The Lawfare Podcast: Patreon Edition

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Foreign Policy Editor Daniel Byman and Public Service Fellow Julia Curlee, and Contributing Editor and partner at Steptoe LLP Michel Paradis, to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:“Fuel Me Once, Shame On You.” On Friday, President Trump announced that he had struck a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring more than 3 million tons of previously sanctioned Russian diesel onto U.S. and global markets. The move came as Ukraine’s strikes on Russian refineries had forced Moscow to halt diesel exports—and, according to U.S. officials, after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky repeatedly refused U.S. demands that those strikes stop on the grounds that Russia would not stop targeting Ukraine’s own energy infrastructure. Trump has suggested the move will reduce prices for U.S. consumers ahead of the midterms, but experts are doubtful. He’s also declared an energy ceasefire that neither side recognizes and that only Ukraine is pretending to respect. Could Trump’s diesel deal really pay off? Or is it another example of him getting rolled by Putin?“The Third Front is the Charm.” Yemen’s civil war is back with a vengeance—and spilling across the border. Since a U.N.-brokered ceasefire collapsed earlier this year, the Iran-aligned Houthis have seized much of Yemen’s Red Sea coast and repeatedly targeted Saudi oil infrastructure, among other targets. This past week, Houthi missiles struck several Saudi airports, killing at least 20 people. President Trump has suggested that the United States may join the fight in support of Saudi Arabia, while Iran has offered to mediate. Is Tehran opening a new front in its war with the United States? And what options does Saudi Arabia (and the United States) have to respond? “Going Dutch.” Last Friday, just hours after former International Criminal Court judge Navi Pillay was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced new sanctions against the court itself. Unlike previous rounds, which targeted individual judges, prosecutors, and their supporters, the new sanctions target The Hague-based ICC as a whole, blocking its U.S. assets and barring Americans from providing it with funds, goods, or services. Rubio has framed the choice in stark terms: either the court ends its threats against the United States and Israel, or the United States ends the court. Several key U.S. allies have objected, and the EU is weighing whether to deploy its “blocking statute” in response. Can U.S. sanctions really throttle the ICC? And how far will Europe split from the United States to protect the court?In object lessons, Dan continues to engage in questionable forms of escapism with an endorsement of the second edition of An Infamous Traffic. Julia observes the 10th anniversary of Russian interference the 2016 elections with a recommendation of “The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World,” by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin. Scott mourns the loss of a favorite RatSec Fan Club hangout—City State Brewing—and wonders where the new clubhouse will be. And Michel passes on the age-old tradition of doing your kids’ work for them with a heartfelt tribute to the Pinewood Derby.

For today’s episode, Lawfare General Counsel and Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sits down with Rachel Alpert, a partner at Jenner & Block and former chief counsel for the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, and Peter Harrell, a visiting scholar at Georgetown’s Institute of International Economic Law and former senior director for international economics at the National Security Counsel under President Biden, to walk through President Trump’s recent announcement lifting U.S. sanctions on Russian diesel fuel and signaling support for U.S. imports.Together, they discuss the legality of Trump’s actions, what the practical ramifications will likely be, and what it all tells us about the Trump administration’s shifting views on Russia and the war in Ukraine in the lead-up to the midterm elections.

Senior Editor Michael Feinberg sits down with author and journalist Ben Macintyre to discuss his new book, “Redwood: The Untold Story of the Cold War's Most Extraordinary Spy,” which details a little known intelligence coup from the Cold War that changed the strategies of great powers in the Middle East.

Benjamin Wittes is joined by Anna Bower, Roger Parloff, Molly Roberts, and Eric Columbus for a fast-moving tour of the week’s most important Trump-era litigation. They break down the CNN v. Trump press-pool case and why Judge Kelly may be headed for a due-process ruling; the twin Harvard cases over grants and visas, where Paul Clement makes a forceful First Amendment argument; and the FTC’s campaign against NewsGuard, which could reshape how media ratings survive government pressure.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 November 18, 2024: Christie Hicks, the Managing Attorney overseeing Earthjustice's Clean Energy Program, and Mandy DeRoche, a Deputy Managing Attorney in Earthjustice's Clean Energy Program, join Kevin Frazier, Senior Research Fellow in the Constitutional Studies Program at the University of Texas at Austin and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to explore the intersection of environmental law and national security as the Biden administration prioritizes AI development. Drawing on the extensive experience of Christie and Mandy in utility regulation and environmental advocacy, they collectively examine the tensions between the push for advances in emerging technologies and existing environmental commitments, grid stability requirements, and clean energy goals.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 October 2, 2025: In a live conversation on October 1,Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson spoke to Managing Director at S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace Joel Braunold about President Trump’s proposed peace plan for Gaza and what it means for the future of Iraeli-Palestinian relations.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 September 16, 2024: On Sept. 24, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes moderated a panel discussion featuring Lawfare Senior Editor and Brookings Fellow Scott R. Anderson, Lawfare Senior Editor and Brookings Senior Fellow Molly Reynolds, Lawfare Senior Editor and Brookings Fellow Quinta Jurecic, Lawfare Senior Editor Anna Bower, and Professor of Law at Stanford Law School Nate Persily.The panel discussed how Congress has prepared for the 2024 election, including the passage of the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022, how the government and social media companies are addressing election-related disinformation, and how states have used the lessons of 2020 to prepare for the 2024 election.

For today’s episode, Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sits down with Dr. Omar Mohammed, a senior researcher with the Program on Extremism at The George Washington University and the author of the blog Mosul Eye, which anonymously documented life under ISIS control in Iraq; Amb. Doug Silliman, President of the Arab Gulf States Institute and a former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq; and Victoria Taylor, Director of the Iraq Initiative and the Syria Project at the Atlantic Council and a former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Iraq and Iran at the U.S. Department of State.They discuss the recent withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq, what lessons can be drawn from the experience with the prior withdrawal in 2011, whether the current Iraqi government is up to preventing a resurgence of ISIS and pushing back against Iranian interests without a U.S. military presence, and what it all might mean for the future of the two countries, 23 years after the U.S.-led invasion and occupation.

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.