, Understanding Trump’s Choice for FBI Leadership in Light of the “Weaponization of the Federal Government” Executive Order (Jan. 29, 2025)

Adam Cox and Trevor Morrison, Trump’s Dictatorial Theory of Presidential Power – What the Executive Orders, in the Aggregate, Tell Us (Jan. 28, 2025)

Ambassador Donald Steinberg, `Elections Have Consequences’: Trump and Rubio’s Foreign Aid Halt Will Hit the World’s Most Vulnerable (Jan. 28, 2025)

Dafna H. Rand, Stopped Security Assistance: From Counter-Narcotics to Combating Human Trafficking Programs (Jan. 28, 2025)

Andrew Weissman, Why has the Trump Justice Department Not Moved to Dismiss the Case Against Trump’s Co-Defendants in the FLA Classified Documents Case? (Jan. 28, 2025)

Michael Schiffer, Stop-Work Order on US Foreign Aid Puts China First and America Last (Jan. 27, 2025)

Ambassador (Ret.) Dennis Jett, Deprofessionalizing the State Department Is a Threat to National Security (Jan. 24, 2025)

Jean Galbraith, The Legal Problem with Trump’s WHO Order: The US Cannot Withdraw Until It Pays Its Dues (Jan. 23, 2025)

Alex Abdo, A Free Speech View on the “Free Speech” Executive Order (Jan. 21, 2025)

Xiangnong (George) Wang, President Trump’s Attempt to “Save” TikTok is a Power-Grab that Subverts Free Speech (Jan. 21, 2025)

“What Just Happened” Podcast Series

David Aaron, Brian Netter and Mark Nevitt, Federalization of DC Law Enforcement, Legal Authorities and Updates (Aug. 20, 2025)

David Aaron, Carrie Cordero and Donell Harvin, Federalization of Law Enforcement in Washington DC (Aug. 14, 2025)

David Aaron and Steven Cash, The Budget Bill and the Future of DHS and ICE (July 18, 2025)

Chiraag Bains, Dani Schulkin and Maya Nir, Dismissal of Voting Rights Lawsuits (June 2, 2025)

Ambassador Daniel Fried, Dafna H. Rand, Michael Schiffer, Michael Hanna, Rachel Goldbrenner and Maya Nir What’s Next for U.S. Diplomacy and Foreign Assistance (May 19, 2025)

Ryan Goodman, Tom Joscelyn, Mary B. McCord, Paras Shah and Clara Apt, Politicization and Weaponization of the Justice Department in the Second Trump Administration (Mar. 6, 2025)

David Aaron, Kevin Carroll, Paras Shah and Clara Apt, CIA Officers’ Lawsuit at Intersection of DEI and National Security (Mar. 4, 2025)

David Aaron, Tess Bridgeman and Suzanne Summerlin, Understanding Federal Employee Rights (Feb. 18, 2025)

David Aaron, Tess Bridgeman, Ryan Goodman and Mark Nevitt, Potential U.S. Military Domestic Deployment for Immigration Enforcement (Jan. 28, 2025)

Steve Vladeck, David Aaron, Tess Bridgeman and Ryan Goodman, Trump’s Immigration Executive Orders (Jan. 22, 2025)

IMAGE: President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump takes office for his second term as the 47th president of the United States. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The post Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of Trump Administration Executive Actions appeared first on Just Security.

The collection now also includes analysis of more recent boarding and seizure of vessels, including U.S. sanctioned oil tankers, and the U.S. military operation in Venezuela that removed President Maduro from power.

Informational Resources

• Jeremy Chin, Margaret Lin, and Aidan Arasasingham, Timeline of Boat Strikes and Related Actions (continually updated)

Operation Absolute Resolve and Threats of Force against Venezuela

• Jeffrey Rogg, U.S. Intelligence in a Post-Maduro Venezuela (Jan. 9, 2026)
• Brian Egan, Tess Bridgeman, and Ryan Goodman, Congress, the President, and the Use of Military Force in Venezuela (Jan. 7, 2026)
• Chimène Keitner, Head of State Immunity and Maduro on Trial (Jan. 6, 2026)
• Michael Schmitt, Ryan Goodman and Tess Bridgeman, International Law and the U.S. Military and Law Enforcement Operations in Venezuela (Jan. 4, 2026)
• Ryan Goodman, Maduro Capture Operation and the President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute U.N. Charter Assessment of 1989 OLC Opinion (Jan. 3, 2026)
• Michael Schmitt, U.S. Saber Rattling and Venezuela: Lawful Show of Force or Unlawful Threat of Force? (Nov. 4, 2025)

Seizure and Blockade of Vessels (Domestic and International Law)

• Rob McLaughlin and Connor McLaughlin, A Law of the Sea Assessment of the U.S. boarding of the Bella 1 / Marinera (Jan. 14, 2026)
• Rob McLaughlin and Tess Bridgeman, The Just Security Podcast: Can the U.S. Seize Russian Flagged Oil Tankers? (Jan. 8, 2026)
• Elizabeth Hutton, Maritime Law Enforcement on the High Seas: Authority, Jurisdiction, and the Seizure of The Skipper An Expert Backgrounder (Dec. 22, 2025)
• Michael Schmitt and Rob McLaughlin, Blockading Venezuela: The International Law Consequences (Dec. 18, 2025)
• Rob McLaughlin and Connor McLaughlin, Was the Visit and Seizure of the Skipper off the Coast of Venezuela Lawful? (Dec. 17, 2025)
• See also Question 31 in Tess Bridgeman, Michael Schmitt, and Ryan Goodman, Expert Q&A on the U.S. Boat Strikes (Dec. 13, 2025)

Operation Southern Spear and Related Operations Legal Analysis (Domestic and International Law)

• Michael Schmitt, Using an Unmarked Aircraft to Attack an Alleged Drug Boat: Is it Perfidy? (Jan. 20, 2026)
• Michael Schmitt, Marko Milanovic, The International Law Obligation to Investigate the Boat Strikes (Dec. 15, 2025)
• Tess Bridgeman, Michael Schmitt, and Ryan Goodman, Expert Q&A on the U.S. Boat Strikes (Dec. 13, 2025)
• Mark Nevitt, The Law on Targeting Shipwrecked Drug Traffickers: Expert Backgrounder (Dec. 11, 2025)
• Michael Schmitt, Ryan Goodman and Tess Bridgeman, Operation Southern Spear: Why the Crews, Drugs, and Boats are Not Targetable (Dec. 7, 2025)
• Michael Schmitt, Ryan Goodman and Tess Bridgeman, Unlawful Orders and Killing Shipwrecked Boat Strike Survivors: An Expert Backgrounder (Dec. 1, 2025)
• Daniel Maurer, Hypothetical Legal Review of Narcotrafficking Strikes (Nov. 18, 2025)
• Michael Schmitt, Marko Milanovic, and Ryan Goodman, The International Law Obligation of States to Stop Intelligence Support for U.S. Boat Strikes (Nov. 17, 2025)
• Brian Finucane, Dissecting the Trump Administration’s Effort to Circumvent the War Powers Resolution for Boat Strikes (Nov. 3, 2025)
• Rebecca Ingber and Jessica Thibodeau, Expert Backgrounder on War Powers Resolution 60-Day Clock for Boat Strikes Expiring Monday (October 31, 2025)
• Ryan Goodman, Michael Schmitt and Anna Jimenez, Irreconcilable Presidential Determinations: On Tren de Aragua and the Venezuelan Government (October 29, 2025)
• Michael Schmitt, Attacking Drug Cartels in the Territory of Another State (Oct. 17, 2025)
• Marty Lederman, Legal Flaws in the Trump Administration’s Notice to Congress on “Armed Conflict” with Drug Cartels (Oct. 3, 2025)
• Daniel Maurer, US Servicemembers’ Exposure to Criminal Liability for Lethal Strikes on Narcoterrorists (Sept. 24, 2025)
• Marty Lederman, The Many Ways in Which the September 2 Caribbean Strike was Unlawful … and the Grave Line the Military Has Crossed (Sept. 10, 2025)
• Michael Schmitt, Striking Drug Cartels Under the Jus ad Bellum and Law of Armed Conflict (Sept. 10, 2025)
• Mark Nevitt, Using Labels, Not Law, to Justify Lethal Force: Inside the Venezuelan Boat Strike (Sept. 5, 2025)
• Brian Finucane, Legal Issues Raised by a Lethal U.S. Military Attack in the Caribbean (Sept. 3, 2025)

Congressional Actions and Oversight

• Tess Bridgeman, Margaret Donovan and Ryan Goodman, U.S. Boat Strike Campaign: Questions Congress Should Ask Executive Branch Officials (Dec. 4, 2025)
• Stephen R. Weissman, Will the Intelligence Committees Meet the Challenge of CIA Covert Action in Venezuela? (Oct. 31, 2025)
• Mary B. McCord and Tess Bridgeman, What the Senate Judiciary Committee Should Ask A.G. Bondi on Drug Cartel Strikes (Oct. 3, 2025)

Policy Analysis and Opinion

• Mark Nevitt, Killing Shipwrecked Survivors is Not Just Illegal—It Endangers U.S. Servicemembers (Dec. 1, 2025)
• Eugene R. Fidell, Daniel Maurer and Steven J. Lepper, Professional Responsibility and the Boat Strikes (Dec. 1, 2025)
• Brett Max Kaufman, From Secret Law (2001-2024) to None at All (2025-present) (Nov. 21, 2025)
• Sarah Harrison and Mark Nevitt, The Caribbean Strikes and the Collapse of Legal Oversight in U.S. Military Operations (Oct. 23, 2025)
• Ben Saul, The United States’ Dirty War on “Narco Terrorism” (Sept. 22, 2025)
• Annie Shiel, John Ramming Chappell, Priyanka Motaparthy, Wells Dixon and Daphne Eviatar, Murder by Drone: The Legal and Moral Stakes of the Caribbean Strikes (Sept. 17, 2025)
• Brian Finucane, Asserting a License to Kill: Why the Caribbean Strike is a Dangerous Departure from the “War on Terror (Sept. 15, 2025)

Podcast Episodes

• Tess Bridgeman, Rob Mclaughlin, The Just Security Podcast: Can the U.S. Seize Russian Flagged Oil Tankers? (Jan. 8, 2026, also available on YouTube)
• Tess Bridgeman, Rachel Goldbrenner, Rebecca Ingber and Brian Finucane, The Just Security Podcast: Murder on the High Seas Part IV (Dec. 2, 2025)
• Tess Bridgeman, Brian Finucane, Rebecca Ingber, The Just Security Podcast: Murder on the High Seas Part III  (Oct. 21, 2025, also available on YouTube)
• Tess Bridgeman, Brian Finucane, Rachel Goldbrenner, Rebecca Ingber, The Just Security Podcast: Murder on the High Seas Part II — What We Know about U.S. Vessel Strikes One Month In (Oct. 7, 2025)
• Tess Bridgeman, Brian Finucane, Rebecca Ingber, The Just Security Podcast: Murder on the High Seas? What You Need to Know about the U.S. Strike on the Caribbean Vessel (Sept. 9, 2025, also available on YouTube)

The post Collection: U.S. Lethal Strikes on Suspected Drug Traffickers, Operation Southern Spear, Operation Absolute Resolve appeared first on Just Security.

Just Security, as a co-sponsor of the event, is pleased to feature a series in connection with the weekend. Prior to ILW, the series launched with articles by ABILA President Michael Scharf and ILW Co-Chairs William Aceves, Amity Boye, and Jessica Peake. Other analyses coming out of the weekend, including by both established and emerging international law scholars, will further explore this theme.

This series contains the following articles and will be updated regularly: 

• Michael P. Scharf, “Crisis as Catalyst in International Law” (Oct. 16, 2025)
• William J. Aceves, Amity Boye, and Jessica Peake, “Crisis as Catalyst: Past, Present, and Future of International Law” (Oct. 21, 2025)
• Chiara Giorgetti, Milena Sterio, Rebecca Hamilton, and Megan Corrarino, The Just Security Podcast: Reflections on International Law Weekend 2025 (Nov. 3, 2025) 
• Coalter Lathrop, “Crisis as Catalyst: Seabed Minerals and the (Un)Making of International Law” (Nov. 24, 2025)
• Naida Softic, “Crisis Without Consent: What Intergovernmental Organization Refusals Reveal about Mandate, Liability, and Legitimacy” (Forthcoming)  
• Emmanuel U. Osayande, “When Crises Become Courtrooms: How Africa’s Engagement with the ICJ is Rewriting the Playbook of International Law” (Forthcoming) 

The post A Series on the Occasion of ABILA’s International Law Weekend 2025 appeared first on Just Security.

The series will expand regularly and is paired with a continuously updated Anti‑Corruption Tracker that documents every concrete action in one place. Forthcoming pieces explore international accountability measures, FOIA, the role of inspectors general, and what states can do to protect against weakened federal anti-corruption measures, and more.

• “Global Corruption, Local Hypocrisy: The Promises and Pitfalls of the U.S. Combating Global Corruption Act” by Schuyler Miller and Adam Keith (December 9, 2025)
• “How to End the Shadow Budget and Protect Congress’s Power of the Purse” by Scott Levy (November 21, 2025)
• “Is the U.S. Becoming a Captured State? A Comparative Perspective” by Naomi Roht-Arriaza (November 18, 2025)
• “The $550 Billion Shadow Budget: Trump’s Japan Deal and the Disappearing Appropriations Clause” by Scott Levy (October 30, 2025)
• “Should Inspectors General be Moved to the Legislative Branch?” by Jason Powell (Oct. 22, 2025)
• “The Human Costs of Systemic Corruption” by Abigail Bellows (August 11, 2025)
• “The Freedom of Information Act and Deteriorating Federal Transparency Infrastructure” by Amanda Teuscher (August 4, 2025)
• “Hard to Kill: The Transnational Survival of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” by Bruce Swartz, Sonia Mittal, Inbar Pe’er, and Brady Worthington (July 24, 2025)
• “When the Guardrails Erode: An Anti-Corruption Series” by Dani Schulkin and Amy Markopolous (July 23, 2025)
• “The Anti-Corruption Tracker: Mapping the Erosion of Oversight and Accountability” by Dani Schulkin, Amy Markopolous, and Maya Nir (July 23, 2025)
• “American Businesses Still Face International Human Rights Obligations, Even as Oversight Diminishes at Home” by Nicole Vander Meulen (June 23, 2025)

The post “When the Guardrails Erode” Series appeared first on Just Security.

In this collection, experts analyze critical dimensions of Israel’s strikes and responses from Iran and other actors, covering topics including nuclear diplomacy; strategic, security, and regional implications; and the legality of various actions under international law. This collection will be updated as events continue to unfold; we invite you to check back regularly for the latest. 

• Richard Nephew, Tess Bridgeman, and Maya Nir, The Just Security Podcast: Is There a Diplomatic Path for Iran’s Nuclear Program? An Interview with Richard Nephew (July 7, 2025)
• Brian Finucane, Assessing the U.S. Article 51 Letter for the Attack on Iran: Legal Lipstick on the Use of Force Pig (July 3, 2025)
• Michael J. Glennon, The U.S. Attack on Iran Was Unconstitutional (July 1, 2025)
• Brian O’Neill, What Counts as a Win?: Battle Damage Assessments and Public Messaging (June 30, 2025)
• Brianna Rosen, Intelligence Implications of the Shifting Iran Strike Narrative (June 26, 2025)
• Matthew Levitt, Why War? Why Now? Assessing Iranian Intentions and Capabilities (June 26, 2025)
• Nema Milaninia, From War to Control: How the Recent Iran-Israel Conflict Risks Deepening the Islamic Republic’s Repression (June 26, 2025)
• Brian Finucane, The Trump Administration’s Flawed War Powers Report on Iran and the Need for a Congressional Rebuttal (June 24, 2025)
• Gregory B. Craig, President Trump’s Decision to Bomb Iran: From Bad to Worse (June 24, 2025)
• Brianna Rosen, Tess Bridgeman, and Nima Gerami, The Day After U.S. Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Program: A Policy and Legal Assessment (June 22, 2025)
• Adil Haque, Indefensible: Israel’s Unlawful Attack on Iran (June 19, 2025)
• Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman, Top Experts’ Backgrounder: Military Action Against Iran and US Domestic Law (updated on June 18, 2025)
• Dalia Dassa Kaye, Israel and Iran: A War with No Off-Ramp (June 17, 2025)
• Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany, A New War or a New Stage in Ongoing War – Observations on June 13 Israeli Attack against Iran (June 15, 2025)
• Nima Gerami, The Strategic Stakes after Israel’s Strikes on Iran (June 13, 2025) 
• Brian O’Neill, The Israeli Strike on Iran the U.S. Saw Coming, but Couldn’t Stop (June 13, 2025) 
• Kelsey Davenport, Israeli Strikes Risk Driving Iran Toward Nuclear Weapons (June 13, 2025) 

The post Collection: Iran-Israel/United States Conflict appeared first on Just Security.

The implications of quantum technologies are deeply political. The choices made today about how to fund research, structure international and public-private cooperation, and design guardrails will shape who benefits from quantum advances and who bears the burdens. As such, quantum policy demands a broad, inclusive dialogue that engages lawmakers, civil society, and global stakeholders, alongside leading quantum scientists and engineers. Only by acting early can we ensure that the quantum revolution advances human flourishing and democratic governance, rather than exacerbating inequality or fueling authoritarian control.

This series brings together a wide range of perspectives on the policy challenges emerging from the quantum revolution, offering insights into how advances in quantum computing, networking, and sensing could reshape our world. While the contributors approach these issues from different angles, they share a common conviction: that we must confront these questions now—before the technology becomes ubiquitous—so that scholars, policymakers, civil society, and other stakeholders are better equipped to shape a more equitable and secure quantum future.

• In “The Digital Divide Meets the Quantum Divide,” Alessia Zornetta and Michael Karanicolas evaluate the implications of the quantum revolution for global development, and in particular for Global South countries likely to be locked out of emerging research and development collaborations.
• In “Structuring Markets for Strategic Quantum Innovation,” Tracey Forrest and Nikolas Guggenberger weigh the emerging role of antitrust or competition rules towards supporting longer-term quantum investment and a competitive research landscape.
• In “Revitalizing Corporate Governance for the Quantum Age,” Michael Siebecker considers shifting standards of corporate governance as a result of new insights and strategic planning developed through quantum computing, which in turn will likely impact standards of oversight, diligence and liability.
• In “U.S.-Allied Militaries Must Prepare for the Quantum Threat to Cryptography,” Edward Parker discusses challenges that quantum computing poses to cryptography, and the need for allied governments to ensure that communications interoperability is secure against quantum attacks.
• In “Intellectual Property within the Quantum Innovation Value Chain,” Anh Nguyen considers how the IP value chain applies to quantum innovation, and discusses avenues to prevent chokepoints likely to stifle innovation.
• In “The Security Stakes in the Global Quantum Race,” Argyri Panezi surveys security risks and opportunities related to these technologies to emphasize the need for a broad and inclusive governance framework.
• In “Quantum Supply Chains: A Test Case for a New Economic World Order,” Ulrich Mans considers emerging geostrategic questions related to quantum supply chains, and how the relationships and collaborations of today will likely set dynamics for the next generation of innovation.

The articles have been developed for Just Security as part of a research collaboration between the Center for Quantum Networks, the Narang Lab, and Dalhousie University’s Law and Technology Institute (LATI), with support from the National Science Foundation’s Responsible Design, Development, and Deployment of Technologies program.

Together, we hope this series will advance policy discussions on quantum technologies, help prepare decisionmakers  for the quantum revolution, and cultivate legal and policy frameworks that harness quantum’s full potential while mitigating potential risks.

The post Governing the Quantum Revolution appeared first on Just Security.

In the months since the presidential transition, more than 8,000 webpages and thousands of datasets have been removed or altered across agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Census Bureau, and Food and Drug Administration. Removal of this data from government agency websites jeopardizes access to vital public information on health, safety, environmental, and demographic issues. At the same time, sweeping executive orders on interagency data-sharing and the consolidation of sensitive information under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have drawn criticism from privacy advocates, transparency experts, and civil society groups. These concerns are magnified by weakened oversight mechanisms following the dismissal of key members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. 

In response to these developments, Just Security is launching a new series, “Data Preservation Under the Trump Administration,” to explore the legal, ethical, and policy implications of current federal data practices. As political pressures intensify and the risk of data loss grows, this series aims to provide comprehensive analysis of how federal data is stored, shared, and accessed. 

The series contains the following articles and will be updated regularly: 

• Deborah Brown, “DOGE’s Growing Reach Into Personal Data: What it Means for Human Rights” (Apr. 16, 2025)
• Amy Edwards Homes, “Vanishing Accountability: The U.S. Retreat from Open Data”  (Apr. 17, 2025)
• Corinna Turbes, “Beyond Data Rescue: Building Structural Safeguards for Federal Data Preservation” (Apr. 28, 2025)
• Richard Painter, “Federal Records Belong to the Government” 

IMAGE: Blue U.S. Capitol building in front of a red background of data (via Getty Images)

The post Introduction to Series: Data Preservation Under the Trump Administration appeared first on Just Security.

This will be a pivotal year for technology regulation in the United States and around the world. With respect to social media companies in particular, the EU is already regulating platforms based on perceived harms they cause, most notably through its Digital Services Act, with other countries pursuing a range of regulatory approaches. In the United States, regulatory proposals at the federal level, such as renewed efforts to repeal or reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, have been stalled in Congress while federal regulators at the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission appear set to take aim at the content moderation practices of major platforms. Meanwhile, individual states such as Florida and Texas have tried to restrict content moderation and run into serious constitutional challenges. Other states, such as California and New York, have primarily aimed to force greater transparency on the part of social media companies; they, too, have encountered constitutional challenges.

Leading expert authors in this symposium evaluate current and prospective regulatory approaches to answer the following questions: is it lawful, feasible, and desirable for government actors to regulate social media platforms to reduce harmful effects on democracy and society? If so, how? What are the prospects for meaningful federal regulation, given the divisions in Congress and increasingly partisan leanings of regulators? And will the states be viable laboratories of experimentation? How will regulation in other parts of the globe impact content moderation practices for U.S.-based companies? What is the short-term future for government regulation of social media platforms, and how might the regulatory landscape evolve over the longer term? These and related questions will be considered in this ongoing symposium. 

We encourage you to visit this page regularly, as it will be updated with new articles as they are published.

• Daphne Keller, “Regulated Democracy and Regulated Speech” (April 2, 2025)
• Susan Ness, “Truth and Consequences: The Post-Election Regulatory Landscape for Big Tech” (April 4, 2025)
• Anna Lenhart, “Leveraging International Standards to Protect U.S. Consumers Online, No Congress Required” (April 9, 2025)
• Luke Hogg and Renée DiResta, “Enabling a Thriving Middleware Market” (April 11, 2025)
• Olivier Sylvain, “States in the Vanguard: Social Media Policy Today” (April 15, 2025)
• Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat, “Online Safety Regulations Around the World: The State of Play and The Way Forward” (April 28, 2025)
• Mary Anne Franks, “Curating Cyberspace: Rights, Responsibilities, and Opportunities” (May 14, 2025)

IMAGE: (L) Abstract chat icons over a digital surface (via Getty Images); (M) Visualization of an online network (via Getty Images); (R) Popular social media apps on an Apple iPhone (via Getty Images).

The post Regulating Social Media Platforms: Government, Speech, and the Law appeared first on Just Security.

The tools available to human rights researchers have expanded dramatically over the past 20 years, enabling greater remote investigative powers than ever before. Analysts in distant locations working independently, in loose collectives or for formal NGOs, can now parse social media feeds, analyze satellite imagery, and examine geographical data that were once the preserve of government intelligence agencies.

As these technologies have become more readily available to a wider variety of actors, funders and governments have increasingly directed resources toward open-source investigation (OSINT) efforts, which can be launched rapidly as crises unfold and redeployed as situations change. Yet, this focus often comes at the expense of building local community networks that can provide a more varied dataset gained from proximity, lived experience, and local knowledge. Whereas OSINT efforts can be stood up immediately, such networks must be developed well before peak information demand. This process requires longer lead times and sustained financial and personnel resourcing that often stretches beyond the short-term (and frequently reactive) institutional funding timelines for crisis response.

Despite OSINT’s potential, the vast and ever-growing volume of open-source data and advanced information-gathering tools available today have yet to translate into real-world gains for atrocity prevention. The challenge is partly one of scale. As Human Rights Watch Washington Director Sarah Yager noted in 2023, “The sheer amount of information out there makes spotting a human rights problem solely through open-source intelligence a Sisyphean task.”

It is also one of capacity and process. Human rights activists from Sudan and Myanmar have testified to the U.K. Parliament that the government could – and should – have foreseen the atrocities unfolding in their countries if officials had engaged with a broader range of communities and pieced together disparate available data streams. However, the financial, personnel, and analytical resources required to collect, process, and interpret this data were lacking. As the UK Atrocity Prevention Working Group has noted, the problem is not that governments and organizations don’t have enough data, but that they fail to recognize, aggregate, analyze, and integrate it effectively into policymaking.

By definition, OSINT is readily accessible and publicly available information – but what enters the public domain remains shaped by existing power, privilege, and capacity dynamics. While today’s information environment is more democratic than ever, OSINT alone rarely provides the actionable information needed for effective atrocity prevention. Institutional funders should acknowledge this shortcoming and invest in a more diverse, multi-pronged approach to data gathering – whether by supporting partnerships or fostering coalitions – ideally substantively led by affected community members. Doing so would enable the timely and informed policy action urgently needed.

OSINT Isn’t Neutral

The Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open-Source Investigations defines OSINT as “publicly available information that any member of the public can observe, purchase or request without requiring special legal status or unauthorized access.” Specifically, it defines digital open-source information as publicly available information in digital format, including content posted on social media platforms, documents, images, videos and audio recordings shared online, satellite imagery, and government-published data.

A key reason why OSINT alone falls short as an early warning information source is that it’s not a neutral dataset. About one-third of the world’s population still lacks internet access , with the majority residing in South and East Asia and Africa – regions where many countries face an increased risk of mass killing. These areas are often virtually absent from the digital map, limiting the availability of detailed street-level imagery and making it harder for OSINT investigators to verify videos, photos, or satellite imagery. For instance, when researchers at UC Berkeley’s Human Rights Center sought to corroborate the location of alleged abuses for a report on gender persecution in Iran, they struggled with limited street-level imagery and ultimately relied on online images searches. Compounding this challenge are disparities in internet usability for speakers of lesser-known or historically underrepresented languages. In a world of more than 7,000 languages, more than 75 percent of users access the internet in just 10 languages, further limiting the accessibility of OSINT data and tools.

Another major limitation of OSINT for early warning is that media and information environments vary widely across the world, with the ability to freely share information depending on basic rights and infrastructure that are not universal. The stark contrast between the abundance of data on Ukraine compared with the paucity of information on Ethiopia underscores this asymmetry – while some contexts have an abundance of open-source data, while others remain severely under-documented.

This disparity has real-world policy consequences. For example, in testimony before the U.K. Parliament, Sudanese activists noted as early as summer 2023 that the looming crisis in El Geneina in West Darfur was being overlooked due to a lack of internet and telephone infrastructure, whereas events in the capital, Khartoum, received far greater attention and acknowledgment.

Counterbalancing OSINT’s Asymmetry

The uneven availability of open-source information means it must be combined with other documentation strategies, tools, and datasets to serve effectively as an early warning alarm. Institutional funders, OSINT investigators, and tool developers should take proactive steps to address these gaps by expanding data redundancy, prioritizing local context, and promoting equitable partnerships.

The following four concrete actions – two for international OSINT investigators, one for software and tool developers, and one for funders – can help counterbalance OSINT’s inherent asymmetry:

International OSINT Investigators: Build in Redundancy

To maximize the effectiveness of open-source intelligence, international OSINT investigators should build redundancy into their documentation strategies by drawing from multiple, overlapping sources of information. There are more ways than ever to document and collect data on human rights violations, making it easier to generate and share critical information. From social media posts by eyewitnesses or perpetrators to satellite imagery, open-source researchers can gather information from a range of sources and tools.

This collection of tools, or “documentation stack,” is similar to the tech sector’s concept of a “tech stack” – a suite of tools, platforms, software, and apps a company uses to carry out its operations and track its performance. A documentation stack consists of resources, tools, software, and platforms that analysts and organizations use to gather data on human rights abuses. With the advent of social media and decreasing costs of technology, this stack has expanded to include testimony, physical documents, videos, images, satellite imagery, surveys, reporting, geolocation tools, sensors, and physical and digital forensic tools. The more tools included in the stack, the greater the redundancy within the human rights information-gathering ecosystem – making it harder to suppress, distort, or ignore concerns about potential atrocities.

For example, if a government shuts down the internet around an election, local monitoring networks can still document events on the ground, while satellite imagery can produce real-time visual records. If satellite imagery is too costly or lacks the necessary degree of granularity, surveys and interviews conducted by journalists, humanitarian actors, or community groups can help fill in information gaps, providing insights into displacement patterns or rising ethnic tensions.

Beyond closing data gaps, redundancy strengthens the resilience and credibility of open-source information, making it harder for detractors to undermine the truth. By combining multiple data streams, OSINT analysts and organizations can fortify information against attack, denial, or competing narratives. The more tools available to verify information, the greater the weight of that information and analyses that rely on it.

For instance, to investigate an April 2022 cluster munitions attack on the Kramatorsk rail station in eastern Ukraine, visual investigations practice SITU Research and Human Rights Watch combined witness testimony, data on munition performance, satellite imagery, and video documentation. The assault had killed at least 58 people and injured more than 100, many of them civilians. The resulting findings helped generate evidence contradicting Russia’s denial of responsibility and indicating possible war crimes.

International OSINT Investigators: Prioritize Local Context

In addition to building in redundancy, international OSINT investigators should elevate local context in both data collection and analysis. OSINT enables analysts – whether working independently or as a part of formal or informal collectives – o gather individual pieces of data, much like gathering scattered puzzle pieces. However, for these individual data points form a meaningful picture, they must be connected and contextualized. This is a strength of the documentation stack: combining diverse types of data, analysis, and sources to provide greater clarity and insight.

Yet analyzing gathered information, particularly for early warning signs, is no simple feat. While open-source investigations are often imagined as conducted far from the ground, effectively sifting through data gathered requires deep contextual knowledge, including of local languages, subtext, jargon, and cultural shorthand. Often, small and seemingly insignificant events can signal larger atrocities on the horizon. Understanding which small signals are important or insignificant requires a robust grasp of local context and situational dynamics. This is particularly true in situations where analysts must detect and interpret small, seemingly unconnected indicators rather than a single violent act or specific pattern of events.

Just as foreign correspondents have long relied on the situational awareness of local journalists to enhance the substance and accuracy of their reporting, OSINT teams should incorporate insights from affected communities and others with relevant lived experience. This can take several forms, including hiring community members on international OSINT teams, building collaborative partnerships, or providing OSINT training and support to existing local NGO or activist networks. While a growing number of multi-disciplinary OSINT teams – such as the Yale School of Public Health’s Humanitarian Research Lab – are hiring analysts with lived experience or deep knowledge of local dynamics, full and reciprocal partnerships between locally-led groups and internationally-based OSINT teams are the exception rather than the norm.

At the same time, international OSINT practitioners must take care not to reinforce power dynamics between themselves and local sources. Respecting and prioritizing local knowledge not only saves valuable time and resources – which would otherwise be spent on training outsiders to understand the context – but is also as mission-critical as technical OSINT expertise. As such, the provision of local knowledge and information should be compensated with appropriate credit (as security conditions allow) and funding. This happens far too infrequently, and should become a standard practice.

Social Media Companies and Tool Developers: Create Equitable Data Access Policies    

When it comes to the private sector, social media companies and tool developers should create more equitable data access policies and pricing structures accessible to the full range of OSINT researchers and analysts. Previously, a variety of tools were easily accessible to mine data from social media platforms and the internet. For instance, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) enabled researchers globally to analyze social media content to corroborate allegations of human rights abuses and track atrocity early warning signs.

However, access to APIs has become either increasingly expensive and narrow, or restricted altogether – such as X’s API, which went from being freely available to exorbitantly costly in April 2023, or Facebook’s CrowdTangle, which was shut down in August 2024.  Of those APIs that remain available, many are either paywalled or geographically restricted – for instance, access to TikTok’s API is limited to researchers located in the United States and Europe.

These deepening restrictions pose a significant entry barrier for OSINT investigative teams, independent  non-American or European analysts, and locally-led initiatives in volatile regions. As Thraets Research Lead Richard Ngamita notes, such barriers make “…it exponentially difficult for global south researchers to study misinformation and disinformation crises,” locking out many independent actors in the global south who rely on open source data to monitor and analyze social media developments.

Funders: Incentivize Cross-Organizational Collaboration

Lastly, international funders – including governments, international organizations, foundations, and private donors – should incentivize collaboration across organizations and sectors. Strengthening OSINT analysis through diverse data streams, elevating local knowledge without being extractive, securing API access, and advocating for fairer API policies all require significant resources. However, not all OSINT teams can excel in all these areas. Given the constrained funding landscape for human rights investigations and atrocity prevention, organizations often stretch beyond core capabilities to secure funding – an approach that is neither sustainable nor efficient in the long run.

Many organizations and teams specialize in specific aspects of the multi-pronged documentation and investigative strategy proposed. To harness these strengths, funders should incentivize collaborations that leverage each organization’s unique expertise. Supporting partnerships among analyst teams and organizations can foster sustained, multi-pronged investigative efforts that merge the distinct capabilities of various OSINT actors. While such collaborations are rare, they do exist—examples include the Investigative Commons, a Berlin-based collective of investigators, reporters, lawyers, and artists collaborating on targeted investigations, and Amnesty International’s Digital Verification Corps, a network of universities partnering with Amnesty to collect and verify digital content.

Crucially, funders and organizations often underestimate the complexities of integrating OSINT expertise across geographies. Successful collaborations require clear, reciprocal benefits, a shared mission, and strong trust among participants, along with dedicated management capacity. These elements are not developed overnight, and require consistent, thoughtful engagement among collaborators. To facilitate this, funders should allocate specific resources for grantees to explore, establish, and strengthen collaborative efforts.

Conclusion

While new and emerging open-source tools offer exciting possibilities, OSINT investigative teams should integrate them as part of broader, multi-pronged documentation stack – one that is supported at all levels by local knowledge and insights. To effectively identify early warning signs of atrocities, international OSINT teams must incorporate situational expertise that helps decode complex, often-hidden indicators of escalating violence.

More broadly, the atrocity investigation ecosystem must shift toward a more sustainable, collaborative model that prioritizes local expertise and cross-organizational cooperation. Strengthening such partnerships will lead to more comprehensive early warning and documentation efforts — something funders should recognize and prioritize. As the funding landscape become increasingly constrained and atrocity dynamics grow ever more complex, harnessing collective expertise, diverse sources, and integrated data streams offers the best path forward toward building a stronger, more effective system for investigating and documenting the most serious international crimes.

IMAGE: People walk among scattered objects in the market of El Geneina, the capital of West Darfur, as fighting continued in Sudan between the forces of two rival generals, on April 29, 2023. At least 96 people were reported to have been killed in El Geneina that week, the UN said, as fierce fighting between Sudan’s army and paramilitaries entered a third week, violating a renewed truce. (Photo by -/AFP via Getty Images)

The post From Open-Source to All-Source: Leveraging Local Knowledge for Atrocity Prevention appeared first on Just Security.

In the first entry in this symposium, America’s Overlooked National Security Threat, published after the last presidential debate in September, Koh explained a key thesis of the book, writing that the expanding executive poses a national security challenge that goes beyond political parties and offering recommendations applicable regardless of the outcome of the Nov. 5 election.

Today, the symposium continues with Professor Rebecca Ingber writing on a core theme underlying many of the more specific proposals in Koh’s book–the “background reality” that “international law is becoming a third rail in American politics today.” Over the next several weeks, expert authors will engage with themes in Koh’s book including balance of powers among the political branches and oversight, a range of possible approaches to restraints on international agreement withdrawal, war powers reform, information control, and more. Across the symposium, authors will respond both to the big-picture ideas with which the book grapples and a number of Koh’s specific policy proposals (explored in detail in Chapters 10 and 11 of the book), with articles updated here as they are published:

Harold Hongju Koh, America’s Overlooked National Security Threat (Sept. 11, 2024)

Rebecca Ingber, Confronting the War on International Law in the United States (Oct. 24, 2024)

Ashley Deeks and Kristen Eichensehr, Frictionless Government and the National Security Constitution (Oct. 28, 2024)

Sean Murphy and Edward Swaine, Presidential Power to Exit Treaties: Reflecting on the Mirror Principle (Nov. 1, 2024)

Catherine Amirfar and Ashika Singh, Withdrawal from International Agreements: Toward a “Tailored Out” (Nov. 1, 2024)

Dakota S. Rudesill, Congress Must Heed Koh’s Call to Surface Secret Law (Jan. 7, 2025)

Harold Hongju Koh, National Security Resilience and Reform: Trump 2.0 and Beyond (Jan. 8, 2025)

IMAGE: The cover of The National Security Constitution in the 21st Century by Harold Hongju Koh.

The post Symposium on Harold Hongju Koh’s ‘The National Security Constitution in the 21st Century’ appeared first on Just Security.