Podcasts about just security

  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)

Andrew Weissmann is the co-host of the popular podcast Prosecuting Donald Trump 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. Join us for this super-insightful chat about the current status of the mounting lawsuits filed against the Trump Administration. 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

 Every now and again, a story that has a significant technology element really breaks through and drives the news cycle. This week, the Trump administration is reeling after The Atlantic magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg revealed that he was on the receiving end of Yemen strike plans in a Signal group chat between US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and other top US national security officials. User behavior, a common failure point, appears to be to blame in this scenario. But what are the broader contours and questions that emerge from this scandal? To learn more, Justin Hendrix spoke to:Ryan Goodman is the Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law at New York University School of Law and co-editor-in-chief of Just Security. He served as special counsel to the general counsel of the Department of Defense (2015-16).Cooper Quintin is a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). He has worked on projects including Privacy Badger, Canary Watch, and analysis of state-sponsored malware campaigns such as Dark Caracal.

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

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

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

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

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

Shortly after Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 47th American president, he issued 37 executive orders and, subsequently, the Trump administration has – through formal processes and also through extra-governmental extraordinary practices – triggered what many are calling a governmental and/or constitutional crisis. Dr. Christina Pagel has published two important Substack articles in which she groups the activities of the Trump administration into authoritarian and proto-authoritarian actions – and maps the opposition. Her unbelievable Venn diagram reveals which actions are being met with organized resistance – and which are being left unchallenged. She is a data hound – and her data not only clarifies what is happening in the United States but provides tools for those who wish to effectively oppose it in the U.S. and abroad. Dr. Christina Pagel is Professor of Operational Research in Health Care, University College London. Operational Research is a pragmatic branch of mathematics to help people solve real-life problems. She is a member of Independent SAGE providing accessible updates on the national and international Covid-19 situation since May 2020. She has published in public-facing venues such as The Conversation and her free Substack, Diving into Data & Decision making. You can follow her on social media. Mentioned in the podcast: Christina's 2/13/25 Substack, "So this is how liberty dies… " Making sense of Trump's first three weeks (categorizing 76 Trump administration actions and demonstrating how they align with authoritarianism). Christina's 2/17/25 Substack, How to fight back: charting opposition to the actions of the Trump administration (showing how Blue states, labor organizations, and civil rights groups are doing the most – and what can be learned from them). The Just Security's Litigation Tracker based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law. Vox's 2/12/25 Unexplainable podcast, “Is Science in Danger?” (20 minutes) Noam Hassenfeld interviewing Derek Dowe (chemist/science writer) Transcript or podcast. Susan's interview with Corey Brettschneider on his new Norton book The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It 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

Shortly after Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 47th American president, he issued 37 executive orders and, subsequently, the Trump administration has – through formal processes and also through extra-governmental extraordinary practices – triggered what many are calling a governmental and/or constitutional crisis. Dr. Christina Pagel has published two important Substack articles in which she groups the activities of the Trump administration into authoritarian and proto-authoritarian actions – and maps the opposition. Her unbelievable Venn diagram reveals which actions are being met with organized resistance – and which are being left unchallenged. She is a data hound – and her data not only clarifies what is happening in the United States but provides tools for those who wish to effectively oppose it in the U.S. and abroad. Dr. Christina Pagel is Professor of Operational Research in Health Care, University College London. Operational Research is a pragmatic branch of mathematics to help people solve real-life problems. She is a member of Independent SAGE providing accessible updates on the national and international Covid-19 situation since May 2020. She has published in public-facing venues such as The Conversation and her free Substack, Diving into Data & Decision making. You can follow her on social media. Mentioned in the podcast: Christina's 2/13/25 Substack, "So this is how liberty dies… " Making sense of Trump's first three weeks (categorizing 76 Trump administration actions and demonstrating how they align with authoritarianism). Christina's 2/17/25 Substack, How to fight back: charting opposition to the actions of the Trump administration (showing how Blue states, labor organizations, and civil rights groups are doing the most – and what can be learned from them). The Just Security's Litigation Tracker based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law. Vox's 2/12/25 Unexplainable podcast, “Is Science in Danger?” (20 minutes) Noam Hassenfeld interviewing Derek Dowe (chemist/science writer) Transcript or podcast. Susan's interview with Corey Brettschneider on his new Norton book The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Shortly after Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 47th American president, he issued 37 executive orders and, subsequently, the Trump administration has – through formal processes and also through extra-governmental extraordinary practices – triggered what many are calling a governmental and/or constitutional crisis. Dr. Christina Pagel has published two important Substack articles in which she groups the activities of the Trump administration into authoritarian and proto-authoritarian actions – and maps the opposition. Her unbelievable Venn diagram reveals which actions are being met with organized resistance – and which are being left unchallenged. She is a data hound – and her data not only clarifies what is happening in the United States but provides tools for those who wish to effectively oppose it in the U.S. and abroad. Dr. Christina Pagel is Professor of Operational Research in Health Care, University College London. Operational Research is a pragmatic branch of mathematics to help people solve real-life problems. She is a member of Independent SAGE providing accessible updates on the national and international Covid-19 situation since May 2020. She has published in public-facing venues such as The Conversation and her free Substack, Diving into Data & Decision making. You can follow her on social media. Mentioned in the podcast: Christina's 2/13/25 Substack, "So this is how liberty dies… " Making sense of Trump's first three weeks (categorizing 76 Trump administration actions and demonstrating how they align with authoritarianism). Christina's 2/17/25 Substack, How to fight back: charting opposition to the actions of the Trump administration (showing how Blue states, labor organizations, and civil rights groups are doing the most – and what can be learned from them). The Just Security's Litigation Tracker based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law. Vox's 2/12/25 Unexplainable podcast, “Is Science in Danger?” (20 minutes) Noam Hassenfeld interviewing Derek Dowe (chemist/science writer) Transcript or podcast. Susan's interview with Corey Brettschneider on his new Norton book The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Shortly after Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 47th American president, he issued 37 executive orders and, subsequently, the Trump administration has – through formal processes and also through extra-governmental extraordinary practices – triggered what many are calling a governmental and/or constitutional crisis. Dr. Christina Pagel has published two important Substack articles in which she groups the activities of the Trump administration into authoritarian and proto-authoritarian actions – and maps the opposition. Her unbelievable Venn diagram reveals which actions are being met with organized resistance – and which are being left unchallenged. She is a data hound – and her data not only clarifies what is happening in the United States but provides tools for those who wish to effectively oppose it in the U.S. and abroad. Dr. Christina Pagel is Professor of Operational Research in Health Care, University College London. Operational Research is a pragmatic branch of mathematics to help people solve real-life problems. She is a member of Independent SAGE providing accessible updates on the national and international Covid-19 situation since May 2020. She has published in public-facing venues such as The Conversation and her free Substack, Diving into Data & Decision making. You can follow her on social media. Mentioned in the podcast: Christina's 2/13/25 Substack, "So this is how liberty dies… " Making sense of Trump's first three weeks (categorizing 76 Trump administration actions and demonstrating how they align with authoritarianism). Christina's 2/17/25 Substack, How to fight back: charting opposition to the actions of the Trump administration (showing how Blue states, labor organizations, and civil rights groups are doing the most – and what can be learned from them). The Just Security's Litigation Tracker based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law. Vox's 2/12/25 Unexplainable podcast, “Is Science in Danger?” (20 minutes) Noam Hassenfeld interviewing Derek Dowe (chemist/science writer) Transcript or podcast. Susan's interview with Corey Brettschneider on his new Norton book The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Shortly after Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 47th American president, he issued 37 executive orders and, subsequently, the Trump administration has – through formal processes and also through extra-governmental extraordinary practices – triggered what many are calling a governmental and/or constitutional crisis. Dr. Christina Pagel has published two important Substack articles in which she groups the activities of the Trump administration into authoritarian and proto-authoritarian actions – and maps the opposition. Her unbelievable Venn diagram reveals which actions are being met with organized resistance – and which are being left unchallenged. She is a data hound – and her data not only clarifies what is happening in the United States but provides tools for those who wish to effectively oppose it in the U.S. and abroad. Dr. Christina Pagel is Professor of Operational Research in Health Care, University College London. Operational Research is a pragmatic branch of mathematics to help people solve real-life problems. She is a member of Independent SAGE providing accessible updates on the national and international Covid-19 situation since May 2020. She has published in public-facing venues such as The Conversation and her free Substack, Diving into Data & Decision making. You can follow her on social media. Mentioned in the podcast: Christina's 2/13/25 Substack, "So this is how liberty dies… " Making sense of Trump's first three weeks (categorizing 76 Trump administration actions and demonstrating how they align with authoritarianism). Christina's 2/17/25 Substack, How to fight back: charting opposition to the actions of the Trump administration (showing how Blue states, labor organizations, and civil rights groups are doing the most – and what can be learned from them). The Just Security's Litigation Tracker based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law. Vox's 2/12/25 Unexplainable podcast, “Is Science in Danger?” (20 minutes) Noam Hassenfeld interviewing Derek Dowe (chemist/science writer) Transcript or podcast. Susan's interview with Corey Brettschneider on his new Norton book The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

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

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

The 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.

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

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

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.

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

President Trump began his second term with a slew of executive orders regarding the TikTok ban, birthright citizenship, and border enforcement, among other things. While his actions cover a wide range of topics, there is a common theme: the unprecedented broadening of presidential authority. In a new analysis published in Just Security, Dean Emeritus of NYU Law Trevor Morrison analyzes how Trump's claim to an expansive executive power violates statutes and the Constitution.  Listen to a conversation with Morrision and Brennan Center Fellow Wilfred Codrington III as they break down Trump's opening executive orders and what they reveal about his theory of presidential power. If you enjoy this program, please give us a boost by liking, subscribing, and sharing with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a 5-star rating. Recorded on January 31, 2025. Check out Trevor Morrison's analysis in Just Security here: https://www.justsecurity.org/106969/trump-dictatorial-theory-presidential-power-executive-orders/ Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing: https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing

Shooting in Sweden-via BBCTariff-Off-via AP NewsEarthquakes in Greece-via CNNFirst Flights Head to Guantanamo-via CNNFBI v DOJ-via Politico, Just Security (suit 1), Court Listener (suit 2), and NBC NewsTrump Makes Comments on Gaza-via NY TimesMarco Rubio + El Salvador-via AP News and CNNTrump Threatens the Department of Education and UN-via CNN and NY TimesRegister to vote, or check your registration at wearevoters.turbovote.orgTake the pledge to be a voter at raisingvoters.org/beavoterdecember. - on AmazonSubscribe to the Substack: kimmoffat.substack.comA full transcript (with links) is available at kimmoffat.com/hwh-transcriptsAs always, you can find me on Instagram/Twitter @kimmoffat and TikTok @kimmoffatishere

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

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!

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ralph welcomes Marc Rotenberg, founder and president of the Center for AI and Digital Policy to fill us in on the latest international treaty aimed at putting guardrails on the potential Frankenstein monster that is Artificial Intelligence. Plus, as we get to the end of the Medicare enrollment period, we put out one last warning for listeners to avoid the scam that is Medicare Advantage.Marc Rotenberg is the founder and president of the Center for AI and Digital Policy, a global organization focused on emerging challenges associated with Artificial Intelligence. He serves as an expert advisor on AI policy to many organizations including the Council of Europe, the Council on Foreign Relations, the European Parliament, the Global Partnership on AI, the OECD, and UNESCO. What troubles me is the gap between an increasingly obscure, technical, and complex technology—abbreviated into “AI” —and public understanding. You know, when motor vehicles came and we tried to regulate them and did, people understood motor vehicles in their daily lives. When solar energy started coming on, they saw solar roof panels. They could see it, they could understand it, they could actually work putting solar panels on roofs of buildings. This area is just producing a massively expanding gap between the experts from various disciplines, and the power structure of corporatism, and their government servants and the rest of the people in the world.Ralph NaderThe difference between these two types of [AI] systems is that with the old ones we could inspect them and interrogate them. If one of the factors being used for an outcome was, for example, race or nationality, we could say, well, that's impermissible and you can't use an automated system in that way. The problem today with the probabilistic systems that US companies have become increasingly reliant on is that it's very difficult to actually tell whether those factors are contributing to an outcome. And so for that reason, there are a lot of computer scientists rightly concerned about the problem of algorithmic bias.Marc Rotenberg[The sponsors of California SB 1047] wanted companies that were building these big complicated systems to undertake a safety plan, identify the harms, and make those plans available to the Attorney General…In fact, I work with many governments around the world on AI regulation and this concept of having an impact assessment is fairly obvious. You don't want to build these large complex systems without some assessment of what the risk might be.Marc RotenbergWe've always understood that when you create devices that have consequences, there has to be some circuit breaker. The companies didn't like that either. [They said] it's too difficult to predict what those scenarios might be, but that was almost precisely the point of the legislation, you see, because if those scenarios exist and you haven't identified them yet, you choose to deploy these large foundational models without any safety mechanism in place, and all of us are at risk. So I thought it was an important bill and not only am I disappointed that the governor vetoed it, but as I said, I think he made a mistake. This is not simply about politics. This is actually about science, and it's about the direction these systems are heading.Marc RotenbergThat's where we are in this moment—opaque systems that the experts don't understand, increasingly being deployed by organizations that also don't understand these systems, and an industry that says, “don't regulate us.” This is not going to end well.Marc RotenbergIn Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DesantisNews 11/27/241. Last week, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. According to a statement from ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, the international legal body found reasonable grounds to believe that each has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the use of starvation as a method of warfare and intentionally directing attacks against civilians. This news has been met with varied reactions throughout the world. These have been meticulously documented by Just Security. The United States, which is under no obligation to honor the warrant as it is not a party to the Rome Statute, has said it “fundamentally rejects” the judgment and has called the issuing of warrants “outrageous.” Canada, which is party to the Rome Statue has vowed to uphold their treaty obligations despite their close ties to Israel. Germany however, another signatory to the Rome Statute, has suggested that they would not honor the warrants. In a statement, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib said the warrants are “long overdue” and signal that “the days of the Israeli apartheid government operating with impunity are ending.” One can only hope that is true.2. On November 21st, 19 Senators voted for at least one of the three Joint Resolutions of Disapproval regarding additional arms transfers to Israel. As Jewish Voice for Peace Action puts it, “this is an unprecedented show of Senate opposition to President Biden's disastrous foreign policy of unconditional support for the Israeli military.” The 19 Senators include Independents Bernie Sanders and Angus King, progressive Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, Chris Van Hollen and Raphael Warnock, and Democratic caucus leaders like Dick Durbin, among many others. Perhaps the most notable supporter however is Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia, whom Ryan Grim notes is the only Democrat representing a state Trump won and who is up for reelection in 2026 to vote for the resolution. Ossoff cited President Reagan's decision to withhold cluster munitions during the IDF occupation of Beirut in a floor speech explaining his vote. The Middle East Eye reports that the Biden Administration deployed Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer to whip votes against the JRD.3. Last week, we covered H.R. 9495, aka the “nonprofit killer” bill targeting pro-Palestine NGOs. Since then, the bill has passed the House. Per the Guardian, the bill passed 219-184, with fifteen Democrats crossing the aisle to grant incoming-President Trump the unilateral power to obliterate any non-profit organization he dislikes, a list sure to be extensive. Congressman Jamie Raskin is quoted saying “A sixth-grader would know this is unconstitutional…They want us to vote to give the president Orwellian powers and the not-for-profit sector Kafkaesque nightmares.” The bill now moves to the Senate, where it is unlikely to pass while Democrats cling to control. Come January however, Republicans will hold a decisive majority in the upper chamber.4. President-elect Donald Trump has announced his selection of Congresswoman Lori Chavez-DeRemer as his pick for Secretary of Labor. Chavez-DeRemer is perhaps the most pro-labor Republican in Congress, with the AFL-CIO noting that she is one of only three Republicans to cosponsor the PRO Act and one of eight to cosponsor the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act. Chavez-DeRemer was reportedly the favored choice of Teamsters President Sean O'Brien, who controversially became the first ever Teamster to address the RNC earlier this year. While her selection has been greeted with cautious optimism by many labor allies, anti-labor conservatives are melting down at the prospect. Akash Chougule of Americans for Prosperity accused Trump of giving “A giant middle finger to red states,” by “picking a teachers union hack” and urged Senate Republicans to reject the nomination.5. Unfortunately, most of Trump's selections are much, much worse. Perhaps worst of all, Trump has chosen Mehmet Cengiz Öz – better known as Dr. Oz – to lead the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Beyond his lack of qualifications and history of promoting crackpot medical theories, Oz is a longtime proponent of pushing more seniors into privatized Medicare Advantage, or “Disadvantage,” plans, per Yahoo! Finance. This report notes that the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 called for making Medicare Advantage the default health program for seniors.6. According to CNN, Brazilian police have arrested five people who conspired to assassinate leftist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, better known as Lula, in 2022. This assassination plot was allegedly cooked up even before Lula took office, and included plans to kill Lula's Vice President Geraldo Alckmin and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. The conspirators included a former high-ranking Bolsonaro advisor and military special forces personnel. Reuters reports investigators have discovered evidence that Bolsonaro himself was involved in the scheme.7. In more news from Latin America, Drop Site reports that the United States and Colombia engaged in a secretive agreement to allow the country's previous U.S.-backed conservative President Ivan Duque to utilize the Israeli Pegasus spyware for internal surveillance in the country. Details of the transaction and of the utilization of the spyware remain “murky,” but American and Colombian officials maintain it was used to target drug-trafficking groups and not domestic political opponents. Just two months ago, Colombia's leftist President Gustavo Petro delivered a televised speech revealing details of this shadowy arrangement, including that the Duque government flew $11 million cash from Bogotá to Tel Aviv. As Drop Site notes, “In Colombia, there's a long legacy of state intelligence agencies surveilling political opposition leaders. With the news that the U.S. secretly helped acquire and deploy powerful espionage software in their country, the government is furious at the gross violation of their sovereignty. They fear that Colombia's history of politically motivated surveillance, backed by the U.S. government, lives on to this day.”8. Following the Democrats' electoral wipeout, the race for new DNC leadership is on. Media attention has mostly been focused on the race to succeed Jamie Harrison as DNC Chair, but POLITICO is out with a story on James Zogby's bid for the DNC vice chair seat. Zogby, a longtime DNC member, Bernie Sanders ally and president of the Arab American Institute has criticized the party's position on Israel and particularly of the Kamala Harris campaign's refusal to allow a Palestinian-American speaker at this year's convention. He called the move “unimaginative, overly cautious and completely out of touch with where voters are.” This report notes Zogby's involvement in the 2016 DNC Unity Reform Commission, and his successful push to strip substantial power away from the so-called superdelegates.9. Speaking of Democratic Party rot, the Lever reports that in its final days the Biden Administration is handing corporations a “get out of jail free card.” A new Justice Department policy dictates that the government will essentially look the other way at corporate misconduct, even if the company has “committed multiple crimes, earned significant profit from their wrongdoing, and failed to self-disclose the misconduct — as long as the companies demonstrate they ‘acted in good faith' to try to come clean.” This is the logical endpoint of the longstanding Biden era soft-touch approach intended to encourage corporations to self-police, an idea that is patently absurd on its face. Public Citizen's Corporate Crime expert Rick Claypool described the policy as “bending over backward to protect corporations.”10. Finally, on November 23rd lawyer and former progressive congressional candidate Brent Welder posted a fundraising email from Bernie Sanders that immediately attracted substantial interest for its strong language. In this note, Sanders writes “The Democrats ran a campaign protecting the status quo and tinkering around the edges…Will the Democratic leadership learn the lessons of their defeat and create a party that stands with the working class[?]…unlikely.” The email ends with a list of tough questions, including “should we be supporting Independent candidates who are prepared to take on both parties?” Many on the Left read this as Bernie opening the door to a “dirty break” with the Democratic Party, perhaps even an attempt to form some kind of independent alliance or third party. In a follow-up interview with John Nichols in the Nation, Sanders clarified that he is not calling for the creation of a new party, but “Where it is more advantageous to run as an independent, outside of the Democratic [Party]…we should do that.” Whether anything will come of this remains to be seen, but if nothing else the severity of his rhetoric reflects the intensity of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party in light of their second humiliating defeat at the hands of a clownish, fascistic game show host. Perhaps a populist left third party is a far-fetched, unachievable goal. On the other hand, how many times can we go back to the Democratic Party expecting different results. Something has got to give, or else the few remaining pillars of our democracy will wither and die under sustained assault by the Right and their corporate overlords.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled: “‘When the President Does It, that Means It's Not Illegal': The Supreme Court's Unprecedented Immunity Decision”, and MSNBC legal analyst Mary McCord was called to testify before the committee. She and Andrew Weissmann reflect on what she laid out for the Senators concerning the fallout from the Supreme Court's immunity decision. Then, they review the flurry of filings in Trump's DC election interference case, where Jack Smith's team is expected to file a substantial opening brief on Thursday. And lastly, after weeks of harassment and bomb threats, a non-profit group in Springfield, Ohio filed citizen-led criminal charges against Donald Trump and JD Vance for repeating lies that have allegedly led to threats against Haitian immigrants living in the community.Further reading:Here is Mary's opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee.Here is the Just Security piece Andrew mentioned from Adam Klasfeld and Ryan Goodman, citing twelve instances of targeting supposed foes during the Trump administration: Chronology of a Dozen Times Trump Pushed to Prosecute His Perceived EnemiesWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. As a subscriber you'll also be able to get occasional bonus content from this and other shows.

Special Counsel Jack Smith is on a roll this week. On Monday, he asked an Atlanta-based appeals court to revive his federal classified documents case against former President Donald Trump. A day later, he filed a revised indictment against Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The revisions were in response to the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year giving Trump and all future presidents broad immunity from prosecution for their official acts as president. But much of the indictment is the same as the original. Norm Eisen, who served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee's Democratic majority during Trump's two impeachment proceedings, helps break down where things now stand with Trump's criminal cases.And in headlines: The Supreme Court dealt another blow to President Joe Biden's efforts to ease the burden of federal student loan debt, Israel carried out its largest raids in the occupied West Bank in at least two decades, and the 2024 Paralympics are underway in Paris! Show Notes:Check out Norm's piece for Just Security – https://tinyurl.com/yc5xbzk3Subscribe 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