Law school of New York University in Manhattan, New York City
POPULARITY
75 episodes with just security
80 episodes with just security
13 episodes with just security
11 episodes with just security
9 episodes with just security
7 episodes with just security
5 episodes with just security
12 episodes with just security
4 episodes with just security
The Trump administration has continued its campaign of lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers at sea. To date, 83 people have reportedly been killed in 21 strikes. The strikes have met increasing scrutiny both inside the United States and abroad, with some close U.S. allies reportedly suspending intelligence sharing over concerns of the illegality of the campaign, and recently surfaced reporting of the deliberate killing of two strike survivors receiving rare bipartisan attention from Congress. On the fourth installment of the Murder on the High Seas series, cross-posted with NYU Law School's Reiss Center on Law and Security, co-hosts Tess Bridgeman and Rachel Goldbrenner are joined by Rebecca Ingber and Brian Finucane to discuss the latest developments. Show Note: Murder on the High Seas Part III (Oct. 21, 2025, also available on YouTube) Murder on the High Seas Part II — What We Know about U.S. Vessel Strikes One Month In (Oct. 7, 2025, also available on YouTube)Murder on the High Seas? What You Need to Know about the U.S. Strike on the Caribbean Vessel (Sep. 9, 2025, also available on YouTube)Unlawful Orders and Killing Shipwrecked Boat Strike Survivors: An Expert Backgrounder by Michael Schmitt, Ryan Goodman, and Tess Bridgeman (Dec. 1, 2025) Timeline of Vessel Strikes and Related Actions by Jeremy Chin, Margaret Lin, and Aidan Arasasingham (Nov. 21, 2025, updated regularly) Just Security's Collection: U.S. Lethal Strikes on Suspected Drug Traffickers The NYU Law Reiss Center on Law and Security's War Powers Resolution Reporting Project
The Secretary of Defense has committed war crimes, or murder, or both. And this time, maybe Congress is willing to do something about it? Meanwhile, a rent-price-fixing company has sued the state of New York arguing that it isn't fixing price, it's doing the Freeze Peach. In DC, Chief Judge James Boasberg continues to look for who was responsible for the government disobeying a court order. And finally, sparklemagic imaginary US Attorney Alina Habba gets to join her buddies on the unemployment line thanks to a decision by the Third Circuit that we break down in detail in the subscriber bonus. Happy Cyber Monday, everyone! Links: Eleventh Circuit Bounces Trump's RICO Trollsuit [lawandchaospod.com] https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/11th-circuit-bounces-trumps-rico Episode 168 w/Brian Finucane https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-168-license-to-kill-feat-brian-finucane/id1727769913?i=1000728033267 Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all [Washington Post] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/28/hegseth-kill-them-all-survivors-boat-strike/ Statement of the "Former JAGs Working Group" on Media Reports of Pentagon "No Quarter" Orders in Caribbean Boat Strikes [via Just Security] https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/former-jag-working-group-no-quarter-statement.pdf Rent Going Up? One Company's Algorithm Could Be Why. https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent US v. Giraud [Third Circuit, Habba Disqualification] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71195676/united-states-v-julien-giraud-jr/ RealPage v. James https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71964352/realpage-inc-v-james/ Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod
# Trump Administration Court Battles: November 2025 UpdateHello listeners, and welcome back. We're diving straight into what's been happening in the courts surrounding the Trump administration, and there's quite a bit to unpack from just the past few days.Let's start with what happened on Wednesday, November fifth. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a major case that consolidated two separate matters into one consolidated case before the nation's highest court. President Trump's legal team, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer from the Department of Justice, faced off against respondents including V.O.S. Selections, Inc., represented by attorney Neal K. Katyal from Washington, D.C. State parties also got their moment, represented by Benjamin N. Gutman, the Solicitor General from Salem, Oregon. The Supreme Court gave the case a total of one hour for oral argument, which tells you how significant this matter is.This case got expedited treatment from the Supreme Court back in early September. The petitioners filed their motion to expedite on September third, and by September ninth, the Supreme Court had already granted both the motion to expedite and the petition for a writ of certiorari. That fast-tracked process meant the parties went through their briefing schedules compressed into just a matter of weeks rather than months. Opening briefs were due September nineteenth, response briefs came by October twentieth, and reply briefs followed by October thirtieth.Beyond the Supreme Court action, the Trump administration continues to face a flurry of legal challenges across the country. The Just Security litigation tracker shows dozens of cases filed against various Trump administration actions. Some cases involve civil liberties concerns related to executive actions targeting specific law firms. Other litigation focuses on immigration enforcement operations, with cases filed in places like Chicago, Illinois, following what the administration called Operation Midway Blitz in early September.There's also ongoing litigation concerning gender-related policies. Cases have been filed in Massachusetts and Maryland challenging executive orders that restrict gender-affirming care for individuals under nineteen years old. Additionally, a case closed earlier this year in New Jersey involved litigation over the ban on transgender individuals serving in the military, though another related case in the Court of Federal Claims remains pending.Some executive orders have faced temporary blocks from courts. The litigation tracker notes that Democratic National Committee challenges to an election integrity executive order were temporarily blocked, as were challenges to certain actions against law firms and diversity equity and inclusion programs.The scale of litigation is remarkable. The Lawfare Media litigation tracker shows that a coalition of nonprofits and cities sued the Trump administration over suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November twenty twenty-five, demonstrating how these legal challenges span multiple policy areas and affect different populations.What's particularly noteworthy is the speed at which cases are moving through the courts and the breadth of legal challenges being mounted simultaneously across district courts, circuit courts, and now the Supreme Court level.Well listeners, that's what's been happening in the courts recently. Thanks so much for tuning in today. Be sure to come back next week for more updates on these developing legal battles. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more analysis and information, visit Quiet Please dot A I. Thanks for listening.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
It's been a whirlwind few days in Washington, and if you've been following the court trials involving Donald Trump, you know the intensity hasn't let up one bit. Let me jump right into the heart of it, because November 2025 has unfolded with major courtroom drama that's kept the political world riveted.Just weeks ago, Donald Trump's legal teams found themselves before the Supreme Court. The docket for case 25-250, now consolidated with another major suit, set arguments for the first week of November—exactly when crowds gathered outside the Supreme Court building and the eyes of the nation shifted to DC. The consolidated cases stemmed from decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and involved Trump as petitioner, with V.O.S. Selections, Inc., and several states as respondents. For the federal government, arguments were delivered by D. John Sauer, the Solicitor General, while Neal K. Katyal spoke for the private parties and Benjamin N. Gutman for the state parties.These cases focused on conflicts arising from Trump administration executive orders and the use of federal authority. One hotly debated issue centered on the attempted federalization of the Oregon National Guard, a move contested on grounds of state law and constitutional authority. Lawfare's coverage pointed out the complexity: Judge Cobb's earlier opinion clarified federal authority but stopped short of granting the mission powers Trump's administration sought. As for the emergency motions, everything hinged on the pending Supreme Court decision involving Illinois v. Trump, keeping parts of these cases temporarily on hold.More controversy erupted just days before arguments, when a coalition of nonprofits and municipal governments sued the Trump administration for suspending Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November 2025. As Lawfare reported, the litigation tracker was practically overflowing—with over two hundred seventy cases still awaiting rulings, legal challenges to Trump's executive actions flooded the judiciary.The tension ratcheted up further when, according to Politico, President Trump called for several Democratic lawmakers to be arrested and tried for “seditious behavior” after they released a video urging public protest. These remarks shocked Capitol Hill and fueled even fiercer political divisions while legal experts debated whether such accusations had any real standing under federal sedition laws.Just Security's own litigation tracker highlighted yet another legal wrinkle: a new policy from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, barring law firms from representing clients in active litigation against Trump administration policies. The American Bar Association responded swiftly with a federal suit, calling the policy a clear violation of legal norms and a blow to independent counsel rights.And, in an unexpected development, a federal court permanently blocked Trump's executive order to dismantle a federal agency for America's libraries, as the American Library Association announced last Friday. That ruling capped the week's legal rollercoaster and drew praise from advocates for public services.So, listeners, the court trials involving Donald Trump haven't just been about one issue—they've covered everything from the scope of federal authority to separation of powers, sedition, and executive overreach. Each ruling and every new filing continues to shape the legal landscape and will have lasting impacts on governance and American democratic norms.Thank you for tuning in. Make sure to come back next week for more updates on high-stakes court drama. This has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
The past few days have brought an intense swirl of courtroom drama and constitutional debate surrounding former President Donald Trump, and this week the atmosphere reached a fever pitch that's gripped the nation's attention. Let me take you right into the heart of how the legal system and political theater collided in these ongoing trials.It all began early November when the Supreme Court set oral arguments for the first week—Wednesday, November 5th—on a consolidated case stemming from Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, against V.O.S. Selections, Inc. and related respondents. These cases originated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and have been expedited due to their potential to impact national policy and presidential authority. Neil K. Katyal represented private parties, while the federal government's side was argued by Solicitor General D. John Sauer. State governments had Benjamin N. Gutman, from Oregon, standing at the center of the disputes.The Supreme Court's action is just one part of the broader legal storm surrounding Donald Trump. Over on another front, advocacy groups and cities banded together to sue the Trump administration over the abrupt suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits—impacting millions during a critical point of the year. The Lawfare litigation tracker highlighted how these challenges aren't isolated but rather woven into a relentless stream of court filings, procedural maneuvering, and constitutional questions about executive reach.Just Security's litigation tracker has catalogued a slew of lawsuits challenging President Trump's executive orders during 2025. At the core of many is Executive Order 14164, which authorized drastic penal conditions for certain incarcerated individuals and triggered immediate pushback from civil liberties groups. Several lawsuits allege these actions violated the First and Fifth Amendments—the right to free speech, due process, and equal protection are being cited again and again. Another case challenges his directive restricting access to gender-affirming medical care for individuals under 19. That order spurred hospitals, physicians, and advocacy organizations into federal court, arguing that Trump's policy violates constitutional protections and federal statutory rights.Most recently, just yesterday, Trump made headlines by calling for six Democratic lawmakers to face arrest and trial on charges of “seditious behavior” after they produced a video he claimed encouraged unrest. Politico reported this sharp escalation, prompting fresh legal debate about the limits of presidential power, especially when it comes to targeting political opponents.It's been a week that saw every branch of government—judicial, legislative, and executive—locked in a tense public showdown. Lawyers, clerks, and justices are poring over volumes of legal briefs while the media and public crowd every entrance of the Supreme Court. The stakes are extraordinarily high: the future of multiple federal policies, the reach of the presidency, and the very boundaries of constitutional rights.Thank you for tuning in to this special update on the latest court trials involving Donald Trump. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production and for more check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
It's November 19th, 2025, and if you've been following the headlines, you know the name Donald Trump has been front and center—once again, dominating courtroom news across the nation. Just yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a pair of consolidated cases involving “Trump, President of the United States versus V.O.S. Selections, Inc.” and "Learning Resources, Inc. versus Trump, President of the United States.” According to the official Supreme Court November calendar, the energy in the courtroom was electric as the justices pressed both sides on issues ranging from executive authority to civil liberties. Legal analysts rushed out of the chamber, some shaking their heads, others feverishly texting updates as arguments wrapped up after more than an hour of fierce debate.While the Supreme Court scene drew the spotlight, several other federal courtrooms have been just as heated over the past few days. Polico and Lawfare have both highlighted the growing drama as an appeals court panel is considering a hefty million-dollar penalty against Trump for what they describe as a “frivolous lawsuit” targeting Hillary Clinton. One judge on the panel openly questioned Trump's legal strategy, asking pointedly whether his effort to revive the lawsuit was “bad faith” litigation. Analysts said the former president's moves in the courtroom seem as much about making headlines as about winning legal victories, and this latest run-in with an appeals court could make history if the million-dollar penalty is upheld.But that's far from the only legal battle roiling the Trump orbit. Just Security notes that a slew of ongoing lawsuits have tested the limits of Trump's executive power since he returned to office earlier this year. Most notably, litigation over his controversial executive orders targeting prominent law firms—orders that called for curtailing their government contracts and suspending employees' security clearances—has drawn intense scrutiny from judges and civil rights advocates. A federal court in Washington is still weighing whether to permanently block these orders, and legal experts say the final ruling could have far-reaching implications for the separation of powers and for how presidents can respond to perceived political enemies.On the civil rights front, court challenges continue to mount against Trump's bans affecting healthcare for transgender youth and restrictions on “gender ideology” in federal programs. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and advocacy groups like PFLAG are suing the Trump administration in what they call a fight for constitutional rights. With temporary injunctions in place and permanent rulings pending, the nation is watching closely to see how these legal battles play out—and what precedents they will set for years to come.All the while, outside the courthouses, protestors and supporters vie for attention, their voices echoing through the marble corridors and onto the evening news.Thanks for tuning in to this week's update on the unfolding Trump court dramas. Be sure to join us next week for more as the legal fireworks continue. This has been a Quiet Please production—visit Quiet Please Dot A I for more stories like this.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
On Nov. 13, the Trump administration took the unprecedented step of adding four groups in Europe to the U.S. government's list of specially designated global terrorists (SDGTs). The administration also stated its intent to add each of these entities to the State Department's list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), claiming that all four are affiliated with “Antifa.”The development marks an escalation in the administration's efforts to recast anti-fascist activism as a matter of national security, carrying far-reaching legal and political consequences. Experts think the move could lay the groundwork for targeting organizations and activists here in the United States, potentially undermining the right to free speech. Tom Joscelyn, a senior fellow at Just Security, is joined by Tom Brzozowski, former counsel for Domestic Terrorism at the U.S. Department of Justice, to discuss what the new designations mean for civil liberties, and how they might reshape the boundaries of permissible speech and association. Show Notes: “How Designating Antifa as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Could Threaten Civil Liberties” by Tom Brzozowski (Just Security, October 27, 2025) Just Security's Terrorism and Violent Extremism Archive Just Security's Counterterrorism Archive
The past week has felt like history unfolding in real time as the legal battles surrounding Donald Trump reached new levels of intensity. On November 5, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a consolidated case officially captioned Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. versus V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al. The energy outside the Court that morning was electric—reporters crammed along the steps, protesters mixing with supporters, and everywhere the sense that the stakes were nothing short of monumental for American law and politics.Inside, Solicitor General D. John Sauer represented the federal government, with the private parties represented by Neal Katyal, and state officials argued by Oregon's Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman. The arguments themselves were brisk and sharp, with justices pressing all sides on technical legal points—but everyone knew that far more was at issue than the particularities of statutory interpretation or regulatory procedure. The docket has been moving at lightning speed since September when the writ of certiorari was granted and motions to expedite were quickly approved. The records from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Court of International Trade were all submitted electronically, ensuring nothing would delay decision-making heading into the final stretch of the year.Meanwhile, Trump's legal calendar continues to look like a maze of overlapping cases and critical deadlines, according to the tracker maintained by Just Security. The Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, which has already seen Judge Cannon dismiss the superseding indictment on the controversial ground of unlawful appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith, is now in the hands of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefs from both sides keep piling up, with government replies due in mid-November—not a moment for rest if you are in Trump's legal team or the Justice Department.Crucially, the Supreme Court has set aside time in the first week of November for argument on these cases, signaling just how urgent and consequential the Court considers them. This scheduling urgency means that Trump's fate in several high-profile matters could reverberate throughout the nation well before the next round of campaign events truly ramps up.In the background, courtroom drama continues elsewhere—New York and Georgia, among other jurisdictions, stay active with election interference and fraud cases. Trump's attorneys juggle appeals, motions for dismissal based on presidential immunity, and arguments about federal and state powers. Each proceeding brings new headlines and fuels around-the-clock coverage on every major network.As the Supreme Court weighs its decision and other appellate courts deliberate, the only certainty is more twists and more turbulence ahead. The legal world and political observers alike are bracing for impact as we wait for rulings that could define not just Donald Trump's future, but the shape of presidential powers and accountability for years to come.Thanks for tuning in. Be sure to come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
“Leave aside the cruelty of not giving these funds out,” Andrew says, reflecting on the SNAP benefits case now before the Supreme Court. “What does it say that we're not prioritizing hunger as an issue?” Then, Mary brings listeners up to speed on the dizzying chain of events since Friday and where the SNAP case stands, even as the Senate and House appear to be moving towards reopening the government. And in honoring Veterans Day, Mary and Andrew dig into several issues affecting service members, including the latest filing in Trump v Illinois, and how to think about the term "regular forces", plus Judge Immergut's final order prohibiting the National Guard deployment in Portland. And finally, Just Security's co-editor in chief, Tess Bridgeman, joins to analyze what the law says— and doesn't say-- about blowing up boats in international waters without a clear justification or congressional authorization.Further reading: Judge Wolf's piece in The Atlantic: Why I Am Resigning. A federal judge explains his reasoning for leaving the bench.Just Security's collection of information around the boat strikes: Collection: U.S. Lethal Strikes on Suspected Drug TraffickersWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Today is November 12, 2025, and the nation's attention lately has been glued to the explosive court battles swirling around Donald Trump—courtrooms packed, legal fireworks almost daily. Just last week, on November 5, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in the consolidated Trump v. V.O.S. Selections case, a landmark proceeding. This latest legal clash traces back to the Federal Circuit's decision at the end of August, and the intensity ramped up quickly when the Trump team filed a writ of certiorari in early September, pushing for an expedited review. The Supreme Court agreed to speed things up, setting the stage for arguments early this month.Picture the scene: inside the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for the federal government from Washington, D.C., while Neal K. Katyal—always composed, representing private parties—stood at the opposite lectern. Multistate briefs and amicus filings came from unexpected quarters, including the State of Oregon's Solicitor General, Benjamin Gutman, who stepped into the spotlight for the state parties. The courtroom was buzzing, not only with media and legal analysts, but also with advocates and critics dissecting every argument about presidential authority and the power to impose—and potentially rescind—controversial tariffs and executive orders.On the streets outside, the talk was all about how these court decisions could shift the fate of Trump's economic legacy. According to Politico, even as tariffs sit on trial, negotiations between U.S. and foreign trade partners are pressing forward, and there's widespread speculation that Trump, regardless of what the justices decide, may try to reimpose tariffs in some other fashion. The policies at stake have high global stakes but also direct impact on American businesses and workers.Simultaneously, civil rights litigation continues to dog Trump's latest tenure. The Just Security litigation tracker highlights cases filed over the past year—like National Association of the Deaf v. Trump, where the administration's move to stop ASL interpreters at public press briefings spurred a lawsuit that's now awaiting a court decision. There's also a series of cases against executive orders targeting law firms and advocacy organizations, raising alarms about overreach and potential retaliation against anyone opposing Trump's policies. Groups like the ACLU are still in the fight. The Supreme Court recently allowed the Trump administration to enforce a highly contentious passport policy that critics—including the ACLU of Massachusetts—strongly oppose, calling it discriminatory.With so many cases running hot, questions about executive power, civil liberties, and the practical limits of presidential authority are in sharper focus than ever. Each ruling and hearing over these past few days seems to weigh not only on Trump himself, but also on the broader direction of U.S. democracy. Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please Production, and for more, check out quietplease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
It's Friday, November 7, 2025, and if you've been following the frontlines of American political drama, you already know the courtroom battles around Donald Trump have been nothing short of astonishing this week. Let me take you inside the swirl of legal action, where the stakes are national, the personalities unyielding, and the implications huge. Just two days ago, on November 5, the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. was the stage for a rare and urgent oral argument in the consolidated cases known as Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. The Court squeezed this into its November 2025 session, emphasizing the extraordinary speed and significance. In the packed chambers, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, famed litigator Neal K. Katyal, and Oregon's Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman all took turns at the lectern. Their arguments delved into Trump administration policies, including the contentious use of executive authority and the administration's aggressive approach to what Trump's lawyers called “national interest” actions. According to the Supreme Court docket, these cases rose on lightning-fast petitions and were consolidated due to their overlapping constitutional questions and the urgency voiced by both petitioners and respondents.But that wasn't the only court battle with Trump at the center. Over at the Federal District Courts, the legal action buzzed just as intensely. The Brennan Center for Justice has reported that Donald Trump is simultaneously facing three active federal prosecutions, and, for those who recall, in May 2024, he was actually convicted of felonies in New York.The new front this week? Several lawsuits target orders that President Trump signed earlier this year. One major case making waves is American Bar Association v. Trump, where legal groups allege that Trump's orders specifically targeted law firms for actions the administration considered to be against the “national interest.” These orders, signed in March and April, resulted in penalties like stripping security clearances and terminating government contracts with those firms. It's sparked nothing less than a constitutional confrontation over executive power and civil liberties. Just Security's litigation tracker says the case is awaiting a major ruling that could reshape how presidents wield authority against perceived opponents.Meanwhile, voting rights have come to the fore in cases such as Democratic National Committee v. Trump and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump. The heart of the battle is Trump's order mandating documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and threatening to cut federal funding to states that don't comply. Civil rights groups and a coalition of states, including California and Washington, claim these moves violate both the separation of powers and federal voting law. Federal courts have, at least for now, temporarily blocked these orders, but hearings and filings have kept the courtroom jostling at a high boil all week.That is only a glimpse, because every filing, every oral argument, and every judicial decision right now seems to push U.S. politics deeper into uncharted water. The legal landscape around Donald Trump is shifting by the day. Thanks for tuning in, and be sure to come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
International law professors Chiara Giorgetti, Milena Sterio, and Rebecca Hamilton join Just Security's Managing Editor, Megan Corrarino, to discuss takeaways from the American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA)'s Oct. 23-25 International Law Weekend. In this special episode co-produced with ABILA's International Law Chats podcast, which Giorgetti and Sterio co-host along with Alison Macdonald KC, the guests — each of whom also participated in International Law Weekend — discuss the weekend's theme, “Crisis as Catalyst on International Law”; takeaways from panels on topics ranging from the proposed Crimes against Humanity Treaty to international environmental law and more; and how international lawyers and law students might think about their role in the present moment. Show Note: International Law Chats - an ABILA podcast Crisis as Catalyst in International Law by Michael P. Scharf (October 16, 2025) Crisis as Catalyst: Past, Present, and Future of International Law by William J. Aceves, Amity Boye and Jessica Peake (October 21, 2025) A Series on the Occasion of ABILA's International Law Weekend 2025
Since the start of September, President Donald Trump has ordered a series of lethal strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea, killing dozens of people. His administration has justified the attacks by accusing the boats of carrying drugs. But, we're more than two months in, and we still haven't seen any substantial evidence that the people killed were involved in trafficking narcotics. Meanwhile, Trump appears to be focused on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and last week, Trump acknowledged he authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela. So, to talk more about Venezuela and the legality- or lack thereof- of the Trump administration's ongoing campaign in the Caribbean Sea, we spoke with Tess Bridgeman, co-editor-in-chief of Just Security and Senior Fellow and Visiting Scholar at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law. She previously served as Special Assistant to the President, Associate Counsel to the President, and Deputy Legal Adviser to the National Security Council (NSC), and at the U.S. State Department in the Office of the Legal Adviser.And in headlines, Vice President JD Vance visits Israel as Hamas continues to return the bodies of hostages, ICE recruits are going up against fitness testing, and the government is as shutdown as ever.Show Notes:Check out Tess's work – justsecurity.org/author/bridgemantess/Call Congress – 202-224-3121Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
It's been quite a week watching the unfolding drama in our nation's courts, as the spotlight turns squarely on Donald Trump and the tsunami of litigation swirling around him. I'm here to walk you through what's happened—rapid fire—so let's jump right into the heart of the courtroom battles gripping the country.Washington D.C. has become the epicenter for Trump's most recent legal showdowns. Major cases have been dragging executive actions from his administration into the harsh glow of judicial scrutiny. The National Association of the Deaf, for example, is in the thick of a civil liberties battle. They've sued Trump alongside White House staff Susan Wiles and Karoline Leavitt, arguing that the administration's decision to halt ASL interpretation at official briefings violates not only the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 but the core tenets of the First and Fifth Amendments. This case highlights not just accessibility, but the larger question of equal protection and freedom of information. The deaf and hard of hearing community is demanding that the government reinstate these vital services or face judicial intervention.Meanwhile, Executive Order 14248 has triggered another storm of litigation over election law. The Democratic National Committee, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the states of Washington and Oregon have challenged sweeping changes that require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, freeze federal funds to noncompliant states, and reassess voting systems across the country. Judge Kollar-Kotelly denied a motion by Trump's team to strike the case, signaling that the courts are taking these challenges seriously as they weigh the balance between election integrity and civil rights. The stakes are sky-high as the nation looks ahead to November.But the drama extends all the way to the Supreme Court. As the new term kicked off last week, the justices are staring down monumental cases that could redefine presidential power itself. The most contentious? Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, which thrust the issue of massive tariffs right onto the Supreme Court's docket. The lower courts have said Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but Trump maintains that his ability to “regulate” foreign imports implicitly includes imposing tariffs. Legal analysts, like Deepak Gupta, are calling it a once-in-a-century test—a battle that could fundamentally alter how much power the presidency wields.Behind the scenes, litigation trackers from Lawfare and Just Security have been working overtime, cataloging dozens of actions challenging Trump's sweeping executive orders. From restoring the death penalty to accessibility and election rules, each case chips away at—or tries to reinforce—the boundary between presidential power and constitutional rights.It's clear that the coming days, and indeed the next several months, will see Trump's legal fate played out not just in headlines but in courtroom arguments and rulings with profound national impact. The questions swirling in America's courts aren't just about Donald Trump—they're about what the presidency itself should be.Thanks for tuning in, and be sure to come back next week for more of the latest updates. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Andrew Weissmann is the co-host of the popular podcast Main Justice and is a frequent legal analyst for NBC/MSNBC. He serves on the board of Just Security and writes frequently for it, as well as The New York Times, The Atlantic, & The Washington Post. From 2017-2019 Andrew served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller's Special Counsel's Office. His memoir about the Special Counsel investigation, Where Law Ends: Inside the Mueller Investigation , was a New York Times bestseller. He is also a Professor of Practice at New York University and teaches courses in national security and criminal procedure. He also served as the General Counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and from 2002-2005 he served as the Deputy and then the Director of the Enron Task Force where he supervised the prosecution of more than 30 individuals in connection with the company's collapse. And he was also a federal prosecutor for 15 years in the Eastern District of New York, where he served as the Chief of the Criminal Division and prosecuted numerous members of the Colombo, Gambino, and Genovese families, including the bosses of the Colombo and Genovese families. Andrew joins me fresh on the heels of the breaking news about his interview in London with former special counsel Jack Smith. We discuss this compelling conversation as well as the indictments of former FBI Director James Comey and New York State Attorney General Letitia James. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel
Since early September, President Trump has ordered the U.S. military to conduct multiple lethal strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea suspected of drug trafficking, resulting in at least 21 deaths. These unprecedented military actions raise critical questions about the identity of those targeted, the Administration's legal justification, and the scope of presidential power to designate “terrorists” and authorize lethal force. What checks exist from Congress, courts, or the executive branch to limit such authority?On this episode of the Just Security Podcast, cross-hosted with the Reiss Center on Law and Security, host Tess Bridgeman and co-host Rachel Goldbrenner are joined by experts Rebecca Ingber and Brian Finucane to analyze the facts, the law, and the broader implications of this military campaign in the Caribbean.They examine an important new chapter in the use of force against drug cartels and explores how far presidential powers extend in such contexts.Show Notes: This is a joint podcast of Just Security and NYU Law School's Reiss Center on Law and Security.Executive branch reporting on the vessel strikes, on Tren de Aragua, and related resources:48-Hour Report pursuant to the War Powers Resolution (September 4, 2025) (Note: For a living resource containing this and all other publicly available reports submitted pursuant to the War Powers Resolution since its enactment in 1973, see NYU Law's Reiss Center on Law and Security's War Powers Resolution Reporting Project)Notice to Congress Under 50 U.S.C. §1543a (Section 1230 of the FY 2024 National Defense Authorization Act) (undated, made public October 2, 2025)National Intelligence Council, Venezuela: Examining Regime Ties to Tren de Aragua (April 7, 2025)Listeners may also be interested in Just Security‘s Collection: U.S. Lethal Strikes on Suspected Drug Traffickers (updated, Oct. 3, 2025), including:Mary B. McCord and Tess Bridgeman, What the Senate Judiciary Committee Should Ask A.G. Bondi on Drug Cartel Strikes (Oct. 3, 2025)Marty Lederman, Legal Flaws in the Trump Administration's Notice to Congress on “Armed Conflict” with Drug Cartels (Oct. 3, 2025)Daniel Maurer, US Servicemembers' Exposure to Criminal Liability for Lethal Strikes on Narcoterrorists (September 24, 2025)Ben Saul, The United States' Dirty War on “Narco Terrorism” (September 22, 2025)Annie Shiel, John Ramming Chappell, Priyanka Motaparthy, Wells Dixon and Daphne Eviatar, Murder by Drone: The Legal and Moral Stakes of the Caribbean Strikes (September 17, 2025)Brian Finucane, Asserting a License to Kill: Why the Caribbean Strike is a Dangerous Departure from the “War on Terror (September 15, 2025)Marty Lederman, The Many Ways
John is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council and Co-founder of Spycraft Entertainment a production firm providing content to the entertainment industry. Spycraft Entertainment connects the worlds of Hollywood and intelligence. John is also a foreign policy and intelligence expert and social media influencer. His articles have been published in the New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, Politico, Foreign Affairs, Newsweek, Slate, Lawfare, and Just Security, among others. He regularly appears on the PBS NewsHour, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, BBC and speaks to corporate, academic and governmental groups.John retired in 2014 after a 28-year career in the Central Intelligence Agency's National Clandestine Service. At the time of his retirement, he was a member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence Service, the leadership team that guides CIA activities globally. John served multiple overseas tours as Chief of Station and Deputy Chief of Station in Europe, Russia, Asia, and in high-threat environments. He has significant experience working with foreign and domestic partners to solve national security challenges. John also served as a lead instructor in the CIA's clandestine training school and was a regular lecturer at the CIA's leadership development program. He is the recipient of the Distinguished Career Intelligence Medal.----------This is super important. There are so many Battalions in Ukraine, fighting to defend our freedoms, but lack basics such as vehicles. These are destroyed on a regular basis, and lack of transport is costs lives, and Ukrainian territory. Once again Silicon Curtain has teamed up with Car4Ukraine and a group of wonderful creators to provide much-needed assistance: https://car4ukraine.com/campaigns/autumn-harvest-silicon-curtainAutumn Harvest: Silicon Curtain (Goal€22,000)We'll be supporting troops in Pokrovsk, Kharkiv, and other regions where the trucks are needed the most. 93rd Brigade "Kholodnyi Yar", Black Raven Unmanned Systems Battalionhttps://car4ukraine.com/campaigns/autumn-harvest-silicon-curtain----------Partner on this video: KYIV OF MINE Watch the trailer now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arJUcE1rxY0'Kyiv of Mine' is a documentary series about Ukraine's beautiful capital, Kyiv. The film production began in 2018, and much has changed since then. It is now 2025, and this story is far from over.https://www.youtube.com/@UCz6UbVKfqutH-N7WXnC5Ykg https://www.kyivofmine.com/#theprojectKyiv of Mine is fast paced, beautifully filmed, humorous, fun, insightful, heartbreaking, moving, hopeful. The very antithesis in fact of a doom-laden and worthy wartime documentary. This is a work that is extraordinarily uplifting. My friend Operator Starsky says the film is “Made with so much love. The film series will make you laugh and cry.” ----------SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------SILICON CURTAIN LIVE EVENTS - FUNDRAISER CAMPAIGN Events in 2025 - Advocacy for a Ukrainian victory with Silicon Curtainhttps://buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtain/extras----------TRUSTED CHARITIES ON THE GROUND:Save Ukrainehttps://www.saveukraineua.org/Superhumans - Hospital for war traumashttps://superhumans.com/en/UNBROKEN - Treatment. Prosthesis. Rehabilitation for Ukrainians in Ukrainehttps://unbroken.org.ua/Come Back Alivehttps://savelife.in.ua/en/Chefs For Ukraine - World Central Kitchenhttps://wck.org/relief/activation-chefs-for-ukraineUNITED24 - An initiative of President Zelenskyyhttps://u24.gov.ua/Serhiy Prytula Charity Foundationhttps://prytulafoundation.orgNGO “Herojam Slava”https://heroiamslava.org/kharpp - Reconstruction project supporting communities in Kharkiv and Przemyślhttps://kharpp.com/NOR DOG Animal Rescuehttps://www.nor-dog.org/home/----------
This is a recording of a New Jewish Narrative webinar from October 1, 2025, hosted by Hadar Susskind. At an unusual press conference at the White House on Monday September 29 — with Prime Minister Netanyahu at his side — President Trump unveiled a plan to end the Gaza War. The document, which was emailed to reporters during the event, included 20 substantive points—some of which are supposed to happen whether or not Hamas accepts the plan. To help us make sense of these developments, NJN hosted two seasoned observers of American diplomacy for this webinar. Laura Rozen is a veteran foreign policy journalist. She has served as the diplomatic correspondent for Al-Monitor, foreign policy reporter for Politico, and for Foreign Policy magazine, where she launched the Cable blog in 2009. She now writes and reports the Diplomatic newsletter at Substack, and also serves on the editorial board of Just Security. Joel Braunold is the Managing Director of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, the former executive director of the Alliance for Middle East Peace, and a contributing editor at Lawfare. He works regularly with the US State Department, USAID, the National Security Council, and Congress on the needs of the peace-building community. Outside the United States, he has worked with national governments across Europe, multilateral institutions, and parts of the Arab world.
Listeners, the whirlwind of legal action surrounding Donald Trump has barely slowed as we move through September 2025. Just days ago, the Supreme Court made headlines yet again by stepping directly into a case involving Trump and the removal protections of Federal Trade Commission members. On September 22, Chief Justice John Roberts granted Trump's application for a stay, effectively pausing the District Court's order from July and elevating the matter to a landmark petition for certiorari before judgment. That means the Justices will be reviewing, arguably for the first time at this stage, whether statutory removal protections for FTC officials breach the separation of powers—and even whether Humphrey's Executor, the historic 1935 case defining those powers, may be overturned. The case will be heard in December and has already sparked dissent from Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, who sharply criticized the immediate empowerment of the President to discharge a sitting FTC member.But that Supreme Court drama is just one thread. The past several weeks have been thick with new filings, deadline jockeying, and complicated appeals spanning federal and state courts. The Master Calendar, as continually updated by Just Security, lays out an intense series of deadlines. October alone promises major swings in several pivotal criminal and civil cases. Trump's legal team is preparing filings for challenges in the D.C. election interference case, with supplemental motions and redaction objections, arguing—once again—about the boundaries of presidential immunity. The government, meanwhile, is sharpening its own responses, aiming to block or overturn Trump's renewed bids to avoid prosecution under immunity doctrines.New York is also in the spotlight. Trump's appeal from Judge Alvin Hellerstein's rejection of his attempt to move the criminal case out of Manhattan is due by October 14. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been relentless, and Trump is fighting tooth-and-nail to keep his hearings away from local courts, banking on the hope that federal judges might prove more favorable.And in Georgia, things are just as fiery. Mark Meadows, Trump's former Chief of Staff, has petitioned the Supreme Court after the Eleventh Circuit dashed his hopes of moving his own criminal case out of state to the federal level. Trump, alongside other defendants, is also challenging Judge McAfee's decision not to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis—expect oral arguments on that tangled issue in early December before the Georgia Court of Appeals.Behind the scenes, the fallout from that major Supreme Court presidential immunity decision in August is still echoing. Judge Tanya Chutkan in D.C. now holds jurisdiction once again. All pretrial deadlines are stayed through late October, pushing the calendar further into the campaign season and setting up a tense winter for Trump, his attorneys, and prosecutors alike.With appeals stacking up—on everything from the funding and appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith in Florida to the consolidated appeals in the New York civil fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James—the months ahead are set to be a constitutional reckoning that could redefine not only Trump's fate, but the boundaries of presidential authority and accountability in America.Thank you for tuning in today. Come back next week for more of the latest legal developments—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Several weeks after President Trump ordered a military strike on a small boat in the Caribbean Sea, killing 11 people supposedly suspected of drug smuggling, this saga has gotten much worst. Last Monday, Trump bombed another vessel, killing three. Again his administration released zero evidence supporting the decision, and the specifics in this case make this campaign look increasingly lawless. And we just learned that the White House is quietly circulating a draft bill that would vastly expand Trump's authority for these bombings. Its details offer a damning glimpse into how unrestrained he aims to be going forward. We talked to Brian Finucane, who's been writing great analysis of the situation as an editor at Just Security. He explains why the specifics of that draft bill are so alarming, why the bombings appear to constitute serious abuses of power, and why all this may be hurtling us toward darker lawlessness to come. (Since we recorded, Trump bombed a third vessel in similarly lawless fashion. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Several weeks after President Trump ordered a military strike on a small boat in the Caribbean Sea, killing 11 people supposedly suspected of drug smuggling, this saga has gotten much worst. Last Monday, Trump bombed another vessel, killing three. Again his administration released zero evidence supporting the decision, and the specifics in this case make this campaign look increasingly lawless. And we just learned that the White House is quietly circulating a draft bill that would vastly expand Trump's authority for these bombings. Its details offer a damning glimpse into how unrestrained he aims to be going forward. We talked to Brian Finucane, who's been writing great analysis of the situation as an editor at Just Security. He explains why the specifics of that draft bill are so alarming, why the bombings appear to constitute serious abuses of power, and why all this may be hurtling us toward darker lawlessness to come. (Since we recorded, Trump bombed a third vessel in similarly lawless fashion. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Several weeks after President Trump ordered a military strike on a small boat in the Caribbean Sea, killing 11 people supposedly suspected of drug smuggling, this saga has gotten much worst. Last Monday, Trump bombed another vessel, killing three. Again his administration released zero evidence supporting the decision, and the specifics in this case make this campaign look increasingly lawless. And we just learned that the White House is quietly circulating a draft bill that would vastly expand Trump's authority for these bombings. Its details offer a damning glimpse into how unrestrained he aims to be going forward. We talked to Brian Finucane, who's been writing great analysis of the situation as an editor at Just Security. He explains why the specifics of that draft bill are so alarming, why the bombings appear to constitute serious abuses of power, and why all this may be hurtling us toward darker lawlessness to come. (Since we recorded, Trump bombed a third vessel in similarly lawless fashion. Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
It's been a whirlwind few days in the world of U.S. courtrooms, and Donald Trump remains firmly at the center of the storm. Nearly every headline I've caught since the middle of the week has opened with the latest twist in Trump's sprawling legal calendar—a saga stretching from New York streets to Washington, D.C. federal offices, and onward to Florida's district courts. You'd think by now folks might slow down, but the cases keep coming at a dizzying pace.Right now, listeners, several major cases demand Trump's attention. The stakes are extraordinary—not just for him personally, but for the American judicial system. According to Just Security, Trump's legal schedule for fall and winter has been crowded with deadlines and appeals. On October 24, Trump is due to submit a request to dismiss one of the most talked-about cases: the D.C. Election Interference prosecution. His lawyers argue the indictment should be tossed based on the Appointments and Appropriations Clauses, naming Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment and funding as suspect. The following day, October 25, Trump's legal team faces the federal government in Florida, defending Judge Aileen Cannon's earlier move to dismiss the classified documents case over similar concerns about Special Counsel Smith's legitimacy.That's not all. Late last month Trump tried—unsuccessfully—to move his Manhattan criminal case, led by District Attorney Alvin Bragg, to federal court. Judge Alvin Hellerstein wasn't convinced, rejecting Trump's request and delivering a setback. The push for federal jurisdiction continues, with Trump appealing to the Second Circuit, his opening brief now due October 14.Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump is linked to broader appeals as his co-defendants challenge the fairness of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's role. All oral arguments are scheduled together, making Atlanta another courtroom buzzing with activity.But possibly the most significant legal moment this summer came in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit's ruling that had previously denied Trump's presidential immunity argument. This sent the whole affair back to Judge Tanya Chutkan in the district court, where all pretrial deadlines are on pause until late October, a move that will shape the next pivotal months of proceedings.Experts like Max Yoeli at Chatham House warn that these intertwining court battles could be a prelude to a constitutional crisis if the judiciary cannot effectively check Trump's actions—especially with appeals mounting and deadlines extended whenever a new wrinkle appears.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more and remember, this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Last week's fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk was deeply disturbing, and as Andrew establishes at the start, “murder is murder” and those responsible must be held to account. So Mary and Andrew begin with where the investigation stands and how the FBI has handled the case, as well as the lawsuit filed against FBI Director Kash Patel over alleged politically motivated firings at the Bureau. Then, co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, Ryan Goodman stops in to share his research around the end of “the presumption of regularity” in the Trump era, amid growing frustration from many lower courts. And lastly, Andrew and Mary dig into the latest twists and turns in the President's attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook.A note to listeners: After today's recording, Tyler Robinson was charged with felony aggravated murder, among other charges.Further reading: Here is Ryan Goodman's research in Just Security: The “Presumption of Regularity” in Trump Administration LitigationAnd a reminder: There are still tickets available for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
My week swept me from courtrooms to breaking news alerts, and each day Donald Trump's legal drama pulled me in deeper. Let's start with some of the most pivotal moments—because lately, every time Trump's name drops, a courtroom somewhere is waiting.The most dominating event on my radar was the rolling calendar of hearings stemming from the Washington, D.C. election interference case, officially known as United States v. Donald J. Trump. This case has been at the heart of debates over presidential immunity and the actions Trump took surrounding the 2020 election. After the Supreme Court's decision in Trump's presidential immunity appeal earlier this year, the case was sent back to the D.C. Circuit, with Judge Tanya Chutkan regaining jurisdiction. And believe me, every motion and hearing since has been dissected. The big focus has been on Trump's attempt to dismiss charges based on presidential immunity, with both sides trading arguments fast and furiously. According to the continually updated master calendar by Just Security, the pretrial deadlines remain largely frozen as the court sorts out immunity questions and related motions, with critical filings scheduled just weeks after what would have been the peak of election season.Yet the courtroom fireworks stretch way beyond D.C. In Florida, Trump's classified documents case—technically the Mar-a-Lago documents case—took a surprising twist over the summer when Judge Aileen Cannon granted his motion to dismiss the superseding indictment. The government reacted immediately, filing an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, setting up more rounds of legal jousting later this year. The real point of contention here is whether Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment and funding were lawful, and as those appellate briefs keep rolling in, everyone is watching for signals about how federal judge and jury might ultimately interpret this high-stakes issue.Meanwhile, in New York, Trump's team has moved aggressively to appeal decisions from both the civil fraud and criminal election interference cases. Justice Juan Merchan, overseeing the state-level case on alleged hush money payments, is expected to issue a decision on Trump's motion to overturn his guilty verdicts based on the outcome of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling. That moment, scheduled for just after November, could reshape not only the verdict but also set a precedent for the role of presidential immunity in state prosecutions.Add to that fresh moves in Georgia, where Trump and several codefendants continue to appeal a ruling refusing to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. Oral arguments in that dispute are on the horizon too—always a reminder of how quickly these parallel proceedings can shift.It's clear that as 2025 draws on, Trump's legal fate is being shaped court by court, appeal by appeal, all of it unfolding in real time. Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more updates. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) of 2015 is set to expire at the end of this month on September 30, 2025. The Act removes barriers to companies sharing information about cyber threats, addressing privacy concerns and requires the federal government to share threat information. Many consider CISA one of the foundations of U.S. cybersecurity efforts. As Congress considers whether or not to reauthorize CISA, former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI cyber division, Cynthia Kaiser, joins David Aaron to discuss the importance of the legislation and highlight the risks of failing to reauthorize it. Show Note: “The Next Cyber Breach Will Not Wait: Why Congress Must Reauthorize CISA 2015” by Simin Kargar for Just Security Just Security's CISA coverage Just Security's Cybersecurity coverage
Last week, Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) unveiled a new “national security war plan,” centered on reviving the middle class, winning the global tech race, and rethinking how Americans are protected in an era of shifting threats and changing geopolitical realities. Senator Slotkin joins Just Security's editors-in-chief Ryan Goodman and Tess Bridgeman to discuss the relationship between economic security and national security, the tools Congress should use to defend against threats to our democracy, the role for congressional oversight in domestic use of the military and in the recent military attack on a suspected drug smuggling vessel in the Caribbean, how the United States should engage with China in an era of increasing competition and cooperation, and a range of other national security and foreign policy priorities.Show Notes: Senator Elissa Slotkin's launch of her new vision for American national security and foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. Just Security's AI and Emerging Technology Archive Just Security's Congress Archive
It's Friday, September 5th, 2025, and I want to bring you right into the heart of the continuing courtroom drama surrounding Donald Trump—one of the most turbulent, talked-about sagas in American legal history.Here's what's unfolded over the past few days: after years of legal wrangling and contentious debate, the landscape around Trump's court battles has shifted dramatically this week. The most critical front remains the federal criminal case in Washington D.C.—the case where Trump faces charges related to alleged attempts to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision on Trump's presidential immunity appeal in August, the justices vacated the earlier D.C. Circuit decision and remanded the case, giving Judge Tanya Chutkan authority once again. But here's the twist: as of Judge Chutkan's new scheduling order on September 5, almost all pretrial deadlines are now paused. That means the criminal trial is effectively stalled through October 24, thanks to the complexities surrounding how presidential immunity might limit or delay prosecution. The ‘pause' is a major victory for the Trump legal team's strategy to delay, and it's left legal experts and the public watching the calendar, waiting to see if time will eventually run out before the next election, or if the case will somehow make it to trial before then, as tracked closely by outlets like Just Security.It's not just federal courts keeping Donald Trump busy. The aftermath of the E. Jean Carroll civil verdicts still looms over him. The two lawsuits—Carroll I and Carroll II—where juries found Trump liable for defamation and sexual assault, are each in the appeals process. Legal reporters note the appeals could set new standards for how public figures are held accountable, and while the headlines have faded a bit since the verdicts, legal teams on both sides are wrangling over millions in damages and high-profile public statements.Meanwhile, Trump's legal calendar now brushes up against political issues at the Supreme Court too. According to SCOTUSblog, the Trump administration's lawyers have asked the Court to review several consequential policy actions, including the much-debated executive order on birthright citizenship. Motion after motion is being filed as the legal team attempts to push key disputes onto the high court's 2025-2026 term docket.This week's developments serve as a vivid reminder: each hearing, each court order, and each judicial pause or push brings fresh uncertainty. Will the criminal cases resolve in time to impact the 2024 presidential contest? Or will appeals, high court interventions, and procedural delays mean that the country is still awaiting answers deep into next year?Thanks for tuning in. Make sure you come back next week for more—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai
Federal agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Justice, have faced mounting criticism for withholding significant portions of Epstein-related records—fueling allegations of a deliberate cover-up. In July 2025, both agencies issued a memo stating they found no “client list,” no proof of blackmail, and no evidence Epstein was murdered, and confirmed his death was a suicide. They also announced they would not release further documents, despite earlier promises of transparency The limited release of roughly 33,000 pages—largely consisting of materials already public—was blasted by lawmakers and victims' advocates as inadequate. Critics argued the disclosures fell far short of real accountability, with Rep. Robert Garcia and others calling the process a “stonewall.” Independent reviews, such as Just Security's detailed timeline, underscored repeated federal failures: ignoring victim reports, dropping early investigations, and negotiating Epstein's lenient 2008 non-prosecution agreement in secret. Together, these actions suggest a systemic effort to obscure the extent of Epstein's government ties rather than expose them.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:https://www.dailywire.com/news/fbi-hiding-potentially-explosive-records-on-jeffrey-epstein-internet-sleuth-claims-after-foia-denialBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
David Aaron is joined by Mary McCord and Zachary Myers to discuss last week's search of the office and residence of former National Security Advisor John Bolton. The experts unpack what the execution of these warrants means, and what we should expect next in this unfolding investigation. Show Notes: Letter from Adm. Michael S. Rogers, Director, NSA submitted in United States v. Pho, 1:17-cr-00631 (GLR), ECF 20-1 (Sept. 18, 2018)Willfulness and the Harm of Unlawful Retention of National Security Information by David Aaron (Dec. 2, 2022)“Secret Evidence in Public Trials” by David Aaron (June 6, 2023) Just Security Podcast: Insiders' Views of Espionage Act Trials (July 17, 2023) Just Security's coverage of John Bolton
In this episode of Stanford Legal, host Professor Pamela Karlan interviews her Stanford Law School colleague Professor Lisa Larrimore Ouellette about actions by the Trump administration that Ouellette says are undermining scientific research and jeopardizing America's longstanding global leadership in medicine and innovation. Drawing on an essay she penned for Just Security, Ouellette explains how decades of bipartisan support for federally funded science—an engine of American innovation since World War II—is now at risk. From canceling grants already approved through peer review, to capping essential “indirect cost” reimbursements, she details how these moves threaten not just labs and universities but also patients, whose clinical trials are being abruptly halted. Ouellette also highlights a second front in her current scholarship: how drug development policy can be better aligned with public health needs. As a member of a National Academies committee, she recently co-authored a report showing that both private investment and federal funding often fail to prioritize diseases causing the greatest suffering. Links:Lisa Larrimore Ouellette >>> Stanford Law pageThe Trump Administration's Multi-Front Assault on Federal Research Funding >>> Just Security pageStanford Law's Lisa Ouellette Helps Shape New Report on Drug Development Reform >>> Stanford Lawyer online featureConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>> Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00) Research Funding (05:01) The Competitive Grant Process (15:01) Addressing Disease Burden (20:00) Impacts of Stopped Clinical Trials (25:01) The Role of Federal Investment in Innovation
The Trump administration's unprecedented federalization of policing in Washington, D.C. raises significant legal and policy questions about the Executive Branch's power over the Metropolitan Police Department and the use of National Guard forces from D.C. and other states, among other pressing topics. To break down the latest developments, host David Aaron is joined by Brian Netter, Legal Director at Democracy Forward and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice, and Mark Nevitt, associate professor of law at Emory University and former Distinguished Military Professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and a member of the Just Security editorial board. Show Notes: “Trump, the National Guard, and the District of Columbia” by Mark Nevitt “One Week of Trump's DC Takeover Attempt: An analysis of the president's use of military, police, and security services in the nation's capital” by Joseph Nunn and Spencer Reynolds “How to Truly Keep Washington, DC Safe: President Trump's militarized approach undercuts what's been working” by Donell Harvin Just Security Podcast: What Just Happened - Federalization of Law Enforcement in Washington DC with David Aaron, Carrie Cordero, and Donell Harvin
Accountability or weaponization? That's the question Andrew and Mary tackle in their 150th episode together, starting with the distraction of the Office of the Special Counsel's investigation into Jack Smith for possible Hatch Act violations. In other DOJ related matters, they give some context to the Trump administration's continued battle to keep Alina Habba, a Trump ally, as New Jersey U.S. Attorney, just as The Legal Accountability Center filed bar complaints against lawyers who have represented Trump's White House in court. In another sideshow, Andrew and Mary break down what to make of a report on the “Clinton Plan” emails, declassified amid the Epstein controversy. And last up, they detail the decision out of the 9th Circuit Court which upheld a pause on ICE raids in California. Further Reading: Here is the piece Andrew and his colleague Ryan Goodman wrote for Just Security in October 2024: Refuting the Latest Baseless Attacks Against Special Counsel Jack SmithHere is the 9th Circuit Court decision on ICE Raids: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California And some exciting news: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
Yesterday, the White House released its long-awaited AI Action Plan and signed three executive orders on AI, laying out the Trump administration's strategy to secure what it calls “unquestioned and unchallenged” U.S. dominance across the entire AI tech stack. Framing AI as a global race for technological supremacy, the Plan envisions nothing short of an industrial revolution, an information revolution—and even a renaissance—all driven by AI. To achieve that vision, the Plan is centered around three pillars: innovation, infrastructure, and international diplomacy and security. It calls for upskilling the workforce, revising federal rules, building high-security data centers, and tightening export controls—all whilst removing what the administration views as regulatory obstacles to faster AI adoption.The plan also raises major questions. What's the role of government in steering this technology responsibly? Are we building the right guardrails as we scale up? And what message is the U.S. sending to allies and adversaries as it charts a new course in AI policy?Show Notes: Sam Winter-Levy's article, "Assessing the Trump Administration's AI Action Plan" (July 25, 2025)Joshua Geltzer's article “The Trump Administration's AI Action Plan Is Coming. Here's What to Look For.” (July 18, 2025) Alasdair Phillips-Robins's and Sam Winter-Levy's article, “What Comes Next After Trump's AI Deals in the Gulf” (June 4, 2025)Clara Apt and Brianna Rosen's article “Shaping the AI Action Plan: Responses to the White House's Request for Information” (Mar. 18, 2025)Brianna Rosen interview with Joshua Geltzer, “The Just Security Podcast: Trump's AI Strategy Takes Shape” (April 17, 2025) Just Security's Tech Policy Under Trump 2.0 series Just Security's Artificial Intelligence Archive
President Donald Trump this week put weapons behind his growing irritation with Russian President Vladimir Putin's intransigence on negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. Meeting at the White House with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, President Trump announced that the United States will work with European allies in NATO to send advanced weapon systems, including Patriot missile batteries, to Ukraine. He also threatened tariffs and additional sanctions against Russia and countries that do business with it if it doesn't ease its assault on Ukraine and make progress on stalled peace talks within 50 days. What impact is this policy shift likely to have on the war in Ukraine? Will the combination of military support for Ukraine and economic threats toward Russia succeed in forcing President Putin to the negotiating table, or could they spur further escalation? On this episode, host Viola Gienger is joined by Ambassador Daniel Fried and Dara Massicot to discuss Trump's policy shift on Ukraine and its impact.Show Notes:The Just Security Podcast: A Ukrainian MP Takes Stock of the NATO Summit and the Prospects for Peace, with Ukrainian MP Oleksiy Goncharenko, Lauren Van Metre, and Viola Gienger. Ambassador Daniel Fried's “Can Trump Seize a Win in Ukraine?” in Just Security Ambassador Daniel Fried's “How to Land the Emerging Deal on Peace for Ukraine” in Just Security Just Security's Russia-Ukraine War Archive Russia's Eliminationist Rhetoric Against Ukraine: A Collection by Clara Apt in Just Security
In a picturesque valley in the mountains of eastern Bosnia, thousands of white gravestones bear witness to a mass atrocity that still struggles for a place in Europe's conscience. Nearly 8,400 names are etched into a stone memorial, a stark reminder of the Srebrenica Genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces against Bosnian Muslims in July 1995 – 30 years ago this year. And yet, too many political leaders and others continue denying the scale and scope of the travesty that unfolded there.What has the world learned about genocide denial since Srebrenica? How has that denial echoed persistent efforts to negate or diminish the Holocaust? And how does denial and the politics around it tie into efforts to prevent a repeat elsewhere in the world?Viola Gienger, Washington Senior Editor at Just Security is joined by Sead Turcalo, Professor of Security Studies at the University of Sarajevo and author of Thirty Years After the Srebrenica Genocide: Remembrance and the Global Fight Against Denial, published in Just Security; Velma Saric, founder and president of the Post-Conflict Research Center in Sarajevo; and Jacqueline Geis, Senior Director at the consulting firm Strategy for Humanity and a Research Fellow at the Human Rights Center at the University of California Berkeley School of LawShow Notes: Sead Turcalo's “Thirty Years After the Srebrenica Genocide: Remembrance and the Global Fight Against Denial,” published in Just SecurityJackie Geis' “From Open-Source to All-Source: Leveraging Local Knowledge for Atrocity Prevention,” published in Just SecurityVelma Saric's Post-Conflict Research Center and the associated blog Balkan Diskurs.Michael Schiffer and Pratima T. Narayan's “Trump Administration's Proposed Cuts to Accountability for Mass Atrocities Undermine Its Own Strategic Goal,” published in Just Security Menachem Z. Rosensaft's “Refuting Srebrenica Genocide Denial Yet Again, as UN Debates Draft Resolution,” published in Just SecurityJust Security's Bosnia-Herzegovina archives Just Security's genocide archive
Today, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered its highly anticipated judgement in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia–a watershed moment in international human rights law. In this episode, Just Security Executive Editor and professor at American University Washington College of Law Rebecca Hamilton, and Just Security editorial board member and professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy Tom Dannenbaum join Just Security co-editor-in-chief Ryan Goodman to break down the Court's reasoning, the legal standards applied, and the potential ramifications for the ongoing conflict and the future of international justice. Show Note: Tom Dannenbaum's “Legal Frameworks for Assessing the Use of Starvation in Ukraine” in Just SecurityOlga Butkevych, Rebecca Hamilton, and Gregory Shaffer's “International Law in the Face of Russia's Aggression in Ukraine: The View from Lviv” Ryan Goodman and Ambassador (ret) Keith Harper's “Toward a Better Accounting of the Human Toll in Putin's War of Aggression” in Just Security The Just Security Podcast: ICC Arrest Warrants for Russian Attacks on Ukraine's Power Grid with Kateryna Busol, Rebecca Hamilton, and Paras Shah Case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia Judgement (July 9, 2025)
I am not able to generate a full script in excess of 350 words within this platform's response limits, but I can craft a sample script that is vivid, natural, and within the word range you requested, based on recent events and current news regarding Donald Trump's court trials and legal actions.Let's dive in.This is a story of legal battles and presidential power, right from the headlines of the past few days—a story where Donald Trump continues to loom large over the American legal landscape. Just as the summer heat rises, so too does the temperature in the courtroom. According to multiple sources, including Lawfare and SCOTUSblog, Trump's legal journey has been anything but predictable.In early May, Lawfare covered the twists and turns of Trump's trials, starting with the aftermath of the New York case where, back in May 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. By January 2025, Justice Juan Merchan had sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge, essentially closing the book on that chapter for now—though appeals and challenges continue to ripple through the system. Over in Florida, the federal indictment concerning classified documents saw a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case after ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Justice Department eventually dismissed its appeals against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in early 2025. That case, for now, has quieted.But the Supreme Court has not. The 2024-25 term, as SCOTUSblog recounts, was filled with legal fireworks, especially for Trump. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts—a major win that played a role in Trump's return to the White House and his outsized influence over the Court's docket. The justices also handed Trump another victory by limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. That set the stage for new legal battles, such as challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—described as “blatantly unconstitutional” by Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. Still, the Supreme Court hasn't yet definitively ruled on this issue, and all eyes are on how the justices will act.Just this week, news arrived regarding Supreme Court stay orders. On July 8, 2025, the Court stayed a preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California in the case Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, involving Executive Order No. 14210 and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management—a move that allows the Trump administration to move forward with plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce, pending further action in the Ninth Circuit. The Court indicated the government was likely to succeed on the lawfulness of the order. Earlier, on June 27, the Court issued a ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., largely granting a stay regarding injunctions against Trump's executive order on citizenship. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, found certain injunctions against the executive order to be too broad. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented.Behind the scenes, Trump's legal team is fighting to move state prosecutions to federal courts. According to Just Security, Trump tried to remove the Manhattan prosecution to federal court, but was denied leave to file after missing a deadline. An appeal is pending before the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump's co-defendants in the Fulton County case—including Mark Meadows—are seeking Supreme Court review of decisions related to moving their case to federal court.All told, it's been a whirlwind of legal maneuvers and judicial rulings. Every week seems to bring a new confrontation, a new emergency docket, or a new challenge testing the limits of presidential power. As of today, July 9, 2025, the legal saga around Donald Trump is far from over.Thanks for tuning in to this update on the trials and travails of Donald J. Trump. Remember to come back next week for more analysis and the latest twists in this ongoing legal drama. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai
Iran's nuclear program has long been a source of international tension. Early in U.S. President Donal Trump's second term, hopes for a diplomatic resolution resurfaced—until June, when Israel launched strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites. Days later, the United States joined the conflict, and Iran retaliated with missile attacks and suspended cooperation with nuclear inspectors.With both Washington and Tehran signaling interest in returning to talks despite the violence, what are the prospects for diplomacy now? To discuss where things stand and what a path forward might look like, Just Security's co-editor-in-chief, Tess Bridgeman, is joined by Richard Nephew, a leading expert on Iran's nuclear program and former Deputy Special Envoy for Iran.Show Notes: Just Security's Israel-Iran Conflict Collection Richard Nephew's “Did the Attacks on Iran Succeed?” in Foreign Affairs Kelsey Davenport's “Israeli Strikes Risk Driving Iran Toward Nuclear Weapons” in Just SecurityBrianna Rosen, Tess Bridgeman, and Nima Gerami's “The Day After U.S. Strikes on Iran's Nuclear Program: A Policy and Legal Assessment” in Just Security Brianna Rosen's “Intelligence Implications of the Shifting Iran Strike Narrative” in Just SecurityBrian O'Neill's “What Counts as a Win?: Battle Damage Assessments and Public Messaging ” in Just Security Brian Finucane's “The Need for a Congressional Rebuttal on Trump's Iran Attack” in Just Security James Acton's “Guest Post: Sorry, Mr. Secretary, producing uranium metal isn't particularly difficult” in Arms Control Wonk
The leaders of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, just finished their annual Summit in The Hague in The Netherlands, as Ukraine continues its existential fight against Russia's full-scale invasion that began more than three years ago. That invasion, preceded six years earlier by the capture of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine, set off the biggest war in Europe since World War II. How do Ukrainian leaders see the outcome of the NATO Summit? What are the prospects for negotiations, and how are Ukrainians faring in the meantime? And what about relations between Ukraine and the United States under this new administration in Washington? And with its European partners? Washington Senior Editor Viola Gienger and guest host Lauren Van Metre spoke with Ukrainian MP Oleksiy Goncharenko to answer some of these crucial questions. Show Notes:Just Security's Russia-Ukraine War archive.Just Security's tracking of Russia's Eliminationist Rhetoric Against UkraineHidden in the U.S. Army's New Reform Initiative Is a Warning for Europe by Jennifer KavanaghCan Trump Seize a Win in Ukraine? By Ambassador Daniel FriedInternational Law at the Precipice: Holding Leaders Accountable for the Crime of Aggression in Russia's War Against Ukraine by Mark Ellis
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.
SEASON 3 EPISODE 135: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:45) SPECIAL COMMENT: This isn't a metaphor or an analogy. When the Los Angeles Lakers won their last NBA championship in October, 2020, there were 76 people arrested for assaulting law enforcement, burning cars, mayhem, looting, graffiti, etc. The day before yesterday, during the Trump ICE Gestapo Riots? The ones he claims almost "obliterated" Los Angeles? It was so calm there were only 42 arrests. That's literally the score: LAKERS 76 TRUMP-ICE 42 The true law-breaking is, as always, by Trump. Analysis by Ryan Goodman of Just Security (and others) underscores that the document Federalizing the National Guard and authorizing the unprecedented use of active military is a blank check for Trump. It redefines everything, summoning from thin air a veto of the governors' primary role in this, giving the Guard to attack not just violence and not just peaceful protests but just the threat of peaceful protests. It is unchecked power to kill protestors. That's why Gavin Newsom and the government of California sued yesterday over Trump's illegal usurpation of the National Guard and the use of military enforcement of his political whims. B-Block (21:15) ANALYSIS: Anybody remember ELON MUSK? Wow, that whole thing with Trump seems like years ago. There is something substantial to the biggest story ever (until the next one). In a twisted way, I think it proves that no, what Trump said about Musk knowing all the computer voting machines was just D. Mentia's imprecision. It probably all confirms Musk didn't alter any of the actual voting in November. C-Block (37:00) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: I was explaining how I knew the remarkable actor Walter Matthau to a friend, and thought this was the right day to tell you about this extraordinary - and extraordinarily kind - man.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
When Professor Asha Rangappa began posting online about the lessons she was teaching in the Yale University course on Russian intelligence and information warfare, the public took notice. Many reached out for a copy of the syllabus, and began lamenting that they couldn't take her course. This led to the creation of a series of free lessons and presentations for the public through The Freedom Academy – which is Professor Rangappa's popular Substack. In this episode, we unpack key concepts taught by The Freedom Academy, including: how propaganda reaches us; the Alien Enemies Act of 1798; due process; civic literacy; the characteristics of truth tellers; transparency and accountability as pillars of democracy; and what happens when public trust erodes. Our guest is: Asha Rangappa, who is assistant dean and a senior lecturer at Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former Associate Dean at Yale Law School. Prior to her current position, Asha served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. Her work involved assessing threats to national security, conducting classified investigations on suspected foreign agents and performing undercover work. While in the FBI, Asha gained experience in electronic surveillance, interview and interrogation techniques, firearms and the use of deadly force. She received her law degree from Yale Law School where she was a Coker Fellow in Constitutional Law, and served as a law clerk to the Honorable Juan R. Torruella on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in San Juan, Puerto Rico. She is admitted to the State Bar of New York (2003) and Connecticut (2003). Asha has published op-eds in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post among others and is currently a legal contributor for ABC News. She is on the board of editors of Just Security and a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. She created the popular Substack called The Freedom Academy. Our host is: Dr. Christina Gessler, who is the producer and show host of the Academic Life podcast. She holds a PhD in history, which she uses to explore what stories we tell and what happens to those we never tell. She works as a developmental editor for scholarly projects. Playlist for listeners: Immigration Realities Understanding Disinformation The Ungrateful Refugee Where is home? Who gets believed? Belonging Welcome to Academic Life, the podcast for your academic journey—and beyond! You can support the show by downloading and sharing episodes. Join us again to learn from more experts inside and outside the academy, and around the world. Missed any of the 250+ Academic Life episodes? Find them here. And thank you for listening! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
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
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
The president of the United States is disappearing people to a Salvadoran prison for terrorists: a prison built for disappearance, a prison where there is no education or remediation or recreation, a prison where the only way out, according to El Salvador's justice minister, is in a coffin.The president says he wants to send “homegrown” Americans there next.This is the emergency. Like it or not, it's here.Asha Rangappa is a former F.B.I. special agent and now an assistant dean and senior lecturer at the Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs, as well as a member of the board of editors for Just Security and the author of The Freedom Academy on Substack.Mentioned:“Abrego Garcia and MS-13: What Do We Know?” by Roger ParloffBook Recommendations:The Burning by Tim MadiganBreaking Twitter by Ben MezrichErasing History by Jason StanleyThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find the transcript and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.htmlThis episode of “The Ezra Klein Show” was produced by Elias Isquith. Fact-checking by Rollin Hu, Jack McCordick, Kristin Lin and Kate Sinclair. Mixing by Isaac Jones and Aman Sahota. Our executive producer is Claire Gordon. The show's production team also includes Marie Cascione, Annie Galvin, Marina King and Jan Kobal. Original music by Pat McCusker. Audience strategy by Kristina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The director of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser. And special thanks to Aaron Reichlin-Melnick. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
Asha Rangappa is a Senior Lecturer at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. Before that, she served as a Special Agent in the New York Division of the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence investigations. She is also a legal and national security analyst at CNN and an editor of Just Security. For a transcript of Asha's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
This past week has seen firings at the Pentagon, an Executive Order targeting a private law firm, the installation of a podcaster and January 6 denialist as #2 at the FBI, and an incident in which an audience member at an Idaho townhall was wrestled to the ground and led away in zip ties by private security that answer to no lawful police entity. Is this what happens when the lawyers, police officers, military officials and other law enforcement organizations who are meant to keep us all safe, are sidelined or conscripted into lawless behavior? On this week's episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick speaks to Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent, editor at Just Security and author of the substack The Freedom Academy with Asha Rangappa. Asha explains what happens when people who are hellbent on using the law to break the law achieve positions of power, and whether the safeguards still in place can hold. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
