The Lawfare Podcast – The Trials of the Trump Administration, August 29, 2025

Summary by Lawfare Podcast Summarizer

Main Theme

In this episode, the Lawfare team dives deep into a week saturated with major legal and governance developments in the ongoing “Trials of the Trump Administration.” From the controversial removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, to battles over billions in foreign aid, to unprecedented National Guard deployments in American cities, the panel unpacks the legal frameworks, the novel executive actions, and the implications for the rule of law, independence of agencies, and constitutional norms. Also covered are DOJ prosecutorial woes, high-profile lawsuits over federal removals, and ongoing debates over the limits of judicial and executive authority.

Panel

• Benjamin Wittes (Host, Editor-in-Chief of Lawfare)
• Anna Bauer (Senior Editor)
• Scott R. Anderson (Senior Editor)
• James Pierce (Contributor, former Public Service Fellow)
• Lauren Voss (Current Public Service Fellow, former White House/DoD official, Air Force veteran)
• Quinta Jurecic (Staff Writer, The Atlantic)

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook

Timestamps: 05:43 – 31:20

Context & Legal Issue

• President Trump removed Fed Governor Lisa Cook, citing “mortgage fraud” prior to her tenure.
• Is this an Appointments Clause issue or simply about what “for cause” removal really means?
• Core question: How broad is “for cause,” and what process (if any) is due?

James Pierce:
“The administration has not been shy about using its Article II power to remove folks... But in this case, they said Cook had violated the for cause removal—that there was cause based on the mortgage fraud.” (08:28)

• Lisa Cook filed suit, seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
• The standard of “for cause” could depend on whether misconduct must occur “in office.”
• The Supreme Court hasn’t precisely defined “for cause”; Collins v. Yellen (2021) left ambiguity.
• Lack of process: Cook alleges she was denied the opportunity to respond before being fired.
• Judge G.A. Cobb, District of DC, is struggling with the novelty; no established precedent.

Memorable Moment:
Hypothetical on cannibalism as cause for removal:
Ben Wittes: “If your conduct in office is unimpeachable, but you’re found to have been eating children at home... is that grounds for removal?” (12:34)
James Pierce: “Shocking as it may seem, that is not a case that has yet been tested.” (12:59)

Hearing Takeaways (Anna Bauer):

• Both sides deeply divided on what “cause” means, whether it’s just a pretext for political motivation.
• Government claims mere mention of “cause” by President suffices for removal; defense calls this voiding the purpose of removal protections.
• Judge Cobb unconvinced by either and left the matter unresolved for further briefing:
  “…what would a hearing even look like? Is it just talking to the President? ...So many unresolved questions. She's clearly struggling with what to do.” (28:39)

2. Controversy over Federal Aid — The AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition & Pocket Rescission

Timestamps: 31:20 – 44:29

Scott Anderson:
"This is the absolute tip of the spear for what is widely seen as the most important congressional power: the Appropriations power." (42:32)

• Trump administration attempted to withhold (“impound”) $4.9 billion in foreign aid.
• D.C. Circuit panel and en banc tussled over whether non-government plaintiffs could sue; ultimately allowed on Appropriations Act grounds (not ICA).
• Administration raced to file a “pocket rescission” request, leveraging a disputed legal interpretation that would allow funds to expire unspent if Congress doesn’t act within 45 days.
• District Judge Ali faces a tight timeline (before September 30 fund expiry), a legal thicket, and high stakes.

3. Agency Independence: The Voice of America Litigation

Timestamps: 44:29 – 52:43

• Judge Royce Lamberth ruled Kari Lake could not fire VOA head Micah Abramowitz; lawsuit centered on agency independence and removal authority.
• Lamberth is also compelling Lake and others to submit to depositions regarding statutory compliance.
• Larger theme: unprecedented efforts by administration appointees to “dismantle” independent agencies, challenging the historical legal norms about agency autonomy.

Scott Anderson:
“This is really the tip of the spear for one of the other big questions coming out of this administration: the president’s ability to dismantle federal agency.” (45:09)

4. Prosecutorial Disarray in DOJ: Grand Juries, “Ham Sandwiches,” and Pushback

Timestamps: 52:43 – 75:28

• Multiple cases in DC and Los Angeles where grand juries have refused to indict federal law enforcement “surge” protest cases, or have induced charges to be dropped or downgraded to misdemeanors.
• Judicial orders forced DOJ to disclose grand jury no-true-bills to defense—a highly unusual step.
• Discussion points: Is this simply grand juries exerting their check, or a sign of deteriorating trust and recklessness at DOJ?
• Notable contrast: During Trump’s first term, grand juries almost always got indictments when requested.

Quinta Jurecic:
"In DC…the federal surge is extremely unpopular, even among populations that live in areas of higher crime... loss of trust that not only is reflected in grand jury's refusals to indict in weak cases, but might also be polluting, so to speak, stronger cases as well." (68:44)

James Pierce:
"As a prosecutor, you should be prepared to be put through your paces. If you are complying with the Justice Manual... you should bat a thousand percent. And so I do think this is quite a noteworthy development and one worth paying attention to." (71:50)

5. DOJ’s Suit Against a US District Court (and Its Dismissal)

Timestamps: 75:28 – 77:43

• DOJ sued the District Court of Maryland over its short-term stay on removals in immigration habeas petitions.
• Judge Thomas Cullen dismissed the suit, citing lack of standing, sovereign and judicial immunity, absence of cause of action, and alternative mechanisms for redress.

James Pierce:
“…the judge said, there are ways to challenge this. You can appeal. You could go to the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference, but filing suit against the entire district court bench is not one of them and, I think, quite rightly dismissed the lawsuit.” (76:02)

6. Domestic Deployment of National Guard Troops

Timestamps: 77:43 – 94:03

Lauren Voss, drawing on her White House and military experience, detailed the unprecedented National Guard presence in DC and LA and discussed the legal haze surrounding their deployment, arming, mission “beautification,” and support of ICE operations.

Key takeaways:

• Over 2,200 Guard troops in DC, many from out of state and now armed; legal authority for the mission is still opaque.
• Guard in LA and assist ICE across 19 states; mission authority unclear, raising Posse Comitatus Act questions.
• A new executive order directs a Pentagon “quick reaction force” for spontaneous domestic deployments, but lacks clear legal authority or rationale.

Voss:
“…as much as it can be unsettling for us not to know what are we doing for how long, what's the legal authority, this can also be unsettling for National Guard troops. There's some misperception that the National Guard is much more prepared for civil disturbances. The reality is: an average guardsman receives three to four hours of training on this.” (92:46)

7. Case Updates: Kilmar Abrego Garcia & Trade Tariff Litigation

Abrego Garcia (Timestamps: 94:03–105:32)

• Hours after release, was detained again by ICE, threatened with deportation to Uganda (where he has no ties).
• Ongoing parallel tracks: Immigration court seeking asylum, and federal court hearing on habeas petition and conditions of confinement; TRO in place preventing removal; government’s conduct raises due process concerns.

Voss Selections Inc. v. Trump (Timestamps: 105:32–107:27)

• Federal Circuit ruled that certain Trump-era tariffs were not authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”), splitting among judges as to how broad or limited the President’s tariff authority truly is under that law.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On cause for removal:
  Ben Wittes: “If your conduct in office is unimpeachable, but you’re found to have been eating children at home... is that grounds for removal?” (12:34)
• On judicial uncertainty:
  Anna Bauer: "It's a mess. There's so many unresolved questions. She's clearly struggling with what to do." (28:39)
• On DOJ prosecutorial woes:
  Quinta Jurecic: “The federal surge is extremely unpopular, even among populations that live in areas of higher crime... I think this will potentially have a very long tail.” (68:44)
• On National Guard in DC:
  Lauren Voss: "The phrase that they're using is actually community restoration and beautification... There is this question: what is that mission? And what is the mission authority?" (80:53)
• On executive order for more Guard:
  Voss: "The executive order says a lot of things, but it’s not actually providing new legal authority... But it is setting the expectation this administration is going to do a lot more domestic deployments." (84:08)
• On how long troops could remain:
  Voss: "...after January 6th, we saw troops stay in D.C. under those same provisions for about five months...Unfortunately, you don’t, you don’t even have to do anything about it. You can just keep them there." (108:17)

Timestamps of Other Major Segments

• Panel introductions and banter – 01:51–05:43
• Listener Q&A on National Guard deployments and judicial deference to Supreme Court trends – 107:27–113:19
• Outro and closing notes – 113:19–114:39

Conclusion

This episode captures a moment of legal ferment and executive-judicial struggle, as long-established norms of agency independence, prosecutorial discretion, and military involvement on U.S. soil are tested by a series of novel, and at times brazen, legal maneuvers. The Lawfare panel provides a clear-eyed, serious, and at times wry analysis, imparting the sense that American law and governance, in 2025, are being stress-tested in real time.

“We are going to leave it there. I really thought we were going to end on time today… See you next week.” (Ben Wittes, 113:19)