The Just Security Podcast

Over the past several days, the Trump administration has taken increasingly drastic steps in response to protest activity and unrest in Los Angeles — including federalizing 4,000 National Guard troops and sending hundreds of Marines, against the objections of California's state and local leadership. As events unfold on the ground in LA, and in the lead-up to further anticipated protests this weekend, Just Security and the Reiss Center on Law and Security hosted a YouTube Live event to examine the pressing legal and policy issues at stake. Notes: Watch the full June 12th, 2025 event on YouTube, here.Elizabeth Goitein: Senior Director, Liberty & National Security Program, Brennan Center for JusticeMary B. McCord: Visiting Professor of Law and Executive Director, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Georgetown Law; Member, Board of Directors, Just Security Steve Vladeck: Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Federal Courts, Georgetown Law; Executive Editor, Just Security   Ryan Goodman: Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Director, Reiss Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law; Founding Co-Editor-in-Chief, Just Security Just Security's Civilian-Military Relations coverage. Just Security's Domestic Deployment of the U.S. Military coverage.  Just Security's Law Enforcement archives. 

In recent years, the United States has sustained some of the most severe cyber threats in recent history– from the Russian-government directed hack SolarWinds to China's prepositioning in U.S. critical infrastructure for future sabotage attacks through groups like Volt Typhoon. The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is responsible for responding to, and protecting against these attacks.  How do leaders steer through cyber crises, build trust, and chart a path forward? In conversation with Dr. Brianna Rosen, Just Security Senior Fellow and Director of the AI and Emerging Technologies Initiative, Jen Easterly, who just completed a transformative tenure as Director of CISA under the Biden Administration, unpacks the challenges, breakthroughs, and lessons from the front lines of America's cybersecurity efforts.  Jen Easterly   Just Security's Cybersecurity coverage Empathy Matters: Leadership in Cyber by Jen Easterly ( 2019) 

For nearly 70 years, the DOJ's Civil Rights Division led efforts to protect voting rights and fight racial discrimination at the polls. But in January 2025, DOJ political appointees froze all new civil rights cases and dismissed every major pending voting rights lawsuit—prompting most career attorneys to leave the Division. With federal challenges to restrictive voting laws now dropped in several states, the fight for voting rights falls to individual voters and advocacy groups, raising urgent questions about the future of enforcement.In this episode Dani Schulkin, Director of Democracy Initiatives at Just Security, is joined by Chiraag Bains. Chiraag is a senior fellow at Democracy Fund, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and former Deputy Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council for Racial Justice & Equity. He also previously served in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.  Show Notes:  Chiraag Bains, “What Just Happened: The Trump Administration's Dismissal of Voting Rights Lawsuits.” Collection: Just Security's Coverage of Trump Administration Executive Actions  Just Security's DOJ Archives Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

The State Department has released a reorganization plan that would usher in significant changes to the way the United States conducts its diplomacy and foreign assistance, at a time of considerable geopolitical change. Proposals by the Trump administration include eliminating or restructuring a number of the Department's longstanding functions, dissolving and/or folding USAID into State, and imposing large budget and staffing cuts. Debates over how to structure and optimize the State Department, and U.S. foreign assistance programs in particular, are nothing new. But important questions remain about these proposals—including how they may interact with Congressional prerogatives; their implications for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy amidst compounding global crises; and, ultimately, whether these changes may herald a more streamlined and effective bureaucracy or undermine U.S. diplomatic power.On May 14, 2025, the Reiss Center on Law and Security and Just Security convened an expert panel to consider these vitally important developments and to unpack what's happening, what's at stake, and what lies ahead. Show Notes: Dani Schulkin, Tess Bridgeman, and Andrew Miller's “What Just Happened: The Trump Administration's Reorganization of the State Department – and How We Got Here” Ambassador Daniel Fried's “The US Government's Self-Harm in Killing RFE/RL” and “Is the U.S. Abandoning the Fight Against Foreign Information Operations?” Hon. Dafna Rand's “Stopped Security Assistant: From Counter-Narcotics to Combating Human Trafficking Programs”  Michael Schiffer's “Secretary of State Rubio's Reorganization Plan Could Offer a Chance to Rescue U.S. Foreign Assistance -- If He's Smart About It” Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

As the Supreme Court holds oral arguments on Thursday, May 15, Kristin A. Collins, Gerald Neuman and Rachel E. Rosenbloom argue that Executive Order 14160, which denies birthright citizenship to any child born in the United States who does not have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, clearly violates the birthright citizenship federal statute.  They note the statute has not received as much public attention, as they discuss the 1940s and 1950s legislative history.Show notes:Kristin A. Collins, Gerald Neuman and Rachel E. Rosenbloom, Another Reason Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order is Unlawful, Just Security, May 15, 2025

Now in its third year, the Russo-Ukraine War has upended the post-Cold War security landscape, exposing deep fractures in the global balance of power. As western unity frays and U.S. diplomacy shifts under President Trump, the war has become a flashpoint for competing visions of the international order. This week, the European Union gave Russia an ultimatum: accept a proposed ceasefire or face expanded sanctions—just days ahead of a potential round of direct peace talks in Istanbul on Thursday. The stakes are high, and the choices made this week could reshape not only the trajectory of the war but the future of global security.How should we understand the prospects for a sustainable peace in Ukraine amidst evolving geopolitical dynamics and continued battlefield uncertainty? To help make sense of these developments, Just Security Senior Fellow and Director of the Oxford Programme for Cyber and Tech Policy, Brianna Rosen, sat down with Sir Lawrence Freedman, Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King's College London and Professor Janina Dill, Dame Louise Richardson Chair in Global Security at Oxford University's Blavatnik School of Government. This conversation was part of the Calleva-Airey Neave Global Security Seminar Series at the University of Oxford. Show Notes: Just Security's Russia-Ukraine War Archive Ambassador Daniel Fried's "How to Land the Emerging Peace Deal on Peace for Ukraine"Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On Friday, May 9, senior White House official Stephen Miller said: "The Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended at a time of invasion. So I would say that's an action we're actively looking at." CNN later reported that President Donald Trump has been personally involved in discussions in the administration over potentially suspending habeas.In this episode of the podcast, Ryan Goodman discusses the constitutional law on suspension of habeas, the context of Rümeysa Öztürk's release on a habeas petition on Friday shortly before Miller's remarks, and how the courts may respond.Show notes:1. Amy Coney Barrett, Suspension and Delegation, 99 Cornell Law Review 251 (2014) 2. Case of Rümeysa Öztürk Link to case summary and key court documents: https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/?js_filter=003743. Ryan Goodman and Dani Schulkin, A Pyrrhic Victory: Initial Supreme Court Gain for Trump on Alien Enemies Act May End in Administration's Loss, Just Security, May 9, 20254. Ilya Somin, What Just Happened: The “Invasion” Executive Order and Its Dangerous Implications, Just Security, January 28, 20255. Ryan Goodman, The Actual Threat: Attacks on Habeas and Citizenship Rights, YouTube

An audio of Ilya Somin's Just Security article, which has become more topical by the day. The title: "What Just Happened: The Invasion Executive Order and Its Dangerous Implications." Somin is a Professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, the B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, and author of Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration and Political Freedom (Oxford University Press).

May 3rd marks World Press Freedom Day. This year especially, press freedom is under threat in the United States from a range of directions: from hostile official rhetoric and actions to self-censorship and systemic appeasement, to just basic information overload. As the Trump administration continues to “flood the zone,” how can we assess individual developments to discern broader trends that might help us better understand what's happening, its impact and what we can do about it?  Just Security Executive Editor and Professor of Law at American University, Rebecca Hamilton, joins Just Security Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger, to discuss how to grapple with the onslaught of news developments in the field of press freedom and discern broader trends. Show Notes:  Rebecca Hamilton's “The Trump Administration's Use of State Power: Keeping Track of the Big Picture” (May 2, 2025) Rebecca Hamilton's “Connecting the Dots: Trump's Tightening Grip on Press Freedom” (Feb. 6, 2025)   Just Security's Coverage of Trump Administration Executive Actions Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

In early April 2025, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released two major policies on Federal Agency Use of AI and Federal Procurement of AI - OMB memos M-25-21 and M-25-22, respectively. These memos were revised at the direction of President Trump's January 2025 executive order, “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” and replaced the Biden-era guidance. Under the direction of the same executive order, the Department of Energy (DOE) also put out a request for information on AI infrastructure on DOE lands, following the announcement of the $500 billion Stargate project that aims to rapidly build new data centers and AI infrastructure throughout the United States. As the Trump administration is poised to unveil its AI Action Plan in the near future, the broader contours of its strategy for AI adoption and acceleration already seem to be falling into place.Is a distinct Trump strategy for AI beginning to emerge—and what will that mean for the United States and the rest of the world?  Show Notes:Joshua GeltzerBrianna Rosen  Just Security series, Tech Policy Under Trump 2.0Clara Apt and Brianna Rosen's article "Shaping the AI Action Plan: Responses to the White House's Request for Information" (Mar. 18, 2025)Justin Hendrix's article "What Just Happened: Trump's Announcement of the Stargate AI Infrastructure Project" (Jan. 22, 2025)Sam Winter-Levy's article "The Future of the AI Diffusion Framework" (Jan. 21, 2025)Clara Apt and Brianna Rosen's article, "Unpacking the Biden Administration's Executive Order on AI Infrastructure" (Jan. 16, 2025)Just Security's Artificial Intelligence Archive Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI

The North African country of Sudan marks two years of war this week. The fighting between rival military factions – the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces – has killed an estimated 150,000 people and forced more than 15 million people from their homes. Almost 25 million people face acute hunger, according to United Nations agencies. It's the world's worst humanitarian crisis. How did Sudan get to this point? What's the current state of play in Sudan, and where does the country -- and the international community trying to support it -- go from here? Joining the show to answer some of these crucial questions two years into the war in Sudan is Quscondy Abdulshafi. He is a Senior Regional Advisor at Freedom House and has more than a decade of experience working on governance, democracy, and human rights in Africa and the United States.  Show Notes:Quscondy Abdulshafi's article for Just Security, "Two Years of War in Sudan: From Revolution to Ruin and the Fight to Rise Again"Just Security Podcast episode “Assessing the Origins, Dynamics, and Future of Conflict in Sudan” with Executive Editor Matiangai Sirleaf, and three experts, Laura Nyantung Beny, Nisrin Elamin, Hamid Khalafallah, on Oct. 11, 2024.  Just Security Sudan ArchiveMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

2025 will be a pivotal year for technology regulation in the United States and around the world. The European Union has begun regulating social media platforms with its Digital Services Act. In the United States, regulatory proposals at the federal level will likely include renewed efforts to repeal or reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Meanwhile, States such as Florida and Texas have tried to restrict content moderation by major platforms, but have been met with challenges to the laws' constitutionality.  On March 19, NYU Law hosted a Forum on whether it is lawful, feasible, and desirable for government actors to regulate social media platforms to reduce harmful effects on U.S. democracy and society with expert guests Daphne Keller, Director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford Law School's Cyber Policy Center, and Michael Posner, Director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU Stern School of Business. Tess Bridgeman and Ryan Goodman, co-editors-in-chief of Just Security, moderated the event, which was co-hosted by Just Security, the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights and Tech Policy Press. Show Notes: Tess Bridgeman Ryan GoodmanDaphne Keller Michael PosnerJust Security's coverage on Social Media PlatformsJust Security's coverage on Section 230Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Presidents have long pursued policy prerogatives through the Department of Justice, but traditionally, there's been a clear division between those and the Justice Department's enforcement decisions. On March 5, 2025, the NYU Law Forum and the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law co-hosted an all-star panel of experts who have served in senior positions at the White House and in the Department of Justice to assess the degree to which the division between the President and the Justice Department has now changed. Among the topics they discussed are: What is the origin of and reason for the Justice Department's measure of independence? How has this independence worked given the Justice Department's mix of political and career employees, and how is the current administration observing those lines?  The expert panel consisted of Vanita Gupta, a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at NYU School of Law and the former Associate Attorney General of the United States; Lisa Monaco, a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at the Reiss Center on Law and Security and the former Deputy Attorney General of the United States; and Breon Peace, the former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.  Trevor Morrison, a former Associate White House Counsel, the Dean Emeritus, Eric M. and Laurie B. Roth Professor of Law, and a Faculty Co-Director of the Reiss Center on Law and Security, moderated the discussion.  Show Notes: Vanita GuptaLisa MonacoTrevor Morrison (Bluesky)Breon PeaceJust Security's coverage of the Department of JusticeJust Security's coverage of the Trump administration's executive actions Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Alongside the new Trump administration, a new Congress has also taken power in Washington, D.C. The 119th Congress brings unified Republican control of both chambers with key votes – such as confirming many of President Trump's cabinet nominees – complete, another focus will be on congressional investigations and oversight. What might the oversight landscape look like? What investigative priorities will take center stage? And what role will key actors, both inside and outside of Congress, play in shaping policy and accountability over the next year?Joining the show to discuss what we can expect when it comes to congressional investigations is Ronak D. Desai. Ronak is the firmwide leader of the Congressional Investigations Practice at Paul Hastings LLP, where he advises clients facing high-stakes oversight inquiries and regulatory scrutiny. Ronak previously served on Capitol Hill in multiple roles, including most recently on a prominent select committee with members, including Adam Schiff, Adam Smith, Jim Jordan, and Mike Pompeo. In private practice, Ronak has handled a number of high-profile congressional investigations on behalf of clients on Capitol Hill both behind closed doors and publicly in the glare of the media spotlight. Show Notes:  Ronak D. Desai (LinkedIn – X) Paras Shah (LinkedIn – X)Just Security's coverage of CongressJust Security's coverage of the Trump administration's executive actions Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

In just his first six weeks in office, President Donald Trump has issued more than 80 executive orders and other actions, many of them targeting the federal workforce and the structure of the federal government. Just Security's Co-Editor-in-Chief, Ryan Goodman, recently published a timeline of actions that highlight the alarming level of politicization and weaponization of the Department of Justice under the second Trump administration. Politicization includes the misuse of the Department's powers for political purposes rather than the independent and impartial enforcement of the laws. Weaponization includes a deliberate and systematic misuse of the Department's powers for political or personal purposes and in defiance of the rule of law. Goodman discussed the timeline with Just Security Senior Fellow Tom Joscelyn and Mary McCord, Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP), Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and former Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Justice Department. Show Notes: Ryan Goodman (Bluesky – LinkedIn)Tom Joscelyn (Bluesky – X) Mary B. McCordRyan's Just Security article (with Audrey Balliette) “Timeline: Politicization and Weaponization of Justice Department in Second Trump Administration”Just Security's coverage of the Trump administration's executive actions Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

In his second term in office, President Donald Trump has already taken sweeping measures on immigration, the environment, the U.S. military, and the structure of the federal government.With so many executive orders, policy changes, and novel actions, it's easy to wonder, “What just happened?” In this podcast mini-series we help to answer exactly that question. On each episode of “What Just Happened,” we'll talk with leading experts, from former government officials to professors – the people who understand how government works from the inside and have studied the issues for years. They will explain the legal background and implications of how the Trump administration's actions affect how the U.S. government operates in Washington, across the country, and around the world. This is not a political podcast. We are explaining the meaning and consequences of policy changes that may not be immediately apparent. Any opinions expressed are those of the speaker.Today, we are looking at a relatively narrow example of the Trump administration's broad policies of eliminating federal jobs and eliminating what it considers to be DEI efforts from federal agencies. Specifically, we will talk about a small number of seasoned intelligence officers who were fired because one of their duties involved agency DEI efforts. They have sought an injunction against their termination in federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia. After a brief administrative stay, a federal judge denied their application for a temporary restraining order while the case proceeds.  Our guest today is the fired officers' attorney, Kevin Carroll. Kevin is a partner at the Fluet law firm in Northern Virginia. Kevin is a retired Army Colonel and a former CIA case officer. He also served as a senior counsel to Republican congressman Peter King of New York and a political appointee in the first Trump administration, and later as a surrogate for the 2024 Kamala Harris campaign. Show Notes: David Aaron (LinkedIn – X – Bluesky)Kevin Carroll (LinkedIn)Paras Shah (LinkedIn – X)Just Security's coverage of the Trump administration's executive actions Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

In his second term in office, President Donald Trump has already taken sweeping measures on immigration, the environment, the U.S. military, and the structure of the federal government.With so many executive orders, policy changes, and novel actions, it's easy to wonder, “What just happened?” In this podcast mini-series we help to answer exactly that question. On each episode of “What Just Happened,” we'll talk with leading experts, from former government officials to practitioners and professors – the people who understand how government works from the inside and have been engaged with these issues for years. They will explain the legal background and implications of how the Trump administration's actions affect how the U.S. government operates in Washington, across the country, and around the world.As always, this is not a political podcast – we are explaining the meaning and consequences of policy changes that may not be immediately apparent. Any opinions expressed are those of the speaker.Today, we will focus on the federal civil service. What are the different types of civil servants, what protections do they have, what remedies are available to them, and what comes next for those Americans who have dedicated their careers to public service.Our guest is Suzanne Summerlin. Suzanne is a labor and employment attorney specializing in federal workforce issues. She has extensive experience in litigation, union advocacy, and federal labor policy. Among other jobs, Suzanne was previously an attorney for the National Federation of Federal Employees. This podcast does not contain legal advice. If you need legal assistance, you should contact an attorney. Show Notes: David Aaron (LinkedIn – X)Tess Bridgeman (LinkedIn – BlueSky – X)Ryan Goodman (Bluesky – LinkedIn) Suzanne Summerlin (LinkedIn)Suzanne's Just Security articles “Beware the ‘Deferred Resignation' Offer: A Legally Dubious Proposal for Federal Employees” and “Federal Employee Rights: What Probationary Employees Need to Know” Just Security's coverage of the Trump administration's executive actions Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

The Artificial Intelligence Action Summit recently concluded in Paris, France, drawing world leaders including U.S. Vice President JD Vance. The Summit led to a declaration on “inclusive and sustainable” artificial intelligence, which the United States and United Kingdom have refused to join, though 60 other nations, including China and India support the declaration. What are the key takeaways from the Summit? How might it shape other global efforts to regulate artificial intelligence? Joining the show to discuss the Summit is Dr. Brianna Rosen, Director of Just Security's AI and Emerging Technologies Initiative and Senior Research Associate at the University of Oxford.  Show Notes:Brianna Rosen (LinkedIn – X – Bluesky)Paras Shah (LinkedIn – X)Just Security's Artificial Intelligence coverageJust Security's Tech Policy under Trump 2.0 SeriesMusic: “Parisian Dream” by Albert Behar from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/albert-behar/parisian-dream (License code: RXLDKOXCM02WX2LL)

Around the world, lawyers – particularly those representing human rights defenders, political prisoners, and upholding the rule of law – face threats of disbarment, harassment, and prosecution simply for doing their jobs. Jan. 24 marked International Day of the Endangered Lawyer, which focused on Belarus this year. The Belarusian government has developed a toolkit of repression to silence members of the legal profession, with hundreds of lawyers facing disbarment or exile, and at least six sitting in jail based on dubious or politically-motivated charges. What tactics is the Belarusian government using? How can the international community best respond to support the legal profession and the rule of law? Joining the show to discuss the situation in Belarus are Nils Muiznieks, Maksim Polovinko, and Margaret Satterthwaite. Nils is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus. He is a political scientist and human rights expert based in Latvia. Maksim is an expert of the Right to Defense project, until 2020, he was Editor-in-Chief of the magazine Jurist, and an event organizer for the Belarussian legal community. Margaret is a Professor of Clinical Law at NYU Law and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Show Notes: Nils Muižnieks (LinkedIn) Maksim PolovinkoMargaret Satterthwaite (LinkedIn – X) Paras Shah (LinkedIn – X)Nils and Margaret's Just Security article with Aloysia Sonnet (LinkedIn) “Solidarity Needed Amid Stranglehold on Belarusian Lawyers”Just Security's Belarus coverageJust Security's Rule of Law coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

In the first quarter of the 21st century, U.S. presidential power has reached new heights in both domestic policy and foreign affairs. While the framers created a system of government defined by the separation of powers, the presidencies of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump reveal a vision, and a version, of unilateral executive power. What are some reforms that could restore the balance? Harold Hongju Koh has studied presidential power for decades both as a professor and the former Dean of Yale Law School, and in various government roles, including as the Legal Adviser at the U.S. State Department.  His new book, The National Security Constitution in the 21st Century, argues for structural reforms to realign the balance of power among Congress, the courts, and the president. Harold joined us to discuss the book and Just Security's recent symposium featuring expert analysis and discussion on some of its key ideas. This episode was co-hosted by Just Security's Co-Editor-in-Chief, Tess Bridgeman. Show Notes: Tess Bridgeman (LinkedIn – BlueSky – X)Harold Hongju Koh (LinkedIn – X) Paras Shah (LinkedIn – X)Just Security's symposium on Harold's book The National Security Constitution in the 21st Century (Yale University Press)Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

The tech industry is calling this AI's “Sputnik Moment” – and President Donald Trump has said it's a “wake-up call” for U.S. companies. We're talking about DeepSeek, the Chinese AI startup that has rapidly emerged as a formidable contender in the global AI race.DeepSeek is making waves for developing powerful open-source language models that rival leading U.S. competitors – at a fraction of the cost and with far lower computational requirements.The DeepSeek saga raises urgent questions about China's AI ambitions, the future of U.S. technological leadership, and the strategic implications of open-source AI models. How did DeepSeek get here? What does its rise mean for competition between China and the United States? And how should U.S. policymakers respond?Today, we're going beyond the headlines to dive deeper into DeepSeek. We'll explore popular myths and misconceptions surrounding DeepSeek, the technology behind it, and what it means for national security and U.S. policy going forward. Joining the show to unpack these developments are leading experts in the field: Dr. Keegan McBride, Lauren Wagner, and Lennart HeimKeegan is a Lecturer at the University of Oxford and an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Lauren is a researcher and investor, now with ARC Prize, previously worked at Meta and Google. And Lennart is a researcher at RAND and a professor of policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School.This episode was hosted by Dr. Brianna Rosen, Director of Just Security's AI and Emerging Technologies Initiative and Senior Research Associate at the University of Oxford. Show Notes: Lennart Heim (LinkedIn – Website – X) Keegan McBride (LinkedIn – X)Brianna Rosen (LinkedIn – X – Bluesky)Lauren Wagner (LinkedIn — X)Lennart's Just Security article with Konstantin F. Pilz (Bluesky – LinkedIn – Website – X) “What DeepSeek Really Changes About AI Competition”Keegan's Just Security article “Open Source AI: The Overlooked National Security Imperative” Just Security's Artificial Intelligence coverageJust Security's Tech Policy under Trump 2.0 SeriesMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

In his second term in office, President Donald Trump has already taken sweeping measures on immigration, the environment, the U.S. military, and the structure of the federal government.With so many executive orders, policy changes, and novel actions, it's easy to wonder, “What just happened?” In this podcast mini-series we help to answer exactly that question.On each episode of “What Just Happened,” we'll talk with leading experts, from former government officials to professors – the people who understand how government works from the inside and have studied the issues for years. They will explain the legal background and implications of how the Trump administration's actions affect how the U.S. government operates in Washington, across the country, and around the world. This is not a political podcast. We are explaining the meaning and consequences of policy changes that may not be immediately apparent. Any opinions expressed are those of the speaker.Today, we will focus on President Trump's potential deployment of the U.S. military. Trump has said that he intends to use more military resources to support border and immigration enforcement. Joining the show is Mark Nevitt. Mark is a professor at Emory University School of Law. Mark was previously a Commander in the Navy, where he was a tactical aviator and a JAG officer.This mini-series is co-hosted by David Aaron, Tess Bridgeman, and Ryan Goodman. Show Notes: David Aaron (LinkedIn – X)Tess Bridgeman (LinkedIn – BlueSky – X)Ryan Goodman (Bluesky – LinkedIn) Mark P. Nevitt (Bluesky – LinkedIn – X) Mark's Just Security article “What Just Happened: Unpacking Exec Order on National Emergency at the Southern Border” Just Security's coverage of the Trump administration's executive actions Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

In just his first two days back in office, President Donald Trump has already taken sweeping measures on immigration, the environment, the U.S. military, and the structure of the federal government.With so many executive orders, policy changes, and novel actions, it's easy to wonder, “What just happened?” In this podcast mini-series, we help to answer exactly that question. On each episode of “What Just Happened,” we'll talk with leading experts, from former government officials to professors – the people who understand how government works from the inside and have studied the issues for years. They will explain the legal background and implications of how the Trump administration's actions affect how the U.S. government operates in Washington, across the country, and around the world.  This is not a political podcast. We are explaining the meaning and consequences of policy changes that may not be immediately apparent. Any opinions expressed are those of the speaker.Today, we will focus on President Trump's Executive Orders, Proclamations, and other policy announcements regarding immigration and the border. Joining us is Steve Vladeck. Steve is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center.This mini-series is co-hosted by David Aaron, Tess Bridgeman, and Ryan Goodman. Show Notes:  David Aaron (LinkedIn – X)Tess Bridgeman (LinkedIn – BlueSky – X)Ryan Goodman (Bluesky – LinkedIn) Steve Vladeck (Bluesky – LinkedIn – X)Just Security's coverage of the Trump administration's executive actions Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On Friday, Jan. 17, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, the law which could effectively ban TikTok from operating in the United States, unless it is sold to a U.S. company. The case is the latest round in a legal battle involving free speech, national security, and the popular social media app, which is used by more than 170 million Americans. U.S. lawmakers argue that TikTok's ties to the Chinese government raise serious data protection and content manipulation concerns. Free speech advocates see the law as a fundamental afront to the First Amendment. How did the Supreme Court decide the case? And how might this decision impact future efforts to regulate social media companies with ties to foreign governments? Joining the show to discuss the Court's opinion and its implications are Marty Lederman, Asha Rangappa, and Xiangnong (George) Wang. Marty is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. He has served in senior roles at the Justice Department, including in the Office of Legal Counsel. Asha is an Editor at Just Security, a Senior Lecturer at Yale's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, and a former FBI Agent specializing in counterintelligence investigations. George is a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Show Notes:  Marty Lederman (Bluesky – X)Asha Rangappa (Bluesky – X) Xiangnong (George) Wang (Bluesky – LinkedIn)Paras Shah (LinkedIn – X)Just Security's U.S. Supreme Court coverageJust Security's TikTok coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Just after midnight on Tuesday, Jan. 14, Special Counsel Jack Smith's office released its report on President-elect Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The report concludes that the evidence Smith obtained was sufficient to criminally convict Trump, but that after the 2024 election, the case could not move forward in light of Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.  While the report reveals relatively little new factual information around the events of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, it does explain Smith's rationale for his legal positions and key decisions. The report could also have implications for other criminal proceedings, including state-level cases against fake electors. What are the report's key take-aways and how might it add to the historical record? Joining the show to discuss the report are Tom Joscelyn and Marty Lederman. Tom is a Senior Fellow at Just Security. He was a senior professional staff member on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. Marty is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. He served in senior roles at the Justice Department, including in the Office of Legal Counsel.  Show Notes:  Paras Shah (LinkedIn – X)Tom Joscelyn (Bluesky – X) Marty Lederman (Bluesky – X)Tom's Just Security article with Ryan Goodman (Bluesky – LinkedIn) “3 Highlights in Special Counsel Jack Smith's Final Report on 2020 Election Subversion Case” Just Security's Trump Trials ClearinghouseJust Security's January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

In just a few weeks, Donald Trump will begin his second term as U.S. president. During his campaign and after reelection, Trump has signaled sweeping reforms to the U.S. immigration system. Among his top goals are promises to conduct the largest mass deportation in U.S. history, militarize the border, and introduce more border surveillance.In recent years, digital technologies have impacted virtually every aspect of migration. From visa triaging algorithms to drone surveillance with biometric data collection capabilities, companies and governments are increasingly developing and using these technologies to implement their migration policies. How are new forms of technology affecting people on the move?  Joining the show discuss border technologies and what we can expect from the new administration are Judith Cabrera and Petra Molnar. Judith is Co-Director of the Border Line Crisis Center, an organization which provides comprehensive networks of care to the migrant community in Tijuana, Mexico. Petra co-runs the Refugee Law Lab at York University and is a faculty associate at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. Show Notes: Judith CabreraPetra Molnar (@_PMolnar)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Petra's Just Security article "Border Technologies Under Trump 2.0"Just Security's Technology coverageJust Security's Migration coverageJust Security's Artificial Intelligence coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Oleksandra Matviichuk is one of the leading lawyers and human rights advocates pushing for accountability for grave crimes committed during Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In 2007, Oleksandra founded the Center for Civil Liberties, which she still leads. In 2022, it became the first Ukrainian organization to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. The center was awarded the prize that year alongside human rights advocate Ales Bialiatski from Belarus, and the Russian human rights organization Memorial.  The Center for Civil Liberties aims to advance human rights and democracy in Ukraine and the broader Europe-Eurasia region. It defends individual rights, develops legislative changes, conducts public oversight over law enforcement agencies and the judiciary, and offers educational activities for young people.How does the Center for Civil Liberties promote accountability? And what does Oleksandra see as the key issues and trends to watch as this full-scale war nears its third-year mark in February?Just Security's Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger, recently sat down with Oleksandra to discuss her work. Here is their conversation.Show Notes: Oleksandra Matviichuk (@avalaina) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Oleksandra's March 2023 Just Security article (with Natalia Arno and Jasmine D. Cameron) “Russia's Forcible Transfers of Ukrainian Civilians: How Civil Society Aids Accountability and Justice” (also available in Ukrainian)Oona A. Hathaway's Just Security article (with Madeline Babin and Isabel Gensler) “New Report Documents Russia's Systematic Program of Coerced Adoption and Fostering of Ukraine's Children”Just Security's Russia-Ukraine War coverageJust Security's International Criminal Court coverageJust Security's International Law coverageNobel Peace Prize 2022 announcement and Oleksandra's websiteMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Among the many war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine are large-scale efforts to deport Ukrainian children to Russia. Thousands of children have already been taken to Russian camps and facilities, leading the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for two senior Russian officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, in March 2023. Despite the arrest warrants, the deportations have continued. A new report from the Yale School of Public Health Humanitarian Research Lab identified 314 individual Ukrainian children that Russian officials transferred from Ukraine to Russia for coerced adoption and fostering, acts that likely constitute grave violations of international law. What are the report's key findings? And how might they contribute to efforts toward accountability, including potential new criminal charges against Russian officials? Joining the show to discuss the report are Oona Hathaway and Nathaniel Raymond. Oona is a Professor at Yale Law School and an Executive Editor at Just Security. Nathaniel is the Executive Director of the Humanitarian Research Lab and a Lecturer in the Department of the Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases at the Yale School of Public Health. Show Notes:  Nathaniel Raymond (@nattyray11)Oona A. Hathaway (@oonahathaway)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Oona's Just Security article (with Madeline Babin and Isabel Gensler) “New Report Documents Russia's Systematic Program of Coerced Adoption and Fostering of Ukraine's Children”Just Security's Russia-Ukraine War coverageJust Security's International Criminal Court coverageJust Security's International Law coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On November 22, the United Nations General Assembly's legal arm, the Sixth Committee, adopted a resolution paving the way for negotiations on a first-ever treaty on preventing and punishing crimes against humanity. The resolution comes after years of impasse and after Russia and a handful of other countries dropped amendments that could have derailed the process at the last-minute. Crimes against humanity are those committed as part of a large-scale attack on civilians and include acts such as murder, rape, imprisonment, enforced disappearances, sexual slavery, torture and deportation. To be considered a crime against humanity, a violation doesn't necessarily have to occur during an active war. And while crimes against humanity are covered by the International Criminal Court, nearly 70 countries are not members of the Court, which creates a gap in fully prosecuting these crimes in countries from Sudan to Syria to Myanmar. What can we expect next as States prepare for negotiations, and how might a future crimes against humanity treaty close the impunity gap?  Joining the show to unpack the developments on the crimes against humanity treaty are Akila Radhakrishnan and Leila Sadat.  Akila is an international human rights lawyer and gender-justice expert, who currently serves as the Strategic Legal Advisor for Gender Justice for the Atlantic Council's Strategic Litigation Project. Leila is the James Carr Professor of International Criminal Law and longtime Director of the Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute at Washington University School of Law. Show Notes: Akila Radhakrishnan (@akila_rad)Leila Nadya Sadat (@leilasadat1)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security's Proposed Crimes Against Humanity Treaty coverageJust Security's International Law coverageJust Security's International Criminal Court coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Earlier this fall, three Pacific Island States – Vanuatu, Fiji, and Samoa – formally proposed adding ecocide as a crime that can be heard and punished by the International Criminal Court, which can currently try individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression.Any change to the ICC's Rome Statute, particularly adding a new international crime, would require a massive level of diplomatic coordination and negotiation. But the future crime might hold individuals criminally accountable for severe environmental damage, such as massive oil or chemical spills or the destruction of rainforests. In the meantime, what does the ecocide proposal mean in practice? How might it potentially impact our understanding of ongoing destruction of the environment and the role of international criminal law? Joining the show to unpack the ecocide proposal are Naima Fifita, Rebecca Hamilton, and Kate Mackintosh.  Naima is a lawyer from Tuvalu. She is the Executive Director of the Institute for Climate and Peace. Bec is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor of Law at American University. Kate is Executive Director of the UCLA Law Promise Institute Europe, and Deputy Co-Chair of the Independent Expert Panel on the Legal Definition of Ecocide.  Show Notes:  Naima FifitaRebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton) Kate Mackintosh (@Katemackintosh2)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security's expert round up article “Why Criminalize Ecocide? Experts Weigh In” Just Security's Climate Change coverageJust Security's International Law coverageJust Security's International Criminal Court coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

With the U.S. presidential election less than a week away, anxiety is high, both across the country and around the world. Many fear the rise of populism and the erosion of democratic norms. In over two centuries, the United States has had many presidents who pushed on the door of anti-democratic power, but it has also had people who pushed back. Ahead of the election, what lessons can we learn by looking to the past? Brown University political scientist Corey Brettschneider is one of the leading thinkers on presidential power. His recent book, The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It examines how John Adams, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon abused their power, and how citizens like Frederick Douglass, Ida B. Wells, and Daniel Ellsberg resisted and offered a more democratic understanding of the Constitution. Just Security Senior Fellow Tom Joscelyn sat down with Brettschneider to discuss the book and the lessons it offers for the election, the state of American democracy, and beyond.Here is Tom's conversation with Corey Brettschneider. Show Notes: Corey Brettschneider (@BrettschneiderC)Tom Joscelyn (@thomasjoscelyn) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Corey's book The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It published by W. W. Norton & CompanyJust Security's “Democracy Backsliding” seriesJust Security's 2024 Presidential Election coverageJust Security's Democracy coverageJust Security's Domestic Extremism coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

For five years, Christopher Smith, a man with intellectual disabilities, was forced to work 100 hours per week at a South Carolina restaurant without pay. Smith faced verbal and physical abuse at the hands of his employer. Around the world, persons with disabilities like Smith face many modern forms of enslavement, from forced labor and begging to sexual exploitation and imprisonment by caregivers. While some of these crimes are prosecuted through national court systems, international criminal law can also play an important role in promoting accountability for grave crimes, including the crime of the slave trade. The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is formulating a new Slave Crimes Policy, which he hopes will be “survivor-centred, trauma-informed and gender-competent.”How can international law, and the new policy, best account for the unique needs and challenges persons with disabilities face regarding slavery crimes? Joining the show to unpack how slavery crimes impact persons with disabilities and what the international community can do in response are Janet Lord and Michael Ashley Stein. Janet is the Executive Director of the University of Baltimore School of Law's Center for International and Comparative Law and a senior research fellow at the Harvard Law School Project on Disability. Michael is the co-founder and Executive Director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability, and a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. Show Notes:  Janet E. LordMichael Ashley SteinParas Shah (@pshah518) Janet, Michael, Pace Schwarz, Matthew “Hezzy” Smith, Alex Green, and Rosemary Kayess' Just Security article “Time for the International Criminal Court to Recognize Persons with Disabilities and the Slave Trade” Just Security's Disability Rights coverageJust Security's International Criminal Court (ICC) coverageJust Security's International Law coverageHarvard Law School Project on Disability (HPOD) Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

During this year's election season in Mexico, propagandists leveraged a new mass-broadcasting feature on WhatsApp, called “channels,” to impersonate reputable political news outlets and pump out misleading information. Thousands of miles away, Telegram users in Hungary leveraged the app's forwarding bot against LGBTQ+ and pro-democracy civil society organizations, portraying them as “Western-controlled” ahead of European Union elections. Messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram, and Viber have become highly influential tools for manipulating and misleading voters around the world. In fact, a new report, “Covert Campaigns: Safeguarding Encrypted Messaging Platforms from Voter Manipulation” examines how political propagandists have refined a digital “broadcasting toolkit.” The toolkit is a set of tactics for reaching large swaths of voters directly on their phones using narratives tailored to resonate with their specific interests and viewpoints. What are some of the most common tactics in the “broadcasting toolkit”? How can users and messaging platforms respond to the spread of propaganda and disinformation? This is the Just Security Podcast. I'm your host, Paras Shah. Joining the show to discuss the report's key findings are two of its authors, Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat and Inga Trauthig. Mariana is a policy advisor on technology and law at the New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. Inga is the head of research for the Propaganda Research Lab at the Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin.Show Notes:  Mariana Olaizola RosenblatInga TrauthigParas Shah (@pshah518) Mariana, Inga, and Samuel C. Woolley's Just Security article “Political Propaganda Runs Wild on Messaging Apps – Platform Owners Can Help Counter It” Just Security's Disinformation and Misinformation coverage Just Security's Technology coverageJust Security's Elections coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

The conflict in Sudan, which erupted in April 2023, primarily involves the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) under General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti. While the fighting began in the country's capital, Khartoum, it has since spread to other regions, including Darfur. The conflict has resulted in thousands of deaths and injuries, with estimates of 15,000 killed and more than 20,000 injured. The humanitarian crisis is dire, with millions facing severe food shortages. Around 25 million people are in need of assistance, 8.1 million are internally displaced, and 2.9 million people have crossed the border since April 2023. Recent discussions at the United Nations General Assembly highlighted the urgent need for international intervention and support. Meanwhile, the most recent clashes in Khartoum suggest a possible shift in the balance of power, as both sides continue to vie for control amid an increasingly fragmented landscape.Co-hosting this episode is Just Security Executive Editor Matiangai Sirleaf. Matiangai is the Nathan Patz Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law.Joining the show to discuss the conflict's origins and its impact, and the international community's response are Laura Beny, Nisrin Elamin, and Hamid Khalafallah. Laura is a Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, Nisrin is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Toronto, and Hamid is a Researcher at the University of Manchester. Show Notes:  Laura Nyantung BenyNisrin Elamin (@minlayla77)Hamid Khalafallah (@HamidMurtada)Matiangai V.S. Sirleaf (@matiangai)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security's Sudan coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

More than 130 world leaders just completed a week of meetings in New York for the annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly. This high-level week, as it's called, began with States adopting U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' "Pact for the Future,” a key document generated as part of the "Summit of the Future."  The goal of the Summit, and the pact, is to recharge the idea of global cooperation, which is facing severe strain amid competition between the United States and its allies on the one hand, and Russia and China and their allies on the other. The U.N. meetings also occurred as conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, Sudan, and Myanmar, to name just a few, are killing tens of thousands of people and displacing millions. What were the key outcomes from the Summit of the Future and how might it shape future global diplomacy? And how can the U.N. more broadly remain relevant amid such geopolitical tensions? This is the Just Security Podcast. I'm your host, Paras Shah. Co-hosting with me today is Just Security's Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger. Joining the show to assess the high-level week and the Summit of the Future is Richard Ponzio. Richard is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Stimson Center's program on Global Governance, Justice & Security.Show Notes:  Richard Ponzio (@RichardPonzio)Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Richard's Just Security article "The UN's New 'Pact for the Future': A Milestone That Can Set a Path for Change"Just Security's UNGA 79 coverage including expert analysis and resourcesJust Security's U.N. Security Council coverageJust Security's Russia-Ukraine war, Israel-Hamas war, and Sudan confect coverage   Just Security's Summit of the Future coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Earlier this month, a SpaceX mission called Polaris Dawn launched four civilians into outer space. The crew completed the first ever “commercial spacewalk” while floating more than 800 miles above the Earth's surface. But private companies aren't the only ones interested in exploring the stars. Militaries are increasingly using space for a comparative advantage, from Russia's plans to place a nuclear weapon into orbit to China's development of anti-satellite weapons for the final frontier. And while these “new space races” are full of emerging technology, the law that governs outer space is decades old and incomplete. Much of it was developed in the 1960s and 70s. It remains murky and the legal guardrails, where they exist, are largely untested. Recently, experts from academia, industry, and government have published the Woomera Manual on the International Law of Military Space Activities and Operations. The Manual is the first comprehensive and detailed articulation of how international law applies to military operations in outer space.  What motivated the project of drafting the Manual, and how was it developed? How might it benefit the future development of space law and where do gaps remain? Co-hosting this episode is Just Security's Co-Editor-in-Chief, Tess Bridgeman. Joining the show to discuss the Woomera Manual are two of its editors, Jack Beard and David Koplow. Jack is a Professor of Law and the Director of the Space, Cyber, and National Security Law Program at the University of Nebraska College of Law. David is the Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center where he specializes in public international law and national security law. Show Notes: Jack M. BeardDavid A. KoplowTess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)Paras Shah (@pshah518)David's Just Security article “In the Woomera Manual, International Law Meets Military Space Activities” The Woomera Manual on the International Law of Military Space Activities and OperationsJust Security's Space coverageJust Security's International Law coverageJust Security's Law of Armed Conflict coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Next week, world leaders from nearly 150 nations will meet in New York for the annual high-level week during the United Nations General Assembly's new session. Among the many topics for discussion will be the ongoing wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Sudan, efforts to regulate artificial intelligence and get sustainable development back on track, and the role of the U.N. Security Council in international peace and security. The formal and informal meetings of the week will play out as many of the U.N.'s agencies and institutions – from the Security Council to the International Court of Justice – are under stress and scrutiny. What are the key trends to watch for? How might the upcoming U.S. presidential election shape the discussions and debate? Co-hosting this episode is Just Security's Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger. Joining the show to unpack the key themes around this year's U.N. General Assembly is Richard Gowan. Richard is the U.N. Director at the International Crisis Group, an organization providing independent analysis and advice on how to prevent, resolve or better manage conflict.Show Notes:  Richard Gowan (@RichardGowan1) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Richard's Just Security article “Guide to the Formal and Informal Agendas at the 2024 UN General Assembly Summit”Just Security's UNGA 79 coverage including expert analysis and resourcesJust Security's U.N. Security Council coverageJust Security's Russia-Ukraine war, Israel-Hamas war, and Sudan confect coverage   Just Security's Summit of the Future coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

From gathering and analyzing information to battlefield operations, States are integrating AI into a range of military and intelligence operations. Gaza and Ukraine are battle labs for this new technology. But many questions remain about whether, and how, such advances should be regulated.  As political and military leaders, industry, academics, and civil society confront a rapidly changing world, how should they approach the role of AI in the military? This week, more than two thousand experts from over 90 countries gathered in Seoul, South Korea, for the second global summit on Responsible AI in the Military Domain (REAIM). The Summit focused on three themes: understanding the implications of AI on international peace and security; implementing responsible application of AI in the military domain; and envisioning the future governance of AI in the military domain.This is the Just Security Podcast. I'm your host, Paras Shah.Just Security Senior Fellow Brianna Rosen and Co-Editor-in-Chief Tess Bridgeman were among the participants at the REAIM Summit, chairing and speaking on several breakout sessions. Today, Brianna joins the show to share her key takeaways from the Summit, including on how it inform future efforts to build consensus and strengthen AI governance in the military domain. Show Notes: Brianna Rosen (@rosen_br)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Tobias Vestner and Simon Cleobury's Just Security article “Putting the Second REAIM Summit into Context”Just Security's Artificial Intelligence coverageJust Security's Diplomacy coverageJust Security's Military coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

The situation in Israel and Palestine raises some of the most complex and contested issues in international law. In the past few years, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, and a U.N.-backed Independent Commission of Inquiry have all addressed various legal dimensions of the conflict, including the status of Israel's long-standing occupation of the Palestinian Territories and its conduct of hostilities in the Gaza Strip. Just how have those bodies ruled? What have they chosen to condemn as violations of community norms and what conduct has been silenced or omitted? And what does all of this mean in practice, both as a matter of international law, for third-party States, and for the people on the ground? Joining the show to unpack how international courts and institutions have addressed the situation in Palestine are Shahd Hammouri, Ardi Imseis, and Victor Kattan. Shahd is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Kent Law School, Ardi is an Associate Professor and the Academic Director of the International Law Programs at Queen's University Law School, and Victor is an Assistant Professor in Public International Law at the University of Nottingham School of Law.Co-hosting this episode is Just Security Executive Editor Matiangai Sirleaf. Matiangai is the Nathan Patz Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. Show Notes: Shahd Hammouri (@shahdhm)Ardi Imseis (@ArdiImseis)Victor Kattan (@VictorKattan)Matiangai V.S. Sirleaf (@matiangai)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Discussion timestamps: 1:49 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion “Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in The Occupied Palestinian Territory”43:10 International Court of Justice South Africa v. Israel case1:05 Independent Commission of Inquiry 1:38 International Criminal Court Prosecutor's Request for Arrest WarrantsMatiangai's Just Security article “We Charge Geocide: Redux” Just Security's Israel and Palestine coverageJust Security's International Court of Justice coverageJust Security's International Criminal Court coverage  Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

From the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol to the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, political violence in the United States is on the minds of many around the country and around the world. As the 2024 election draws closer, now is a useful moment to reflect on the threats of political violence, to consider how other nations have dealt with similar risks, and to evaluate where government and civil institutions can improve. Joining the show to discuss the risks of political violence in the United States and what can be done to address them is Rachel Kleinfeld. Rachel is a Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace where she focuses on issues of conflict, governance, development, and security. Show Notes: Rachel Kleinfeld (@RachelKleinfeld)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Rachel's Just Security article “Political Violence in the United States Is Rising – and It Might Be Up to Americans to Say ‘Enough!'”Just Security's Democracy coverageJust Security's Political Violence coverageJust Security's Domestic Extremism coverageJust Security's Rule of Law coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

At their core, the laws of war seek to preserve humanity in the most difficult conditions. As Dr. Cordula Droege, the chief legal officer and head of the legal division of the International Committee of the Red Cross (or ICRC) recently wrote for Just Security, “Understood in simplest terms, the law of armed conflict acknowledges that both sides will inevitably kill, injure, detain, and destroy, but it prohibits them from dehumanizing their adversary.” She notes that “Altogether, IHL contains hundreds of rules that protect life, health, and human dignity. It is modest and imperfect – it seeks only to guarantee a modicum of humanity in situations where our humanity has already been largely compromised.” But across the world – from Gaza to Myanmar to Ukraine to Sudan – IHL is facing a moment of profound strain. Civilians are targeted. Cities are leveled. And, as Droege writes, “All too often today, the protective purpose of IHL is set aside and the rules are literally turned on their head: instead of being interpreted to protect civilians, the absence of clear violations are invoked to justify a level of death, injury and destruction that is precisely what IHL intended to avoid.” Are the laws of war inadequate? Why are some States choosing not to comply? What exactly is the problem with IHL? Dr. Droege join the show to discuss her article, “War and What We Make of the Law” with Just Security's Co-Editor-in-Chief, Tess Bridgeman, and Just Security Legal Editor and Podcast Host and Executive Producer, Paras Shah. Show Notes:  Cordula Droege (@CDroegeICRC) Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Cordula's Just Security article “War and What We Make of the Law”Mary Wareham's Just Security article “Lithuania Leaving Cluster Munition Ban Undermines Agreement, Threatens Crucial Norms” Just Security's International Humanitarian Law coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

August this year marks 10 years since the shocking execution of American freelance journalist James Foley at the hands of ISIS amid the war in Syria in 2014. His videotaped decapitation was the first of a spree of ISIS beheadings, including several Americans, which ISIS often used as recruitment propaganda. Jim's killing, almost two years after he had been captured, stunned the world. A month later, ISIS did the same to another American journalist, Time Magazine contributor Steven Joel Sotloff. A month later, an American aid worker, Peter Kassig, was killed in the same way. Another American aid worker, Kayla Mueller, was killed in 2015 while being held captive by ISIS. Jim's mother, Diane Foley, has pushed through the horror of those years by establishing the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation in her son's memory and pressing the U.S. government persistently over a decade to reform its approach to cases of American hostages held abroad. At the time, its policy, as she explains in a recent article published by Just Security, consisted of little more than a slogan: “The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.” Co-hosting this episode is Just Security's Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger. On this episode, we're privileged to have Jim Foley's mother, Diane Foley, and Luke Hartig, a member of Just Security's editorial board, who first met Diane when he was a senior director at the National Security Council working on hostage policy and she was advocating for changes in hostage policy. He serves on the Foley Foundation's advisory board. Diane has been a driving force in reforming U.S. policy and practices on the handling of American hostages held abroad. Part of that campaign has been an annual research report that the foundation produces, entitled Bringing Americans Home. It collects and analyzes evidence-based data on hostages currently held in 16 countries to inform the American public, government officials, and lawmakers about how the U.S. government is doing and what else is needed to secure the release of U.S. hostages abroad and reduce the risks of capture in the first place. The latest edition was just released. Show Notes:  Diane M. Foley (@FoleyDi) Luke Hartig (@LukeHartig) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Diane's Just Security article “Since James Foley's Death, a `Moral Awakening' in America on Hostages Held Abroad”James W. Foley Legacy FoundationJust Security's Hostages coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

In November 2021, a teenager in rural Texas downloaded the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and quickly became obsessed. He began to research weapons from the game, including a military-grade assault rifle. The company that manufactures the weapon used Instagram to market it. The teenager spent hours on Instagram, using 20 different accounts to browse the app. He learned more about the gun, and saved every dollar he could to pre-order it. 23 minutes after he turned 18 years old, he purchased the weapon. A few days later, on May 24, 2022, the teenager walked into Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, and used the gun to kill 19 fourth-graders and two teachers.  Now, two years after the massacre, the families of those killed are suing Instagram and Activision Blizzard, the company that publishes Call of Duty. The novel lawsuit faces many legal hurdles – among them is Section 230, a federal law which significantly shields social media companies from liability for third-party content posted on their platforms. How might this long shot lawsuit impact who can be held responsible for mass shootings? And what are its potential implications for Silicon Valley in other contexts?  Joining the show to discuss the case and its potential impact on legal efforts to hold social media companies liable through the court system is Paul Barrett.  Paul is the deputy director and senior research scholar at the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights.Show Notes: Paul M. Barrett (@AuthorPMBarrett) Paras Shah (@pshah518)Paul's Just Security article “Can Families of Mass Shooting Victims Hold Social Media Companies Responsible for Violence?”  Just Security's Section 230 coverageJust Security's Big Tech coverageJust Security's Domestic Extremism coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

This week, leaders from across the Euro-Atlantic region met in Washington, D.C., for the annual NATO Summit. The security pact turned 75 this year, and its 32 members are facing challenges on multiple fronts, from Russia's continuing bombardment of Ukraine, now in its third year, to the growing relationship between Russia and China and NATO member Hungary's outreach to both. And that's not to mention issues such as the impacts of technology, especially artificial intelligence, and questions of how many allies are reaching the intended threshold for their own defense spending of at least 2% of GDP.And all of this comes amid the uncertainty of a looming U.S. election in which former President Donald Trump has signaled he would distance Washington's support for the alliance, and amid President Joe Biden's struggles to persuade supporters that he still has the physical and mental stamina – at age 81 – to serve another term. What are the key takeaways from the Summit and how might it influence security concerns on both sides of the Atlantic? Co-hosting today is Just Security's Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger, and joining the show to discuss this year's NATO summit and unpack its implications is Ambassador Daniel Fried. During his 40 years in the Foreign Service, Ambassador Fried played a central role in implementing U.S. policy in Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. In several senior roles, including as Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Ambassador Fried helped craft the policy of NATO enlargement to Central European countries and NATO-Russia relations. Earlier, he served as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland. He is currently the Weiser Family Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council, which co-hosted the annual NATO Public Forum with other think tanks on the sidelines of the summit.  Show Notes: Ambassador Daniel Fried (@AmbDanFried) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Ambassador Fried's Just Security article “At the NATO Summit, Strategy and Politics in Play”  Just Security's NATO coverageJust Security's Russia-Ukraine war coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. United States, finding that former presidents have “absolute immunity” for certain “official acts” taken while in office. The decision is a potentially sweeping expansion of presidential power and raises many questions, such as how to separate “official” and “unofficial” conduct in practice, and how it will impact the prosecutions against former President Donald Trump.  What are the opinion's key takeaways? How might Special Counsel Jack Smith respond to the decision? Joining the show to unpack the Court's landmark ruling, and what it means for presidential power and democracy, are leading legal experts Marty Lederman, Mary McCord, and Steve Vladeck. Just Security's Co-Editor-in-Chief, Ryan Goodman, co-hosted the discussion. Marty previously served in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel and is a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Mary is Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) and is a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. She previously had a long career at the Department of Justice, as a federal prosecutor and later in leadership of the National Security Division. Steve is a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and he covers the Supreme Court both for CNN and through his Substack newsletter, “One First.” Marty, Mary, and Steve are all Editors at Just Security.  Show Notes: Marty Lederman (@marty_lederman)Mary B. McCordSteve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck)Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Just Security's Trump Trials coverageJust Security's Supreme Court coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On June 24, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for two top Russian officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Prosecutors allege that Sergei Shoigu, Russia's former defense minister, and Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, directed missile strikes against Ukraine's power plants and electrical infrastructure. Russian attacks on Ukraine's power plants during the winter of 2022-2023 left 12 million people with limited or no access to energy and severely damaged Ukraine's health care system. Just how might the arrest warrants influence the war?  Joining the show to discuss the arrest warrants and their potential impact are Kateryna Busol and Rebecca Hamilton. Kateryna is a Ukrainian lawyer and an Associate Professor at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Rebecca is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor of Law at American University.  Show Notes: Kateryna Busol (@KaterynaBusol)Rebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security's symposium “International Law in the Face of Russia's Aggression in Ukraine: The View from Lviv” Fionnuala Ní Aoláin's Just Security article “A Zone of Silence: Obstetric Violence in Gaza and Beyond” and Podcast episode with Paras and Viola Gienger “Harm to Women in War Goes Beyond Sexual Violence: `Obstetric Violence' Neglected” Just Security's International Law coverageJust Security's Russia-Ukraine War coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

 The latest annual report from the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition identified more than 2,500 incidents of violence against, or obstruction of, health care in conflicts during 2023. Those incidents, which span from Myanmar to Mali, include attacks on health care workers and facilities, the use of drones to target hospitals and ambulances, and the occupation of hospitals to conduct military operations. And many attacks are carried out with impunity. Joining the show to unpack patterns of attacks on health care in armed conflicts is an expert team from the nonprofit organization Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and their local partners. Dr. Houssam al-Nahhas is PHR's Middle East and North Africa (MENA) researcher where he documents attacks on health care, including unlawful detention of health care workers, and advocates for access to health.  Dr. Neema Rukunghu Nadine-Néné is a gynecologist at Panzi hospital in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and an expert trainer on the care of survivors of sexual violence for PHR and the Panzi Foundation.  Uliana Poltavets is PHR's Ukraine Emergency Response Coordinator where she focuses on documenting attacks on health care in Ukraine since the onset of Russia's full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022. Dr. “B” Zemen is an Organizational Psychologist and board member of the Health Professionals Network for Tigray (HPN4Tigray).Show Notes: Dr. Houssam al-Nahhas (@h_alnahhas)Dr. Neema RukunghuUliana PoltavetsDr. "B" ZemenParas Shah (@pshah518) Uliana and Christian De Vos' Just Security article “Russia's Attacks on Ukraine's Energy Infrastructure Imperil Healthcare Access” Just Security's International Humanitarian Law (IHL) coverageJust Security's health coverageJust Security's Civilian Harm coverageJust Security's Gaza, Russia-Ukraine War, Syria, and Tigray coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Just over two years ago, Russian forces fired a missile that destroyed a museum complex in Ukraine. The attack decimated the home of 18th-century Ukrainian philosopher and poet Hryhorii Skovoroda. Hundreds of years after his death, Skovoroda is still an important national figure. Ukrainian universities bear his name, and he appears on the 500 hryvnia note. For many Ukrainians, the attack felt like it struck at the core of their identity. Damage to cultural heritage has deep impacts on the people who care about and depend on it. Attacks in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, and other areas affected by armed conflict reveal a pattern of harm from explosive weapons to cultural heritage and, by extension, to civilians. But now, a new legal framework could change how nations protect cultural heritage during war.  Joining the show to discuss the impact of explosive weapons on cultural heritage, and what States can do to address it, is Bonnie Docherty. Bonnie is a Senior Arms Advisor in the Crisis, Conflict and Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. She is also a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic and Director of the Clinic's Armed Conflict and Civilian Protection Initiative. Show Notes: Bonnie Docherty (@bonnie_docherty) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Bonnie's Just Security article “Explosive Weapons Pose Threats to Cultural Heritage: States Have a Tool to Protect It” Just Security's International Humanitarian Law coverageJust Security's Protection of Civilians coverageJust Security's Civilian Harm coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Borders between countries are often dangerous, violent places. From the sands of the Sahel to the islands of the Mediterranean, borders allow governments to define who can enter a country – often deciding whether a person can find refuge or is left behind.  Increasingly, borders are also spaces for governments and private companies to test new technology. But how is that technology being used? And what impact is it having for people on the move?  Petra Molnar's new book The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in The Age of Artificial Intelligence offers a sweeping portrait of how new tech, from surveillance drones to lie detection software, is transforming borders around the world. A lawyer and anthropologist, Petra specializes in migration and human rights. She co-runs the Refugee Law Lab at York University and is a faculty associate at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. Just Security Podcast host Paras Shah recently sat down with Petra to discuss the book, which is available now from The New Press and wherever books are sold. Show Notes: Petra Molnar (@_PMolnar)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Petra's book The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in The Age of Artificial Intelligence published by The New PressJust Security's Technology coverageJust Security's Migration coverageJust Security's Artificial Intelligence coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)Music: “Two Acres” by “Arend” from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/arend/two-acres (License code: TSVLNHC2S7MBCVQS)

Last week, an international court issued a major decision that could impact how nations around the world address climate change and protect the ocean. On May 21, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), also known as “The Oceans Court,” delivered an advisory opinion holding that countries must take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment from greenhouse gas emissions. This is the first time that an international court has ruled directly on countries' international legal obligations to mitigate climate change. The European Court of Human Rights found similar State obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights in April. The ITLOS decision is a major victory for the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, COSIS, a coalition of nine nations from the Caribbean and the Pacific. For small island States, climate change is an existential threat. Protecting the world's oceans, which act as important heat and carbon sinks, is key to maintaining fish stocks, reducing the frequency and intensity of devastating storms, and preserving plants and wildlife. What exactly did the Tribunal decide? How might this groundbreaking ruling impact future climate policy? Joining the show to discuss the Tribunal's decision and its potential impact are Catherine Amirfar and Ambassador Cheryl Bazard.  Catherine is Chair of the Subcommittee on Litigation Management of COSIS's Committee of Legal Experts and the Co-Chair of the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton's International Dispute Resolution Group. She is also the Co-Chair of Just Security's Advisory Board. Ambassador Cheryl Bazard serves as The Bahamas' Ambassador to Belgium and the European Union. The Bahamas is one of the nine COSIS States that sought the opinion. Show Notes:  Ambassador Cheryl BazardCatherine AmirfarMegan Corrarino (@MeganCorrarino)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Catherine and Duncan Pickard's Just Security article “Q&A: ‘The Oceans Court' Issues Landmark Advisory Opinion on Climate Change”Rebecca Hamilton's Just Security article “The ‘Year of Climate' in International Courts” Just Security's Climate Change coverageJust Security's International Law coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

We are over a month into former President Donald Trump's historic criminal trial. The prosecution and defense have each presented their cases, and a Manhattan jury will soon decide whether Trump broke the law and interfered in the 2016 election by falsifying business records in an effort to cover up “hush money” payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. What has it been like inside the courtroom? What can we expect next from each side in closing arguments? Joining the show to discuss the trial and what comes next are seasoned legal reporters Terri Austin and Adam Klasfeld. Terri is an experienced lawyer and legal analyst and Adam is a veteran reporter and Journalism Fellow at Just Security. They've both covered Trump's New York trial from inside the courtroom since day one. Show Notes:  Terri Austin (@Terridaustin)Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security's Trump New York criminal trial coverageJust Security's “Trump Trials Clearinghouse” Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)