The Lawfare Podcast

On Monday afternoon, the House Select Committee to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the United States Capitol, better known as the Jan. 6 committee, held its final public event. It summarized its key findings and voted to approve its final report. And as most commentators are focusing on, the committee also voted to recommend to the Department of Justice that it charge Donald Trump and others with crimes. Shortly after the event concluded, the committee released the executive summary of its final report. To talk through it all, Lawfare executive editor Natalie Orpett sat down for a live event with Lawfare senior editors Quinta Jurecic, Roger Parloff, Molly Reynolds, and Alan Rozenshtein, as well as editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On December 7, Peruvian president Pedro Castillo attempted to dissolve Peru’s Congress and implement a state of emergency. His dictatorship lasted only a few hours before he was impeached by Congress and arrested—making him the fifth president to leave office in Peru in five years. Since Castillo’s arrest, Peru’s crisis has spiraled further, with protests in the streets and a violent response by the police and military that has left 25 people dead. To understand what’s going on right now in Peru, Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic spoke with Rodrigo Barrenechea, a 2022/23 Santo Domingo Visiting Scholar at the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard University and an assistant professor at the Departamento de Ciencias Sociales of the Universidad Católica del Uruguay. They talked about how and why Peru ended up here, the fragile state of the country’s democracy, and why Rodrigo thinks that Castillo’s attempted dissolution of Congress was “the most ill-planned coup d’etat in Latin American history.”You can read Rodrigo’s article on the crisis in the Peruvian newspaper El Comercio (in Spanish) here.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When we think about government surveillance, we often imagine something physical, like a police officer executing a search warrant on a house or car. But increasingly, government surveillance, including the everyday work of police departments across the country, involves remote electronic monitoring or the analysis of massive amounts of digital information.A leading analyst of this transformation and of the implications it has for our privacy and security is Chris Slobogin, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School and one of the leading scholars of the digital Fourth Amendment. Lawfare senior editor Alan Rozenshtein sat down with Chris to discuss his new book, “Virtual Searches: Regulating the Covert World of Technological Policing,” in which Chris explains how the traditional legal framework for surveillance is out of date and what should take its place. Alan and Chris talk about the importance of taking a more flexible approach to what makes a search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and why it's so important for legislatures to pre-authorize any police surveillance techniques. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ronald Reagan stands among the most consequential national security presidents in United States history, not least of which because his policies helped to end the Cold War without a direct war between the superpowers. Reagan's vision for ending the Cold War evolved during his presidency, but followed clear principles he brought with him to the office.Will Inboden, a historian and former policymaker who leads the Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas at Austin, has written a new survey of the 40th president's national security policies, “The Peacemaker: Ronald Reagan, the Cold War, and the World on the Brink.” In it, he uses newly declassified documents and policymaker interviews to give an informative and insightful reassessment of the formation, development, execution, and impact of Reagan's foreign policy.In this episode of Chatter, David Priess and Inboden touch on the challenges of conducting research on decades-old administrations, the National Security Council process under different presidents, Reagan's influence on an entire generation, the origins of Reagan's national security views, the impact of the 1981 assassination attempt, the nature and influence of Reagan's faith, his evolving relationship with Soviet leaders, the Reykjavik summit, how close the US and USSR came to agreeing to eliminate nuclear weapons, Reagan's legacy beyond the Cold War, what Will would ask Reagan if he had the chance to do so, how Reagan might view the United States today, why Reagan is hard to capture onscreen, and more.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From September 30, 2020: On Sunday, September 27, the New York Times dropped bombshell new reporting on nearly two decades of Donald Trump's tax return data. The story has attracted enormous attention and paints a dismal picture. Donald Trump paid no personal income taxes for 11 of the past 18 years, he uses tax deductions aggressively, and last year he paid only $750 in federal income tax. So, is this a story of a president merely in massive debt, or is there something more sinister at play? To whom does the president owe all this money? And what are the national security risks of the president being in this sort of financial position? To try to break it all down, Susan Hennessey sat down with Margaret Taylor, formerly a fellow at Brookings and senior editor at Lawfare; Daniel Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and the author of "The Toddler in Chief: What Donald Trump Teaches Us about the Modern Presidency"; and Adam Davidson, a contributing writer to The New Yorker who has written extensively on Trump's financial entanglements.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ralph Bunche, one of the most prominent Black Americans of the 20th century, was a legendary diplomat, who from his perch at the United Nations was a central player in the decolonization movement after World War II. To discuss Bunche and his accomplishments, Lawfare founding editor and Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith sat down with Kal Raustiala, the Promise Institute Distinguished Professor of Comparative and International Law at UCLA Law School, about his new book, “The Absolutely Indispensable Man: Ralph Bunche, the United Nations, and the Fight to End Empire.” They discussed the role played by Bunche and the United Nations in the decolonization movement, what made Bunche such a great diplomat, Bunche’s view of the relationship between empire and domestic racial segregation, and more.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On November 19, Twitter’s new owner Elon Musk announced that he would be reinstating former President Donald Trump’s account on the platform—though so far, Trump hasn’t taken Musk up on the offer, preferring instead to stay on his bespoke website Truth Social. Meanwhile, Meta’s Oversight Board has set a January 2023 deadline for the platform to decide whether or not to return Trump to Facebook following his suspension after the Jan. 6 insurrection. How should we think through the difficult question of how social media platforms should handle the presence of a political leader who delights in spreading falsehoods and ginning up violence?Luckily for us, Stanford and UCLA recently held a conference on just that. On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Lawfare senior editors Alan Rozenshtein and Quinta Jurecic sat down with the conference’s organizers, election law experts Rick Hasen and Nate Persily, to talk about whether Trump should be returned to social media. They debated the tangled issues of Trump’s deplatforming and replatforming … and discussed whether, and when, Trump will break the seal and start tweeting again.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Last week, Apple made an announcement about some new security features it would be offering to users. One of those features involves users' ability to opt in to encryption for iPhone backups to iCloud. While this new feature will enhance data privacy and security for those users who choose to opt in, it may create additional challenges for law enforcement to obtain evidence in criminal investigations.To discuss the implications and potential impact of this new security feature, Lawfare senior editor Stephanie Pell sat down with Riana Pfefferkorn, research scholar at the Stanford Internet Observatory. They discussed the costs and benefits to users who may choose to opt in to this feature, how Apple's choice to offer this feature plays into a broader conflict known as the Crypto Wars, and how this feature relates to another part of Apple's announcement where it indicated that it would not be scanning all iPhones for child sexual abuse material before images were backed up to iCloud.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Monday, the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in the case United States v Fischer—one of the most important cases we've seen in a while relating to criminal prosecutions for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The case is about a previously obscure statute, at least in this context, that criminalizes corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, and it’s a charge that DOJ has brought against hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters. Lawfare legal fellow Saraphin Dhanani attended the argument, and Lawfare executive editor Natalie Orpett sat down with her to discuss what the parties argued, how the judges responded, and what might happen to the charge of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen shared a trove of internal company documents to the Wall Street Journal in 2021, some of the most dramatic revelations concerned the company’s use of a so-called “cross-check” system that, according to the Journal, essentially exempted certain high-profile users from the platform’s usual rules. After the Journal published its report, Facebook—which has since changed its name to Meta—asked the platform’s independent Oversight Board to weigh in on the program. And now, a year later, the Board has finally released its opinion. On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Lawfare senior editors Alan Rozenshtein and Quinta Jurecic sat down with Suzanne Nossel, a member of the Oversight Board and the CEO of PEN America. She talked us through the Board’s findings, its criticisms of cross-check, and its recommendations for Meta going forward. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security 2.0, Alan, Quinta, and Scott were reunited after a few weeks apart to talk through the week's big national security news, including:“In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is Still Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy.” The jury in the Oath Keepers trial came back last week, convicting every defendant of at least one criminal offense—including the controversial charge of seditious conspiracy. What might this mean for other Jan. 6 investigations moving forward?“Morality? Puh-leeze.” Weeks of protests in Iran finally seemed to bear fruit last week when a regime official signaled that the morality police may be disbanded and laws requiring that women wear hijabs be repealed. But other regime figures don’t seem on-board with that solution. Is this a sign that protests are succeeding? Where might they go from here?“Les Fleurs du MAL.” The litigation that led Judge Aileen Cannon to appoint a special master to review evidence collected by the FBI from former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate this past summer has finally culminated in its final form: an 11th Circuit ruling reversing Judge Cannon’s order and disbanding the process altogether. Where will the investigation go from here?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From April 14, 2021: A lot of people are expressing anxiety about white supremacist violent terrorism, yet in a new Brookings paper entitled "Identifying and Exploiting the Weaknesses of the White Supremacist Movement," Daniel Byman, Lawfare's foreign policy editor and a senior fellow at the Brookings Center for Middle East Policy, and Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Center on Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League, say that while the threat is real, these movements have weaknesses that other terrorist groups do not. Benjamin Wittes sat down with Byman and Pitcavage to talk about these weaknesses, how white supremacist groups are vulnerable and how law enforcement in the United States can exploit them to reduce the threat.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday heard oral arguments in the case of Blassingame v. Trump, an appeal from a civil lawsuit against the former president over Jan. 6. The question before the appeals court is: Does a president have immunity from lawsuit even when he's accused of stirring up a mob against a coordinate branch of government engaged in a function constitutionally entrusted to it? The judges seemed skeptical of the former president's argument, which was a bit of a surprise given the composition of the panel. To chew it all over, Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare senior editor and University of Minnesota Law School professor Alan Rozenshtein, who followed the oral arguments and live tweeted them. They talked about the case that gave rise to the arguments, how it played out at the lower court, and what the Supreme Court might do when it confronts this question down the road.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.

J. Edgar Hoover served as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 48 years, from 1924 until 1972. Since his death, Hoover has become one of the most reviled figures in American history due to FBI operations under his leadership to spy on Americans, including government officials, in order to manipulate democratic politics.To discuss Hoover's extraordinary role in American politics in the 20th century and the continuing influence of his legacy today, Lawfare co-founder and Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith sat down with Yale University history professor Beverly Gage, who is the author of a new biography of Hoover called, “G-Man: J. Edgar Hoover and the Making of the American Century.” They discussed why Hoover's place in American history is much more complex than conventional wisdom suggests; Hoover as a master bureaucrat who managed the press, Hollywood, and senior government officials to maintain enormous popularity throughout his reign as FBI director; how Hoover, the fierce anti-communist, was the key to the elimination of McCarthyism in the 1950s; and much, much more.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.

Plagues periodically exact a heavy toll on human life—and much more. They devastate economies, exacerbate social disorder, shock governance systems, provide fodder for political violence, and interact in surprising ways with terrorism.In this episode of Chatter, David Priess and longtime RAND Corporation terrorism expert Brian Michael Jenkins talk about the long nature of pandemics, the history of public resistance to efforts to protect public health, links between plagues and social unrest, how the concept of comorbidity applies to the effects of pandemics, the relationship between plagues and political violence, the challenges of rumors and rapid communication, the threat of biological terrorism, and pragmatic ways to counter domestic political violence.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From April 28, 2020: Sophia Yan, a correspondent for the London Telegraph, joined Benjamin Wittes from Beijing where she is in coronavirus lockdown after traveling to Wuhan, China, to see how it was recovering from being the coronavirus epidemic center earlier in the year. They talked about what Wuhan looks like these days, what quarantine means in China, and how close the surveillance is. And they talked about the Chinese government, how it is responding to the crisis, and about how the Chinese economy is recovering and suffering.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

U.S. Cyber Command was established on May 21, 2010, and is the second youngest unified combatant command after U.S. Space Command in the United States. As explained in the Command history, U.S. Cyber Command operates globally in real time against determined and capable adversaries. Lawyers who work in the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate at Cyber Command provide legal advice on a range of issues, including the legality of offensive cyber operations. Lawfare senior editor Stephanie Pell sat down with Kurt Sanger, a recently retired Cyber Command lawyer, to discuss the kind of work he did and issues he addressed at U.S. Cyber Command. They talked about why the application of international law can be challenging in the cyber domain, some of the most vexing international legal issues with respect to offensive cyber operations, and some legal issues he is observing in the context of the current armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Protests have broken out in China over the zero-Covid policy, over lockdowns, and even over the rule of newly appointed third-term leader Xi Jinping. The government has begun a crackdown, there have been arrests, there have been intimidating interrogations, there have been street closures, and there has been a lot of internet content removed. To go over it all and see what we can make of it, Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Sophia Yan, who just left China where she has been The Telegraph’s correspondent for a number of years. They talked about whether these protests might have legs, about what capacity the government has to shut them down, and about whether this could be the beginning of something.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.

The United States military was one of the first institutions in government to acknowledge the threat posed by climate change, as well as the science behind it, and yet it remains the largest single energy consumer in the country and the largest institutional greenhouse gas emitter in the world. To talk through this strategic disconnect, Lawfare managing editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Dr. Neta Crawford, Montague Burton Chair in International Relations at the University of Oxford, co-director of the Costs of War study at Brown University, and author of the new book, “The Pentagon, Climate Change, and War: Charting the Rise and Fall of U.S. Military Emissions.” They discussed what Dr. Crawford calls the irony and tragedy of the military's carbon emissions, how war drives emissions and industrialization, and why climate activists may be skeptical about framing climate as a security issue. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's been an eventful several weeks on the Korean Peninsula, with a spree of missile tests, the sudden display of a daughter of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, and the articulation of a remarkably aggressive nuclear doctrine. To go over it all, Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Stephan Haggard, the Lawrence and Sallye Krause Professor of Korea-Pacific Studies at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at the University of California San Diego. They talked about how all of this relates to prior diplomacy between North Korea and the Trump administration, what message the North Koreans are trying to send with the combination of this testing and the articulation of this new doctrine, and whether there is any prospect of denuclearization at any time in the foreseeable future.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security 2.0, a Quinta-less Alan and Scott welcomed Lawfare's dynamic associate editor duo, Katherine Pompilio and Hyemin Han, on to the show to talk through the week's big national security news stories, including:“Going Full Cleve.” Last week, former President Donald Trump announced his intention to once again run for president—in spite of the Republicans’ weak showing in the midterm elections and his own impending legal troubles. What does Trump’s announcement mean for 2024 and after? “A Mueller Mulligan?” Trump’s announcement that he was once again running for president in turn led Attorney General Merrick Garland to make his own announcement last Friday: that he was appointing another Special Counsel to take over the investigations into Trump’s interference in the 2020 election results and mishandling of classified records. Was this the right move? How will the Special Counsel’s appointment impact the investigations—and Trump’s political future?“Pyongyanking Our Chain.” North Korea has launched a new ICBM that it claims can deliver nuclear weapons anywhere in the United States. Should this threat be taken seriously or is it a bluff? And is the Biden administration doing enough to respond?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From March 30, 2021: Anti-Asian violence in the United States seems to be on the rise. On March 16, a shooter killed eight people, six of whom were Asian women, at several Atlanta businesses. Across the country, Asian-Americans have shared stories of attacks and harassment, some of which involved racist language in connection with the coronavirus pandemic.Yet there is very little data available that could help journalists and policymakers make sense of this apparent trend. To understand why, Quinta Jurecic spoke with Jeff Asher, a crime analyst and the co-founder of AH Datalytics, who recently wrote for Lawfare on why there’s so little reliable data on anti-Asian violence—or on any other kind of hate crime. Jeff discussed the patchwork system by which the FBI currently collects data on hate crimes, what other factors might explain why the data is so unreliable and how improved data could help guide the response to anti-Asian attacks.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From May 2, 2020: Most of us don’t think of United States history as an imperial history, but the facts are there. The law and policy surrounding westward expansion, off-continent acquisitions, and a worldwide network of hundreds of bases reveal much about how and why the United States grew as it did.Last month, David Priess spoke with Daniel Immerwahr, associate professor of history at Northwestern University and author of “How to Hide an Empire.” They talked about everything from what the Constitution says about lands west of the thirteen colonies, to the critical role of the Guano Islands in U.S. history, to the famous Insular Cases, to how military access agreements and long-term leases help the United States avoid a truly territorial empire.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.

For the last 29 days, Roger Parloff, Lawfare senior editor, has been sitting in on the Oath Keeper trial in Washington. The trial is now done, the jury has the case, and Roger joined Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes to talk about it. Which charges are likely to stick, and which ones seem weak? How did the various defendants do when they took the stand to defend themselves? And what kind of verdict do we expect when the jury eventually comes back?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Earlier this month, officials from the government of Ethiopia and representatives from the Tigray People's Liberation Front agreed to halt the two-year conflict that has been rife with accusations of ethnic cleansing, sexual violence, and famine as a weapon of war. To discuss the current state of the conflict and the prospect of peace, Lawfare managing editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Alex de Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation and a research professor at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. A longtime expert on the Horn of Africa, de Waal co-edited the book, “Accountability for Mass Starvation: Testing the Limits of the Law,” which was published in August. They discussed the terms of the recent truce agreements, the irony of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed's Nobel Peace Prize, and the options for accountability for forced starvation and other crimes committed by both sides. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Over the weekend, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP 27, went into overtime as nations came to an historic agreement to establish a loss and damage fund. This fund is meant to give resources to countries who have experienced the worst effects of climate change. Some like to think of it as climate reparations. There are a lot of factors that might have created the momentum for this historic agreement to go through after many years. An interesting one is that it's becoming more and more difficult for big emitters like the United States to deny their role in contributing to climate change, particularly as new scientific studies have been pivotal in creating a pretty unimpeachable basis for climate responsibility. But, just because science can verify certain realities does not mean that it's a straight path forward for climate justice. To get a sense of what factors are coming together to achieve climate justice, Lawfare associate editor Hyemin Han merges the legal and policy perspective with the science perspective in a conversation with Karen Sokol, a professor at the Loyola University New Orleans College of Law and a fellow at the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, and Chris Callahan, a PhD candidate at Dartmouth College who co-produced a scientific study that informed negotiations on loss and damage at COP 27.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Satellites have held a special place in military planning and in spy fiction alike for more than half a century. Both domains ended up devoting much attention to satellite-based weapons and anti-satellite weaponry; both have also dealt with the problem of space debris related to the latter.In this chat, David Priess and George Washington University historian Aaron Bateman talk about Bateman's early interest in satellites, early satellite technology and attempts at anti-satellite activity, the Outer Space Treaty and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, actions by presidents from Eisenhower through Biden related to the testing of satellite and/or anti-satellite weapons, the Strategic Defense Initiative (commonly called the "Star Wars program"), the problem of space debris, the Kessler Syndrome, other countries' satellite and anti-satellite activities, the Space Force, and on-screen portrayals of satellite warfare and space debris from the James Bond movies to Gravity.Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced 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.

From September 23, 2017: The escalating tension between North Korea and the United States has risen to an unprecedented level. Earlier this month, Stephan Haggard, Lawrence and Sallye Krause Professor of Korea-Pacific Studies at UC San Diego, gave a lecture at a private function on the complicated strategic and political risks that North Korea’s missile and nuclear capabilities present. He talked about the complex relationship among North Korea’s allies and adversaries, the impact of sanctions against Pyongyang, and the past and future role of the United States in addressing North Korean aggression.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Earlier today, in a surprise announcement, Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a special counsel to lead two ongoing federal investigations of former president and now official 2024 presidential candidate Donald Trump. The special counsel, Jack Smith, is a longtime DOJ prosecutor and currently the chief Kosovo war crimes prosecutor in The Hague. He will take over the investigation into the retention of classified and government documents at Mar-a-lago, as well as the investigation into attempts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power after the 2020 election.To make sense of the special counsel appointment and what it means for the federal investigations into Donald Trump, Lawfare senior editor Alan Rozenshtein spoke with Lawfare editor-in-chief Ben Wittes, Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic, and former FBI agent Peter Strzok, who worked on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into foreign election interference in the 2016 election.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today, the U.S. military maintains around 800 bases in installations around the world with around 75 of those in Latin America, including perhaps its most notorious in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But it wasn't always this way.To learn more about this fraught and understudied history, Lawfare managing editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Dr. Rebecca Herman, assistant professor of history at UC Berkeley, to discuss her new book, “Cooperating with the Colossus: A Social and Political History of US Military Bases in World War II Latin America.” They discussed how the U.S. went from its good neighbor policy of the 1930s to nearly 200 military bases on sovereign Latin American soil by the end of the war, and the thorny questions of legal jurisdiction, labor rights, and gender relations that arose from those new sites. They also got into how, in Prof. Herman's words, although national sovereignty and international cooperation are compatible concepts in principle, they're difficult to reconcile in practice. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

American democracy might look healthier in light of last week's midterms, but there's still a lot of skepticism across the political spectrum about how it's doing. From the right, would-be authoritarians cast doubt on elections and on the very idea of liberal democracy. But even those who reject this authoritarian impulse are frequently uncomfortable with the messiness of democratic politics, instead preferring an anti-politics of technocratic decision-making. Jedediah Purdy, a law professor at Duke Law School, wants to defend democracy from its critics and its skeptics. In his new book, “Two Cheers for Politics: Why Democracy Is Flawed, Frightening—and Our Best Hope,” he argues that democratic renewal is both desirable and, most importantly, possible. Lawfare senior editor Alan Rozenshtein sat down with Jed to talk about the book, get his thoughts about the state of American democracy, and chart the path toward a healthier democratic future.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Matt Tait is a cybersecurity expert who has worked both in the private sector and for the British government at GCHQ, the UK's intelligence, security, and cyber agency. He's also a Lawfare contributor. Like a lot of us, Tait has spent the last several months thinking about Ukraine, and Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes had cybersecurity questions for him. They talked about why the Ukrainian internet is still functioning and why the Russians have been so ineffective in the cyber arena. They also talked about whether U.S. support for Ukraine is threatened with Republicans in control of the House and what the Biden administration is going to do about Section 702, which is scheduled to expire at the end of next year.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sophia Yan, pianist for the Lawfare Podcast and Rational Security, is also The Telegraph’s Beijing correspondent—or at least, she was until the other day. She’s produced a new podcast entitled, “How to become a dictator,” about the rise and rule of Xi Jinping and her own struggles as a reporter in Xi’s China. Now Sophia’s in Taiwan after a hasty exit from the country, and she joined Lawfare’s editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes to discuss the new podcast and her departure from China. Who is Xi Jinping really? How is Xi different from other recent Chinese leaders? Why did Sophia leave China? And did she take her piano with her?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Georgii Dubynskyi is the Deputy Minister of Digital Transformation of Ukraine. It is a ministry set up to modernize government services for Ukrainians that has taken a lead role in keeping Ukraine functioning online during the war. On Thursday morning, he joined Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes before a live audience at the Hewlett Foundation's cybersecurity grantee convening conference in Los Angeles.It was a wide-ranging conversation that started with what the ministry was meant to do and what role it has taken on during the war. How has Ukraine remained so resilient amidst Russian kinetic and cyber attacks? Why have the Russian cyberattacks been less effective than we expected them to be? And why is the Ukrainian internet still up when so much of the power is down.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Alan, Quinta, and Scott were joined by Brookings Institution Middle East expert Natan Sachs to talk over the week's big (non-U.S. election) national security news, including:“Bibi Got Back.” Last week, an unprecedented fifth national election in the last four years returned controversial former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to power, at the head of a coalition including several far-right nationalist parties. What does his return to office mean for the future of Israel and the region? And its relations with the United States?“COP Out.” The United Nations’ 27th annual Convention of Parties (also known as “COP27”) is playing host to world leaders in Sharm-al-Sheikh, Egypt, this week, where some are hoping to find new consensus on how to combat climate change. Are countries taking these challenges seriously? What are these efforts likely to look like moving forward?“Everybody Toots.” Elon Musk’s purchase and dramatic reorientation of Twitter is begging to drive users to other social media platforms, including the decentralized Mastodon network. What will Musk’s changes mean for the future of disinformation and content moderation, both within Twitter and outside of it?For object lessons, Alan endorsed hunting the world's most dangerous game: man (with paintballs). Quinta passed along a useful reference on the state of crime in the United States and the way it is being used in the midterm elections. Scott recommended everyone try a sip of his long neglected workplace colleague. And Natan celebrated the pandemic perseverance of his office jade plants as a sign of hope in dark times.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From September 23, 2020: Bobby Chesney sat down with former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and Texas Congressman Chip Roy as part of the 2020 Texas Tribune Festival. They discussed Portland, DHS, domestic violence, and even the shortage of civil discourse in our society.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Due to the Veterans Day holiday, our team is taking a break and bringing you a Lawfare Archive episode that we think you’ll find timely given some events from the last few weeks.From April 2, 2020: On this episode of the Arbiters of Truth series on disinformation, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Nate Persily, the James B. McClatchy Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. Persily is also a member of the Kofi Annan Commission on Democracy and Elections in the Digital Age, which recently released a report on election integrity and the internet for which Nate provided a framing paper. Alongside his work on internet governance, Nate is also an expert on election law and administration. They spoke about the commission report and the challenges the internet may pose for democracy, to what extent the pandemic has flipped that on its head, and, of course, the 2020 presidential election.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Tuesday, November 8, Americans finished casting their ballots in the midterm elections. Given that the president’s party typically performs poorly in the midterms, Democrats were poised for major losses and Republicans were ready to celebrate a “red wave” handing them control of both the House and Senate. But instead, Democrats saw a striking overperformance—and as of Wednesday afternoon, control of both the House and Senate remains up for grabs. Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic sat down with fellow senior editors Scott Anderson and Molly Reynolds to talk through what they know and don’t know about the results. Was this a stay of execution for American democracy? If the GOP does take the House by a narrow margin, how hard is it going to be for the messy Republican caucus to stick together? And what do questions over control of Congress mean for the Jan. 6 investigation and key foreign policy issues, like aid to Ukraine?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the summer of 2020, Lawfare’s editor in chief Benjamin Wittes found out that he had been the subject of intelligence reports compiled by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis. It was a bizarre but troubling revelation, and it raised a lot of questions, not only about the propriety of those reports but also about the practice in general. Who else was I&A compiling intelligence reports about and on what basis? So, Ben filed a FOIA request and subsequently a lawsuit in hopes of getting some answers. He's written about this matter for Lawfare a number of times, including in an update published yesterday.Lawfare executive editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Ben to talk through it all. They discussed the background of the case, why so-called open source intelligence reports can be so dangerous, and what we've learned about DHS over the course of the litigation.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s Election Day in the United States—so while you wait for the results to come in, why not listen to a podcast about the other biggest story obsessing the political commentariat right now? We’re talking, of course, about Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter and the billionaire’s dramatic and erratic changes to the platform. In response to Musk’s takeover, a great number of Twitter users have made the leap to Mastodon, a decentralized platform that offers a very different vision of what social media could look like. What exactly is decentralized social media, and how does it work? Lawfare senior editor Alan Rozenshtein has a paper on just that, and he sat down with Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic on the podcast to discuss for an episode of our Arbiters of Truth series on the online information ecosystem. They were also joined by Kate Klonick, associate professor of law at St. John’s University, to hash out the many, many questions about content moderation and the future of the internet sparked by Musk’s reign and the new popularity of Mastodon.Among the works mentioned in this episode:“Welcome to hell, Elon. You break it, you buy it,” by Nilay Patel on The Verge“Hey Elon: Let Me Help You Speed Run The Content Moderation Learning Curve,” by Mike Masnick on TechdirtSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The government has rested its case in chief in the criminal seditious conspiracy trial of Elmer Stewart Rhodes III and several other members of the Oath Keepers. The trial has been going on for the last several weeks, and Lawfare senior editor Roger Parloff has been in court every day keeping us up to date.Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Roger to talk through it all. Who has the government put on the stand? What parts of the government's case has it proved, and what parts are a little bit dodgy? What can we expect as the defense presents its case, which began on Thursday? And what do we make of the government’s silence on the question of the Insurrection Act?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Although codemaking and codebreaking often receive less attention in the public imagination than swashbuckling HUMINT operations and ingenious spy gadgets, they have changed history. The under-appreciation of cryptography might stem from a combination of the complexity of encryption, the classified nature of much of its technology, and the difficulty of conveying codebreaking effectively in pop culture.David Priess spoke with Vince Houghton about the realities and fictional representations of cryptography, as well as the challenges and rewards of making a compelling museum experience out of U.S. codemaking and codebreaking efforts. Houghton is director of the National Cryptologic Museum, the open-to-the-public museum of the National Security Agency. They talked while walking through the newly redesigned museum in Annapolis Junction, Maryland, highlighting various artifacts including early American codebreaking computers, German Enigma machines, the oldest known book of cryptography (from the 16th century), and code generators for U.S. nuclear weapons. They discussed the provenance of highly unusual items and the value of having so many of them on display. And they traded views on movies incorporating ciphers or codes, from The Da Vinci Code to Sneakers to The Empire Strikes Back to The Imitation Game.Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced 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.

From April 8, 2021: If you’re listening to this podcast, the odds are that you’ve heard a lot about QAnon recently—and you might even have read some alarming reporting about how belief in the conspiracy theory is on the rise. But is it really?This week on Arbiters of Truth, the Lawfare Podcast’s miniseries on our online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Joseph Uscinski, an associate professor of political science at the University of Miami who studies conspiracy theories. He explained why conspiracy theories in America aren’t actually at a new apex, what kinds of people are drawn to ideas like QAnon and what role—if any—social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter should have in limiting the spread of conspiracy theories.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On October 30, Brazilians elected Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva as their next president. Within minutes, world leaders, including President Biden and Secretary Blinken, offered official congratulations. For Lulu supporters, the atmosphere was celebratory but tense, as many wondered if Lulu's opponent, incumbent Jair Bolsonaro—who once said the election would end either in his death, arrest, or victory—would accept the legitimate results of the election. To talk through that election and its aftermath, Lawfare managing editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Brian Winter, editor in chief of Americas Quarterly and a journalist with over a decade living and reporting across Latin America. They discussed whether warnings of an election crisis were alarmist or not, what's next for Bolsonaro and his movement, and what to watch for during Lulu's first 100 days.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Israeli election results are in—sort of—and the early count looks very favorable for former Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and the far-right coalition that he would bring to power. The results are not a hundred percent clear yet, but they're clear enough for Benjamin Wittes to sit down on Twitter Spaces with Natan Sachs, the director of the Center for Middle East Policy and a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Program at Brookings, to talk through it all. How did Netanyahu win while getting no more votes than the other side? How did he impose a unity on his side, and how did the other side fail to do so in a fashion that facilitated this? Who is Itamar Ben-Gvir, and why is he the new power source in Israeli politics? And what can we say about the government that is going out—a government that ranged from the hard right to an Islamist party?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.