The Lawfare Podcast

This week, Scott sat down with Lawfare Editor in Chief and cohost emeritus Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare Senior Editor Molly Roberts, and Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution Molly Reynolds to talk through the week’s big news in national security, including:“Pocket Change.” Late on Friday, September 25, the White House sent Congress an $810 million “pocket rescission”—a request to cancel already-appropriated federal funding, timed so the money will expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30, before the 45 days Congress has to review the rescission request. It’s the second time the Trump administration has used the maneuver after the Supreme Court let the pocket rescission of about $4 billion in foreign assistance funds go forward last year. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins and Democratic appropriators have denounced the move as illegal, the Government Accountability Office agrees, and seven states (among other plaintiffs) have already sued. And this time, some district courts may be gravitating toward a novel, if largely untested, solution: using equitable and statutory authority to suspend the disputed funds’ expiration date. Could this measure help bring an end to pocket rescissions? And how far is the Trump administration willing to go in seeking to assert control over federal funds?“Poll Position.” With less than a month to go before the midterms, the Trump administration’s campaign to reshape U.S. elections is getting mixed results. The Supreme Court decided on September 25 to allow the Department of Homeland Security to resume using its revamped SAVE citizenship database to help states screen their voter rolls for noncitizens. But federal courts have pushed back on other measures, from the administration’s proposed mail-in-ballot rule, to efforts to coerce states into providing their voter rolls, to the withholding of counterterrrorism grants from states and localities that don’t adopt the administration’s preferred election changes. What part of our elections seem safe 30 days out, and which are still under peril? And what could the consequences be?“Straining Credulity.” Last week, a 28-year-old laboratory technician at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute in Siberia died of severe pneumonia, reportedly after being exposed to the bacterium that causes pneumonic plague, prompting Russian authorities to quarantine a local hospital and place nearly 200 people under medical observation. Russian officials have since insisted she died of “pneumonia of unknown etiology” and told the World Health Organization on Tuesday that no plague has been found among her contacts. But shifting official accounts, disappearing local news reports, and Russia’s long history of biological weapons work—including the U.S. government’s assessment that Moscow still maintains an offensive program—have fueled concerns. What do we actually know about what happened in Irkutsk, and to what extent should we believe the official account being offered by the Russian government? And what does it tell us about the risks posed by Russia’s biological research enterprise?In object lessons, Molly L. is a notebook-carrying member of the pink soup club. Ben, in ingesting the Congressional Precedents into RAGtime, discovers what Senators may ingest on the floor. Scott expresses his concern over the state of the United States Code. And Molly E. once again makes the case for the pleasures of regionally produced NPR, with a story that manages to combine two of her favorite things: excellent local journalism and the legislative process.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.

Lawfare Public Service Fellow Julia Curlee talks with former CIA analyst Shawn Howard and Ariane Tabatabai of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs about Shawn’s new Foreign Policy essay on how the Gulf states are coping with a war they didn’t start. They discuss why U.S. protection has made the Gulf states targets, how Tehran sees them, Iran’s strikes on the mediators, the possibility of a UAE side deal, and what a post-midterm return to U.S. bombing would mean for the region.Mentioned in this episode:Shawn A. Howard, “Gulf States Are Hedging and Suffering,” Foreign PolicyJulia Curlee and Ariane Tabatabai, “How Could Iran Happen? An Autopsy,” Foreign PolicyTo 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.

On today’s episode, Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sits down with Akbar Shahid Ahmed, the diplomatic correspondent at The Washington Sun, to discuss Ahmed’s new book “Crossing the Red Line: Biden, His Advisors, and Israel's War in Gaza.” They talk about the top officials in the administration who drove Biden’s Gaza policy, how the war quickly became a moral and strategic disaster, and what the heavy civilian death toll might augur for the future. 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.

Lawfare Foreign Policy Editor Daniel Byman sits down with Peter Bergen, author of “All the Presidents' Wars: Twenty-Five Years of America's War on Terror,” to discuss counterterrorism in the 25 years after 9/11, reviewing the many mistakes the United States and al-Qaeda made, as well as some of the surprising successes. Peter also draws lessons from the war in Iran today for how to better respond to a future terrorist attack.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 a conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Senior Editors Scott R. Anderson, Anna Bower, Eric Columbus, Molly Roberts, and Roger Parloff to discuss a legal challenge addressing the president’s authority to wage the Iran war, litigation over the cancellation of foreign aid funds, the Supreme Court allowing third country removals, Renee Good’s family filing civil suits against the federal government, and more.You can find information on legal challenges to Trump administration actions here. And check out Lawfare’s new homepage on the litigation, new Bluesky account, and new WITOAD merch.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 May 20, 2025: El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has made a lot of headlines recently in the United States for his partnership with the Trump administration. Bukele has helped enable President Trump’s scheme to remove supposed Venezuelan gang members from the U.S. under the Alien Enemies Act, housing these detainees in the notorious CECOT prison. In court, the Justice Department has claimed it has no ability to request that Bukele return these detainees to the United States, even after Bukele posed for photos next to Trump in the Oval Office.The use of CECOT is key to the Trump administration’s effort to paint migrants as dangerous criminals. But what is Bukele getting out of the scheme, and what do things look like from within El Salvador? To understand this, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic spoke with Noah Bullock, Executive Director of the Central American human rights organization Cristosal. Their conversation places CECOT in context of broader efforts by Bukele to consolidate his power and erode Salvadoran democracy. It also addresses Bukele’s ongoing crackdown on dissent in El Salvador over the last week—a crackdown that most recently included the sudden arrest on May 18 of Noah’s colleague Ruth López, who heads Cristosal’s anti-corruption work. 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 July 16, 2025: Lawfare Legal Fellow Mykhailo Soldatenko and Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sit down with Markiyan Kliuchkovskyi, Executive Director of the Register of Damage for Ukraine at the Council of Europe and a former legal advisor of the Office of the President of Ukraine, and Patrick Pearsall, Partner at Gibson Dunn and directs the International Claims and Reparations Project at Columbia Law School.Markiyan and Patrick played a key role in proposing and designing Ukraine's reparations strategy soon after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. They discuss how they came up with the idea and pitched it to President Zelensky, the G-7, and the UN General Assembly; the proposed reparations mechanism; the fate of frozen Russian assets; and the relevance of the reparations to the Ukraine-Russia talks. You may want to look at the following materials relevant to the discussion. UN General Assembly Resolution on "Furtherance of remedy and reparation for aggression against Ukraine"Chiara Giorgetti, Markiyan Kliuchkovsky, Patrick Pearsall, and Jeremy K. Sharpe, “Historic UNGA Resolution Calls for Ukraine Reparations”Scott R. Anderson, “Understanding the G7’s New Plan for Funding Ukraine”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.

Martin Chorzempa is the Dennis Weatherstone Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a leading U.S. expert on China's economy and tech sector. In this week's episode, Peter and Martin unpack President Trump's September 24 summit with Chinese Leader Xi Jinping, talk about the balance of leverage in the geopolitical and economic relationship, and unpack the countries' differing perspectives on—and approaches to—artificial intelligence. Martin also discusses some of his current research into Chinese open weight AI models, which American companies are using with increasing frequency across a range of business applications. Peter and Martin also discuss Martin's recent paper arguing that China's efforts to internationalize the RMB are stalling out.This episode is part of the Security Economics podcast series, in which Peter Harrell and guests explore the intersection of economics and national security, how countries manage their economies to support national security, and how they deploy economic tools in support of geopolitical objectives. 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 Managing Editor Tyler McBrien and Senior Editors Anna Bower and Michael Feinberg to talk through the week’s big news in national security, including:“Third Country’s the Charm.” On Tuesday, the Supreme Court cleared the way—for the third time—for the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to “third countries” with which they have no connection, staying a lower court ruling that found the policy unlawful and agreeing to hear the case on the merits in December. The decision comes days after the administration quietly flew a group of Somali men—some with no criminal records, who had been held at Guantánamo Bay for a month after being told their plane was only stopping in Cuba to refuel—to Mogadishu, on a flight that departed hours after an appeals court made clear the third-country removal policy was blocked. It also comes as lower courts are increasingly finding the administration in contempt for violating their orders in deportation cases, and as the full D.C. Circuit weighs whether Judge James Boasberg can continue his contempt inquiry into last year’s Alien Enemies Act flights. What does this pattern tell us about the administration’s relationship with the courts? And how far it is willing to push its immigration agenda?“Here Comes the Bribe.” Last week, ProPublica revealed that, by late 2024, FBI anti-corruption agents believed they had enough evidence to seek a sweeping bribery investigation stemming from a defense contractor’s illegal donations to Maine Senator Susan Collins and other members of Congress—only for the probe to die when the Trump administration gutted the FBI and Justice Department units that handle public corruption cases. Collins denies any wrongdoing and has called the contractor a liar, but the story has become a central issue in her tight reelection race. It’s also just the latest in a string of stories raising questions about public integrity in and around the Trump administration, from the Putin-linked Russian oligarch that secretly bankrolled Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding, to the Kash Patel- and Todd Blanche-studded wedding of former U.S. Attorney Alina Habba to a Turkish businessman with close ties to the Erdoğan government—with mixed martial arts manager Abdelaziz Ali, a former FBI source and suspected double agent, in attendance. What does the Collins story tell us about what happens when no one is minding the store on public corruption? And how worried should we be about who is buying access to the president’s inner circle?“Manufactured Content.” President Trump escalated his war on the press this month, banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House and having the Secret Service seize their reporters’ press passes over what he described as years of unfair coverage. A federal judge has since temporarily ordered their access restored, finding the ban likely violated their due process rights. But the White House isn’t just restricting who gets to tell its story—it’s also paying to tell its own, launching a series of taxpayer-funded TV ads that feature President Trump and closely track his campaign messaging, including one nearly identical to a 2024 campaign spot, just weeks before the midterms. The White House insists these are merely public service announcements. Is the administration breaking longstanding norms in an effort to take control of the narrative? And are there any legal limits that might stop it?In object lessons, Mike has two cautionary tales about tech appeal: “When We Cease to Understand the World” and “The Maniac.” Tyler is embracing sexy technical gear with a recommendation of Field Mag. Scott is returning to an old favorite that just understands him: “Fantasy Football Punishments for Your Work League that Violate the Geneva Convention.” And Anna is delighted by a more cutthroat side of cutting-edge: the National Havoc Robot League.