The Lawfare Podcast: Patreon Edition

Jane Bambauer, Professor at Levin College of Law; Ramya Krishnan, Senior Staff Attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School; Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, join Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to break down the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ hearing in TikTok v. Garland, in which a panel of judges assessed the constitutionality of the TikTok bill.

For today’s episode, Lawfare senior editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Joel Braunold, Managing Director of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, for a deep dive on the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in these last few weeks before what could be a pivotal U.S. election.They discussed the state of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition, recent developments relating to al-Haram al-Sharif and the West Bank, the state of Israel’s external relations with Iran, the United States, and the broader region — and what it all means for the increasingly stagnant conflict in Gaza.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/c/trumptrials.

It's been a rough couple of weeks in Ukraine, as Russian forces have hit major cities with intense bombardments, killing an unusually large number of people. Moreover, the front in Donetsk continues to erode. On the other hand, Ukrainian forces are still in Kursk, occupying about 500 square miles of Russian territory, in an embarrassing show of forces to the Russians, and discussions continue with Western governments about relaxing restrictions on Ukrainian use of long-range missiles inside of Russia proper. There was also a cabinet reshuffle recently. That's all a lot to talk about with Lawfare's Ukraine fellow, Anastasiia Lapatina, and Eric Ciaramella of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who joined Benjamin Wittes for an update on the war.

Gharun Lacy has an unusual job. He’s the head of cybersecurity at the State Department, responsible for securing computers and their users in every embassy and consulate and responsible for making sure senior diplomats can communicate securely even in the most forbidding overseas environments. In a wide-ranging conversation, he sat down with Lawfare’s Benjamin Wittes to talk about the challenging work of the Diplomatic Security Service generally and its work in the cyber and technology security area particularly.

From December 24, 2016: Whatever the President-elect might say on the matter, the question of Russian interference in the presidential election is not going away: calls continue in the Senate for an investigation into the Kremlin's meddling, and the security firm Crowdstrike recently released new information linking one of the two entities responsible for the DNC hack with Russia's military intelligence agency. So how should the United States respond?In War on the Rocks, Evan Perkoski and Michael Poznansky recently reviewed the possibilities in their piece, "An Eye for an Eye: Deterring Russian Cyber Intrusions." They've also written on this issue before in a previous piece titled "Attribution and Secrecy in Cyber Intrusions." We brought them on the podcast to talk about what deterrence of Russian interference would look like and why it's necessary.

Helen Toner, Director of Strategy and Foundational Research Grants at Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), and Zach Arnold, Analytic Lead at Georgetown University's Center for Security and Emerging Technology, join Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to discuss their recent article "AI Regulation's Champions Can Seize Common Ground—or Be Swept Aside." The trio explore the divide between AI "doomers" and "ethicists," and how finding common ground could strengthen efforts to govern AI responsibly.

In the debut episode of RatSec 2.1, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Kevin Frazier, Eugenia Lostri, and Benjamin Wittes to talk over the week’s big national security news, including:“I Have Concepts of a Segment Topic.” On Tuesday, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump faced off in what might end up being the only presidential debate between the two candidates in the 2024 election. What did it tell us about how national security is figuring into this election? “Running Political Interference Interference.” The Justice Department has been very busy these past few weeks, bringing an array of indictments and enforcement actions against various Russian actors and their proxies for spreading misinformation, surreptitiously funding political commentary, and otherwise attempting to interfere in the upcoming 2024 elections. What explains this sudden wave of activity so close to the election? And what threats are still hanging out there?“Never Forgot.” Twenty-three years have passed since the unprecedented terrorist attacks of 9/11. In many ways, they redefined the trajectory of U.S. national security policy (and politics) for decades. But today, the United States has shifted focus to a very different set of challenges. What is the legacy of 9/11 more than two decades after the attacks? For object lessons, Kevin readied our listeners for depression before recommending Neil Postman’s new book, “Amusing Ourselves to Death.” Ben endorsed the documentary Man on Wire as his favorite movie about 9/11, in part because it has nothing to do with 9/11. Scott urged D.C.-area residents not to sleep on the sublime joys of an outdoor show at Wolf Trap while the weather is still nice. And Eugenia shed her video game label to throw her support behind James Cameron’s latest maritime adventure, the (weirdly mutant-free) sea exploration documentary series OceanXplorers.

Without new congressional authorization for its post-Oct. 7 operations in the Middle East, the Biden administration has sought to legally justify its military activities in the region based on the president’s constitutional authority and the application of existing statutory authorities to operations against new adversaries. These executive branch arguments are the outgrowth of similar arguments presidential administrations have made over the last few decades, largely related to the requirements in the War Powers Resolution. The International Crisis Group recently analyzed these arguments and related issues in a new report, “Bending the Guardrails: U.S. War Powers after 7 October.” Tyler McBrien and Matt Gluck of Lawfare spoke with Brian Finucane, a senior adviser for the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group and an author of the report, and Matthew Waxman, a professor at Columbia Law School, about the Crisis Group’s report. They discussed the history relevant to the current war powers moment, how the Biden administration has continued to justify its operations without new legislative authority, and the possibility of war powers legal reform moving forward.