Podcast appearances and mentions of Scott R Anderson

From March 1, 2022: Over the past week, the United States and its allies have responded to Russia's military invasion of Ukraine with some unprecedented actions of their own—economic sanctions that target Russia in ways that have never been tried before, let alone applied to one of the world's largest economies over just a handful of days.To discuss this revolutionary sanctions strategy and what it may mean moving forward, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two sanctions experts: Julia Friedlander, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, and Rachel Ziemba, adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security. They talked about the different types of sanctions being applied, what impact they will have on the Russian economy and what the consequences may be, not just for the conflict in Ukraine, but for the rest of the world moving forward.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 February 26, 2024: At a South Carolina campaign rally on Feb. 10, former President Donald Trump told a crowd of supporters that while he was president he told “one of the presidents of a big country” in the NATO alliance that he would not protect that country from a Russian invasion if that country didn't pay. Trump then said, “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.” Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson to talk through Trump's NATO comments, why they're rattling European allies, whether a U.S. president could destroy the alliance, and how Congress might stop it. They also talked about why everyone here at Lawfare calls Section 1250A of the recent National Defense Authorization Act the “Anderson Saves NATO” provision.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 today's episode, Lawfare general counsel and senior editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Edward Fishman, a senior research scholar at the Center for Global Energy Policy within Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, to discuss his new book: "Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare."They discussed Fishman's own career at the cutting edge of economic statecraft, the evolving toolkit it has come to present U.S. policymakers, the role he thinks it will play in our new era of major power competition, and what it may all mean for the future of the global order.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 March 14, 2022: Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine has undermined some of the fundamental assumptions underlying the security of Europe through much of the post-World War II era. As a result, several European nations have begun to consider dramatic changes in how they approach national security, both individually and collectively.To better understand how the war in Ukraine is reshaping the European security order, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two of his colleagues from the Brookings Institution: Célia Belin, a visiting fellow at Brookings and a former official in the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Constanze Stelzenmüller, the Fritz Stern Chair on Germany and trans-Atlantic Relations in the Center on the United States and Europe.They discussed how the Ukraine conflict is reshaping Europe's approach to security affairs, what this means for institutions like the European Union and NATO, and how these changes are likely to impact the fundamental debate over what it means to be a part of Europe.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 August 31, 2020: Earlier this month, the Trump administration re-imposed tariffs on aluminum imports from Canada, signaling a new salvo in the now years-long trade war it has been waging with countless U.S. trading partners. But what gives the president the authority to pursue such measures unilaterally, even when he lacks support from members of his own party in Congress? To talk through this question, Scott R. Anderson sat down with Kathleen Claussen of the University of Miami School of Law and Timothy Meyer of Vanderbilt Law School. They discussed the scope of the president's authority over trade, where it came from and what a future Congress might be able to do about it.We value your feedback! Help us improve by sharing your thoughts at lawfaremedia.org/survey. Your input ensures that we deliver what matters most to you. Thank you for your support—and, as always, for listening!To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From November 3, 2023: Since Hamas's attack on Israel on Oct. 7, the Israel-Hamas war has largely been fought in Gaza, a small strip of land along the border of the Mediterranean Sea. But farther inland, there has been an uptick in hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians in the Palestinian territory of the West Bank. Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem says that at least 13 Palestinian herding communities in the West Bank have been forcibly displaced since the beginning of the war due to Israeli settler violence and intimidation, and nearly 100 Palestinians in the territory are reported to have been killed since the war began by both Israeli military strikes as well as settler violence. The fraught relationship between the Israeli government, Israeli settlers, Palestinians, and the Palestinian Authority are not new. But in part because of those existing issues, the West Bank has the potential to expand and complicate the bounds of the Israel-Hamas war—and some may argue that that is already underway. To understand how the West Bank fits into the ongoing hostilities between Israel and Hamas, Lawfare Associate Editor Hyemin Han spoke to Dan Byman from the Center for Strategic & International Studies, who is also Lawfare's Foreign Policy Editor; Ghaith al-Omari of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; and Scott R. Anderson, Lawfare Senior Editor and Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. They talked about the international law that currently governs the rules of engagement in the West Bank, the political responses of the Israeli government and other Arab states, and how West Bank dynamics will impact the broader outcomes of the Israel-Hamas war. 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.

It's time for Lawfare's annual "Ask Us Anything" podcast.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.

From December 14, 2021: Syria's decade-long civil war has left the state and economy shells of their former selves. But a new industry is stepping in to fill the void: the manufacture and export of illicit drugs, specifically Captagon, a type of amphetamine that has a growing global market. To better understand Syria's emerging role in the global Captagon trade, Scott R. Anderson sat down with Caroline Rose of the New Lines Institute, who has been tracking this industry's development for several years and is preparing to release a major report on the topic. They discussed the origins of Captagon, how it came to Syria, and how it is being used by the Assad regime, its allies and their proxies across the region.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From October 19, 2019: It's been a horrible week in northeastern Syria. The U.S. abandoned its Kurdish allies after the president had a conversation by phone with Turkish President Erdogan and pulled the plug on the stabilizing U.S. presence in the region. The Turkish government began a major incursion over the border, which has produced significant casualties and major questions about ISIS detainees in Kurdish custody.To talk through it all, we pulled together quite a group. In the first half of the podcast, Benjamin Wittes spoke with Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Scott R. Anderson and Dan Byman, both of Brookings and Lawfare. In the second half, Ben sat down with Oula A. Alrifai, a fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Leah West, a Lecturer of International Affairs at Carleton University in Canada.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Tuesday, November 5, former President Trump won the 2024 presidential election, becoming the second president to win a non-consecutive second term. Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Alan Rozenshtein, Scott R. Anderson, Anna Bower, and Quinta Jurecic to discuss what happens now. They talk about what a second Trump administration may bring and what to keep an eye out for during the transition in a live recording on Lawfare's YouTube channel.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/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Tuesday, November 5, former President Trump won the 2024 presidential election, becoming the second president to win a non-consecutive second term. Our team has been hard at work analyzing the fallout, but doing so has left us a little tight on time to record our usual weekly episode. So in lieu of Rational Security this week, we're bringing you a conversation in which Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Alan Rozenshtein, Scott R. Anderson, Anna Bower, and Quinta Jurecic to discuss what happens now. They talk about what a second Trump administration may bring and what to keep an eye out for during the transition in a live recording on Lawfare's YouTube channel.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/c/trumptrials. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From: January 5, 2022: Two years ago this week, the head of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Qassem Soleimani, was killed in an American strike. At the time, we convened a group of Brookings and Lawfare experts to talk about the potential benefits and risks of the strike, and two years later, we got the gang back together. Benjamin Wittes sat down with Suzanne Maloney, the head of Foreign Policy program at Brookings and an Iran specialist; Dan Byman, terrorism expert, Middle East scholar and Lawfare's foreign policy editor; and Scott R. Anderson, Lawfare senior editor and Brookings fellow, to talk about what two years has wrought. They discussed whether the threat of terrorism and escalation in response to the strike was overstated, if U.S. interests were harmed in Iraq as a result of the strike, and what may have kept the Iranian regime from taking stronger action than it eventually took.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/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For today's episode, Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Joel Braunold, Managing Director of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, for a deep dive on the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in these last few weeks before what could be a pivotal U.S. election.They discussed the state of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's governing coalition, recent developments relating to al-Haram al-Sharif and the West Bank, the state of Israel's external relations with Iran, the United States, and the broader region — and what it all means for the increasingly stagnant conflict in Gaza.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/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From October 23, 2020: It's been a wild couple of days of disinformation in the electoral context. Intelligence community officials are warning about Russian and Iranian efforts to influence the U.S. presidential election—and claiming that Iran is responsible for sending threatening emails from fake Proud Boys to Democratic voters. What exactly is going on here? To talk through the developments and the questions that linger, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Scott R. Anderson, Susan Hennessey and Quinta Jurecic.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From November 1, 2022: In recent weeks, the Biden administration has released a trio of long-awaited strategy documents, including the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the Nuclear Posture Review. But how should we read these documents, and what do they actually tell us about how the Biden administration intends to approach the world?To answer these questions, Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Richard Fontaine, chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security, who is himself also a former National Security Council official and senior congressional adviser. They discussed the role these strategy documents play in U.S. foreign policy, what we can learn from them, and what they say about the state of the world and the United States' role in it.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From July 1, 2020: As the United States continues to suffer from the effects of the coronavirus, the controversy surrounding China's alleged role in the pandemic has continued to grow. In recent weeks, it has even entered the U.S. courts, as private plaintiffs have brought claims against the Chinese government and related institutions for allegedly contributing to the spread of the virus. Meanwhile, members of Congress have introduced legislation aimed at making such litigation even easier to pursue, specifically by stripping away the sovereign immunity protections that normally protect foreign states from such claims. But can these efforts really provide Americans with needed relief, or are they just a dangerous distraction from the real issues with the United States's own coronavirus response? To discuss these issues, Scott R. Anderson spoke with Chimène Keitner, the Alfred and Hanna Fromm Professor of International Law at the University of California Hastings School of Law, and Robert Williams, executive director of the Paul Tsai China Center at the Yale Law School.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For today's episode, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down to discuss the various Ukraine-related agreements that came out of the G7 and subsequent Ukraine peace summit last week, with Contributing Editor and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Fellow Eric Ciaramella, Ukrainian journalist Anastasiia Lapatina, and Lawfare Senior Editor and Brookings Institution Fellow Scott R. Anderson.They discussed the joint communique that came out of the Ukraine peace summit (and those who didn't join it), the new U.S.-Ukraine security agreement, the G7's new funding mechanism for Ukraine assistance, and what it all means for the state of the fight against Russia.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/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From June 17, 2019: It's getting ugly in the Persian Gulf: Iran allegedly attacks two oil tankers. It announces that it's going to violate the JCPOA, the so-called Iran nuclear agreement. There's talk of military strikes. Europe is edgy, and the Secretary of State is on Sunday talk shows being edgier still.Benjamin Wittes sat down with Suzanne Maloney and Scott R. Anderson to talk it all through. They talked about whether the AUMF covers Iran, why Iran is doing this stuff, whether the Trump administration brought this all on itself, and where it's all going from here.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/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From December 2, 2020: The top Iranian nuclear scientist has been killed, apparently in an Israeli strike. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who has long been the mastermind of the Iranian nuclear program, was gunned down in an attack with a remote control machine gun. Iranian reprisals are expected, although their timing and nature is not clear. It also puts the incoming Biden administration, which is looking to bring back the Iran nuclear deal, in a bit of a pickle.To chew it all over, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Scott R. Anderson, international law specialist and Lawfare senior editor; Suzanne Maloney, the vice president and director of the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution and an Iran scholar; and Natan Sachs, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings where he focuses on Israeli policy. They talked about why the Israelis would conduct this operation, how effective its killing of Iranian nuclear scientists has been, whether any of it is legal and what it means for the future of U.S.-Iran relations.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From May 26, 2020: On Wednesday, NASA and the SpaceX Corporation are scheduled to send astronauts back into outer space from U.S. soil for the first time since the U.S. space shuttle program ended in 2011. The launch promises to kick off a new era in space exploration, one that will see the increased use of outer space for both public and private purposes, as well as greater involvement by private corporations and other unconventional actors in space exploration. To discuss the legal and policy challenges of this new era, Scott R. Anderson spoke with three lawyers working at the bleeding edge of space law and policy: Professor Timiebi Aganaba-Jeanty of Arizona State University and its Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law; Brian Israel, a former public and private sector space lawyer who teaches space law at Berkeley Law; and Daniel Porras, currently a space security fellow at the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

At a South Carolina campaign rally on Feb. 10, former President Donald Trump told a crowd of supporters that while he was president he told “one of the presidents of a big country” in the NATO alliance that he would not protect that country from a Russian invasion if that country didn't pay. Trump then said, “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.” Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson to talk through Trump's NATO comments, why they're rattling European allies, whether a U.S. president could destroy the alliance, and how Congress might stop it. They also talked about why everyone here at Lawfare calls Section 1250A of the recent National Defense Authorization Act the “Anderson Saves NATO” provision.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On February 6, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected former President Donald Trump's appeal of his presidential immunity defense in the federal government's Jan. 6 case against him. Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Quinta Jurecic, Scott R. Anderson, and Roger Parloff, and Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett, in front of a live audience on YouTube and Riverside for a deep dive into the ruling, its meaning, and the court's unanimity. They also discussed what comes next and what the Supreme Court might do in response.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From January 6, 2020: On Friday, the Lawfare Podcast hosted a conversation on the wide-ranging policy implications of the U.S. strike that killed Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' leader Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, deputy commander of Iraq's quasi-official Popular Mobilization Forces and leader of the Iraqi militia and PMF Keta'ib Hezbollah.Today's special edition episode leaves the policy debate behind to zero-in on the law behind the strike. Law of war and international law experts Scott R. Anderson, Bobby Chesney, Jack Goldsmith, Ashley Deeks and Samuel Moyn join Benjamin Wittes to discuss the domestic and international law surrounding the strike, how the administration might legally justify it, what the president might do next and how Congress might respond.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Outer space is back in style. For the first time in decades, NASA is sending astronauts back to the moon. Millionaires are exiting the atmosphere on a regular basis. And Elon Musk says humans may land on Mars to set up settlements by 2030. But would mastering space be worth it?In their new book, “A City on Mars,” co-authors (and spouses) Dr. Kelly and Zach Weinersmith argue that it's probably not. From biology to engineering to international law, they charmingly survey the many charms and dangers that space inevitably entails, with pictures to boot. For this week's Chatter episode, Scott R. Anderson spoke with Kelly and Zach about their book, what role they think space exploration and settlement should play in humanity's future, and why space may not be all it's cracked up to be anytime soon.Among the works mentioned in this episode:The book “Soonish,” also by Kelly and Zach.The book “Dark Skies: Space Expansionism, Planetary Geopolitics, and the Ends of Humanity” by Daniel Deudney.The book “The Creation of States in International Law” by James Crawford.The television series “The Expanse.”The 1970s film “Libra.”The television series “For All Mankind.”Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Outer space is back in style. For the first time in decades, NASA is sending astronauts back to the moon. Millionaires are exiting the atmosphere on a regular basis. And Elon Musk says humans may land on Mars to set up settlements by 2030. But would mastering space be worth it?In their new book, “A City on Mars,” co-authors (and spouses) Dr. Kelly and Zach Weinersmith argue that it's probably not. From biology to engineering to international law, they charmingly survey the many charms and dangers that space inevitably entails, with pictures to boot. For this week's Chatter episode, Scott R. Anderson spoke with Kelly and Zach about their book, what role they think space exploration and settlement should play in humanity's future, and why space may not be all it's cracked up to be anytime soon.Among the works mentioned in this episode:The book “Soonish,” also by Kelly and Zach.The book “Dark Skies: Space Expansionism, Planetary Geopolitics, and the Ends of Humanity” by Daniel Deudney.The book “The Creation of States in International Law” by James Crawford.The television series “The Expanse.”The 1970s film “Libra.”The television series “For All Mankind.”Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From December 11, 2018: Last week, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Gregory Johnsen, a former member of the U.N. Security Council Panel of Experts on Yemen and the author of the book "The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al-Qaeda, and America's War in Arabia," to do a deep dive on the conflict in Yemen: its origins; its current state; and the role Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States have played and are likely to play moving forward. Joining Ben and Greg was Daniel Byman, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center for Middle East Policy and Lawfare's own Foreign Policy Editor.After Ben and Dan's conversation with Greg, Brookings Fellow Molly Reynolds and Lawfare's Scott R. Anderson sat down for a conversation about Yemen-related legislation that is currently churning on Capitol Hill, and what it may mean for the future of U.S. involvement in the conflict there.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From September 7, 2019: This summer has been a tumultuous one inside the U.S. State Department. In August, the department's Office of the Inspector General handed down a scathing report alleging political manipulation and abusive practices inside the department's International Organization bureau—only one of a series of similar allegations. At the same time, a number of career State Department officials ranging from assistant secretaries to the rank-and-file have resigned due to alleged complaints and disagreements with Trump administration officials and policies.To dig into these developments and consider what they might mean for the State Department's present and future, Scott R. Anderson spoke with reporters Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer of Foreign Policy magazine, and Lawfare's Margaret Taylor, who is a fellow alumnus of the State Department's Office of the Legal Advisor and former Democratic Counsel for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since Hamas's attack on Israel on Oct. 7, the Israel-Hamas war has largely been fought in Gaza, a small strip of land along the border of the Mediterranean Sea. But farther inland, there has been an uptick in hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians in the Palestinian territory of the West Bank. Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem says that at least 13 Palestinian herding communities in the West Bank have been forcibly displaced since the beginning of the war due to Israeli settler violence and intimidation, and nearly 100 Palestinians in the territory are reported to have been killed since the war began by both Israeli military strikes as well as settler violence. The fraught relationship between the Israeli government, Israeli settlers, Palestinians, and the Palestinian Authority are not new. But in part because of those existing issues, the West Bank has the potential to expand and complicate the bounds of the Israel-Hamas war—and some may argue that that is already underway. To understand how the West Bank fits into the ongoing hostilities between Israel and Hamas, Lawfare Associate Editor Hyemin Han spoke to Dan Byman from the Center for Strategic & International Studies, who is also Lawfare's Foreign Policy Editor; Ghaith al-Omari of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; and Scott R. Anderson, Lawfare Senior Editor and Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. They talked about the international law that currently governs the rules of engagement in the West Bank, the political responses of the Israeli government and other Arab states, and how West Bank dynamics will impact the broader outcomes of the Israel-Hamas war. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For decades, the United States has maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity” toward Taiwan and China. But in recent years, this uneasy status quo has begun to falter, as the Biden administration doubles down on its commitment to Taiwan's autonomy and China increases provocative military maneuvers aimed at signaling its willingness to use force to assert its claim of sovereignty over the island. Despite the devastation that war between the U.S. and China would surely bring, the two seem to be inching ever closer to conflict. At the same time, many policy assessments seem to assume that the president has the domestic legal authority to defend Taiwan in the event of a sudden and unexpected attack by China. But in a recent article for the Virginia Journal of International Law called “Taiwan, War Powers, and Constitutional Crisis,” Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson argues that history paints a much more complicated picture. As Scott writes, “An international crisis over Taiwan could thus … trigger a constitutional crisis at home—one that threatens the legitimacy of the president's response and risks undermining popular and congressional support for what is certain to be a difficult war to come.” Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Scott to discuss his article. They walked through the various legislation, legal opinions, and communiques through successive presidential administrations that have defined the U.S. position towards Taiwan to the present day. They also discussed how tensions between the executive and legislative branches might play out in the event of an attack on Taiwan, as well as how the government as a whole might avoid them. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today we're bringing you a recording of our live virtual event from this past Thursday. It's part of our series, Trump Trials and Tribulations, where we provide regular updates on what's going on in the criminal trials of Donald Trump in DC, Florida, and Georgia. Please join us next time by becoming a Material Supporter at our website, lawfaremedia.org/support, or subscribing to our YouTube channel.This week, Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Quinta Jurecic and Scott R. Anderson and Lawfare Legal Fellow Anna Bower to talk about mug shots in Georgia, conflicts of interest in Florida, trial dates in DC, and violent threats against a judge.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From October 23, 2020: It's been a wild couple of days of disinformation in the electoral context. Intelligence community officials are warning about Russian and Iranian efforts to influence the U.S. presidential election—and claiming that Iran is responsible for sending threatening emails from fake Proud Boys to Democratic voters. What exactly is going on here? To talk through the developments and the questions that linger, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Scott R. Anderson, Susan Hennessey and Quinta Jurecic.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From May 7, 2021: Over its first 100 days in office, the Biden administration has faced a difficult set of policy challenges at America's southern border, ranging from new waves of individuals driven to try to cross the border by the effects of the global pandemic, to the often difficult legacy left by some of his predecessor's draconian immigration policies. As a candidate, Biden channeled Democrats' outrage with former President Trump's actions on immigration and pledged to reverse them. But now that he is in office, will Biden find more common ground with his predecessor than expected, or will he turn over a new page on America's immigration policies? Scott R. Anderson sat down with ProPublica immigration reporter Dara Lind to discuss what drives immigration to the United States, how the Biden administration has responded thus far and what it may all mean for the future of immigration policy in the United States.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From May 13, 2020: Scott R. Anderson sat down with Elizabeth Shackelford, a former foreign service officer whose late 2017 resignation became a sign of growing discontent with the Trump administration within the diplomatic corps. They talked about her new book, "The Dissent Channel," out this week, which discusses her experience as a young diplomat living through a period of crisis in South Sudan, and the lessons it taught her about diplomacy, human rights and the role of the United States in the world.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From September 17, 2019: Tensions in the Middle East are at a high point. Over the weekend, large Saudi oil facilities were attacked. The Yemeni Houthis jumped in to claim responsibility. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iran. President Trump tweets that the U.S. is 'locked and loaded' and ready for potential response. But what has actually happened in the Arabian Peninsula? What does the future hold for conflict between the Saudis and the Iranians? And what role will the United States have?To talk it all through, Benjamin Wittes spoke with Gregory Johnsen, a researcher on Yemen and Middle East conflict; Suzanne Maloney, a Brookings senior fellow whose research centers on Iran; Samantha Gross, a fellow in the Cross-Brookings Initiative on Energy and Climate; and Scott R. Anderson, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and senior editor at Lawfare. They talked about what we know about what happened over the weekend, the geopolitical context for the attack, potential American responses, and the legal authorities that could justify American military action.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a pair of cases concerning to what extent online platforms can be held responsible for terrorist content on their services. Gonzalez v. Google focused on the scope of Section 230, which shields platforms from liability for third-party content. Twitter v. Taamneh, meanwhile, concerned whether platforms can be held liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act if members of terrorist groups use their services to recruit and spread their message. Oral arguments took a combined five hours as the justices slogged through these difficult questions about the functioning of the modern internet. Lawfare senior editors Quinta Jurecic, Scott R. Anderson, and Alan Rozenshtein, and Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes, sat down to discuss.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From April 30, 2021: When President Biden entered office, he inherited a bilateral relationship with Turkey that was strained to the limits by the growing independent streak in that country's foreign policy—and one that had been pushed in unfamiliar directions by his predecessor's direct and often unpredictable personal relationship with Turkey's longstanding president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This past week, the Biden administration made its first major move on the U.S.-Turkey relationship by recognizing the atrocities committed against Armenians by Ottoman authorities in the early 20th century as a genocide, a move that prior presidents had avoided for fear of how Turkey might react.To discuss what these developments may mean for this key bilateral relationship, Scott R. Anderson sat down with Nicholas Danforth of the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy and Asli Aydıntaşbaş of the European Council on Foreign Relations. They discussed how Turkey views its place in the world, what this means for its alliance with the United States and how the Biden administration is likely to respond moving forward.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From December 11, 2020: This week, the Supreme Court returned once again to the complex and sometimes controversial Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, that protects foreign sovereigns from litigation before U.S. courts. At the same time, Congress is once again debating new exceptions to the protections provided by the FSIA on issues ranging from cybercrime to the coronavirus pandemic, an effort that may risk violating international law and exposing the United States to similar lawsuits overseas. To discuss these developments and where they may be headed, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading scholars on sovereign immunity issues: Chimène Keitner, a professor at the UC Hastings School of Law and a former counselor on international law at the U.S. State Department, and Ingrid Wuerth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and one of the reporters for the American Law Institute's Fourth Restatement on U.S. foreign relations law.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 2019, the U.S. government took a step that it had never taken before. It brought criminal charges against a foreign state-owned bank, Turkiye Halk Bankasi, or Halkbank, which is majority-owned by the country of Turkiye (until recently known as Turkey), for evading U.S. sanctions on Iran. Turkiye in turn argued that such a move was not only unprecedented but prohibited by the legal immunities it is entitled to under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA. Yesterday, those arguments reached the U.S. Supreme Court where both sides seemed to agree on just one thing—that the court's eventual decision could well have major consequences for the United States and its foreign relations.To talk through oral arguments in Halkbank, Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading sovereign immunity experts: Professor Chimène Keitner of the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, and Professor Ingrid Wuerth of Vanderbilt Law School. They discussed how each side reads the FSIA and other related statutes, whether any of the justices seemed particularly persuaded, and where the court—as well as the broader issue—seems likely to go from here.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Yesterday afternoon, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that he has appointed a special counsel to investigate the revelations that documents bearing classification markings had been found in President Biden's private office and residence. The appointment comes after a preliminary investigation that began on November 14, just days before a different special counsel was appointed to investigate documents found at former President Trump's residence. To go through it all, Lawfare executive editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Lawfare contributor Paul Rosenzweig, Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes, and Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson. They talked about why these circumstances triggered the special counsel regulations, what we know about potential criminal exposure, and how this may impact the ongoing special counsel investigation of Donald Trump.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's January 6—the second anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection. There has been a lot of activity in those two years to account for what happened on that terrible day.To go over it all, Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare executive editor Natalie Orpett and Lawfare senior editors Scott R. Anderson, Quinta Jurecic, and Roger Parloff. They discussed what has been done across the many diverse areas in which we have sought accountability for Jan. 6—to do justice, to tell the story, and to make legal and policy changes to prevent this from ever happening again. They talked about criminal investigations and prosecutions, the Jan. 6 committee, congressional storytelling, the legislative process, what is left to do, and what's been left undone. And they consider a big question: are we safer now than we were then?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As Russia's unlawful war of aggression continues to inflict untold devastation on Ukraine, policymakers have begun to search for ways to support Ukraine's beleaguered economy and fund its eventual reconstruction. Their attention has turned to the billions of dollars in assets that the United States has frozen as part of its robust sanctions against the Kremlin. But as policymakers attempt to make some of these assets available to Ukraine, it begs the question: Under what legal authority can the United States seize these Russian frozen assets?Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson and Chimène Keitner, Alfred & Hanna Fromm Professor of International & Comparative Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, wrote a piece for Lawfare titled, “The Legal Challenges Presented by Seizing Frozen Russian Assets,” where they explain the core legal issues that U.S. policymakers need to consider as they weigh whether and how to move forward with seizing any frozen Russian-related assets. Lawfare legal fellow Saraphin Dhanani sat down with Scott to discuss all of this, as well as to get Scott's take on how the U.S. might move forward in its efforts to support Ukraine using Russian assets, notwithstanding, of course, the many legal constraints it faces. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Jan. 6 committee issued its final report Thursday night, and the team at Lawfare spent Friday reading through it and formulating some initial thoughts, observations, bewilderments, and questions. To give you an overview and some analysis, Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare executive editor Natalie Orpett, and Lawfare senior editors Scott R. Anderson, Quinta Jurecic, Molly Reynolds, and Roger Parloff. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Over the past few weeks, Congress has slowly brought two of its biggest pieces of annual omnibus legislation to the finish line: the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act. Both annual endeavors play central complementary roles in our political system and often become vehicles for an array of otherwise unrelated provisions, including many related to national security. And even by the usual standards of Congress, this year's process has been a chaotic one.To discuss, Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with fellow Lawfare senior editor and Brookings Institution colleague Molly Reynolds. They talked about the process that led to this year's bills and highlighted some notable items that are in them— and some notable items that aren't.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what may be the biggest case of the term: Moore v. Harper. In that case, North Carolina's state legislature is arguing that the state Supreme Court lacks the legal authority to review the heavily gerrymandered congressional districts it has enacted, on the grounds that the Constitution's elections clause gives that authority exclusively to the state legislatures—an argument often referred to as the independent state legislature doctrine, which many fear may undermine state law election protections around the country if taken up by the Court.To discuss, Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson sat down on Twitter Spaces with Professor Ned Foley of The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, and Professor Derek Muller of the University of Iowa College of Law. They discussed where the justices seem to be leaning, how they may resolve different aspects of the party's arguments, and what it all might mean for 2024.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Earlier this fall, the Biden administration released what it called a “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights,” a policy document that lays out a five-pillar strategy for how the United States intends to wrestle with and regulate the challenges arising from the increasingly common use of artificial intelligence. In recent weeks, the European Union has been wrestling with its own AI regulation challenges and is now on the verge of releasing its own similar strategy. Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Alex Engler, a fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, who has been closely tracking these policies. They talked about the challenges AI poses to policymakers, the strategy the United States is set to pursue, and how it is both different from and similar to the EU's approach.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Thursday afternoon, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in the amusingly captioned case Trump v. United States of America. The three-judge panel vacated District Judge Aileen Cannon's order appointing a special master to review the material seized at Mar-a-Lago by the Justice Department, and it ruled in scathing language that she had no authority to entertain the case at all To go over it all, Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes sat down before a live audience on Twitter Spaces with Lawfare executive editor Natalie Orpett and Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson. They went through the decision page-by-page and talked about whether things would speed up now that Judge Cannon's ruling is out of the way and what kind of message the 11th Circuit is sending to a new judge who seemed to be willfully intervening on the part of the ex-president.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The 2002 Iraq AUMF authorized the invasion of Iraq and a variety of U.S. military activities since then, and a large bipartisan group of senators and representatives have decided it's time for it to go away. A repeal bill was passed by the House and is awaiting action in the Senate, but we don't know if there's going to be time for that action before the Senate adjourns. It's a good opportunity to have a conversation about this orphaned AUMF that just keeps on going like the Energizer Bunny through the decades. To talk through the history of the 2002 AUMF, its surprising rebirth, and its dangerous continued life, Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson, who recently wrote a two-part series on the subject for Lawfare, focusing on the history and practice of the 2002 AUMF, as well as its interpretations and implications.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From December 11, 2020: This week, the Supreme Court returned once again to the complex and sometimes controversial Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, that protects foreign sovereigns from litigation before U.S. courts. At the same time, Congress is once again debating new exceptions to the protections provided by the FSIA on issues ranging from cybercrime to the coronavirus pandemic, an effort that may risk violating international law and exposing the United States to similar lawsuits overseas. To discuss these developments and where they may be headed, Scott R. Anderson sat down with two leading scholars on sovereign immunity issues: Chimène Keitner, a professor at the UC Hastings School of Law and a former counselor on international law at the U.S. State Department, and Ingrid Wuerth, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and one of the reporters for the American Law Institute's Fourth Restatement on U.S. foreign relations law.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In recent weeks, the Biden administration has released a trio of long-awaited strategy documents, including the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy, and the Nuclear Posture Review. But how should we read these documents, and what do they actually tell us about how the Biden administration intends to approach the world?To answer these questions, Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Richard Fontaine, chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security, who is himself also a former National Security Council official and senior congressional adviser. They discussed the role these strategy documents play in U.S. foreign policy, what we can learn from them, and what they say about the state of the world and the United States' role in it.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From August 24, 2020: In recent months, relations between the United States and China seem to have reached a new low as disagreements over trade, tech, human rights and the coronavirus have led the two sides to exchange increasingly harsh rhetoric. Just weeks ago, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went so far as to suggest that the decades-long experiment of U.S. engagement with China had been a mistake. But is this heightened tension just a bump in the road, or is it a new direction for one of the United States's most important bilateral relationships? To discuss these issues, Scott R. Anderson sat down with an all-star panel of China watchers, including Tarun Chhabra of the Brookings Institution and Georgetown Center for Security and Emerging Technology, Elsa Kania of the Center for a New American Security, and Rob Williams, executive director of the Paul Tsai China Center at Yale Law School.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.