Explore every episode of the podcast The Rule of Law Brief

In today’s Thought of the Day (August 26, 2025), Nate Charles reflects on the relentless cycle of absurd and distracting announcements coming from the Trump White House—ranging from culture-war attacks on restaurant logos to constitutionally dubious executive orders.

These constant provocations aren’t random. They’re designed—intentionally or not—to overwhelm the public, exhaust resistance, and normalize authoritarian overreach.

Drawing on his military experience in Afghanistan, Nate explains why sustainable resistance requires balance: just as soldiers on long deployments need rest and recovery to sharpen their tools and return stronger, citizens must also step back, recalibrate, and reengage with clarity and conviction.

This isn’t a sprint. It’s a marathon. Don’t get numb. Don’t burn out. Find your recovery, then come back swinging.

By Nathan M. F. Charles — Former federal prosecutor and Navy SEAL officer; Managing Partner at Charles International Law. I write on national security, democracy, and the rule of law from the front lines of litigation and experience.

Stay sharp, stay steady, and don’t let exhaustion silence you—subscribe for daily insights on resisting authoritarianism with clarity and conviction.

In today’s Thought of the Day, I respond to a colleague who suggested my analysis isn’t politically neutral because I criticize Republicans more than Democrats. This critique misses the point of what objectivity means in a rule-of-law society.

Objectivity doesn’t require giving “equal time” to both sides of the political spectrum. That’s false balance. True neutrality means applying the same legal and constitutional standards to everyone. Some actors will meet those standards, and some will fail them—but the measure is always the standard itself, not party identity.

I also explain why whataboutism undermines accountability and why we must resist the temptation to think neutrality requires symmetrical criticism. In a rule-of-law society, the only question that matters is: did you meet the standard, or not?

In this episode, Nate Charles explores one of the most dangerous First Amendment violations: viewpoint discrimination. Unlike general restrictions on speech, viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government suppresses or punishes one side of a political debate while allowing the other to flourish. The Supreme Court has called this practice “an egregious form of content discrimination,” and for good reason — it represents the government putting its thumb on the scale in the marketplace of ideas.

Nate breaks down:

What viewpoint discrimination is, and why the courts treat it as especially pernicious.

Recent examples, including:

Donald Trump’s attempts to reshape Smithsonian exhibits.

The exclusion of journalists from White House press briefings.

Pennsylvania’s prosecution of Kimberly Baylor.

How these practices echo Orwell’s concept of thoughtcrime in 1984.

Why protecting dissent is essential to democracy.

The role of the courts and other institutions in halting this authoritarian trend.

Key Quote:

“When the government targets not subject matter but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant. Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination.” — Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va. (1995)

Subscribe to hear more analysis on democracy, national security, and human rights — and to arm yourself with the vocabulary and tools to recognize authoritarian patterns as they emerge.

In this “Thought of the Day,” Nate Charles examines Donald Trump’s announcement that he will issue an executive order banning mail-in ballots and electronic voting machines. Drawing on the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Nate explains why the President has no authority to alter the time, place, or manner of elections—powers reserved to the states and Congress.

The conversation explores:

* The absence of credible evidence that mail-in or machine voting has ever altered a national election outcome.

* Localized fraud cases and why they don’t scale to federal races.

* Congress’s historical role in amending state election procedures under the Elections Clause.

* Competing theories about Trump’s motivation: voter suppression, political ignorance, or preemptive delegitimization of democracy.

* Richard Hasen’s warning that Trump may be “laying tinder” for another crisis of legitimacy after 2026.

Nate closes with an invitation to readers: share evidence, counterarguments, and data points in the comments to keep this a serious, informed discussion.

By Nathan M. F. Charles — Former federal prosecutor and national security official; Managing Partner, Charles International Law. I litigate constitutional, immigration, and administrative law cases nationwide, including before federal courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Stay informed on the intersection of law, democracy, and national security. Subscribe now for sharp, evidence-based analysis on threats to our constitutional order.

Join me as I explore the intersection of national security, law, and human rights. From my years as a Navy SEAL and federal prosecutor to my work today as an immigration and civil rights attorney, I share short, sharp insights on the issues shaping America’s future. Subscribe to get new thoughts delivered straight to your inbox and your favorite podcast app.

(00:00:01):

Hey guys, it's Nate Charles.

(00:00:03):

I'm back with an extra thought of the day today.

(00:00:05):

This is a thought of the day supplemental start date 2025-08-19.

(00:00:09):

A little homage to my Trekkies out there.

(00:00:13):

Anyway,

(00:00:13):

I'm making this additional thought of the day today to announce that we're doing

(00:00:18):

something pretty exciting here at Charles International Law.

(00:00:20):

I said a few weeks ago that these thoughts of the day were sort of an experiment.

(00:00:24):

And that experiment has actually proven to be pretty valuable to people.

(00:00:28):

People seem to like these relatively short format videos, these blog posts.

(00:00:33):

So we're going to make it a thing.

(00:00:34):

And in fact, we're even going to publish it as a podcast.

(00:00:37):

So you'll be able to download the audio from these videos as a podcast for you to

(00:00:41):

listen on whatever podcasting platform you prefer.

(00:00:45):

We hope that you will.

(00:00:45):

We hope you enjoy it.

(00:00:47):

For those of you who are new to this channel,

(00:00:49):

new to my my vlog and new to my podcast,

(00:00:52):

I just want to introduce myself a little bit for those of you who don't know my

(00:00:54):

background and what I represent.

(00:00:56):

Again, my name is Nathan Charles.

(00:00:58):

I'm an attorney.

(00:00:59):

I grew up in Pennsylvania.

(00:01:01):

I went to the United States Naval Academy and graduated in 2001.

(00:01:04):

In fact, just a few months before 9-11.

(00:01:10):

I was fortunate enough to be selected for training to become a Navy SEAL by my time

(00:01:16):

at the Naval Academy.

(00:01:17):

I was one of about 16 guys from our class of just under a thousand to be selected

(00:01:23):

for that training pipeline.

(00:01:25):

I was in that training on 9-11.

(00:01:28):

And in fact, 9-11 was clearly one of the most successful.

(00:01:33):

Most significant dates in my life, as it was for a lot of people.

(00:01:38):

I spent the next six years, six and a half years, actually, on regular active duty as a U.S.

(00:01:44):

Navy SEAL fighting in places like Afghanistan,

(00:01:47):

but also Colombia and a lot of other places in the Middle East.

(00:01:52):

Doing train,

(00:01:53):

advise and assist operations in those places where there wasn't active combat going

(00:01:57):

on.

(00:01:58):

I got out with the hope of becoming an attorney like my father,

(00:02:02):

who is the former district attorney in Lebanon County and now a sitting judge on

(00:02:06):

the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas.

(00:02:08):

I did.

(00:02:09):

I got into law school at American University in Washington, D.C.

(00:02:13):

But while I was there in Washington, D.C., I also got picked up for a job at the U.S.

(00:02:18):

Defense Department at the Defense Direction Agency,

(00:02:21):

working on programs to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction,

(00:02:26):

proliferation and use by terrorist organizations.

(00:02:29):

And so I kind of went right back into my former role as a special operator, working with U.S.

(00:02:36):

Special Operations Command to develop war plans to address WMD threats,

(00:02:41):

which was a lot of fun and something that I never really anticipated doing in my

(00:02:44):

life,

(00:02:44):

but ended up enjoying quite a bit.

(00:02:46):

While I did that, I went to law school at night.

(00:02:49):

When I got done with my law degree and I took the bar,

(00:02:52):

I clerked for the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for a year.

(00:02:56):

Now, while I was calling for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, I went into the reserves.

(00:02:59):

I started working for the reserve SEAL team down at Virginia Beach on my weekends

(00:03:04):

and significant other periods of time and actually got pulled back onto active duty

(00:03:11):

three times over the next 10 years.

(00:03:14):

So my time in special operations was not over when I got off of regular active duty.

(00:03:20):

In fact, it was just getting started.

(00:03:22):

One of those mobilizations,

(00:03:24):

I went down to SEAL Team 6 in Virginia Beach and was served in a staff position at

(00:03:30):

SEAL Team 6 for another year and ended up deploying back to Afghanistan all over

(00:03:34):

again.

(00:03:35):

Ironically, I was in Afghanistan.

(00:03:37):

When I left Afghanistan for the last time,

(00:03:39):

it was just a few days short of the 10-year anniversary of the date that I first

(00:03:45):

deployed to Afghanistan.

(00:03:46):

So my time involved in combat operations in Afghanistan spanned over a decade.

(00:03:52):

Anyway,

(00:03:53):

after my time,

(00:03:56):

after I would demobilize from from SEAL Team Six,

(00:03:59):

I went to go work for the U.S.

(00:04:01):

Department of Justice in the National Security Division,

(00:04:03):

making,

(00:04:04):

you know,

(00:04:04):

making use of my extensive national security experience.

(00:04:08):

I went to go work for the counterintelligence and export control section of the U.S.

(00:04:11):

Department of Justice.

(00:04:12):

At the time I joined, it was still called the counter espionage section.

(00:04:16):

That was a very interesting job.

(00:04:18):

I worked there for about five years working on counterintelligence issues,

(00:04:21):

but even more working on counterproliferation issues.

(00:04:24):

Again,

(00:04:24):

going back to my time with the Department of Defense,

(00:04:27):

working on prosecution,

(00:04:28):

prosecuting arms dealers and people who were dealing in technology that could

(00:04:34):

support weapons of mass destruction programs.

(00:04:37):

I left that job in 2020, right as COVID was starting to become a problem.

(00:04:45):

Not really the greatest time to switch jobs,

(00:04:47):

but I took advantage of a program that sent me to rural Alaska for about six

(00:04:51):

months.

(00:04:52):

I went up to rural Alaska for about six months and worked as a prosecutor up there

(00:04:55):

providing criminal law enforcement and prosecution to an underserved rural

(00:05:00):

community in Alaska.

(00:05:02):

When I came back from Alaska,

(00:05:03):

I actually mobilized back to active duty again and served as the deputy commander

(00:05:08):

of the crisis action team for the U.S.

(00:05:11):

Navy dealing with the COVID crisis.

(00:05:13):

Again,

(00:05:14):

taking advantage of some of my experience with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency,

(00:05:18):

where my work touched on biological warfare threats.

(00:05:21):

I got to put some of that some of that knowledge to use to help mitigate the COVID crisis.

(00:05:26):

Right about the time that I demobilized from the COVID crisis in 2021,

(00:05:30):

I started my own law firm.

(00:05:32):

Not entirely sure what I was going to do with my with my practice,

(00:05:36):

but quite sure that I wanted to start my own business and practice law the way that

(00:05:41):

I knew it should be practiced and to apply a level of rigor and intelligence and

(00:05:49):

and.

(00:05:50):

sophisticated advocacy that I knew I was capable of to real-world clients who

(00:05:58):

honored me by hiring me.

(00:06:00):

Shortly after I hung my shingle and started my law firm,

(00:06:06):

I was approached by a group of former special operations personnel and former

(00:06:09):

intelligence officials that I had tangentially worked with over the previous 20

(00:06:15):

years and who told me,

(00:06:18):

Look,

(00:06:18):

we're pretty sure that Afghanistan is going to fall a lot faster than the

(00:06:22):

government is letting on.

(00:06:24):

And so we're starting a nonprofit organization to help get these guys out and

(00:06:28):

provide them support,

(00:06:29):

provide support to the people that we have been training,

(00:06:31):

advising,

(00:06:32):

assisting in Afghanistan for the previous few decades.

(00:06:37):

Sure enough, they were 100% correct.

(00:06:39):

Kabul fell in a matter of hours when the government was calling for it to fall within months.

(00:06:45):

And all of a sudden,

(00:06:47):

overnight,

(00:06:48):

there was a group of former special operations personnel,

(00:06:53):

former intelligence agents,

(00:06:56):

and former people who had supported our war effort in Afghanistan for the previous

(00:07:00):

20 years who were political refugees.

(00:07:03):

Those people turned to me and they said, what do you know about immigration law?

(00:07:07):

I said, very little, but I'm a pretty quick study.

(00:07:10):

And that's exactly what happened.

(00:07:12):

I ended up pursuing additional training,

(00:07:16):

quite a bit of self-study,

(00:07:16):

but also some formal training through the Mennonite Central Committee back in my

(00:07:21):

hometown,

(00:07:23):

near my hometown of Lebanon,

(00:07:24):

Pennsylvania,

(00:07:26):

and became an immigration attorney and became an immigration attorney specifically

(00:07:30):

working on

(00:07:31):

the types of cases that these Afghans were going through,

(00:07:34):

where there was a connection between national security,

(00:07:37):

human rights,

(00:07:38):

and high-risk asylum cases.

(00:07:44):

And that's been the focus of my practice ever since.

(00:07:46):

We do some additional things.

(00:07:48):

We've worked on some other human rights,

(00:07:50):

some other civil rights cases,

(00:07:52):

other cases where large corporations have really been victimizing

(00:07:58):

Individuals and I found my passion.

(00:08:01):

I found my passion at the intersection of human rights and national security.

(00:08:05):

And and I love to help people resettle in the United States when they have faced

(00:08:12):

legitimate humanitarian crises overseas.

(00:08:16):

I love what I do.

(00:08:19):

This podcast is about all those things.

(00:08:20):

It's about national security.

(00:08:21):

It's about the law.

(00:08:23):

These these videos are going to be me.

(00:08:28):

expounding on my thoughts on national security,

(00:08:30):

on what's going on with the political situation in the United States,

(00:08:33):

but all sort of orbiting around those concepts of national security and

(00:08:39):

humanitarian rights.

(00:08:42):

I'm honored to have you along on this journey with me.

(00:08:45):

I don't entirely know where this is going to go, but I love doing it.

(00:08:48):

I love posting these videos.

(00:08:52):

I love coming up with this content.

(00:08:53):

I love digging into these issues and doing deep dives on

(00:08:56):

on things so that I really understand it as an attorney and so that I can help the

(00:09:00):

public understand it as conscientious Americans and as voters.

(00:09:05):

I just get a real kick out of doing this.

(00:09:07):

I'm really happy to have you here and I'm hoping that you will subscribe to this,

(00:09:10):

this blog,

(00:09:11):

subscribe to my sub stack,

(00:09:13):

follow me on social media and download these podcasts so that we can end up having

(00:09:17):

a conversation about what the future of America looks like and what it should look

(00:09:21):

like and how we shape the world around us to become what the world that it should

(00:09:27):

be.

(00:09:28):

Thank you.

(00:09:30):

I'm grateful for your, for your, uh,

(00:09:33):

participation in this with me.

(00:09:34):

I'm grateful to have you as an audience,

(00:09:36):

and I look forward to your comments on everything that we do here.

Links Cited:

Charles International Law research guide on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency

ArcGIS 100-mile Border Zone Map Overlay

Southern Border Communities Coalition Map

Bloomberg CityLap Article Featuring Maps Prepared by ESRI

I break down the law at the intersection of immigration, national security, and civil liberties. Subscribe on Substack for research, analysis, and insights you won’t find anywhere else.

(00:00:01):

Hey, good morning, everybody.

(00:00:02):

It's Nate Charles again, back with another thought of the day.

(00:00:04):

It's August 19th, 2025.

(00:00:07):

So within the last couple of days,

(00:00:10):

Charles International Law posted another research guide sort of laying out the

(00:00:13):

duties of the Customs and Border Protection Agency and also explaining the

(00:00:17):

restraints on the Customs and Border Protection Agency.

(00:00:21):

One of the things that we discussed in that article was the enforcement zone

(00:00:27):

within 100 miles of any land or maritime border of the United States.

(00:00:35):

Just a couple of minutes after we posted that,

(00:00:38):

a friend of mine and a colleague posted an article about an interaction between

(00:00:44):

Customs and Border Protection and a group of people who were pulled over on

(00:00:50):

suspicion of an immigration violation in San Bernardino,

(00:00:53):

California.

(00:00:54):

It turned into a shootout

(00:00:56):

which made me curious whether San Bernardino is within the 100-mile enforcement radius.

(00:01:04):

So I did some additional research on that and discovered,

(00:01:07):

yes,

(00:01:07):

San Bernardino is,

(00:01:08):

unfortunately,

(00:01:11):

for those people within the 100-mile enforcement radius,

(00:01:15):

which gives Customs and Border Protection Agency some legal cover in terms of

(00:01:20):

whether their stop was reasonable.

(00:01:26):

It also set me down a rabbit hole to figure out whether there's actually a map,

(00:01:32):

a public accessible authoritative map as to what terrain within the United States

(00:01:38):

falls within that enforcement zone.

(00:01:40):

The short answer is there's not any sort of map that is authoritative.

(00:01:45):

CBP maintains range rings.

(00:01:50):

within all their ArcGIS software to use for operational planning.

(00:01:54):

But of course, those range rings are not publicly available.

(00:01:59):

There are a lot of nonprofit organizations out there who have maps that show where

(00:02:04):

those enforcement zones are.

(00:02:07):

And some of them are pretty good, but they're not authoritative.

(00:02:11):

If something is close to the line, it's not clear what sort of authority

(00:02:19):

the courts would give those unofficial maps.

(00:02:23):

I will include some links in the comments to some of those range rings so you can

(00:02:28):

see for yourself where these nonprofits estimate the zone stop and start.

(00:02:35):

But again, they're not authoritative for legal purposes.

(00:02:37):

So just keep that in mind as you go forward.

(00:02:38):

But I do think it's interesting.

(00:02:40):

And I personally, I love maps.

(00:02:41):

So

(00:02:42):

It's probably something going back to my Navy days.

(00:02:44):

But anyway, I hope you guys have a great day.

(00:02:46):

I thought this stuff was pretty interesting and you might too.

(00:02:49):

So we'll share that with you.

(00:02:50):

And I'm looking forward to seeing you again tomorrow.

Subscribe for more clear, fact-based insights on immigration, law, and national security.

I cut through the noise, expose government propaganda, and explain the legal realities shaping our future. Stay informed—no spin, just truth.

Link to Snopes Article Cited.

Want clear, no-nonsense analysis of immigration, constitutional law, and national security? Subscribe for sharp commentary that cuts through slogans and digs into the law itself.

(00:00:01):

Hey guys, it's Nate again.

(00:00:03):

It's August 16th and this is my thought of the day.

(00:00:06):

So I got a couple comments on a substack that I published recently about sanctuary cities.

(00:00:12):

And one of the themes of those comments was that it's illegal to help criminals, period.

(00:00:24):

That comment is off base for a number of reasons,

(00:00:27):

but I just want to point out two of them today.

(00:00:28):

First of all,

(00:00:30):

It is not a crime to be here illegally.

(00:00:33):

And I know that the Republicans,

(00:00:35):

especially the maggots,

(00:00:37):

love to conflate those terms,

(00:00:39):

but they have distinct definitions.

(00:00:43):

You can be here illegally in the sense that you are out of status.

(00:00:46):

That does not make you a criminal.

(00:00:48):

It is not a crime to be here illegally.

(00:00:50):

It's a crime to enter illegally, but to be here illegally is not a crime.

(00:00:55):

So being here out of status or being here undocumented is not synonymous with criminality.

(00:01:03):

So that's the first misconception.

(00:01:05):

The second misconception is that state and local governments declining to hold

(00:01:09):

somebody for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws is not aiding and

(00:01:15):

abetting a criminal.

(00:01:17):

In fact, it is federalism in action.

(00:01:22):

That is a feature of our federal constitution that it's called the anti-commandeering principle.

(00:01:29):

The federal government does not have the right to force state and local governments

(00:01:34):

to enforce federal law,

(00:01:36):

especially something like immigration,

(00:01:38):

which isn't even criminal.

(00:01:40):

It is a civil matter.

(00:01:43):

All right.

(00:01:43):

So when you hear somebody retort about these sanctuary city policies,

(00:01:48):

you say like,

(00:01:49):

oh,

(00:01:49):

they're aiding abandoned criminals.

(00:01:51):

No, they're not.

(00:01:51):

Because being an illegal immigrant is not criminality.

(00:01:56):

Those things are not synonymous.

(00:01:57):

And because state and local governments are not required to act at the behest of

(00:02:01):

the federal government.

(00:02:02):

It's part of our system of federalism in the United States,

(00:02:05):

part of our system of dual sovereignty.

(00:02:07):

So just keep those things in mind next time you're talking to somebody,

(00:02:10):

you're debating politics with somebody.

(00:02:11):

They may not be aware of those things.

(00:02:13):

Or they may be aware of them and they're just skipping over it because they're idiots.

(00:00:01):

Hi, everybody.

(00:00:02):

It's Nate Charles from Charles International Law.

(00:00:04):

This is my thought of the day for August 15th, 2025.

(00:00:09):

So as some of you know, Charles International Law represents Kimmy Baylor.

(00:00:13):

Kimmy Baylor was charged by the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office with several

(00:00:17):

counts of harassment for calling the Lebanon County District Attorney's Office to

(00:00:24):

express her displeasure over the way that it handled the Veronica Rodriguez trial.

(00:00:33):

The charges are a gross violation of the First Amendment.

(00:00:37):

You are allowed to harass your government under the First Amendment.

(00:00:40):

In fact, that might be one of the most basic principles that the United States was founded on.

(00:00:45):

We filed a motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds.

(00:00:47):

Unfortunately, we lost that motion without any explanation from the judge.

(00:00:53):

But in the process of briefing that,

(00:00:55):

the attorney general's office decided to avoid addressing our First Amendment

(00:01:01):

arguments at all.

(00:01:03):

and instead decided to make an appeal to emotion,

(00:01:08):

an emotional appeal to the judge by pointing out that Kimi had at one point said

(00:01:13):

things to the effect of,

(00:01:14):

well,

(00:01:15):

I hope Pierre Hess dies in a fire.

(00:01:17):

What the attorney general's office declined to mention is that Kimi was just

(00:01:22):

parroting statements that

(00:01:24):

District Attorney Pierre Hess-Graff,

(00:01:26):

a public official,

(00:01:28):

had made about a reporter at PennLive who had conducted some investigative

(00:01:32):

journalism into her failure to prosecute sex crimes in Lebanon County.

(00:01:40):

So basically what the Attorney General Office did in filing their motion is admit

(00:01:46):

to a selective prosecution.

(00:01:50):

Pierre Hess-Graff said, I hope you die in a fire to a reporter and then

(00:01:54):

Our client, Kimmy Baylor, said, I hope you die in a fire to Pierre Hess Graff.

(00:02:00):

One of them got prosecuted.

(00:02:02):

The other didn't.

(00:02:03):

That is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment.

(00:02:07):

So we just filed another motion to dismiss this time for selective prosecution.

(00:02:11):

We'll let you know how that goes,

(00:02:13):

but we are prepared to take this case all the way and we're going to file appeals.

(00:02:21):

If she is convicted,

(00:02:22):

we are definitely going to file appeals and take this one as far as we possibly

(00:02:25):

can.

(00:02:26):

We think this is an important case based on the First Amendment grounds and now the

(00:02:31):

14th Amendment grounds.

(00:02:32):

But yeah,

(00:02:34):

at Charles Under National Law,

(00:02:35):

we stand for good governance and we support people who speak truth to power.

(00:02:38):

And this is definitely no exception.

(00:02:40):

We stand by Kimby 100%.

(00:02:41):

All right, guys, have a great weekend.

The Rule of Law Brief is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.