Podcast appearances and mentions of alan rozenshtein

Jakub Kraus, a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, speaks with Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Research Director at Lawfare, and Kevin Frazier, the AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law, a Senior Fellow at the Abundance Institute, and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, about Anthropic's newly released "constitution" for its AI model, Claude.The conversation covers the lengthy document's principles and underlying philosophical views, what these reveal about Anthropic's approach to AI development, how market forces are shaping the AI industry, and the weighty question of whether an AI model might ever be a conscious or morally relevant being.Mentioned in this episode:Kevin Frazier, "Interpreting Claude's Constitution," LawfareAlan Rozenshtein, "The Moral Education of an Alien Mind," LawfareFind Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jakub Kraus, a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, spoke with Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Research Director at Lawfare, and Kevin Frazier, the AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law, a Senior Fellow at the Abundance Institute, and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, about Anthropic's newly released "constitution" for its AI model, Claude. The conversation covered the lengthy document's principles and underlying philosophical views, what these reveal about Anthropic's approach to AI development, how market forces are shaping the AI industry, and the weighty question of whether an AI model might ever be a conscious or morally relevant being. Mentioned in this episode:Kevin Frazier, "Interpreting Claude's Constitution," LawfareAlan Rozenshtein, "The Moral Education of an Alien Mind," Lawfare Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alan Rozenshtein, research director at Lawfare, spoke with Francis Shen, Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, director of the Shen Neurolaw Lab, and candidate for Hennepin County Attorney.The conversation covered the intersection of neuroscience, AI, and criminal justice; how AI tools can improve criminal investigations and clearance rates; the role of AI in adjudication and plea negotiations; precision sentencing and individualized justice; the ethical concerns around AI bias, fairness, and surveillance; the practical challenges of implementing AI systems in local government; building institutional capacity and public trust; and the future of the prosecutor's office in an AI-augmented justice system.Find Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alan Rozenshtein, research director at Lawfare, spoke with Francis Shen, Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, director of the Shen Neurolaw Lab, and candidate for Hennepin County Attorney.The conversation covered the intersection of neuroscience, AI, and criminal justice; how AI tools can improve criminal investigations and clearance rates; the role of AI in adjudication and plea negotiations; precision sentencing and individualized justice; the ethical concerns around AI bias, fairness, and surveillance; the practical challenges of implementing AI systems in local government; building institutional capacity and public trust; and the future of the prosecutor's office in an AI-augmented justice system. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Connecticut State Senator James Maroney and Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute, join Kevin Frazier, the AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor at Minnesota Law and Research Director at Lawfare, for a look back at a wild year in AI policy.Neil provides his expert analysis of all that did (and did not) happen at the federal level. Senator Maroney then examines what transpired across the states. The four then offer their predictions for what seems likely to be an even busier 2026. Find Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From January 2, 2025: You called in with your questions, and Lawfare contributors have answers! Benjamin Wittes, Kevin Frazier, Quinta Jurecic, Eugenia Lostri, Alan Rozenshtein, Scott R. Anderson, Natalie Orpett, Amelia Wilson, Anna Bower, and Roger Parloff addressed questions on everything from presidential pardons to the risks of AI to the domestic deployment of the military.Thank you for your questions. And as always, thank you for listening.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott down with his Lawfare colleagues Alan Rozenshtein and Ari Tabatabai to talk through a few of the week's big national security news stories, including:“Once You Pop, You Can't Stop.” The Trump administration has given a green light to Nvidia to export its powerful H200 chips to China, opening a potentially significant new market while jumpstarting China's strategically significant AI industry—or, perhaps, making it reliant on U.S. technology. What explains this decision? And how does it align with the Trump administration's broader reframing of strategic competition with China as a primarily economic problem, as reflected in its recent National Security Strategy?“Lavatories of Democracy.” Late last week, President Trump signed an executive order setting up a number of mechanisms intended to assert federal preemption over and otherwise deter state efforts to regulate the development and use of AI—an executive branch-only effort that followed a failed push to insert a related legislative provision into year-end omnibus legislation. How effective is this measure likely to be? And how wise is it to try and bar the states from regulating AI development and use in the first place?“Some Things You Can't Make Light Of.” Over the weekend, a pair of gunmen inspired by the Islamic State executed a brutal massacre at a Hanukkah event on Australia's Bondi Beach, killing 15 people and injuring 40. The violence has shocked Australia, a country with strict gun control laws where incidents of anti-semitism have been on the rise, as in much of the world. What is there to learn from the attack and its aftermath? And what could its ramifications be, both in Australia and further abroad?In object lessons, Alan tells us what the buzz is—seeing Jesus Christ Superstar live. Scott, heavy with Christmas spirit, shares his grandmother's recipe for sour cream coffee cake (remember, during the holidays, dense=delicious). And Ari keeps us grounded with a recommendation of “Don't Let's Go To the Dogs Tonight,” a South African film about a White Zimbabwean family following the Rhodesian Bush War.Rational Security will be having its traditional end-of-year episode later this month, which will focus on listener-submitted topics and object lessons! If you have topics you want us to discuss and object lessons you want to share—whether serious or frivolous—be sure to send them to rationalsecurity@lawfaremedia.org by Dec. 21!To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott down with his Lawfare colleagues Alan Rozenshtein and Ari Tabatabai to talk through a few of the week's big national security news stories, including:“Once You Pop, You Can't Stop.” The Trump administration has given a green light to Nvidia to export its powerful H200 chips to China, opening a potentially significant new market while jumpstarting China's strategically significant AI industry—or, perhaps, making it reliant on U.S. technology. What explains this decision? And how does it align with the Trump administration's broader reframing of strategic competition with China as a primarily economic problem, as reflected in its recent National Security Strategy?“Lavatories of Democracy.” Late last week, President Trump signed an executive order setting up a number of mechanisms intended to assert federal preemption over and otherwise deter state efforts to regulate the development and use of AI—an executive branch-only effort that followed a failed push to insert a related legislative provision into year-end omnibus legislation. How effective is this measure likely to be? And how wise is it to try and bar the states from regulating AI development and use in the first place?“Some Things You Can't Make Light Of.” Over the weekend, a pair of gunmen inspired by the Islamic State executed a brutal massacre at a Hanukkah event on Australia's Bondi Beach, killing 15 people and injuring 40. The violence has shocked Australia, a country with strict gun control laws where incidents of anti-semitism have been on the rise, as in much of the world. What is there to learn from the attack and its aftermath? And what could its ramifications be, both in Australia and further abroad?In object lessons, Alan tells us what the buzz is—seeing Jesus Christ Superstar live. Scott, heavy with Christmas spirit, shares his grandmother's recipe for sour cream coffee cake (remember, during the holidays, dense=delicious). And Ari keeps us grounded with a recommendation of “Don't Let's Go To the Dogs Tonight,” a South African film about a White Zimbabwean family following the Rhodesian Bush War.Rational Security will be having its traditional end-of-year episode later this month, which will focus on listener-submitted topics and object lessons! If you have topics you want us to discuss and object lessons you want to share—whether serious or frivolous—be sure to send them to rationalsecurity@lawfaremedia.org by Dec. 21!To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From November 16, 2024: Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Scott Anderson, Alan Rozenshtein, and Quinta Jurecic and Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection Mary McCord about Donald Trump's picks for his Cabinet and senior-level administration positions, including Matt Gaetz as attorney general and Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense, the possibility of Trump using the recess appointment power, and more.Editor's note: During a discussion of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s nomination to head the Department of Health and Human Services, we mentioned a 2019 outbreak of measles in Polynesia. The outbreak took place in Samoa, not American Samoa as we mistakenly stated.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this rapid response episode, Lawfare senior editors Alan Rozenshtein and Kevin Frazier and Lawfare Tarbell fellow Jakub Kraus discuss President Trump's new executive order on federal preemption of state AI laws, the politics of AI regulation and the split between Silicon Valley Republicans and MAGA populists, and the administration's decision to allow Nvidia to export H200 chips to China. Mentioned in this episode:Executive Order: Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial IntelligenceCharlie Bullock, "Legal Issues Raised by the Proposed Executive Order on AI Preemption," Institute for Law & AI Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lawfare Senior Editors Kate Klonick and Alan Rozenshtein talk to Columbia law professor Tim Wu about this new book, “The Age of Extraction: How Tech Platforms Conquered the Economy and Threaten Our Future Prosperity.” The book is the final part of what Wu calls his trilogy—building on his prior best selling books “The Master Switch” and “Attention Merchants.” Klonick and Rozenshtein speak with Wu about how he sees the platforms as evolving in the 15 years since he started this series and what he sees as the future solution set for the problems that have developed out of the early promise of the digital era. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with co-hosts emeritus Benjamin Wittes and Alan Rozenshtein, and Senior Editor Kate Klonick, to talk through the week's big national security news stories, including:“Cracks in the Foundation.” The conservative Heritage Foundation—and the broader conservative movement it plays a central role in—has been going through a very public crisis over the past week after its president, Kevin Roberts, came to the defense of right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson after Carlson chose to host white nationalist Nick Fuentes on his podcast. This has led to resignations at the Heritage Foundation, condemnation by certain figures on the right, and a pseudo apology by Roberts. It has also led to a little bit of a reckoning over how some on the right, and to some extent Americans more broadly, have dealt with accusations of anti-Semitism, its relationship to various policy questions, as well as hate speech and other political perspectives. What should we be making of this crisis and what does it tell us about the different policy aspects that intersect with this question of anti-Semitism?“Turning Back the Clock.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promised that President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping would “consummate” a TikTok deal at their face-to-face last week. But no details have emerged to date. What should we make of this apparent hold-up—and of the TikTok saga altogether? “A Foe By Any Other Name.” As the Trump administration has continued its military campaign against narcotics traffickers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, U.S. officials have continued to draw parallels between current policies and the Global War on Terrorism, calling detainees “unlawful enemy combatants” and the groups being targeted “designated terrorist organizations.” “If you are a narco-terrorist…,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently tweeted in relation to one of the strikes, “we will treat you like we treat Al-Qaeda.” But how accurate are these parallels, and why is the Trump administration deploying them in this way?In object lessons, Ben brings you a little announcement that is shorter than this sentence—you're just going to have to listen to find out. Alan, hungry for more genre fiction, is diving into The Divine Cities trilogy, starting with “City of Stairs,” by Robert Jackson Bennett. Scott is going out of this world with what he calls “the nerdiest object lesson” he's ever brought to RatSec: Pioneer, a tabletop role-playing game that has “launched” on Kickstarter. And Kate, not to be outdone in nerdom, displays maybe the mathiest vegetable: the beautiful romanesco.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with co-hosts emeritus Benjamin Wittes and Alan Rozenshtein, and Senior Editor Kate Klonick, to talk through the week's big national security news stories, including:“Cracks in the Foundation.” The conservative Heritage Foundation—and the broader conservative movement it plays a central role in—has been going through a very public crisis over the past week after its president, Kevin Roberts, came to the defense of right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson after Carlson chose to host white nationalist Nick Fuentes on his podcast. This has led to resignations at the Heritage Foundation, condemnation by certain figures on the right, and a pseudo apology by Roberts. It has also led to a little bit of a reckoning over how some on the right, and to some extent Americans more broadly, have dealt with accusations of anti-Semitism, its relationship to various policy questions, as well as hate speech and other political perspectives. What should we be making of this crisis and what does it tell us about the different policy aspects that intersect with this question of anti-Semitism?“Turning Back the Clock.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promised that President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping would “consummate” a TikTok deal at their face-to-face last week. But no details have emerged to date. What should we make of this apparent hold-up—and of the TikTok saga altogether? “A Foe By Any Other Name.” As the Trump administration has continued its military campaign against narcotics traffickers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, U.S. officials have continued to draw parallels between current policies and the Global War on Terrorism, calling detainees “unlawful enemy combatants” and the groups being targeted “designated terrorist organizations.” “If you are a narco-terrorist…,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently tweeted in relation to one of the strikes, “we will treat you like we treat Al-Qaeda.” But how accurate are these parallels, and why is the Trump administration deploying them in this way?In object lessons, Ben brings you a little announcement that is shorter than this sentence—you're just going to have to listen to find out. Alan, hungry for more genre fiction, is diving into The Divine Cities trilogy, starting with “City of Stairs,” by Robert Jackson Bennett. Scott is going out of this world with what he calls “the nerdiest object lesson” he's ever brought to RatSec: Pioneer, a tabletop role-playing game that has “launched” on Kickstarter. And Kate, not to be outdone in nerdom, displays maybe the mathiest vegetable: the beautiful romanesco.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alan Rozenshtein, Senior Editor at Lawfare, speaks with Brett Goldstein, Special Advisor to the Chancellor on National Security and Strategic Initiatives at Vanderbilt University; Brett Benson, Associate Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University; and Renée DiResta, Lawfare Contributing Editor and Associate Research Professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy.The conversation covers the evolution of influence operations from crude Russian troll farms to sophisticated AI systems using large language models; the discovery of GoLaxy documents revealing a "Smart Propaganda System" that collects millions of data points daily, builds psychological profiles, and generates resilient personas; operations targeting Hong Kong's 2020 protests and Taiwan's 2024 election; the fundamental challenges of measuring effectiveness; GoLaxy's ties to Chinese intelligence agencies; why detection has become harder as platform integrity teams have been rolled back and multi-stakeholder collaboration has broken down; and whether the United States can get ahead of this threat or will continue the reactive pattern that has characterized cybersecurity for decades.Mentioned in this episode:"The Era of A.I. Propaganda Has Arrived, and America Must Act,” by Brett J. Goldstein and Brett V. Benson (New York Times, August 5, 2025)"China Turns to A.I. in Information Warfare" by Julian E. Barnes (New York Times, August 6, 2025)"The GoLaxy Papers: Inside China's AI Persona Army,” by Dina Temple-Raston and Erika Gajda (The Record, September 19, 2025)"The supply of disinformation will soon be infinite,” by Renée DiResta (The Atlantic, September 2020)Find Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alan Rozenshtein, senior editor at Lawfare, spoke with Brett Goldstein, special advisor to the chancellor on national security and strategic initiatives at Vanderbilt University; Brett Benson, associate professor of political science at Vanderbilt University; and Renée DiResta, Lawfare contributing editor and associate research professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy.The conversation covered the evolution of influence operations from crude Russian troll farms to sophisticated AI systems using large language models; the discovery of GoLaxy documents revealing a "Smart Propaganda System" that collects millions of data points daily, builds psychological profiles, and generates resilient personas; operations targeting Hong Kong's 2020 protests and Taiwan's 2024 election; the fundamental challenges of measuring effectiveness; GoLaxy's ties to Chinese intelligence agencies; why detection has become harder as platform integrity teams have been rolled back and multi-stakeholder collaboration has broken down; and whether the United States can get ahead of this threat or will continue the reactive pattern that has characterized cybersecurity for decades.Mentioned in this episode:"The Era of A.I. Propaganda Has Arrived, and America Must Act" by Brett J. Goldstein and Brett V. Benson (New York Times, August 5, 2025)"China Turns to A.I. in Information Warfare" by Julian E. Barnes (New York Times, August 6, 2025)"The GoLaxy Papers: Inside China's AI Persona Army" by Dina Temple-Raston and Erika Gajda (The Record, September 19, 2025)"The supply of disinformation will soon be infinite" by Renée DiResta (The Atlantic, September 2020) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

California State Senator Scott Wiener, author of Senate Bill 53—a frontier AI safety bill—signed into law by Governor Newsom earlier this month, joins Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor at Minnesota Law and Research Director at Lawfare, and Kevin Frazier, AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, to explain the significance of SB 53 in the large debate about how to govern AI.The trio analyze the lessons that Senator Wiener learned from the battle of SB 1047, a related bill that Newsom vetoed last year, explore SB 53's key provisions, and forecast what may be coming next in Sacramento and D.C.Find Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

California State Senator Scott Wiener, author of Senate Bill 53--a frontier AI safety bill--signed into law by Governor Newsom earlier this month, joins Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor at Minnesota Law and Research Director at Lawfare, and Kevin Frazier, AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, to explain the significance of SB 53 in the large debate about how to govern AI.The trio analyze the lessons that Senator Wiener learned from the battle of SB 1047, a related bill that Newsom vetoed last year, explore SB 53's key provisions, and forecast what may be coming next in Sacramento and D.C. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his colleagues Alan Rozenshtein and Anna Bower to talk through the week's big national security news stories, including:“A Higher Loyalty.” The Justice Department appeared to bow to the demands of President Trump last week when, over the reported objections of several senior officials, it successfully sought the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly false statements he made to Congress. But the prosecution is raising a lot of questions among legal experts about the procedures, the substance, and what exactly its odds are for success moving forward. What should we make of this move by the Justice Department? What does this tell us about the prospects for weaponization moving forward?“A Right to Bare Faces.” California has enacted a new law that, among other measures, will require law enforcement officers of all stripes to limit their use of face masks. But legal experts are torn on whether this policy can constitutionally apply to its clear target: the ICE personnel and other federal law enforcement officers who have started wearing masks for even routine law enforcement activities. How likely is the new law to achieve its goals?“Legal Code.” California has passed a first of its kind AI safety law, with the support (or at least acquiescence) of industry leaders. Does this point a way forward for AI safety legislation? And how will it make us safer?In object lessons, the AI overlords completely take over. Alan is vibe coding his way to paying for his kids' college tuition. Scott's AI alter ego is making easier work of docket watching with NotebookLM. And even Anna, in search of Jimmy Kimmel jokes, gets a little AI anecdote in through her recent tour of NYC comedy clubs.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his colleagues Alan Rozenshtein and Anna Bower to talk through the week's big national security news stories, including:“A Higher Loyalty.” The Justice Department appeared to bow to the demands of President Trump last week when, over the reported objections of several senior officials, it successfully sought the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey for allegedly false statements he made to Congress. But the prosecution is raising a lot of questions among legal experts about the procedures, the substance, and what exactly its odds are for success moving forward. What should we make of this move by the Justice Department? What does this tell us about the prospects for weaponization moving forward?“A Right to Bare Faces.” California has enacted a new law that, among other measures, will require law enforcement officers of all stripes to limit their use of face masks. But legal experts are torn on whether this policy can constitutionally apply to its clear target: the ICE personnel and other federal law enforcement officers who have started wearing masks for even routine law enforcement activities. How likely is the new law to achieve its goals?“Legal Code.” California has passed a first of its kind AI safety law, with the support (or at least acquiescence) of industry leaders. Does this point a way forward for AI safety legislation? And how will it make us safer?In object lessons, the AI overlords completely take over. Alan is vibe coding his way to paying for his kids' college tuition. Scott's AI alter ego is making easier work of docket watching with NotebookLM. And even Anna, in search of Jimmy Kimmel jokes, gets a little AI anecdote in through her recent tour of NYC comedy clubs.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this Scaling Laws rapid response episode, hosts Kevin Frazier and Alan Rozenshtein talk about SB-53, the frontier AI transparency (and more) law that California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law on September 29. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alan Rozenshtein, Lawfare Senior Editor and Research Director; Renée DiResta, Lawfare Contributing Editor; and Jess Miers, visiting assistant professor of Law at the University of Akron School of Law, discuss the distinct risks that generative AI systems pose to children, particularly in relation to mental health.They explore the balance between the benefits and harms of AI, emphasizing the importance of media literacy and parental guidance. They also examine recent developments in AI safety measures and ongoing legal implications, highlighting the evolving landscape of AI regulation and liability.Find Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alan Rozenshtein, Renee DiResta, and Jess Miers discuss the distinct risks that generative AI systems pose to children, particularly in relation to mental health. They explore the balance between the benefits and harms of AI, emphasizing the importance of media literacy and parental guidance. Recent developments in AI safety measures and ongoing legal implications are also examined, highlighting the evolving landscape of AI regulation and liability. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From September 18, 2024: Jane Bambauer, Professor at Levin College of Law; Ramya Krishnan, Senior Staff Attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School; Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, join Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to break down the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' hearing in TikTok v. Garland, in which a panel of judges assessed the constitutionality of the TikTok bill.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On today's Scaling Laws episode, Alan Rozenshtein sat down with Pam Samuelson, the Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, to discuss the rapidly evolving legal landscape at the intersection of generative AI and copyright law. They dove into the recent district court rulings in lawsuits brought by authors against AI companies, including Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta. They explored how different courts are treating the core questions of whether training AI models on copyrighted data is a transformative fair use and whether AI outputs create a “market dilution” effect that harms creators. They also touched on other key cases to watch and the role of the U.S. Copyright Office in shaping the debate. Mentioned in this episode:"How to Think About Remedies in the Generative AI Copyright Cases"by Pam Samuelson in LawfareAndy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. GoldsmithBartz v. AnthropicKadrey v. Meta PlatformsThomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 3: Generative AI Training Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Professors Asaf Lubin of Indiana University, Martin S. Lederman of Georgetown University and Alan Rozenshtein of the University of Minnesota discuss Vice Dean Ashley Deeks' new book, “The Double Black Box: National Security, Artificial Intelligence, and the Struggle for Democratic Accountability.” Professor Danielle Citron moderated the panel and Dean Leslie Kendrick '06 introduced the event, which was sponsored by the Law School and co-sponsored by the LawTech Center. (University of Virginia School of Law, Sept. 4, 2025)

Alan Rozenshtein, Research Director at Lawfare, sits down with Sam Winter-Levy, a Fellow in the Technology and International Affairs Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Janet Egan, a Senior Fellow with the Technology and National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security; and Peter Harrell, a Nonresident Fellow at Carnegie and a former Senior Director for International Economics at the White House National Security Council under President Joe Biden.They discuss the Trump administration's recent decision to allow U.S. companies Nvidia and AMD to export a range of advanced AI semiconductors to China in exchange for a 15% payment to the U.S. government. They talk about the history of the export control regime targeting China's access to AI chips, the strategic risks of allowing China to acquire powerful chips like the Nvidia H20, and the potential harm to the international coalition that has worked to restrict China's access to this technology. They also debate the statutory and constitutional legality of the deal, which appears to function as an export tax, a practice explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.Mentioned in this episode:The Financial Times article breaking the news about the Nvidia dealThe Trump Administration's AI Action PlanFind Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The state of Minnesota is suing TikTok, claiming the social media giant is dangerous and harmful for children. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison held a press conference Tuesday morning to lay out the state's case.“This isn't about free speech,” said Ellison. “It's actually about deception, manipulation, misrepresentation. This is about a company knowing the dangerous effects of its product, but making and taking no steps to mitigate those harms or inform users of the risks.”Alan Rozenshtein, an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota, joined Minnesota Now to talk about the lawsuit and its implications.

Alan Rozenshtein, research director at Lawfare, sat down with Sam Winter-Levy, a fellow in the Technology and International Affairs Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Janet Egan, a senior fellow with the Technology and National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security; and Peter Harrell, a nonresident fellow at Carnegie and a former senior director for international economics at the White House National Security Council under President Joe Biden.They discussed the Trump administration's recent decision to allow U.S. companies Nvidia and AMD to export a range of advanced AI semiconductors to China in exchange for a 15% payment to the U.S. government. They talked about the history of the export control regime targeting China's access to AI chips, the strategic risks of allowing China to acquire powerful chips like the Nvidia H20, and the potential harm to the international coalition that has worked to restrict China's access to this technology. They also debated the statutory and constitutional legality of the deal, which appears to function as an export tax, a practice explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.Mentioned in this episode:The Financial Times article breaking the news about the Nvidia dealThe Trump Administration's AI Action Plan Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of Scaling Laws, Dean Ball, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation and former Senior Policy Advisor for Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, joins Kevin Frazier, AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor at Minnesota Law and Research Director at Lawfare, to share an inside perspective of the Trump administration's AI agenda, with a specific focus on the AI Action Plan. The trio also explore Dean's thoughts on the recently released ChatGPT-5 and the ongoing geopolitical dynamics shaping America's domestic AI policy.Find Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Renée DiResta, an Associate Research Professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown join Alan Rozenshtein and Kevin Frazier, to take a look at the Trump Administration's Woke AI policies, as set forth by a recent EO and explored in the AI Action Plan. This episode unpacks the implications of prohibiting AI models that fail to pursue objective truth and espouse "DEI" values. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Renée DiResta, an Associate Research Professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown and a Contributing Editor at Lawfare, and Alan Rozenshtein, an Associate Professor at Minnesota Law, Research Director at Lawfare, and, with the exception of today, co-host on the Scaling Laws podcast, join Kevin Frazier, the AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, to take a look at the Trump Administration's Woke AI policies, as set forth by a recent EO and explored in the AI Action Plan.Read the Woke AI executive orderRead the AI Action PlanRead "Generative Baseline Hell and the Regulation of Machine-Learning Foundation Models," by James Grimmelmann, Blake Reid, and Alan RozenshteinFind Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alan Rozenshtein, Senior Editor and Research Director at Lawfare, sits down with Sezaneh Seymour, Vice President and head of regulatory risk and policy at Coalition and a former Senior Adviser on the National Security Council staff, and Brandon Wales, Vice President for cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne and the former Executive Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), to discuss their new Lawfare Research Report, “Partners or Provocateurs? Private-Sector Involvement in Offensive Cyber Operations.”They talk about why, in the face of escalating cyber threats from state and criminal actors, U.S. officials are reevaluating the policy that currently reserves offensive cyber operations as a government-only function. Rather than endorsing a change, Seymour and Wales propose a structured framework to guide the policy debate. This framework is built on three key factors: first, defining the core policy objectives for involving the private sector; second, determining the appropriate scope of authorized activities, including what actions are permissible and who can be targeted; and third, addressing the complex legal and liability considerations, especially when operations cause harm to innocent third parties. They conclude by weighing the potential for private actors to augment U.S. capabilities against the significant risks of escalation and diplomatic fallout.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From July 23, 2024: Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Matt Perault, the Director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, sat down with Alexander Macgillivray, known to all as "amac," who was the former Principle Deputy Chief Technology Officer of the United States in the Biden Administration and General Counsel at Twitter.amac recently wrote a piece for Lawfare about making AI policy in a world of technological uncertainty, and Matt and Alan talked to him about how to do just that.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alan Rozenshtein, Senior Editor at Lawfare and Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, speaks with Noah Feldman, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, about the Supreme Court's recent decision to greatly limit the practice of universal injunctions. The ruling came in a case involving a Trump administration executive order on birthright citizenship, and while many commentators have viewed the decision as a dangerous loss for the rule of law, Noah argues that the Court might be playing a strategic "long game."Alan and Noah discuss Noah's central thesis: that the Supreme Court's primary job in the Trump era is to protect the rule of law by avoiding a direct constitutional crisis with the executive branch that the judiciary is likely to lose. From this perspective, eliminating universal injunctions—a tool that allows a single district judge to start a major fight—is a way for the Court to control when and where it confronts the administration. They also address the legal merits of Justice Barrett's majority opinion, which Noah argues was a flawed use of originalism that misinterpreted the flexible, problem-solving nature of equity. Finally, they explore the legal avenues for relief that remain, such as class actions, and consider what it means for the judiciary to truly "win" or "lose" a confrontation with a president who is undeterred by political norms.Note that this discussion was recorded in early July, before a lower court certified a class action in the birthright citizenship litigation and before the Supreme Court's recent unsigned opinion allowing the Trump administration to begin mass firings at the Department of Education, which Noah has since criticized.Mentioned in this episode:"The Supreme Court's Majority Is Playing the Long Game,” by Noah Feldman in Bloomberg Opinion"The Supreme Court's Silent Opinions Undermine Its Legitimacy,” by Noah Feldman in Bloomberg OpinionTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alan Rozenshtein, Senior Editor and Research Director at Lawfare, sits down with David Noll, a Professor of Law at Rutgers Law School, to discuss his new Lawfare Research Report, “Civil Contempt Against a Defiant Executive.” They talk about the widespread assumption that the judiciary is powerless if the executive branch chooses to defy court orders, largely because enforcement mechanisms like the U.S. Marshals Service reside within the executive branch.Noll argues that this view is mistaken and overlooks the significant enforcement powers the courts possess that are independent of the executive. Noll and Rozenshtein discuss non-custodial sanctions like stripping officials of immunity, levying substantial personal fines, and imposing professional discipline. They also explore the arrest power, noting that the U.S. Marshals have a statutory duty to enforce all lawful court orders that may supersede a presidential directive, and that courts retain a historical power to appoint their own deputies to enforce contempt citations if the Marshals were to refuse. Noll concludes that a conflict between the branches would likely be more protracted and contested than is commonly believed.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ethan Mollick, Professor of Management and author of the “One Useful Thing” Substack, joins Kevin Frazier, the AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor at Minnesota Law and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, to analyze the latest research in AI adoption, specifically its use by professionals and educators. The trio also analyze the trajectory of AI development and related, ongoing policy discussions.More of Ethan Mollick's work: https://www.oneusefulthing.org/Find Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with fellow Senior Editors Molly Reynolds and Alan Rozenshtein to talk through the week's big national security news, including:“One Bill to rule them all, One Bill to find them, One Bill to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.” Republicans in Congress narrowly enacted President Trump's “One Big Beautiful Bill” last week, just in advance of the July 4 deadline he had set early in the year. What will its contents mean for elements of Trump's national security agenda, including his immigration policies? And what does it say about his influence over fellow Republicans in Congress?“Even a Stopped Clock is Right More Often Than This Letter.” In response to a FOIA lawsuit, the Justice Department has released copies of the letters that it sent to tech companies regarding President Trump's pause on the enforcement of a statute intended to curtail TikTok's availability in the United States. In the letter, the Trump administration not only suggests that the law may unconstitutionally interfere with the president's authority over foreign affairs, but suggests that the president can “waive” the enforcement of civil penalties and otherwise commit not to enforce the law for certain periods of conduct. How persuasive are these legal arguments? And what explains tech companies' willingness to rely on them?“Nationwide, Not On Your Side.” At the end of its term last week, the Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision in the birthright citizenship cases, wherein it sided with the Trump administration in ending the practice of “universal” (or nationwide) injunctions pursued by lower courts in many cases regarding challenges to government conduct. What with this holding mean, both for the birthright citizenship cases and for the broader legal system moving forward?In object lessons, Alan marveled at the majesty of Cranbrook Schools during a recent trip to Michigan. Scott's been here the whole time with a recommendation of Dropout TV's Game Changer. And Molly took us down a dark and dirty, Danish-derived, detective direction with Dept. Q on Netflix.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with fellow Senior Editors Molly Reynolds and Alan Rozenshtein to talk through the week's big national security news, including:“One Bill to rule them all, One Bill to find them, One Bill to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.” Republicans in Congress narrowly enacted President Trump's “One Big Beautiful Bill” last week, just in advance of the July 4 deadline he had set early in the year. What will its contents mean for elements of Trump's national security agenda, including his immigration policies? And what does it say about his influence over fellow Republicans in Congress?“Even a Stopped Clock is Right More Often Than This Letter.” In response to a FOIA lawsuit, the Justice Department has released copies of the letters that it sent to tech companies regarding President Trump's pause on the enforcement of a statute intended to curtail TikTok's availability in the United States. In the letter, the Trump administration not only suggests that the law may unconstitutionally interfere with the president's authority over foreign affairs, but suggests that the president can “waive” the enforcement of civil penalties and otherwise commit not to enforce the law for certain periods of conduct. How persuasive are these legal arguments? And what explains tech companies' willingness to rely on them?“Nationwide, Not On Your Side.” At the end of its term last week, the Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision in the birthright citizenship cases, wherein it sided with the Trump administration in ending the practice of “universal” (or nationwide) injunctions pursued by lower courts in many cases regarding challenges to government conduct. What with this holding mean, both for the birthright citizenship cases and for the broader legal system moving forward?In object lessons, Alan marveled at the majesty of Cranbrook Schools during a recent trip to Michigan. Scott's been here the whole time with a recommendation of Dropout TV's Game Changer. And Molly took us down a dark and dirty, Danish-derived, detective direction with Dept. Q on Netflix.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On the inaugural episode of Scaling Laws, co-hosts Kevin Frazier, AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law and a Senior Editor at Law, and Alan Rozenshtein, Professor at Minnesota Law and Research Director at Lawfare, speak with Adam Thierer, a senior fellow for the Technology and Innovation team at the R Street Institute, and Helen Toner, the Director of Strategy and Foundational Research Grants at Georgetown's Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET).They discuss the recent overwhelming defeat in the Senate of a proposed moratorium on state and local regulation of artificial intelligence. The conversation explores the moratorium's journey from its inclusion in a House bill to its ultimate failure, examining the procedural hurdles, the confusing legislative language, and the political maneuvering that led to its demise by a 99-to-1 vote. The group discuss the future of U.S. AI governance, covering the Republican party's fragmentation on tech policy and whether Congress's failure to act is a sign of it being broken or a deliberate policy choice.Mentioned in this episode: “The Continuing Tech Policy Realignment on the Right” by Adam Thierer in Medium “1,000 AI Bills: Time for Congress to Get Serious About Preemption” by Kevin Frazier and Adam Thierer in Lawfare “Congress Should Preempt State AI Safety Legislation” by Dean W. Ball and Alan Z. Rozenshtein in Lawfare "The Coming Techlash Could Kill AI Innovation Before It Helps Anyone" by Kevin Frazier in Reason "Unresolved debates about the future of AI" by Helen Toner in Rising Tide Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Page Hedley, Senior Advisor at Forecasting Research Institute and co-author of the Not for Private Gain letter urging state attorneys general to stop OpenAI's planned restructuring, and Gad Weiss, the Wagner Fellow in Law & Business at NYU Law, join Kevin Frazier, AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor at Minnesota Law and Senior Editor at Lawfare, to analyze news of OpenAI once again modifying its corporate governance structure. The group break down the rationale for the proposed modification, the relevant underlying law, and the significance of corporate governance in shaping the direction of AI development.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From January 4, 2022: Government secrecy is pervasive when it comes to national security and foreign affairs, and it's becoming more and more common for state and even local governments to invoke government secrecy rationales that in the past, only the president of the United States and the national intelligence community were able to claim. While some of the secrecy is no doubt necessary to ensure that police investigations aren't compromised and state and local officials are getting candid advice from their staff, government secrecy directly threatens government transparency and thus democratic accountability. Alan Rozenshtein spoke about these issues with Christina Koningisor, a law professor at the University of Utah and the author of “Secrecy Creep” a recently published article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, along with the Lawfare post summarizing her work.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From December 15, 2020: Alan Rozenshtein sat down with Yaya Fanusie, a former CIA analyst and an expert on the national security implications of cryptocurrencies, who recently published a paper as part of Lawfare's ongoing Digital Social Contract research paper series, entitled, "Central Bank Digital Currencies: The Threat From Money Launderers and How to Stop Them." They talked about how central banks are exploring digital currencies, how those currencies might in turn be used by criminals and terrorist groups, and how governments and the private sector should respond.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From October 6, 2023: The First Amendment protects speech, but what kind? True speech, sure. But what about false or misleading speech? What if it's harmful? After all, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater—or can you?To answer these questions, Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare spoke with Jeff Kosseff, who is an Associate Professor of Cybersecurity Law in the United States Naval Academy's Cyber Science Department and a Contributing Editor at Lawfare. Jeff is releasing his latest book this month, titled "Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation," in which he describes, and defends, the First Amendment's robust protections for false and misleading speech.They spoke about the book, why you sometimes can yell fire in a crowded theater, and how new technology both superchargers misinformation and provides new tools to fight it.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor and co-host emeritus Alan Rozenshtein and Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett to talk through the week's big national security news, including:“Lowering the Bar.” Last week, the Trump administration took aim at two leading law firms—Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie—by repealing lawyers' security clearances and setting limits on the extent to which government actors can contract with them, on the apparent grounds that they worked for Trump's perceived enemies. Is this legal? Will it be challenged? And what will the effect be on the legal industry?“Big Math on Campus.” The Trump administration recently announced its intent to withhold $400 million in government grants from Columbia University, on the grounds that it had not done enough to combat anti-semitism on campus—a measure it paired with an indication that it would repeal student visas from those who had expressed “pro-Hamas” views. Is this tack a proper or legally sustainable one? And what impact will it have on academic communities in the United States?“Nothing Is Certain but Death and Ta…Well, at Least Death.” After temporarily delaying tariffs on Canada and Mexico after 48 hours last month, President Trump assured everyone that they were definitely getting installed this month. But once again, after a few days, he rescinded many of them. Nonetheless, the uncertainty surrounding this administration's policies has markets spooked, triggering fears of a recession—something President Trump has indicated people may just have to live through. What are the real costs and benefits of Trump's oscillating trade policies?In object lessons, Alan went full nerd and prescribed himself a decade-long literary exile with “Gardens of the Moon,” the first in Steven Erikson's ten-book epic. Scott's old ass, meanwhile, threw its weight behind “My Old Ass,” a film about a young woman navigating family, love, and self-discovery—all with a little hallucinogenic assistance. And Natalie logrolled like a pro, plugging Quinta Jurecic's guest spot on The Ezra Klein Show, where Quinta delivers one of Natalie's all-time favorite “Quintaisms”—with all the necessary context baked right in.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor and co-host emeritus Alan Rozenshtein and Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett to talk through the week's big national security news, including:“Lowering the Bar.” Last week, the Trump administration took aim at two leading law firms—Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie—by repealing lawyers' security clearances and setting limits on the extent to which government actors can contract with them, on the apparent grounds that they worked for Trump's perceived enemies. Is this legal? Will it be challenged? And what will the effect be on the legal industry?“Big Math on Campus.” The Trump administration recently announced its intent to withhold $400 million in government grants from Columbia University, on the grounds that it had not done enough to combat anti-semitism on campus—a measure it paired with an indication that it would repeal student visas from those who had expressed “pro-Hamas” views. Is this tack a proper or legally sustainable one? And what impact will it have on academic communities in the United States?“Nothing Is Certain but Death and Ta…Well, at Least Death.” After temporarily delaying tariffs on Canada and Mexico after 48 hours last month, President Trump assured everyone that they were definitely getting installed this month. But once again, after a few days, he rescinded many of them. Nonetheless, the uncertainty surrounding this administration's policies has markets spooked, triggering fears of a recession—something President Trump has indicated people may just have to live through. What are the real costs and benefits of Trump's oscillating trade policies?In object lessons, Alan went full nerd and prescribed himself a decade-long literary exile with “Gardens of the Moon,” the first in Steven Erikson's ten-book epic. Scott's old ass, meanwhile, threw its weight behind “My Old Ass,” a film about a young woman navigating family, love, and self-discovery—all with a little hallucinogenic assistance. And Natalie logrolled like a pro, plugging Quinta Jurecic's guest spot on The Ezra Klein Show, where Quinta delivers one of Natalie's all-time favorite “Quintaisms”—with all the necessary context baked right in.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From August 18, 2021: Earlier this month, Tucker Carlson, whose nightly news show on Fox has become the most popular show in U.S. cable news history, traveled to Budapest to record a special version of his show. The centerpiece of his visit was an interview with Hungary's authoritarian leader, Viktor Orbán. But far from criticizing Orbán or questioning him on Hungary's increasing move away from liberal democracy, Carlson was all compliments, praising the fence that Hungary has built along its border and allowing Orbán to lash out against his critics at home and abroad.Carlson is not the only one with kind words for Hungary's would-be strongman. In the past months, an increasing number of conservative media and intellectual elites have praised Hungary, as well as earlier models like Portugal under the post-World War II right-wing dictator António Salazar, for what they view as its willingness to use state power to fight for conservative social, cultural and religious values.To discuss what this embrace of foreign authoritarianism means for the American conservative movement, Alan Rozenshtein spoke with Zack Beauchamp, a senior correspondent at Vox, who has written about the right's embrace of Orbánism and what it means for the future of American democracy.We value your feedback! Help us improve by sharing your thoughts at lawfaremedia.org/survey. Your input ensures that we deliver what matters most to you. Thank you for your support—and, as always, for listening!To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jack Goldsmith, the Learned Hand Professor at Harvard Law School and co-founder of Lawfare, joins Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, to talk about his recent Lawfare article discussing last year's Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States and its implications for executive power. They discuss how the ruling extends beyond presidential immunity, the broader shift toward a maximalist theory of executive authority, and what this means for the future of American democracy.We value your feedback! Help us improve by sharing your thoughts at lawfaremedia.org/survey. Your input ensures that we deliver what matters most to you. Thank you for your support—and, as always, for listening!To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Chris Miller, a professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University and Nonresident Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Marshall Kosloff, Senior Fellow at the Niskanen Center and co-host of the Realignment Podcast, join Kevin Frazier, a Contributing Editor at Lawfare and adjunct professor at Delaware Law, and Alan Rozenshtein, Senior Editor at Lawfare and associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota, to discuss AI, supply chains, and the Abundance Agenda.We value your feedback! Help us improve by sharing your thoughts at lawfaremedia.org/survey. Your input ensures that we deliver what matters most to you. Thank you for your support—and, as always, for listening!To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a live conversation on January 23, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes spoke to Lawfare Senior Editors Scott R. Anderson, Anna Bower, Quinta Jurecic, and Alan Rozenshtein and assistant law professor at Pace University Amelia Wilson about the first batch of executive orders by President Trump in his second term, including suspending enforcement of the TikTok ban, the use of the military at the border, the birthright citizenship order, and the legal challenges some of these orders are facing.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A new law gives TikTok a January 19 deadline to sell to a non-Chinese company or face a nationwide ban. Law professor Alan Rozenshtein delves into what this means and whether President-Elect Trump could intervene.David Bianculli reflects on the year in TV.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy