Podcasts about Lawfare

Today's Lawfare Daily is Lawfare's annual "Ask Us Anything" mailbag episode where Lawfare contributors answered listener-submitted questions.Scott R. Anderson, Natalie Orpett, Benjamin Wittes, Kevin Frazier, Eric Columbus, Loren Voss, Molly Roberts, Jakub Kraus, Anna Bower, and Roger Parloff address questions on everything from presidential immunity to AI regulations to the domestic deployment of the military.Thank you for your questions. And as always, thank you for listening.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From April 16, 2024: Friday morning, the House of Representatives suddenly—after failing to do so earlier in the week—took up the reauthorization of FISA 702. They considered a bunch of amendments, one of which failed on a tie vote, and then proceeded to pass reauthorization of 702. Immediately after the votes, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes spoke with Lawfare Senior Editors Stephanie Pell and Molly Reynolds, and Lawfare Student Contributor Preston Marquis. They talked about how the center beat the coalition of the left and right on the key question of warrant requirements for U.S. person queries, about whether the civil liberties community gained anything in this protracted process or whether the administration just kicked its butt, about what happens now as the bill goes back to the Senate, and about all the little details that went into this bill. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From April 4, 2023: Russia's invasion of Ukraine has tested the international legal order like never before. For many, the fact that a nuclear power and member of the U.N. Security Council would commit unveiled aggression against another state seemed like it might be the death knell of the international system as we know it. But last week, in the annual Breyer Lecture on International Law at the Brookings Institution, Oona Hathaway, the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Professor of International Law at Yale Law School, argued that international law and institutions responded more robustly than many initially anticipated—and may yet emerge from the Ukraine conflict stronger than before.In this episode, we are bringing you the audio of Professor Hathaway's lecture, followed by a question and answer session with Constanze Stelzenmüller, the Director of the Center on the United States and Europe and the inaugural holder of the Fritz Stern Chair on Germany and trans-Atlantic Relations at the Brookings Institution. Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson then moderated a panel discussion that included Professor Hathaway, as well as Professor Rosa Brooks of Georgetown University Law Center; Karin Landgren, the Executive Director of Security Council Report; and Ambassador Martin Kimani, Kenya's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. 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.

Hey there, listeners, buckle up because the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been on fire these past few days, handing President Donald Trump and his administration a string of high-stakes wins in battles over everything from the National Guard to passports and federal spending. Just eight days ago, on December 23, 2025, the Court ruled in Trump v. Illinois, siding against the administration's bid to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Illinois without state consent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence, while Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the move was essential for national security amid rising unrest in Chicago. The Brennan Center's Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker notes this as one of only five losses for the administration since January, out of 25 emergency decisions, with most favoring Trump at least partially and often with minimal explanation.But don't let that one setback fool you—the Court has been overwhelmingly pro-administration lately. On November 6, the justices greenlit the State Department's policy refusing passports that reflect transgender applicants' gender identity for a certified class of plaintiffs, overruling lower courts in a terse order. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented sharply, warning it tramples civil rights. This fits a pattern: back on October 3 in Noem v. National TPS Alliance, the Court forced the government to release congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds, with Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, blasting it as executive overreach. Earlier, September 22's Trump v. Slaughter let the administration dodge discovery demands from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington over DOGE Service materials under the Freedom of Information Act.Rewind a bit further into this whirlwind year, and the shadow docket explodes with immigration clashes. In Noem v. Doe on May 30, the Court allowed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to revoke parole en masse for half a million noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, skipping individual reviews—Justice Jackson dissented alongside Sotomayor. April's Trump v. J.G.G. permitted deportations of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, despite dissents from Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and even partial pushback from Amy Coney Barrett. A.A.R.P. v. Trump on April 19 blocked removals of Venezuelan nationals, a rare check, with Kavanaugh concurring and Alito dissenting.Civil service purges? Check: McMahon v. New York on July 14 okayed firing Department of Education employees, while Trump v. Boyle upheld Trump's power to boot Consumer Product Safety Commission members without cause. Even LGBTQ+ rights took hits, like United States v. Shilling in May letting the Defense Department terminate transgender service members. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker highlights ongoing suits, including a coalition of nonprofits and cities challenging the suspension of November 2025 SNAP benefits—a case that echoes lower court fights like District of Rhode Island's order to fully fund them.Since Inauguration Day, the Supreme Court's emergency docket—mostly Department of Justice filings—has tilted 20-to-5 toward Trump, per SCOTUSblog and Shadow Docket Watch data. Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh often push back against blocks, while the liberal trio fights rearguard actions. As 2025 wraps, two applications still pend, promising more drama.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

For the podcast's annual end-of-year episode, Scott sat down with co-host emeritus Benjamin Wittes, Senior Editor Anna Bower, and Managing Editor Tyler McBrien to talk over listener-submitted topics and object lessons, including:Which sphere of influence is Western Europe in today?What should we make of President Trump's lawsuit against BBC?After nearly a year of the Trump Administration, how do you view the record of Attorney General Merrick Garland?What does the military campaign against alleged narcotics traffickers tell us about checks and balances within the U.S. system around the use of military force (or lack thereof)?With the escalating rhetoric in the Caribbean, what lessons should we be keeping in mind from the lead-up to the Iraq War?What can be done to reverse Americans' tolerance for the slide towards illiberal democracy?And importantly, is Ben's martial arts challenge to Putin still on?For object lessons, our listeners really came through! Blake recommends a couple of coffee table books right up Tyler's alley: “Building Stories” by Alastair Philip Wiper and "Closure: The Final Days of the Waterford Bicycle Factory" by Tucker and Anna Schwinn. Keenan points out a good companion listen to this podcast in NPR's Sources and Methods. Liz really embraces the variety show that is “object lessons,” introducing us to Danylo Yavhusishyn—a.k.a., Aonishiki—a Ukrainian-born sumo wrestler, hyping Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 as her Game of the Year, waxing poetic about The Sun Eater book series, and log-rolling her work on the Final Fantasy TCG. Speaking of variety shows, Lisa spotlights the Live from New York: The Lorne Michaels Collection exhibition at UT Austin's Harry Ransom Center. And Riley asks the crew about their top fiction recommendations for 2026. Tune in to find out what they are!And thank goodness, that's it for 2025! But don't worry, Rational Security and the whole Lawfare team will be back with you in the new year to help make sense of what's to come in national security in 2026!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.

Senior Editor Michael Feinberg and Tom Brzozowski, formerly of the Justice Department, sit down to talk over recent changes set in motion by the White House and Justice Department with respect to domestic terrorism investigations and prosecutions, and sound a warning from history at how these changes hearken back to pre-Church Committee practices.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.

For the podcast's annual end-of-year episode, Scott sat down with co-host emeritus Benjamin Wittes, Senior Editor Anna Bower, and Managing Editor Tyler McBrien to talk over listener-submitted topics and object lessons, including:Which sphere of influence is Western Europe in today?What should we make of President Trump's lawsuit against BBC?After nearly a year of the Trump Administration, how do you view the record of Attorney General Merrick Garland?What does the military campaign against alleged narcotics traffickers tell us about checks and balances within the U.S. system around the use of military force (or lack thereof)?With the escalating rhetoric in the Caribbean, what lessons should we be keeping in mind from the lead-up to the Iraq War?What can be done to reverse Americans' tolerance for the slide towards illiberal democracy?And importantly, is Ben's martial arts challenge to Putin still on?For object lessons, our listeners really came through! Blake recommends a couple of coffee table books right up Tyler's alley: “Building Stories” by Alastair Philip Wiper and "Closure: The Final Days of the Waterford Bicycle Factory" by Tucker and Anna Schwinn. Keenan points out a good companion listen to this podcast in NPR's Sources and Methods. Liz really embraces the variety show that is “object lessons,” introducing us to Danylo Yavhusishyn—a.k.a., Aonishiki—a Ukrainian-born sumo wrestler, hyping Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 as her Game of the Year, waxing poetic about The Sun Eater book series, and log-rolling her work on the Final Fantasy TCG. Speaking of variety shows, Lisa spotlights the Live from New York: The Lorne Michaels Collection exhibition at UT Austin's Harry Ransom Center. And Riley asks the crew about their top fiction recommendations for 2026. Tune in to find out what they are!And thank goodness, that's it for 2025! But don't worry, Rational Security and the whole Lawfare team will be back with you in the new year to help make sense of what's to come in national security in 2026!To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Connecticut State Senator James Maroney and Neil Chilson, Head of AI Policy at the Abundance Institute, join Kevin Frazier, the AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Alan Rozenstein, Associate Professor at Minnesota Law and Research Director at Lawfare, for a look back at a wild year in AI policy. Neil provides his expert analysis of all that did (and did not) happen at the federal level. Senator Maroney then examines what transpired across the states. The four then offer their predictions for what seems likely to be an even busier 2026. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Ariane Tabatabai, Scott R. Anderson, and Loren Voss discuss the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2026. They take stock of how Congress is reasserting itself vis-a-vis the Trump administration on matters related to the national defense, as well as the NDAA's key provisions. Relevant links:National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026United States Senate Committee on Armed Services Executive Summary of the 2026 NDAA“Senate passes defense bill that defies Trump and forces sharing of boat strike videos,” by Connor O'Brien on Politico, December 17, 2025“Inside Trump's Second-Term National Security Strategy,” by Loren Voss on Lawfare, December 19, 2025To 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.

La profesora de Derecho Internacional de la Universidad Complutense y directora del Diploma de Estudios Polares Elena Conde, habla de cómo algunos países instrumentalizan las leyes internacionales y la ley del mar para justificar sus movimientos en el Ártico. Escuchar audio

From March 6, 2024: Executive branch constraints and the posture of the media have shifted in significant ways over the past two decades. Lyrissa Lidsky and Christina Koningisor, law professors at the University of Florida and the University of California San Francisco, respectively, argue in a forthcoming law review article that these changes—including the erosion of certain post-Watergate reforms and the decline of local news—have created a First Amendment disequilibrium. They contend that the twin assumptions of the press's power to extract information and check government authority on the one hand, and the limitations on executive branch power on the other, that undergird First Amendment jurisprudence no longer hold, leaving the press at a significant First Amendment disadvantage. Lawfare Research Fellow Matt Gluck spoke with Lidsky and Koningisor about the current state of First Amendment jurisprudence, the ways in which the press used to be stronger, executive branch power on the federal and state levels, how the authors think our current First Amendment architecture should change, and more.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

Every year, Lawfare publishes a retrospective of the year that passed. Today, we're pleased to bring you an audio debrief of that article, The Year That Was: 2025, which you can read in full on our website starting December 31.Lawfare is focused on producing timely, rigorous, and non-partisan analysis of “hard national security choices.” And this year, that work was—to use an expression as tired as we are—like drinking from a firehose. We did our best to keep up. We published more than 1,000 articles, podcasts, videos, research papers, and primary source documents. We did livestream round-ups and rapid-response videos. We produced five different podcasts and an investigative video series. We built data visualizations and trackers to make sense of complicated unfolding events. You can find all that and more for free on our website, lawfaremedia.org.It's impossible to capture everything that happened in 2025 in the world of national security. But here's what stood out to the Lawfare team—and what they have to say about. In this episode, you'll hear from Executive Editor Natalie Orpett on Lawfare's work in 2025 and from Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes on The Situation. You'll hear from Senior Editors Anna Bower on DOGE, Roger Parloff on the Alien Enemies Act, Molly Roberts on politicization of the Justice Department, Eric Columbus on impoundments, Scott R. Anderson on war powers, and Kevin Frazier on AI and the states. You'll hear from Public Interest Fellows Loren Voss on domestic deployments of the military, and Ariane Tabatabai on foreign policy. You'll hear from our Managing Editor, Tyler McBrien, on our narrative podcast series, Escalation. You'll hear from Associate Editors Katherine Pompilio on the Jan. 6 pardons and Olivia Manes on rolling back internal checks at the Justice Department. You'll hear from our Fellow Jakub Kraus on AI, and you'll hear from Contributing Editor Renée DiResta on election integrity capacity.And that's just a sampling of Lawfare's work.It's The Year That Was: 2025. We'll see you next year.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.

Hey listeners, picture this: it's been a whirlwind week in the courts for President Donald Trump, with the Supreme Court dropping bombshells that could reshape his administration's bold moves. Just three days ago, on December 23, 2025, the nation's highest court issued a key ruling in Trump v. Illinois, tackling whether President Trump could federalize the Illinois National Guard and even pull in Texas troops to safeguard federal property in Chicago amid escalating violence. According to the Supreme Court's opinion, Trump activated 300 Illinois Guard members on October 4, followed by Texas forces the next day, citing riots where protesters hurled tear gas canisters at officers, tried grabbing firearms, and blasted bullhorns to cause hearing damage. Justice Alito's dissent slammed the lower District Court in Rhode Island for dismissing the government's unrefuted evidence of chaos, arguing it justified the President's call under federal law. While a majority granted the stay with some reasoning, Kavanaugh concurred, but Alito and Thomas pushed back hard, calling out the eleventh-hour shifts in opponents' arguments. This shadow docket decision, tracked by the Brennan Center, marks one of 25 emergency rulings since Trump took office on January 20, 2025—20 leaning his way, often with minimal explanation.But that's not all from the past few days. Fast-forward to the New York hush money saga: a fresh decision in People v. Donald J. Trump from the Manhattan court, penned by Judge Juan Merchan, shut down Trump's post-election bid to dismiss his 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Remember, a jury convicted him unanimously back in May 2024 for scheming to hide payments to Stormy Daniels, aiming to boost his presidential run through unlawful means. Trump requested delays himself—pushing sentencing past the election to November 26, 2024, then begging for a stay and dismissal after winning. The court wasn't buying it, noting Trump consented to those adjournments without opposition from prosecutors. Merchan emphasized the premeditated deception that eroded public trust, rejecting claims the case evaporates with his presidency, citing the Supreme Court's Trump v. United States immunity ruling but insisting justice demands accountability.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been a Trump turbo-boost all year. Brennan Center reports victories like Trump v. Boyle in July, greenlighting firings at the Consumer Product Safety Commission; McMahon v. New York upholding Education Department workforce cuts; and immigration wins such as Noem v. Doe, allowing mass parole revocations for half a million from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Even on LGBTQ+ fronts, November's ruling backed the State Department's passport gender policies. Not every call went his way—A.A.R.P. v. Trump lost on Venezuelan removals under the Alien Enemies Act—but the pattern's clear: 20 partial wins, with liberals like Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting repeatedly.Lawfare's litigation tracker highlights nonstop challenges, from SNAP benefit suspensions sparking suits by nonprofits and cities, to DOGE transparency fights where CREW got blocked from records. As of now, two more applications simmer. These battles in places like the First Circuit, DC Circuit, and beyond show Trump's team firing on all cylinders, testing presidential power's edges.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

From October 18, 2017: If you were unsure about whether your hosts are geeks, this episode will help settle the question. But before we get to what Professors Chesney and Vladeck think they know but don't really, here's the stuff they actually do know something about!First, the travel ban. Buckle up, there's a new nationwide TRO, out of Hawaii, enjoining enforcement of most of Travel Ban 3.0.Second, a double-shot of the Nashiri military commissions case. The Supreme Court denied cert., seemingly paving the way for that case to roll forward. But not so fast–all the civilian defense attorneys, including their death-penalty expert, have just quit, citing ethical quandaries arising from alleged government surveillance of attorney-client communications.Third, and speaking of surveillance, the Supreme Court did grant cert. in the Microsoft-Ireland spat, which raises the question whether a “(d) order” under the Stored Communications Act can compel a company in the U.S. to produce data that is within the company's control but stored on a server overseas.Fourth, and staying with the technology & statutes theme, there's a fascinating “hack back” bill now pending in Congress, with the best acronym ever: the Active Cyber Defense Certainty Act, aka the ACDC Act. For those about to legislate, we salute you. And for those who want to know what this bill does, we…well, listen to the show for an introductory primer.Fifth, and briefly, an update on the status of ACLU v. Mattis, which is the habeas petition the ACLU filed on behalf of the still-unnamed U.S. citizen held as an enemy combatant in Iraq.If you stuck around this long, perhaps you do have an appetite for bad humor and unwitty pop culture observations. In that case, you'll perhaps enjoy an argument about the right ranking of the Star Wars films, where the only disagreement turns out to be which was the very best and which the very worst. Or perhaps you fancy using Star Wars as a teaching foil in class? Stick around for some Law of Interstellar Armed Conflict discussions, not to mention the role of Greedo in illustrating the principles of anticipatory self-defense. Han shot first, and that's all.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From September 19, 2024: On April 14, 2022, New York Times technology reporters Kate Conger and Ryan Mac woke up to a stunning four-word tweet from Elon Musk's Twitter account: “I made an offer.” Having long covered the technology and social media beat, they read Musk's terse post as the “unbelievable but inevitable culmination of two storylines we had pursued for a decade as journalists in Silicon Valley.”On today's episode, Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien spoke to Conger and Mac about the cloak-and-dagger corporate dealings that preceded the offer, as well as the drama that unfolded after the ink dried, which they reported in detail in their new book, “Character Limit: How Elon Musk Destroyed Twitter.” They discussed Musk's predecessors—Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal—as well as the platform's troubled history of content moderation, and why the billionaire wanted it all for himself.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.

Lawfare - A Practical Guide by Henry Martin | Interview with Henry martin by lotuseaters.com

I walk into the studio with one question on my mind: how do I explain the latest turns in the courtroom battles surrounding Donald Trump in a way that cuts through the noise for you, the listener, without losing the legal stakes that have the whole country on edge?Over the past few days, the headline moment has come from Washington, where the United States Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a sharp setback in a case called Trump v. Illinois. According to the Supreme Court's own opinion and analysis from SCOTUSblog, the Court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to federalize and deploy the Illinois National Guard, along with Texas Guard units, into Chicago to respond to protests and violence around federal property. The administration argued the Insurrection Act and related statutes gave President Donald Trump broad authority to call up the Guard. A lower court had blocked him, questioning both the factual basis and the scope of that power, and the Supreme Court, in an emergency ruling, refused to restore his plan.In practical terms, that meant National Guard troops would not be marching into Chicago under federal orders, at least not on the legal theory the administration offered. The opinion revealed a divided Court. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dissented, accusing the lower court of underestimating the seriousness of the violence that federal officials described. But the majority, as summarized by commentators at the Brennan Center and SCOTUSblog, signaled limits on how far a president can go in using military force at home without close judicial scrutiny.That ruling landed against a broader backdrop of ongoing litigation involving Donald Trump and his administration's actions. Lawfare's “Trials of the Trump Administration” tracker notes that federal courts around the country continue to referee battles over immigration enforcement, civil service protections, the scope of independent agencies, LGBTQ rights, and government spending. In several shadow-docket cases this year, like Trump v. Boyle on firing members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Supreme Court sided with Trump on presidential control over agencies, but in others, especially involving immigration detention and bond hearings, lower courts have pushed back, and the justices have sometimes let those limits stand.Taken together, the last few days have underscored a pattern: Donald Trump is still testing the outer edge of presidential power in court, and the judiciary is no longer giving him a nearly open field. Instead, each new ruling sketches a tighter map of what a president can and cannot do, from sending troops into a state like Illinois to restructuring the federal bureaucracy or reshaping immigration courts.You, as listeners, are watching a slow, legal tug-of-war over the future of the presidency itself, conducted one opinion, one injunction, one emergency application at a time.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and 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

Loren Voss, Public Service Fellow at Lawfare, sits down with Kori Schake, senior fellow and the director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and Carrie Lee, senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund's Strategic Democracy Initiatives. They discuss how they assess a healthy civil-military relationship, the current state of civil-military affairs, potential unlawful orders, and what we should watch going forward.Lee and Schake outline the frameworks they use to assess civil-military relations in the United States and how to think about unlawful orders and an “unprincipled principal.” Both Schake and Lee agree that the military should not bear the burden of being the solution; fixes must come from civilian leadership in the executive and legislative branches. The group concludes by identifying five indicators everyone should watch going forward to indicate the system isn't functioning as it should. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Lawfare senior editor and associate professor of law the University of Minnesota, speaks with Cass Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard University, about his new book, Imperfect Oracle: What AI Can and Cannot Do. They discuss when we should trust algorithms over our own judgment, why AI can eliminate the noise and bias that plague human decision-making but can't predict revolutions, cultural hits, or even a coin flip—and, perhaps most importantly, when it makes sense to delegate our choices to AI and when we should insist on deciding for ourselves. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Anna Bower, Molly Roberts, and Eric Columbus and Lawfare Public Service Fellow Loren Voss to discuss the government's failure to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, a jury finding Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of obstructing immigration agents, a legal challenge to the White House ballroom construction, and more.You can find information on legal challenges to Trump administration actions here. And check out Lawfare's new homepage on the litigation, new Bluesky account, and new WITOAD merch.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.

Buck breaks down the Brown University and MIT shootings after the alleged suspect is found with a self-inflicted gunshot wound, pushing back on early rumors and online speculation. He also calls out law enforcement press conferences that focus more on self-praise than facts. Plus, Buck explains why the Mar-a-Lago raid marked a turning point in the weaponization of the justice system, and why it still matters today. Never miss a moment from Buck by subscribing to the Buck Sexton Show Podcast on IHeart Radio, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts! Connect with Buck Sexton:Facebook – / bucksexton X – @bucksexton Instagram – @bucksexton TikTok - @BuckSexton YouTube - @BuckSexton Website – https://www.bucksexton.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

From November 20, 2023: Over the past few weeks, the country of Pakistan has pursued an aggressive wave of deportations targeting thousands of Afghan refugees, some of whom have been in Pakistan for generations. Many fear that this move will add to the already precarious and humanitarian situation facing Afghanistan. But the Taliban regime, for one, has reacted in a way few expected.To talk through these refugee removals and their ramifications, Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Madiha Afzal, a Fellow in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution. They talked about the origins of the Afghan refugee population in Pakistan, how this latest action intersects with concerns over terrorism, and where the crisis may be headed next.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.

Send us a textThe sunshine is bright, the takes are brighter, and Wacky Wednesday pulls no punches. We kick off our first video-driven edition by asking a simple question that threads through every segment: where did accountability go? From a prosecutor's RICO overreach to a city's promise of reparations without funding, and from viral narratives to conservative shock-jock theatrics, we track how incentives—not ideals—shape outcomes that citizens end up paying for.First, we unpack the Fani Willis hearing: charges stretched to fit a target, costs that ballooned, and evasive answers when asked who approved invoices and why. Lawfare doesn't just risk losing cases; it corrodes trust in equal justice under the law. Then we travel west to San Francisco, where the board set up a reparations framework with no dollars attached. Moral claims deserve serious policy: if the mission is mobility and wealth creation, blunt cash drops won't beat targeted small-business grants, procurement pathways, and ownership ladders that compound over time.We turn to Representative Jasmine Crockett's past rental car dispute as a sharper test of character. Mistakes happen; the tell is whether leaders own their contracts and honor responsibility when things go sideways. In between, we break down the media economy's worst impulses—suggestive framing, click-chasing, and performative outrage—then introduce a new segment skewering conservative media figures who platform hate instead of ideas. If the goal is to build a winning coalition, burning bridges to go viral is self-sabotage. Growth lives in respect, policy craftsmanship, and inviting in voters who are tired of chaos.Want us to keep the cameras rolling? Subscribe, share this episode with a friend, and drop your thoughts in a text or voicemail at 866 LastGay. Your feedback drives the show—what should we cover next?Support the show

I step into the studio knowing that, for many listeners, the Donald Trump court saga feels endless. So let's get right to where things stand in the past few days.Across the country, Donald Trump is still juggling fallout from his earlier criminal and civil cases while his administration fights a new wave of lawsuits over how his Justice Department, Homeland Security, and other agencies are using federal power. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker describes a sprawling map of challenges, from immigration crackdowns to fights over federal workers and independent agencies, all feeding into a sense that the courtroom has become a second West Wing for this presidency.One of the biggest developments in the last few days comes from the Supreme Court and the immigration judges' free‑speech case. According to SCOTUSblog, the justices just rejected the Trump administration's request for emergency relief in a dispute over whether immigration judges can challenge speech restrictions in federal court. Commentator and law professor Stephen Vladeck called it the administration's first real loss at the Supreme Court since April, a rare sign that even this Court has limits on how far it will go on Trump's emergency asks. The order does leave the door open for the administration to come back if the trial court pushes into discovery, but for now, Trump's lawyers will have to keep fighting on the merits.At nearly the same time, another federal courtroom dealt the administration a blow on immigration detention. The ACLU of Massachusetts reports that a federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it denied bond hearings to people arrested by ICE in New England and then misclassified them to keep them in mandatory, no‑bond detention. The court granted partial summary judgment and held that, under the immigration statutes, these detainees must have access to a bond hearing. For thousands of people in New England lockups, that decision is not abstract law; it is the difference between indefinite confinement and a chance to argue for release.Overlay these fresh rulings on top of Trump's personal legal history and the picture sharpens. Outlets such as WABE have tracked how civil judgments for defamation and sexual abuse, as well as criminal convictions for falsifying business records in New York and the federal election‑interference and documents cases, have moved through appeals. A federal appeals court has already upheld one major civil jury verdict against Trump and declined to revisit it, locking in both damages and factual findings about his conduct. That appellate resistance puts real weight behind the idea that some of Trump's legal problems are no longer just allegations; they are affirmed findings of liability.And yet, while Trump personally appeals past losses, his administration simultaneously racks up wins and losses in real time. The Brennan Center and Lawfare both note that, since his return to the White House, the Supreme Court has often sided with the Trump administration on emergency applications involving immigration enforcement, federal workforce cuts, and control over independent agencies. Those shadow‑docket victories have let the administration move fast, even while lower courts probe legality. But the immigration judges' case and the Boston bond‑hearing ruling show that trial courts and, occasionally, the justices themselves are willing to draw constitutional and statutory lines.So when you hear about “Trump's trials” this week, it is not just one courtroom, one jury, or even one former president. It is Donald Trump the criminal defendant and civil litigant, and Donald Trump the sitting president whose policies are on trial in federal courts from Massachusetts to Washington.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and 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

From July 1, 2022: When a Russian missile recently struck a TV tower in Kyiv, near Babyn Yar, the site of Nazi mass murders during the Holocaust, some saw the attack as a potent symbol of the tragic occurrence of violence in Ukraine. To talk through the historical significance of the attack, Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Maksym Rokmaniko, an architect, designer, entrepreneur, and director at the Center for Spatial Technologies in Kyiv, and Linda Kinstler, a PhD candidate in the rhetoric department at UC Berkeley.In her recent New York Times essay, the Bloody Echoes of Babyn Yar, Linda wrote, "the current war in Ukraine is so oversaturated with historical meaning, it is unfolding on soil that has absorbed wave after wave of the dead, where soldiers do not always have to dig trenches in the forest because the old ones remain."Linda's writing has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Atlantic and Jewish Currents, where she recently reported on the Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial center. Linda is also the author of Come to This Court and Cry: How the Holocaust Ends, which is out in the U.S. on August 23rd, from Public Affairs.Tyler, Linda and Maksym discuss the history of Babyn Yar as a sight and symbol, the role of open source investigative techniques and forensic modeling in the documentation of war crimes, the battle over historical narratives, memorialization and memory, as well as the limits of the law in achieving justice for victims of negation and genocide.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The most defining feature of Donald Trump's first year back in office has been the brutality of his deportation machine and his administration's numerous attempts to upend due process. Back in March, the Trump administration wrongly deported Kilmar Ábrego Garcia to a notoriously violent prison in El Salvador. Ábrego Garcia's legal status protected him from deportation to his home country for fear of persecution.“I think most Americans are intelligent enough to recognize that everybody deserves due process,” says Ábrego Garcia's attorney Benjamin Osorio. “There's a process. They get a jury of their peers. And the same thing in immigration: This guy had a lawful order protecting him from being removed from the United States, and the government violated that.”This week on The Intercept Briefing, host Akela Lacy speaks to Osorio about Ábrego Garcia's case. After months of being shipped around detention centers, he is free and fighting deportation orders from home with his family. “I think the courts have probably never seen more immigration habeases in their life.” says Osorio. “In the habeas sense, I would think that Kilmar's case has had a lot of effect in the immigration practice.”Ábrego Garcia's story epitomizes the unlawfulness and cruelty of the Trump administration's deportation agenda and for that reason his story has become a political flashpoint. But what's less understood is the scale and scope of fulfilling the administration's vision of mass deportation.A new investigative video series from Lawfare and SITU Research called "Deportation, Inc.: The Rise of the Immigration Enforcement Economy,” maps out a vast web of companies that make up the rapidly growing deportation economy, how we got here, and the multibillion-dollar industry driven by profit, political power, and a perverse incentive structure.“The creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 was a pivotal moment. It was a major restructuring of immigration, and that was also a point at which the framing of immigration went from more of a civil matter to more of a national security concern,” says Tyler McBrien, managing editor of Lawfare. “And with that transition, the amount of money and contracts began to flood in.”Gauri Bahuguna, deputy director of research at SITU, adds, “It was in the Obama administration where the detention bed quota comes in, and that's really the key unit of measurement that drives this particular part of the immigration enforcement industry, is 'How much money can you make per detained individual?'”“Even though the bed quota is gone formally from the law there, it still exists in contracts with companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group,” says Bahuguna. “There is payment for detaining a certain number of people, whether or not the beds are occupied, and then the perverse incentive to keep those facilities filled because there's an economies of scale.” McBride underscores that the current immigration system is “treating people as these products and units and to maximize profit.”Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing onApple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.You can support our work at theintercept.com/join. Your donation, no matter the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sits down with SITU's Deputy Director of Research Gauri Bahuguna, Detention Watch Network's Advocacy Director Setareh Ghandehari, the American Immigration Council's Policy Director Nayna Gupta, and Just Futures Law's Executive Director Paromita Shah to discuss the rise of the immigration enforcement economy following the recent release of “Deportation, Inc.” a new video series from SITU and Lawfare. They talk about why the government outsources the critical immigration enforcement functions of deportation, interdiction, and deportation to the private sector, and how this system evolved into a multi-billion dollar industry.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.

We The People must stand strong, stay united, resolute, calm, and focus on the mission. Order Mel's New Book: Americans Anonymous: Restoring Power to the People One Citizen at a Time https://themelkshow.com/book The Show's Partners Page: https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Consider Making A Donation: https://themelkshow.com/donate/ Beverly Hills Precious Metals Exchange - Buy Gold & Silver https://themelkshow.com/gold/ Speak with Gold Expert Andrew Sorchini…Tell Him Mel K Sent You! Dr. Zelenko Immunity Protocols https://zstacklife.com/MelK I trust SatellitePhoneStore when all other networks fail. With their phone, I know I'm always connected, no matter where I am or what happens. https://sat123.com/melk/ I've tried a lot of supplements over the years, but nothing has compared to the purity and results I've experienced with Chemical Free Body. USE CODE MELK Mel K Superfoods Supercharge your wellness with Mel K Superfoods Use Code: MELKWELLNESS and Save Over $100 off retail today! https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Healthy Hydration: https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Patriot Mobile Support your values, your freedom and the Mel K Show. Switch to Patriot Mobile for Free. Use free activation code MELK https://themelkshow.com/partners/ HempWorx The #1 selling CBD brand. Offering cutting edge products that run the gamut from CBD oils and other hemp products to essential oils in our Mantra Brand, MDC Daily Sprays which are Vitamin and Herb combination sprays/ https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Dr. Zelenko Immunity Protocols https://zstacklife.com/MelK Support Patriots With MyPillow Go to https://www.mypillow.com/melk Use offer code “MelK” to support both MyPillow and The Mel K Show The Wellness Company - Emergency Medical Kits: https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Dr. Stella Immanuel, MD. Consult with a renowned healthcare provider! Offering Telehealth Services & Supplements. Use offer code ‘MelK' for 5% Off https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Rumble (Video) - The Mel K Show: https://rumble.com/c/TheMelKShow X: https://twitter.com/MelKShow Twitter (Original): https://twitter.com/originalmelk TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@themelkshow Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/themelkshow/ Podbean: https://themelkshow.podbean.com/ GETTR: https://www.gettr.com/user/themelkshow Locals.com: https://melk.locals.com/ Banned Video: https://banned.video/channel/the-mel-k-show We at www.themelkshow.com want to thank all our amazing patriot pals for joining us on this journey, for your support of our work, and for your faith in this biblical transition to greatness. Together we are unstoppable. We look forward to seeing you. God Wins! https://themelkshow.com/events/ Remember to mention Mel K for great discounts on all these fun and informative events. See you there! Our Website www.TheMelKShow.com We love what we do and are working hard to keep on top of everything to help this transition along peacefully and with love. Please help us amplify our message: Like, Comment & Share!

Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sits down with Cristin Dorgelo, a former senior adviser for management at the Office of Management and Budget, and Rob Storch, who served as the inspector general of the Defense Department until the Trump administration fired him and many of his colleagues in January of this year. They discuss those firings, other Trump administration attacks on the offices of the inspector general, and various attempts by the administration to undermine oversight and evade accountability, all covered in a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities called “Trump Administration's Undercutting of Oversight Hurts Taxpayers and Beneficiaries.”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.

Ryan Millsap joins the show to tell the full story of how he became a primary target of Antifa—and why dismissing them as “just an idea” is a dangerous mistake. Ryan is a real estate developer and founder of Blackhall Studios, the massive Georgia film studio behind major productions like Jumanji, Venom, Godzilla, and Jungle Cruise. After a land swap with the county and the announcement of Atlanta’s police training facility known as “Cop City,” Ryan found himself at the center of a coordinated campaign of intimidation, property destruction, media smears, and years of lawfare designed to grind him down and block development. In this conversation, Ryan breaks down: How Antifa operates on the ground and through courts, NGOs, media, and local government Why “lawfare” is one of their most effective weapons How funding networks and political protection allow extremist groups to thrive The philosophical and spiritual roots of radical anti-capitalist ideology Why individual liberty, private property, and Christian worldview remain direct threats to the far left Ready to JOIN THE FIGHT? Join Bryce’s email list for opportunities to join the discussion, get exclusive interviews, and MUCH MORE: Bryceeddy.com For daily episodes, news, and conservative discussions like this, SUBSCRIBE to The Bryce Eddy Show:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bryce-eddy-show/id1635204267 Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/thebryceeddyshow/ X:https://x.com/Bryceeddy1 ---------------------------------- Offers

Lawfare Senior Editor Alan Rozenshtein speaks with Scott Anderson, Senior Editor at Lawfare, fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, and non-resident senior fellow in the National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School, who recently wrote a report about how social media platforms should handle unrecognized regimes like the Taliban. They discuss how social media platforms responded to the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan in 2021; the divergent approaches of Meta, YouTube, and X toward sanctioned entities and governmental accounts; the international law concepts of recognition and de facto authority; a proposed "de facto authorities rule" that would allow platforms to permit certain essential governmental functions by unrecognized regimes; and how this framework can be reconciled with U.S. and international sanctions requirement.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

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

Leighton is on summer break, so we are highlighting some of his favourite guests from 2025. The term “lawfare” is getting plenty of attention; basically it represents the corruption that's becoming more widespread in the courtrooms of the Western world. Judicial activism and the politicisation of the law and legal system makes for a duo of issues that need addressing by the legislatures of countries which are the targets of the misuse of such activities. In what we think is a very productive discussion on a number of current democracy headwinds, Professor James Allan is arguably better than ever. We share a commentary on tariffs that cuts to the core intent of Trumps actions, and we visit The Mailroom with Mrs Producer. File your comments and complaints at Leighton@newstalkzb.co.nz Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide. Listen here on iHeartRadio Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:To subscribe via iTunes click here See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

At the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia held clear naval superiority in the Black Sea. Over the course of the war, Ukraine has developed an asymmetric maritime strategy using unmanned surface vehicles (USVs), achieving strategic effects against a superior naval force.Ukraine has largely shifted from importing complete drone systems to assembling them domestically using foreign components, with China remaining a key supplier of many critical parts. What is more, Ukraine is now preparing to export its drones internationally.In this episode, Katsiaryna Shmatsina, Eurasia Fellow at Lawfare, sits down with Cat Buchatskiy, the Director of Analytics at the Snake Island Institute, to discuss Ukraine's maritime operations in the Black Sea, the use of drones, and the supply chains behind them. Cat leads a team of analysts producing frontline-validated research on modern warfare, defense innovation, and U.S.-Ukraine security cooperation. Read more from the Snake Island Institute on Ukraine's Black Sea's Asymmetric Blueprint and the transformation of a once-nascent drone industry into a critical pillar of national defense.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Anna Bower, Molly Roberts, and Eric Columbus and Lawfare Public Service Fellow Loren Voss to discuss next week's contempt hearings in J.G.G. v. Trump, the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from ICE custody, domestic deployments litigation, and moreYou can find information on legal challenges to Trump administration actions here. And check out Lawfare's new homepage on the litigation, new Bluesky account, and new WITOAD merch.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From May 16, 2022: Today, Lawfare and Goat Rodeo released the first two episodes of Allies, a podcast series that traces the U.S.'s efforts to protect Afghan interpreters, translators and other partners through the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program. That effort culminated in the U.S. evacuation from Afghanistan in August 2021, when thousands of the U.S.'s local partners were left behind. In seven episodes, Allies will take listeners through the decade-long effort to honor America's promises to its Afghan partners.Episode 1: “Faithful and Valuable Service” opens at the Kabul airport this past August, where the failure of the SIV program contributed to the chaos. Then, we rewind to just before 9/11, when the U.S. government had little regional, let alone linguistic, expertise on Afghanistan. After the invasion, that knowledge gap needed to be filled rapidly, so the U.S. began hiring local partners through military contractors. They became essential partners, and it was nearly impossible for any U.S. platoon, provincial reconstruction team or diplomat to operate without interpreters and translators. They were the U.S.'s eyes and ears. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

At 10 am ET on Dec. 11, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson; Lawfare Foreign Policy Editor and Director of the Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program at CSIS Daniel Byman; and Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at AEI Kori Schake to discuss the Trump administration's 2025 National Security Strategy. They talked about its emphasis on immigration as a national security threat and its implications for U.S. foreign policy.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.

News of a U.S. attack on a boat off the coast of Venezuela—which included a second strike on survivors of the first—has raised new concerns about the administration's operations against alleged drug traffickers. Legal analysts, including some at Lawfare, call the second strike clearly unlawful. So why did the U.S. military agree to follow the order?On today's episode, Executive Editor Natalie Orpett discusses the roles and responsibilities of military personnel with Frank Rosenblatt, a professor at MC Law and a former U.S. Army Lt. Col and Judge Advocate General in the U.S. Army, and Colby Vokey, former Marine Corps Lt. Col and Judge Advocate General. They talk about the duty to disobey unlawful orders, the complexity of choosing to do so, and what it means for the future of U.S. operations.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien and Contributing Editor Alex Zerden to talk through a few of the week's big national security news stories, including:“Finding the Road to Damascus.” Former dictator Bashar al-Assad fled Syria one year ago this week, bringing a precipitous end to the country's more than decade-long civil war. In the year since, has the country been able to make progress toward the optimistic future many hoped would follow al-Assad's ouster? And what obstacles still lie in its path?“Civilizational Self-Confidence Scheme.” The Trump administration has undergone the once-per-term statutorily-mandated ritual of releasing its National Security Strategy. It claims an intent to stay the course on many key bipartisan pillars of U.S. foreign policy, but mixes in heavy doses of isolationism, ethnonationalism, and criticism of Europe for losing its “civilizational self-confidence.” How seriously should we take this document? And what does it tell us about the likely trajectory of U.S. foreign policy?“A Dimon in the Rough?” JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has announced a ten-year initiative to invest $1.5 trillion in U.S. companies critical to U.S. national security and economic resilience. Is this an attempt by Dimon to repair his sometimes frosty relationship with the Trump administration by complimenting its “America First” strategy? Or is it an initiative that more genuinely strikes at the intersection of market logic and U.S. national security?In object lessons, Tyler is exploring the great heritage of American landmarks with “Lost in America: Photographing the Last Days of our Architectural Treasures” an archive of the Historic American Buildings Survey. Scott is embracing the holiday season the classic way—by settling in with delightfully cheesy films like A Merry Little Ex-Mas and Jingle Bell Heist on Netflix. And Alex is broadening the lens with “The World For Sale: Money, Power, and the Traders Who Barter the Earth's Resources,“ by Jack Farchy and Javier Blas, a deep dive into the global trade networks and power brokers who shape the flow of the planet's resources.Rational Security will be having its traditional end-of-year episode later this month, which will focus on listener-submitted topics and object lessons! If you have topics you want us to discuss and object lessons you want to share—whether serious or frivolous—be sure to send them to rationalsecurity@lawfaremedia.org by Dec. 17!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.

Susannah Glickman, an assistant professor of history at Stony Brook University who specializes in the political economy of computation and information, sat down with Lawfare Associate Editor Olivia Manes to discuss the role of defense tech in the second Trump administration. Susannah unpacked her recent article in the New York Review of Books tracing the historical relationship between tech, defense, and the U.S. government, and explained how defense tech firms which have benefitted from U.S. industrial policy are now undermining it for the sake of short-term profits. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien and Contributing Editor Alex Zerden to talk through a few of the week's big national security news stories, including:“Finding the Road to Damascus.” Former dictator Bashar al-Assad fled Syria one year ago this week, bringing a precipitous end to the country's more than decade-long civil war. In the year since, has the country been able to make progress toward the optimistic future many hoped would follow al-Assad's ouster? And what obstacles still lie in its path?“Civilizational Self-Confidence Scheme.” The Trump administration has undergone the once-per-term statutorily-mandated ritual of releasing its National Security Strategy. It claims an intent to stay the course on many key bipartisan pillars of U.S. foreign policy, but mixes in heavy doses of isolationism, ethnonationalism, and criticism of Europe for losing its “civilizational self-confidence.” How seriously should we take this document? And what does it tell us about the likely trajectory of U.S. foreign policy?“A Dimon in the Rough?” JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has announced a ten-year initiative to invest $1.5 trillion in U.S. companies critical to U.S. national security and economic resilience. Is this an attempt by Dimon to repair his sometimes frosty relationship with the Trump administration by complimenting its “America First” strategy? Or is it an initiative that more genuinely strikes at the intersection of market logic and U.S. national security?In object lessons, Tyler is exploring the great heritage of American landmarks with “Lost in America: Photographing the Last Days of our Architectural Treasures” an archive of the Historic American Buildings Survey. Scott is embracing the holiday season the classic way—by settling in with delightfully cheesy films like A Merry Little Ex-Mas and Jingle Bell Heist on Netflix. And Alex is broadening the lens with “The World For Sale: Money, Power, and the Traders Who Barter the Earth's Resources,“ by Jack Farchy and Javier Blas, a deep dive into the global trade networks and power brokers who shape the flow of the planet's resources.Rational Security will be having its traditional end-of-year episode later this month, which will focus on listener-submitted topics and object lessons! If you have topics you want us to discuss and object lessons you want to share—whether serious or frivolous—be sure to send them to rationalsecurity@lawfaremedia.org by Dec. 17!To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia. It's a key part of the internet's information infrastructure—shaping what people know, what AI models learn, and what the public sees as true. But in an era of geopolitical conflict, AI disruption, and fracturing trust, Wikipedia has come under attack.In this episode, Renée DiResta talks with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales about his new book, “The Seven Rules of Trust,” and about how Wikipedia has managed to remain one of the most trusted sites on the internet. They explore the principles that helped build that trust and the outside pressure it's come under—from American congressmen, to Russian censorship campaigns, to Elon Musk's Grokipedia. What does it take to make institutions trustworthy in a low-trust era? What happens when reliable sources become a battleground for power? And how does a community continue to build shared knowledge while partisans are redefining the rules of truth?For further reading, see:“The Right-Wing Attack On Wikipedia,” by Renée DiResta in The Atlantic”The War Over Ukraine—on Wikipedia,” by Catarina Buchatskiy in Lawfare“Russian Court Fines Wikipedia Owner for Article on Ukraine,” by Anna Chernova and Olesya Dmitracova, CNN“The CDC Should Be More Like Wikipedia,” by Renée DiResta in The AtlanticTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Anna Bower, Michael Feinberg, Molly Roberts, Roger Parloff and Eric Columbus and Lawfare Contributing Editor James Pearce to discuss the arrest of a suspect in the attempted bombing on Jan. 6, 2021, a hearing in NPR's lawsuit over the Trump administration cutting its funding, where the prosecutions of Letitia James and James Comey stand, and more.You can find information on legal challenges to Trump administration actions here. And check out Lawfare's new homepage on the litigation, new Bluesky account, and new WITOAD merch.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From January 24, 2023: In 2019, investigative journalist and photographer Lynzy Billing went to Afghanistan to investigate a very personal story: her own past. In the process, she discovered what she came to call a classified war, one with lines of accountability so obscured that no one had to answer publicly for operations that went wrong.Lawfare managing editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Lynzy to talk through her four-year investigation, published last month in ProPublica. They discussed Afghanistan's shady Zero Units and their relationship with the CIA, the traumatic ripple effects caused by this lack of accountability, and why the U.S. continues to rely on a strategy of night raids, which Lynzy describes as quick, brutal operations that went wrong far more often than the U.S. has acknowledged. They also discussed why Lynzy decided to tell this story when few others would. 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.

Investigative journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell have endured a lot during the nearly seven years they've covered the Murdaugh family but NOTHING like what they're experiencing now.  Shortly after Mallory Beach's death, Mallory's family filed a lawsuit in search of justice and accountability and an assurance that Parker's Kitchen would shore up the training of their cashiers when it comes to the sale of alcohol to minors.  Instead of seeking to settle the case, Parker's Kitchen, Greg Parker and their legal team appear to have embarked down a very dark path, engaging two political operatives — one known for “mischief-making” and the other known for harassment campaigns against individuals — to help lessen their liability in the case.  Which brings us to the past six months, during which Greg Parker's attorneys have used mischaracterizations and unsupported theories to turn their focus on Mandy and Liz in an effort to silence them and their coverage of the case(s)… So much to cover, so let's dive in!