The Lawfare Podcast

For today's episode, Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson shares some of the conversations he had with leading policy experts and practitioners on the margins of this year's Aspen Security Forum, which took place last week. First he sat down Shashank Joshi, the Defence Editor for The Economist to discuss the new dynamics surrounding European security, as well as the path toward (and implications of) a Europe less dependent on the United States for its security.Scott then talked with Iris Ferguson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who was until recently the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Arctic and Global Resilience, about the strategic significance of the Arctic and how it plays into the modern dynamics of major power competition.This is part one of two, so be sure to tune in later this week for more conversations from Aspen.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.

Alan Rozenshtein, Senior Editor at Lawfare and Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, speaks with Noah Feldman, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, about the Supreme Court's recent decision to greatly limit the practice of universal injunctions. The ruling came in a case involving a Trump administration executive order on birthright citizenship, and while many commentators have viewed the decision as a dangerous loss for the rule of law, Noah argues that the Court might be playing a strategic "long game."Alan and Noah discuss Noah's central thesis: that the Supreme Court's primary job in the Trump era is to protect the rule of law by avoiding a direct constitutional crisis with the executive branch that the judiciary is likely to lose. From this perspective, eliminating universal injunctions—a tool that allows a single district judge to start a major fight—is a way for the Court to control when and where it confronts the administration. They also address the legal merits of Justice Barrett's majority opinion, which Noah argues was a flawed use of originalism that misinterpreted the flexible, problem-solving nature of equity. Finally, they explore the legal avenues for relief that remain, such as class actions, and consider what it means for the judiciary to truly "win" or "lose" a confrontation with a president who is undeterred by political norms.Note that this discussion was recorded in early July, before a lower court certified a class action in the birthright citizenship litigation and before the Supreme Court's recent unsigned opinion allowing the Trump administration to begin mass firings at the Department of Education, which Noah has since criticized.Mentioned in this episode:"The Supreme Court’s Majority Is Playing the Long Game,” by Noah Feldman in Bloomberg Opinion"The Supreme Court’s Silent Opinions Undermine Its Legitimacy,” by Noah Feldman in Bloomberg OpinionTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.

Scott recorded this week’s special episode live from the 2025 Aspen Security Forum, where he sat down with a panel of top national security journalists—including co-host emeritus Shane Harris of The Atlantic, Mark Goldberg of the Global Dispatches podcast, and Alex Ward of the Wall Street Journal—to talk about some of the issues that have emerged at and around this year’s Forum, including:“Putting the Ass in Aspen.” Twenty-four hours before the Aspen Security Forum was set to begin, the Defense Department barred more than a dozen officials who had been publicly set to participate, for months, on the grounds that the Forum promotes “the evils of globalism.” What does this tell us about the Trump administration’s relationship to the foreign policy establishment?“Rolling Alone.” While U.S. officials were in short supply at the Forum, foreign officials were not, as foreign ministers and other officials from Europe, Asia, and other corners of the world had a heavy representation on the panels. And while those panels often addressed different topics, at least one common theme tended to emerge across them: the challenges of the new era of major power competition, especially at a moment when the United States seems especially skeptical of traditional alliances and multilateral institutions. What did we learn about the challenges these countries are facing? And what does it mean for the United States’ ability to strategically compete?“Deus Ex Machina.” If there is one topic that was represented at almost every panel at this year’s Forum, it is the question of Artificial Intelligence — how important it is, what it will do to solve the world’s problems, new problems it will cause, and all it will cost to win the race to perfecting it. But is AI really that important? Or does its ubiquity in national security conversation reflect more hype than substance?For object lessons, Shane shared his latest piece for The Atlantic about an old man, a dog, and the CIA’s efforts to keep them apart. Scott endorsed the Aspen Security Forum itself and urged those not in attendance to check out Aspen’s recordings of the event—as well as the recordings of various side conversations he made, which will be up on the Lawfare Daily feed later this week. Mark recommended his new podcast with Anjali Dayal on the United Nations, To Save Us From Hell, which they release as part of his U.N. Dispatch newsletter. And Alex shared his quest to read a book about each U.S. president, what it’s taught him about how weird the presidents are, and the online community that’s helping him get through it.

In a live conversation on July 18, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Anna Bower and Roger Parloff and Lawfare Contributor Nicholas Bednar to discuss the Supreme Court’s rulings in Trump v. AFGE and McMahon v. New York, which allows for the mass terminations of federal employees, what happened in the hearing this week in the criminal case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, politicization of the Justice Department, and more.

From December 28, 2022: In the last few weeks, over a dozen U.S. states have banned TikTok from government devices, citing national security concerns. A similar bill was included in the omnibus spending bill, requiring the social media video app to be removed from the devices used by federal agencies. But addressing the concerns over how the Chinese government could coerce TikTok’s parent company to get access to Americans' data raises interesting questions about the existing data protection and privacy frameworks in the U.S.To discuss what is going on, Lawfare’s Fellow in Technology Policy and Law Eugenia Lostri sat down with Caitlin Chin, a fellow with the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has been closely following these developments. They discussed why TikTok is considered a national security threat to the United States, why a ban might not be the right solution to this problem, and her recommendations for what a comprehensive data protection framework should look like.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.

From February 14, 2023: Last month's brutal murder of Tyre Nichols by Memphis police has once again sparked a national conversation about the causes of and remedies for persistent police misconduct and abuse. To explore this issue, Jack Goldsmith sat down with Joanna Schwartz, a law professor at UCLA School of Law, who is the author of a new book called, “Shielded: How the Police Became Untouchable.” The book argues that police abuse is a result of pervasive pathologies in the legal system that shield from accountability not just police officers, but also their supervisors and the local governments for which they work.Joanna and Jack discussed the many accountability gaps in the legal regime governing police abuse. Like her book, they focused on problems of achieving justice through the civil rights system, problems that include the high bars to finding a lawyer and to convincing a judge to hear the case, Fourth Amendment doctrine, qualified immunity, and the challenges of municipal liability. They also discussed the best path to reform and the prospects of reform.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.

In this Scaling Laws Academy "class," Kevin Frazier, the AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, speaks with Eugene Volokh, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and long-time professor of law at UCLA, on libel in the AI context. The two dive into Volokh's paper, “Large Libel Models? Liability for AI Output.” Extra credit for those who give it a full read and explore some of the "homework" below:“Beyond Section 230: Principles for AI Governance,” 138 Harv. L. Rev. 1657 (2025)“When Artificial Agents Lie, Defame, and Defraud, Who Is to Blame?,” Stanford HAI (2021)Find Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.

Since Jan. 20, 84% of U.S. Agency for International Development grants and contracts have been terminated and 93% of agency staff have been fired. On July 1, the State Department absorbed the remaining staff and grants. On Lawfare Daily, Lawfare Associate Editor for Communications Anna Hickey spoke to New York Times opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof about the global impact of the Trump administration's dismantling of the USAID and foreign assistance cuts. They discussed what Kristof saw in his reporting trips to Liberia, Sierra Leone, Kenya, and South Sudan, and how the cuts to foreign assistance put U.S. national security at risk. Please note that this episode contains content that some people may find disturbing. Listener discretion is advised. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes and Eric Ciaramella to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:“With Arms Wide Open.” After years of open skepticism toward Ukraine (and uncharacteristic deference to Russia), it seems President Trump may have turned a page. His rhetoric has grown cooler toward Russian President Vladimir Putin, and he has proven more willing to provide arms to Ukraine, even over contrary efforts by some of his advisers—including an agreement to provide Ukraine with Patriot missiles and other U.S.-made, Europe-funded weapons. What explains this switch? And how durable is it likely to prove?“Hitting Foggy Bottom.” Just days after the Supreme Court removed a preliminary injunction, the State Department went forward with substantial personnel cuts, RIFing 1,350 foreign and civil service personnel in Washington, D.C. It’s all part of a much broader reorganization that State Department leadership claims will make the Department leaner or more efficient, even as it guts personnel working on issues disfavored by the Trump administration. “Waiting for the Intel Impressment.” Since the Trump administration’s June 21 airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, a heated debate has raged over their effects. The administration maintains the strikes were “historically successful” and permanently set back the Iranian nuclear program. But media reports source to people within the intelligence community have suggested a much more limited effect. How should we weigh these competing claims? And when will we know the truth?In object lessons, Ben asks for your public service in supporting Lawfare’s Public Service Fellowship. Scott pulled a Quinta with his recommendation of the New Yorker essay “Zohran Mamdani and Mahmoud Khalil Are in on the Joke,” by Hanif Abdurraquib. And Eric makes his summer travels epic by listening to the podcast, The Rest is History.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.