Podcasts about just security

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

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

Daniel Bodansky discusses his recent article on the drawbacks of a global moratorium on solar radiation management deployment.The conversation critiques whether a moratorium is feasible or effective, arguing it could hinder critical research, be difficult to enforce, and unintentionally become a proxy for a permanent ban. Instead, the discussion highlights the need for more research and stronger governance frameworks to better understand and responsibly manage geoengineering.Article: Biniaz, S., & Bodansky, D. (2025, May 13). Why a global “moratorium” on solar radiation management deployment should get a chilly reception. Just Security. https://www.justsecurity.org/113295/moratorium-srm-deployment-chilly-reception/

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

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/academic-life

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)

Chris is feeling a bit under the weather, so unfortunately, there's no Espresso Martini this weekend. However, on Wednesday, we'll release his interview with journalist Patrick Strickland on the rise and fall of the Greek far-right. Then, either the following Saturday or Wednesday, Matt will welcome back Jacob Ware to discuss his recent article for Just Security on "nihilistic violent extremism" and the awful attack on two Israeli embassy staffers in DC. Please keep an eye out for those. Apologies for the delay, but thank you for bearing with us. We'll be back soon. Support Secrets and Spies Become a “Friend of the Podcast” on Patreon for £3/$4: https://www.patreon.com/SecretsAndSpies Buy merchandise from our shop: https://www.redbubble.com/shop/ap/60934996 Subscribe to our YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDVB23lrHr3KFeXq4VU36dg For more information about the podcast, check out our website: https://secretsandspiespodcast.com Connect with us on social media Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/secretsandspies.bsky.social Instagram: https://instagram.com/secretsandspies Facebook: https://facebook.com/secretsandspies Spoutible: https://spoutible.com/SecretsAndSpies Follow Chris and Matt on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/chriscarrfilm.bsky.social https://bsky.app/profile/mattfulton.net Secrets and Spies is produced by F & P LTD. Music by Andrew R. Bird Secrets and Spies sits at the intersection of intelligence, covert action, real-world espionage, and broader geopolitics in a way that is digestible but serious. Hosted by filmmaker Chris Carr and writer Matt Fulton, each episode examines the very topics that real intelligence officers and analysts consider on a daily basis through the lens of global events and geopolitics, featuring expert insights from former spies, authors, and journalists.

  On this episode, the fifth installment of our eight-part, issue-specific series, we'll explore how nonprofits can boldly and safely advocate for gender and reproductive justice. We'll review recent policy developments and discuss how nonprofits can respond through legislative, executive, and judicial branch advocacy. Join us as we break down the rules and share recent examples of how nonprofits are advancing gender and reproductive justice.     Attorneys for this episode    Quyen Tu  Brittany Hacker  Melissa Marichal Zayas    Shownotes  Gender and Reproductive Justice Headlines  Executive Branch Actions  Since taking office, President Trump has signed several sweeping executive orders that undermine the rights of transgender people and women and reduce access to reproductive health care.   These include, for example, orders that terminate federal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; rescind executive orders that expanded access to reproductive health care; ban transgender people from serving in the military; limit coverage for gender-affirming care; and require federal agencies to recognize only two, “not changeable” sexes.  The DOJ has announced that, outside of extraordinary circumstances, it will stop enforcing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a law that protects reproductive clinic staff from violence and harassment.   HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has directed the FDA to review its approval of the medication abortion pill Mifepristone.   We've also seen major funding cuts across several agencies. HHS, for example, has terminated NIH grants focused on LGBTQ+ health issues and frozen millions of dollars of Title X funds, which help provide reproductive health services in low-income communities.    Litigation  Many nonprofits, as well as state attorneys general, have filed lawsuits challenging the executive orders that seek to curtail LGBTQ+ rights and DEI initiatives.   In February, for example, a group of several civil rights nonprofits, along with Crowell & Moring LLP, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Chicago Women in Trades to challenge the Trump administration's anti-DEI executive orders. As a result, a federal court has temporarily blocked the Labor Department from requiring Chicago Women in Trades and other federal contracts or grant recipients to certify that they don't operate any programs that violate Federal anti-discrimination laws, which one of these EOs would require.   Many other provisions of these EOs, however, remain in effect as the cases make their way through the courts.   The National Council of Nonprofits has a continuously updated chart tracking executive orders that impact nonprofits and their current legal status. Just Security has an even broader resource that is tracking all legal challenges to Trump administration actions.    Legislation  Congress is currently considering deep cuts to Medicaid. These proposed cuts would lead to an estimated 8 million Americans becoming uninsured, and would eliminate all federal funding to Planned Parenthood, including funding for preventative health screenings and testing. Proposed budget cuts would also further restrict transgender peoples' access to gender-affirming care.   In Missouri, the state legislature recently approved a new ballot referendum that, if passed, would repeal last year's voter-approved constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to abortion. This ballet referendum will appear on the ballot in November of 2026 or earlier if Missouri's governor calls a special election.     What can 501(c)(3)s do to respond?   As a reminder, 501(c)(3)s cannot support or oppose candidates for elective public office. This means they can't engage in activity that helps or hurts the chances of a candidate winning an election.  But here's what they can do: They can engage in an unlimited amount of non-lobbying advocacy, and they can engage in a limited amount of lobbying.    Non-Lobbying Advocacy   Educate the public about issues of importance to your organization  The Center for Reproductive Rights' tool, Repro Red Flags: Agency Watch, which tracks key Trump administration appointments and actions related to reproductive health.   PFLAG is tracking and reporting on federal and state legislation and litigation impacting the LGBTQ+ community through its weekly Policy Matters Newsletter and Executive Orders Explainers and Resources web page.  The National Women's Law Center has released a report highlighting how the cuts would impact women and LGBTQ+ individuals.  Engage in administrative advocacy  A March letter sent by Equal Rights Advocates and several other civil rights organizations to Acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas urges her to immediately withdraw a series of letters and guidance documents pressuring employers to abandon DEI programs.   Hold a rally  In April, the Coalition for Inclusive Schools & Communities, Live in Your Truth, and the Montgomery County Pride Family held a  rally in support of inclusive education outside the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor.  Initiate or participate in litigation  In May, a Michigan state court permanently struck down three of Michigan's abortion restrictions, agreeing with Northland Family Planning Centers and Medical Students for Choice—two nonprofits plaintiffs represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights—that the restrictions violate the state's constitutional amendment.  Fund advocacy  Public and private foundations can fund advocacy through general operating grants or specific project grants.    Lobbying  501(c)(3) public charities can engage in lobbying, but they are limited in how much lobbying they may engage in.  Under the federal tax rules, most public charities can choose between two tests to determine how much lobbying they can engage in: the insubstantial part test or the 501(h) expenditure test.  Under either test, lobbying includes attempts to influence legislation at any level of government. The exact activities that will count as lobbying will depend on which test the organization uses.   When engaging in lobbying, remember to track and report your lobbying on your annual Form 990, stay within your lobbying limits, and use unrestricted funds.   In addition to the tax rules, federal, state, or local level lobbyist registration and reporting requirements may apply when engaging in legislative and executive branch advocacy. These requirements vary by state and city, so make sure to confirm the types of activities and thresholds that trigger reporting in the jurisdictions where you are lobbying.   The IRS considers ballot measure advocacy a form of direct lobbying because the voters act as legislators when they vote to approve or reject a ballot measure, but keep in mind that your organization may also be required to register and report on ballot measure activity under state or local campaign finance laws.  Since 2022, 501(c)(3) public charities have helped to pass ballot measures that establish a right to abortion in eleven states.    Resources  The Advocacy Playbook for Gender and Reproductive Justice  Public Charities Can Lobby (Factsheet)  What is Advocacy? 2.0 (Factsheet)  Administrative Advocacy: Influencing Rules, Regulations, and Executive Orders (Factsheet)  What Nonprofits Needs to Know About Lobbying in Your State    Understanding the Federal Lobbying Disclosure Act (Factsheet)  Investing in Change: A Funder's Guide to Supporting Advocacy 

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

The flood of memos issued by newly minted Attorney General Pam Bondi in her first days was dizzying, so hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord zero in on several that have significant implications for national security and criminal law enforcement. Next, they give a rundown of litigation happening across the country, as courtrooms become the first defense in challenging some of President Trump's questionable orders. And last up, Andrew and Mary talk through a few legal battles brewing over sanctuary cities and detail Mary and ICAP's latest case aiming to protect places of worship as safe havens from immigration enforcement. And btw, the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams just went poof-- they dissect that too.Further reading: Here is Just Security's Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions.HERE is the DOJ memo dropping the corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams without prejudice.And here is the statement from the American Bar Association that Andrew and Mary spoke about: The ABA supports the rule of law.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

With the deluge of news about the Trump administration's actions and orders, hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord zoom out to talk through what seems to be the overarching goal here- to clear out all opposition and have a presidency unbound by law. As former officials at the Justice Department and the FBI, they have a clear-eyed view on the broad swath of firings and how this wrecking ball approach will be litigated in court as challenges mount. Then, Andrew and Mary give some legal context to Trump's attempt to cut off congressional aid, both through the funding freeze that already has several temporary restraining orders, and the ongoing news involving attempts to dismantle USAID by Trump and Musk.Further reading: Here is Mary's piece in Just Security asking the Senate to get answers from Bondi and Patel: From Pardons to Purges: Pressing Questions that Bondi and Patel Must Answer NowAnd this is the article Andrew and Mary referenced in this episode from Adam Cox and Trevor Morrison, also on Just Security: Trump's Dictatorial Theory of Presidential Power – What the Executive Orders, in the Aggregate, Tell UsWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get up to 3 bags free with any new Trade subscription at drinktrade.com/OA OA1119 - Trump's executive orders are bad for humanity--and just plain badly written. We survey some of the 20 major legal challenges which have been filed against this nonsense--including two early wins, and a few others which might be wins soon. Matt then explains a recent proposed Trump enforcement tactic with concerning new potential for integration of local and federal authorities with immigration enforcement which the media seems to have missed. In related news, Trump has announced that a little-known section of the US military base at Guantanamo Bay will be used to house up to 30,000 immigrants facing deportation. We consider the history and legal issues around this far-from unprecedented plan. Finally, our closing Bigfootnote takes a closer look at a rare intersection between cryptozoology and the law. OMB memo dated 1/27/25 “Influx of aliens” memo “Offshoring Human Rights,” International Refugee Assistance Project (Fall 2024) Trump Litigation Tracker, Just Security (2025) Bigfoot-Ordinance-69-01.pdf (Skamani County)   Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

From February 15, 2023: The Jan. 6 committee's final report on the insurrection is over 800 pages, including the footnotes. But there's still new information coming out about the committee's findings and its work.Last week, we brought you an interview with Dean Jackson, one of the staffers who worked on the Jan. 6 committee's investigation into the role of social media in the insurrection. Today, we're featuring a conversation with Jacob Glick, who served as investigative counsel on the committee and is currently a policy counsel at Georgetown's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. His work in the Jan. 6 investigation focused on social media and far-right extremism. Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic spoke with Jacob about what the investigation showed him about the forces that led to Jan. 6, how he understands the threat still posed by extremism, and what it was like interviewing Twitter whistleblowers and members of far-right groups who stormed the Capitol.You can read Jacob's Lawfare article here, his essay with Mary McCord on countering extremism here in Just Security, and an interview with him and his Jan. 6 committee colleagues here at Tech Policy Press.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.