The Lawfare Podcast: Patreon Edition – Details, episodes & analysis

From July 16, 2024: On July 15, Judge Cannon granted former President Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith for the alleged mishandling of classified documents. She found that Smith was appointed as a special counsel in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

In a live podcast recording, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes talked to Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett, Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent Anna Bower, Senior Editors Alan Rozenshtein and Quinta Jurecic, and Columbia Law professor Michel Paradis about Judge Cannon's decision, what Special Counsel Jack Smith may do next, how the Eleventh Circuit may rule on an appeal, how Justice Thomas’s immunity concurrence plays a role, and more.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Kyle Cheney, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico, speaks to Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff about the thousands of habeas corpus cases he has pored through challenging a Trump administration policy requiring mandatory detention for most detained aliens.

They discuss how judges have ruled on these cases, the degree to which those rulings do or don’t correlate with political expectations, the appellate prospects for such cases, and why they haven’t been resolved by class action.

More reading on this topic:

• "Hundreds of judges reject Trump’s mandatory detention policy, with no end in sight," by Kyle Cheney, Politico (January 5, 2026)
• "Judges, inundated with immigration cases, don’t mince words on ICE tactics," by Kyle Cheney, Politico (January 26, 2026)
• Kyle's thread on Minnesota cases on X

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with co-host emeritus Shane Harris and Lawfare colleagues Anna Bower and Loren Voss to talk through yet another big week in national security, including:

• “Minnesota N(ICE).” Amidst ongoing tensions over the Trump administration’s hyper aggressive immigration enforcement tactics in Minnesota, the Justice Department has issued subpoenas to at least five state Democratic officials—including Governor Tim Walz—investigating alleged efforts to obstruct or not cooperate with federal efforts. Some say it’s an intimidation tactic; to others, it seems to be laying the foundation for an invocation of the Insurrection Act. What should we make of these most recent developments in Minnesota?
• “Fed Up.” Last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell announced in a video that the Federal Reserve had received subpoenas from the Department of Justice as part of a criminal inquiry into his congressional testimony regarding cost overruns in the ongoing renovation of the Federal Reserve’s headquarters. Powell called out the probe as an effort to undermine the Fed’s independence, and both markets and members of Congress have had a negative response. And the Supreme Court may follow, as it’s set to hear oral arguments in the related case of Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, whom Trump had previously sought to fire “for cause” on the basis of similarly unproven criminal allegations. Why did the Trump administration take this step when it did? And how might it affect the outcome of the Cook case?
• “The Sound and the Fury.” Recent media reports have revealed that the Department of Defense has spent at least a year testing a device that may have been the source of a mysterious illness that has affected U.S. diplomats and personnel stationed around the world since 2016. This revelation has inevitably called into question past intelligence community assessments that such symptoms were unlikely to be the result of actions by a hostile adversary and resurrected controversies around how affected U.S. personnel have been treated. What should we now make of the so-called Havana Syndrome? And how might these new revelations affect U.S. foreign relations?

In object lessons, Anna is channeling her inner British spy with a recommendation of season 2 of The Night Manager. Loren is channeling some inner peace with a recommendation of the Snoo. Scott is changing the channel to the bizarre French animated comedy Grizzy & the Lemmings. And Shane is considering a style change a la Ted Danson in A Man on the Inside.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From November 6, 2024: For today’s special episode, Lawfare General Counsel and Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson held a series of conversations with contributors to a special series of articles on “The Dangers of Deploying the Military on U.S. Soil” that Lawfare recently published on its website, in coordination with our friends at Protect Democracy.

Participants include: Alex Tausanovitch, Policy Advocate at Protect Democracy; Laura Dickinson, a Professor at George Washington University Law School; Joseph Nunn, Counsel in the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center; Chris Mirasola, an Assistant Professor at the University of Houston Law Center; Mark Nevitt, a Professor at Emory University School of Law; Elaine McCusker, a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; and Lindsay P. Cohn, a Professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. 

Together, they discussed how and why domestic deployments are being used, the complex set of legal authorities allowing presidents and governors to do so, and what the consequences might be, both for U.S. national security and for U.S. civil-military relations more generally.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, a contentedly full post-Thanksgiving Scott and Quinta sat down with two Lawfare colleagues—Senior Editor and Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Molly Reynolds and Cyber Fellow Eugenia Lostri—to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:

• “Showdown with an Only O.K. Rationale.” The House and Senate are preparing for a showdown over national security priorities, with assistance for Ukraine (and Israel and border security) hanging in the balance. Where does the debate seem likely to go from here—and what will the global ramifications be?
• “Bringing Down the @SamA.” OpenAI, the non-profit(?) behind ChatGPT, has had a chaotic few weeks, with its board ousting CEO Sam Altman on the apparent grounds that he was not taking AI safety concerns seriously enough, only for the vast majority of organization’s employees to threaten to resign unless he was brought back—a step the board took, just before most of its members resigned. What do these events tell us about the state of the AI industry?
• “Carpe Ceasefire.” A fragile pause in hostilities has emerged centered on the exchange of Israeli hostages held by Hamas for imprisoned Palestinians—momentum the Biden administration is reportedly hoping to build on. Yet calls for a permanent ceasefire continue amidst mounting civilian casualties and humanitarian needs, and there remains no clear plan for a post-war Gaza. How long will the pause last? What happens when hostilities resume?

For object lessons, Quinta recommended the 1990s classic “Distant Star” by Robert Bolaño. Scott gave his Thanksgiving gold star to Eric Kim’s creamy mac and cheese recipe. Molly leaned into her love for local NPR affiliates and recommended WGBH’s podcast “The Big Dig,” focusing on Boston’s legendary highway project. And secret gamer nerd Eugenia recommended a compelling video game that even parents of toddlers have time to tackle, What Remains of Edith Finch.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's another edition of “Trump’s Trials and Tribulations,” recorded on Thursday before a live audience of Lawfare Material Supporters. Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff, Lawfare Legal Fellow Anna Bower, and special guest Kyle Cheney of Politico, to talk about Scott Perry's text messages that were newly revealed in a filing in D.C. District Court, about happenings with New York gag orders and D.C. gag orders, about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment cases, and about Anna's story about the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s report in Coffee County and how much it sucked. 

This is a live conversation that happens online every Thursday at 4:00pm Eastern Time. If you would like to come join and ask a question, be sure to visit Lawfare’s Patreon account and become a Material Supporter.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From September 25, 2018: The United States has become the global leader in both defense and private-sector AI. Inevitably, this has led to an environment in which adversary and ally governments alike may seek to identify and steal AI information—in other words, AI has become intelligence, and those who work in AI have become potential sources and assets. And with intelligence, comes counterintelligence.

Jim Baker, a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution and former FBI General Counsel, is part-way through a series of essays for Lawfare on the links between counterintelligence and AI, two parts of which have already been published (Part I and Part II). On Monday, Jim sat down with Benjamin Wittes to discuss his work on the subject. They talked about how to understand AI as an intelligence asset, how we might protect this valuable asset against a range of threats from hostile foreign actors, and how we can protect ourselves against the threat from AI in the hands of adversaries.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Anna Bower is a Legal Fellow at Lawfare and our Fulton County Correspondent, and has been digging into the weird events in Coffee County in the aftermath of the 2020 election. Her latest tome on the subject is entitled “What the GBI Missed in Coffee County,” and is about the Georgia state investigation, the report on which clocks in at almost 400 pages but is a great deal less impressive than it may seem at first glance.

Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Anna to talk about the GBI's investigation of the Coffee County caper. What did the GBI do? What didn't they do? Did they add any new information? They actually did—but they also left out a whole lot that any reasonable investigator would want to look at.

A video version of this conversation is available on Lawfare's YouTube channel here.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Israel’s military response to Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre has raised deep concern from international legal observers and the general public. The IDF’s tactics have been described as “disproportionate,” and not taking sufficient care to avoid killing civilians or damaging civilian infrastructure, as the law of armed conflict requires.

When it comes to incidental casualties in particular, Mark Lattimer, Executive Director of Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, recently argued on Lawfare’s pages that Israel’s tolerance for civilian deaths seems to surpass even that of the U.S. and U.K.’s in the war against ISIS. Lawfare Associate Editor Hyemin Han talked to him about the case study he used to make this point—an analysis of Israel’s decision to carry out airstrikes in the Jabalia Refugee Camp in October. They compared that to what happened in the Battle of Mosul in 2014, and then got into the bigger differences between Israel’s war against Hamas and the war against ISIS. 

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve probably heard a great deal over the last year about generative AI and how it’s going to reshape various aspects of our society. That includes elections. With one year until the 2024 U.S. presidential election, we thought it would be a good time to step back and take a look at how generative AI might and might not make a difference when it comes to the political landscape. Luckily, Matt Perault and Scott Babwah Brennen of the UNC Center on Technology Policy have a new report out on just that subject, examining generative AI and political ads.

On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic and Lawfare’s Fellow in Technology Policy and Law Eugenia Lostri sat down with Matt and Scott to talk through the potential risks and benefits of generative AI when it comes to political advertising. Which concerns are overstated, and which are worth closer attention as we move toward 2024? How should policymakers respond to new uses of this technology in the context of elections?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.