Patreon Feed Rational Security

This week, Scott sat down with co-host emeritus Benjamin Wittes and Brookings Senior Fellow Kari Heerman to talk through the week’s big news in national security, including:“With Friends Like Xi.” This past week, top U.S. officials and business CEOs traveled with President Trump to Beijing for his summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The summit had a warm air to it, with Trump going so far as to call Xi his “friend,” a far cry from his hawkish stance toward China during the campaign and his prior administration. But Trump left having made relatively few concrete deals on the host of issues dividing the U.S. and China. Did Trump miss an opportunity here? Or is the seeming thaw in relations a positive sign for future cooperation?“Dirty Dancing: Havana Fights.” Cuba ran out of oil last week, but the Trump administration’s pressure campaign against the island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida has only intensified. On Monday, the U.S. announced new sanctions on three Cuban government agencies and 11 top officials amidst reports that the Department of Justice may seek an indictment against Raúl Castro, the 94-year-old brother of Fidel Castro and former president of Cuba. And surveillance flights over the island nation have reportedly increased in advance of an expected military build-up in coming weeks. How seriously should we take Trump’s threats to pursue regime change in yet another country after Iran and Venezuela? And how long can Cuba hang on with its economic situation becoming more dire?“I’ve Got 122 Problems, and a Tariff is One.” On May 7, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down yet another round of Trump tariffs—this time, the across-the-board 10% Section 122 tariffs that President Trump had imposed after the Supreme Court invalidated the earlier tariffs he’d issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Specifically, the Court of International Trade ruled that the administration cannot meet the statutory requirements for using Section 122, though its ruling has since been stayed by the Federal Circuit pending appeal. Is this decision likely to stick? With another legal defeat, what options does the administration have left to follow through on Trump’s trade policy?In object lessons, Ben appeases the AI overlords with a glowing review of his latest experiments with Claude. Scott appeases his inner middle-aged man with a reprised recommendation of A Man on the Inside. And Kari fears that Americans are far from appeasing friends and allies in other democratic countries. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Molly Roberts, Roger Parloff, and Tyler McBrien to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:“Jim Spells Seashells By the Seashore.” Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted again this past week, this time for allegedly threatening the life of the president by spelling “8647” in shells at the beach and posting an image on social media. It is a ludicrous argument. So what does it tell us that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was willing to file it? And where does Trump’s broader vengeance campaign seem likely to go from here, under whoever becomes the next Attorney General?“We Were on a Break!” The Iran War turned 60 days old last week—the deadline by which, under the War Powers Resolution, the president is supposed to wrap up any congressionally unauthorized military operations. But like many of its predecessors, the Trump administration has done no such thing. Instead, it’s argued that the 60-day cut-off was already met by the ongoing ceasefire—even though the Trump administration has continued its embargo of Iranian oil resources and began a new major maritime campaign to open the Strait of Hormuz, triggering exchanges of fire with Iranian forces. What should we make of these arguments? And do they suggest the War Powers Resolution is a dead letter?“Strictly Ballroom.” The Trump administration is actively working to capitalize on the recent assassination attempt on Trump to push a federal court to allow its construction of an East Wing ballroom on national security grounds. At the same time, it’s faced new judicial headwinds in its quixotic effort to take over a municipal golf course—the same location where it dumped the (potentially toxic) rubble of the demolished old East Wing. What do these cases tell us about Trump’s efforts to reshape our nation’s capital? And how legitimate are the new efforts to tie these cases to national security?In object lessons, Roger is revisiting Azar Nafisi’s “Reading Lolita in Tehran,” a tough, yet beautiful read with unfortunate persistent relevance. Molly is memorializing the current metro landscape with her desk globe of Washington, D.C. Scott is sharing his remembrance of Stewart Baker, forever a friend of Lawfare. And Tyler is taking us back to 1971 Boston and Catholic resistance to the Vietnam War with the Divine Intervention podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Eric Columbus, Molly Roberts, and Loren Voss to talk through a few of the week’s big news stories, including:•“Meet Joe Flack.” The Justice Department’s ongoing investigation into the alleged “grand conspiracy” against President Trump in relation to the 2016 elections and their aftermath has entered a new phase this week with the appointment of Joseph diGenova, a former Reagan-era U.S. Attorney and political commentator, as counselor to the Attorney General in charge of the investigation. Meanwhile, reports indicate that the Justice Department may be preparing to bring charges against former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal Trump critic, whom diGenova has previously called a “traitor” in interviews with Fox News, even after the career attorney previously in charge of the investigation withdrew. What should we make of diGenova’s new role in this investigation? And how seriously should we take these attempts to prosecute Brennan and others allegedly involved in the “grand conspiracy”?•“No Occupation Without Representation.” A district court officially closed out Trump v. Illinois this week, that case that ultimately led the Supreme Court to invalidate the grounds on which the Trump administration had federalized and deployed national guard troops to several states last year over the objections of their governors. But while those deployments have ended, other deployments remain ongoing – including the more than 2,500 soldiers that are still on the streets of Washington, D.C., whose deployments are expected to last as long as 2029. What are the limits on these other forms of domestic deployment? And what space does Trump v. Illinois leave for the Trump administration to renew more aggressive deployments if it sees fit?•“Hungary for Change.” Last week, Hungary voted to end the sixteen year reign of Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his Fidesz Party, which have been frequently cited as models for President Trump and his MAGA movement. This was in spite of a last minute visit by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, which unsuccessfully sought to shore up support for Orban in the waning days of the campaign. How do we see Orban’s defeat playing out in the U.S. as the conservative movement begins to think about what comes next after the Trump presidency? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Senior Editors Anna Bower, Kevin Frazier, and Kate Klonick to talk through the week’s big news in national security, including:“The X Post Facto Rule.” The Justice Department and lawyers representing Anthropic faced off last week in a Northern California courtroom over whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s X post and som related communications amounted to an official order and if the Pentagon’s supply chain risk designation retaliated against the company’s First Amendment-protected views, among other issues. On March 26, Judge Rita Lin, in that case, stayed the supply chain risk designation, ruling that the Pentagon had, in fact, retaliated unlawfully against Anthropic. We’re also waiting for another related decision from a D.C. Circuit panel, expected to come down any time now. What should we make of Judge Lin’s ruling, and do we expect the D.C. Circuit to follow suit? And what does it all mean for AI companies and their relationship with the government?“Strait Outta Options.” Oil, gas, helium, pharmaceuticals, and fertilizer—the ongoing conflict with Iran has upended global supply chains, with the Strait of Hormuz remaining closed as critical infrastructure in neighboring Gulf states faces Iranian attacks. The U.S. has started to feel the first of its effects through rising costs and a trepidatious stock market, reminiscent of the supply chain shortages felt during the coronavirus pandemic. It's unclear how severe and how long they will last, but what could be some of the national security and political implications if the supply chain shocks continue? And what does it mean for the trajectory of the Iran conflict?“Space: The Financial Frontier.” NASA astronauts launched this week on the Artemis II mission, the first crewed mission to orbit the moon in more than half a century. It’s the biggest step to date in the new emerging space race, most specifically with China—one driven predominantly by private actors, the biggest of whom, SpaceX, is preparing to make an unprecedentedly large initial public offering in coming weeks. How should we feel about this new, very different space race compared to past ones? And what might it mean, both for good and ill? In object lessons, Kate looks forward to filling the pages of her new notebook and ponders if she has so much to say that she’ll need another one. Anna wants immunity from ridicule for her love of Survivor. Scott is impatiently waiting for his chance to binge all of the new season of For All Mankind. And Kevin applauds boring AI—that is, using new technology to ease enduring human challenges.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes, Natalie Orpett, and Ariane Tabatabai to talk through the week’s big news in national security, including:“Keeping It On the Strait and Narrow.” Three weeks into the U.S. and Israel’s air campaign against Iran, ship traffic through the critical Strait of Hormuz remains at a virtual stop, sending crude oil prices north of $100 a barrel. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said last week that vessels are safe to sail through the strait, but continued attacks on tankers suggest otherwise. Some neighboring Gulf states, among others, are growing antsy that U.S. strikes won’t go far enough in preventing attacks by Iran. What do we make of these developments, and how will it impact how other countries are navigating the broader conflict?“‘Nein’ to Five.” U.S. efforts to secure European support for efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz have fallen on deaf ears, with German officials describing it as “not our war” and far outside the obligations imposed by NATO’s Article 5 and other defense commitments. In response, President Trump said that he was “disappointed” in NATO and once again hinted that he might exit it. It’s the latest nadir in a precipitous decline in transatlantic relations over the past three months. How much worse can things get? And what could it mean for the future of the broader alliance?“(Un)Lawful Good?” A U.S. strike on what turned out to be an elementary school in southern Iran in the earliest days of the U.S. military campaign there has put a new focus on decisions by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to scale back rules and processes meant to reduce harm to civilians in armed conflict. Hegseth has called the rules of engagement “stupid” and has said he wants to give military commanders “maximum authority on the battlefield.” He’s also repeatedly called for “no quarter” in Iran and other contexts—an order that, if taken literally, would itself be a violation of the laws of armed conflict. Exactly how far has Hegseth unraveled the Pentagon’s rules of engagement? And what could the real world consequences be in Iran and elsewhere?In object lessons, Natalie (or rather, her son) is cooking up a delicious recommendation for the culinarily curious kid in your life with Raddish Kids (hey there, Raddish Kids, Rational Security is looking for sponsors…). Ari is feasting on (and hoarding) the indigenous Taiwanese pepper, Maqaw. Scott is traveling in style and efficiency with his portable office kit, consisting of his fave iPad case and the Anker Power Bank (while we hate to sound like a broken record, uh, hey there, Anker, Rational Security is looking for sponsors…). And hey there, girlies, Ben is doing Ben things while getting ready for court.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes, Daniel Byman, and Ari Tabatabai for an in-depth discussion of the U.S. military operations against Iran, including:“Isn’t it Iran-ic.” Trump’s decision to join Israel in removing Ayatollah Khamanei reflects a deep reversal by the president, who has spent years criticizing his predecessors’ own experiences with regime change and other overseas adventurism. What drove Trump to proceed this time, after stopping short twice in the past year? What can we learn from the way the Trump administration has proceeded? And how far will Trump let things go?“Bibi’s Big Adventure.” Regime change in Iran is something Israel and the Arab Gulf states have advocated for frequently in the past. But they had all adopted a more cautious and even conciliatory posture toward Iran in the months before the current offensive, at least in public. How has the region approached this conflict? And what will it do moving forward?“MIGA.” The death of Ayatollah Khamenei is a major shift in Iran, but we don’t know where it is going to lead. One concern that people have always had about regime change in Iran is that it will be highly destabilizing, resulting in a failed state in a crucial corner of the Middle East. On the other end, other people have asserted that removing the Ayatollah and his regime will give Iran the opportunity to flourish back into a democracy, or at least something closer to a state that’s more stable and free than Iran has been for the last several decades. Between the two is a mass spectrum of possibilities. What does the future hold for Iran in the post-Ayatollah era, if that’s the era that we’re heading into?In object lessons, Ben is vibe-coding his way through Lawfare’s litigation tracker, as well as vibing his way through The Rest is History’s four-part series, Revolution in Iran. Dan is war-gaming his way through the attack on Iran with Next War: Iran. Scott is consuming as much Iran content as he can get his hands on with (another) Scott Anderson’s “King of Kings,” Roy Mottahedeh’s “The Mantle of the Prophet,” Gary Sick’s “All Fall Down,” and Dutch documentary “The Birthday,” finally discovered online by Lawfare’s own Anna Hickey. And Ari, not to be outdone in Iran content, recommends the graphic novel “Persepolis,” but really is escaping it all with Final Fantasy VII Remake. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his foreign-policy-minded colleagues Daniel Byman, Michael Feinberg, and Ari Tabatabai to talk through some recent big news stories around the world, including:“Beer Hall Push-back.” Over the weekend, a raft of bipartisan U.S. and European officials headed to Bavaria for the annual Munich Security Conference. Last year, Vice President J.D. Vance gave a barnburner of a speech, accusing European allies of restraining free speech and giving succor to the European far right. This year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave a more conciliatory set of remarks that nonetheless signaled that there were some fundamental changes happening in the relationship. For their part, European leaders mostly seemed to be on board with that as they increasingly leaned into the public stance that it was time for the continent to stand on its own, independent of the United States, although how feasible that will be and on what timeline remain the big questions. What should we make of the different remarks we heard from the conference and the broader messages the two sides are sending to each other? And is this a sign of an impending divorce or a different sort of shift in the U.S.-European transatlantic relationship? “Rial Talk.” American and Iranian officials met again this week in Geneva to negotiate an end to the Islamic Republic’s nuclear weapons program in exchange for an easing or elimination of U.S. sanctions on Iran. The negotiations took place amidst continued saber rattling by both President Trump and Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who threatened in a speech ahead of the talks to sink U.S. warships in the region if Iran came under attack. Nonetheless, some participants in the negotiations—particularly the mediators from Oman—seemed optimistic that the two sides were getting closer to some sort of common understanding about how they might move forward. But U.S. military assets are continuing to accumulate in the region, leading some to conclude that a military operation may yet be on the horizon. Is there space for a deal? Or iare we going to see another war in Iran?“Xi Who Must Not Be Named.” A year in, the second Trump administration has not proven to be the China hawk that many expected. Far from drawing a hard line on all things China as the first Trump administration often seemed to do, U.S. officials have instead been surprisingly quiet and conciliatory in regard to China, at least outside the trade context. This has remained true even as reports have emerged of Xi Jinping purging his military of non-loyalists, modernizing China’s nuclear arsenal, and building more submarines—all steps with the potential to significantly upset the balance of power in Asia and beyond. What is the real logic underlying the Trump administration's seemingly quixotic approach to China, and where might it lead the broader relationship between the two major powers? In object lessons, Dan is delighting in John Company, a social-climbing, backroom-dealing, hostile-bargaining board game to, you know, escape the harsh realities of the real world. Ari enthusiastically recommends the Broadway adaptation of Death Becomes Her, which somehow manages to be even quirkier than the original film. Scott has been sucked into the social media abyss by Jess and Quinn’s corny, absurdist, and pun-oriented humor. And Mike offers an anti-object-lesson warning: the “Poetry for Kids” series is not, in fact, reliably for kids. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Molly Roberts, Michael Feinberg, and Troy Edwards to talk through the week’s big warrant-related national security news, including:“Tulsi Went Down to Georgia, She Was Looking for a Vote to Steal.” This past week, the FBI executed a warrant to search Fulton County’s election center for ballots and equipment related to the 2020 election, with the help of an unlikely senior administration official: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who was reportedly there in-person at the order of President Trump. Observers are concerned that the search is the beginning of a broader effort to relitigate the 2020 election—especially as Trump calls for Republicans in Congress to “nationalize elections” in advance of the November mid-terms. What do we know about the legal basis for this search? And what does it tell us about what the Trump administration has planned for November?“I Hear the Jury’s Still Out on the Fourth Amendment.” Over the past week, whistleblowers have revealed that ICE has issued a series of internal memos to agents advising that they do not need judicial warrants to detain or search the homes of people suspected of being undocumented immigrants. Instead, ICE has attempted to side-step the regular judicial process by suggesting that agents only need an administrative warrant, a controversial move that will almost certainly be challenged in court. What do we think of ICE’s decision to shift to such a legally dubious policy, and where do we expect it to go from here?“Ex Post Justification.” Last month, the FBI conducted a search on the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson as part of an investigation into alleged leaks by a Defense Department contractor. During the search, agents seized Natanson’s personal and professional devices, which drew concern from media outlets and civil liberty groups over potential First Amendment and privacy violations. A magistrate judge has now ordered that the FBI cannot access Natanson’s materials at least for now, while some of these issues are litigated. How should federal law enforcement balance the need to conduct leak investigations with press freedoms? And is this case on the right side of the line?In object lessons, sometimes all you can do is cry: Molly is remembering better days for the Washington Post and mourning the fall of a once-great paper. Sometimes all you can do is get lost in the music: Mike is celebrating the still-great Miles Davis with the long-awaited release of The Complete Miles Davis Live at the Plugged Nickel 1965 on vinyl. Sometimes all you can do is laugh: Scott is delighting in his former State Department colleague’s new Substack, Ridiculocracy. And sometimes, all you can do is wear something fabulous: Troy is modeling the new wardrobe must-have for the “Government in Exile.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with co-host emeritus Shane Harris and Lawfare colleagues Anna Bower and Loren Voss to talk through yet another big week in national security, including:“Minnesota N(ICE).” Amidst ongoing tensions over the Trump administration’s hyper aggressive immigration enforcement tactics in Minnesota, the Justice Department has issued subpoenas to at least five state Democratic officials—including Governor Tim Walz—investigating alleged efforts to obstruct or not cooperate with federal efforts. Some say it’s an intimidation tactic; to others, it seems to be laying the foundation for an invocation of the Insurrection Act. What should we make of these most recent developments in Minnesota?“Fed Up.” Last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell announced in a video that the Federal Reserve had received subpoenas from the Department of Justice as part of a criminal inquiry into his congressional testimony regarding cost overruns in the ongoing renovation of the Federal Reserve’s headquarters. Powell called out the probe as an effort to undermine the Fed’s independence, and both markets and members of Congress have had a negative response. And the Supreme Court may follow, as it’s set to hear oral arguments in the related case of Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, whom Trump had previously sought to fire “for cause” on the basis of similarly unproven criminal allegations. Why did the Trump administration take this step when it did? And how might it affect the outcome of the Cook case?“The Sound and the Fury.” Recent media reports have revealed that the Department of Defense has spent at least a year testing a device that may have been the source of a mysterious illness that has affected U.S. diplomats and personnel stationed around the world since 2016. This revelation has inevitably called into question past intelligence community assessments that such symptoms were unlikely to be the result of actions by a hostile adversary and resurrected controversies around how affected U.S. personnel have been treated. What should we now make of the so-called Havana Syndrome? And how might these new revelations affect U.S. foreign relations?In object lessons, Anna is channeling her inner British spy with a recommendation of season 2 of The Night Manager. Loren is channeling some inner peace with a recommendation of the Snoo. Scott is changing the channel to the bizarre French animated comedy Grizzy & the Lemmings. And Shane is considering a style change a la Ted Danson in A Man on the Inside. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes, Natalie Orpett, and Molly Roberts for a special deep-dive into the intervention in Venezuela, including:“A Hop, Skip, and Jump Across the Rubicon.” This past weekend, the Trump administration took the step that Trump has been threatening for months: he deployed special operations to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and bring him to the United States for criminal prosecution. The targeted operation was only hours long and resulted in no American fatalities, though more than 70 people in Venezuela were reportedly killed. The Trump administration has described it as a “law enforcement” operation. But what was it really? And where did he get the authority to do it?“A Truly Extraordinary Rendition.” By Monday, Maduro and his wife were in New York being arraigned on an array of drug- and weapons-related conspiracy charges. But prosecuting a head of state—albeit one not recognized by the United States—presents certain unique challenges. How should we expect the criminal case to proceed? “Running in Place.” President Trump has asserted that he and his advisers are now going to “run” Venezuela. But he’s left Maduro’s deputy, Delcy Rodríguez, in place, in lieu of the opposition movement the United States and many other countries have recognized as Venezuela’s legitimate government. Trump and his advisers seem intent on dictating terms to Venezuela through the “leverage” provided them by the ongoing quarantine over Venezuela’s oil, and potentially the threat of additional military action. But can this light-touch strategy succeed? In object lessons, (notably Chicagoan) Natalie delights in her long-standing admiration of The New Yorker with Netflix’s documentary “The New Yorker at 100.” Molly approaches Trump’s takeover of D.C. golf courses with a pitch for Knotty by Nature’s wooden putters. Scott honors the 5th anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol with a recommendation of Ellie Silverman’s moving profile of Nathan Tate in the Washington Post. And Ben honors the same anniversary with both a revisiting of Lawfare's narrative podcast series The Aftermath, and, relatedly, a surprise interview by Holly Berkley Fletcher with one of the attack’s most infamous perpetrators.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott down with his Lawfare colleagues Alan Rozenshtein and Ari Tabatabai to talk through a few of the week’s big national security news stories, including:“Once You Pop, You Can’t Stop.” The Trump administration has given a green light to Nvidia to export its powerful H200 chips to China, opening a potentially significant new market while jumpstarting China’s strategically significant AI industry—or, perhaps, making it reliant on U.S. technology. What explains this decision? And how does it align with the Trump administration’s broader reframing of strategic competition with China as a primarily economic problem, as reflected in its recent National Security Strategy?“Lavatories of Democracy.” Late last week, President Trump signed an executive order setting up a number of mechanisms intended to assert federal preemption over and otherwise deter state efforts to regulate the development and use of AI—an executive branch-only effort that followed a failed push to insert a related legislative provision into year-end omnibus legislation. How effective is this measure likely to be? And how wise is it to try and bar the states from regulating AI development and use in the first place?“Some Things You Can’t Make Light Of.” Over the weekend, a pair of gunmen inspired by the Islamic State executed a brutal massacre at a Hanukkah event on Australia’s Bondi Beach, killing 15 people and injuring 40. The violence has shocked Australia, a country with strict gun control laws where incidents of anti-semitism have been on the rise, as in much of the world. What is there to learn from the attack and its aftermath? And what could its ramifications be, both in Australia and further abroad?In object lessons, Alan tells us what the buzz is—seeing Jesus Christ Superstar live. Scott, heavy with Christmas spirit, shares his grandmother’s recipe for sour cream coffee cake (remember, during the holidays, dense=delicious). And Ari keeps us grounded with a recommendation of “Don’t Let’s Go To the Dogs Tonight,” a South African film about a White Zimbabwean family following the Rhodesian Bush War.Rational Security will be having its traditional end-of-year episode later this month, which will focus on listener-submitted topics and object lessons! If you have topics you want us to discuss and object lessons you want to share—whether serious or frivolous—be sure to send them to rationalsecurity@lawfaremedia.org by Dec. 21! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes, Natalie Orpett and Eric Ciaramella to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:“The Art of the Ordeal.” The Trump administration has been at the center of yet another bout of shuttle diplomacy the last several weeks, after an initial “28-point plan” for peace in Ukraine it appeared to hash out with Russia was met with widespread skepticism, both at home and in Kiev — leading it to shift focus to a “19-point plan” officials hashed out in closer consultation with Ukrainian officials and European officials, which was subsequently rejected by Russian President Vladimir Putin. What does this chaotic process tell us about the Trump administration’s strategy and priorities? And what is it likely to mean for America’s Ukrainian allies? “The War Crime on Drugs.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is at the center of another controversy, this time over his reported order to “kill everybody” in the first strike on an alleged narcotics-smuggling boat this past September—an order that, intentionally or not, led to a second strike that killed several people who were by that point clinging to wreckage in the open sea, in seemingly clear violation of Defense Department practice and the laws of armed conflict. Hegseth and the White House have sought to shift responsibility for the second strike to senior military personnel, but it’s not clear whether Congress—where Democrats and Republicans on the armed services committees are threatening oversight—are persuaded.“Unlawful Good.” Several legislators who are also current or former servicemembers have been labeled the “Seditious Six” by the Trump administration and its allies for public statements they made reiterating that servicemembers’ are only obligated to follow lawful orders, specifically in relation to ongoing counter-narcotics military operations in the Caribbean. And at least one—Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired naval officer—has been publicly threatened with a court martial by the Defense Department. How seriously should we take these legal actions? And what could the broader ramifications be for the military?In object lessons, Ben uses his once per decade mulligan. Eric recommends his current reading selection, "Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare," a book that Scott reviewed on the Lawfare Podcast earlier this year. Scott gets into the spirit with one of his favorite seasonal albums, "It's a Holiday Soul Party." And Natalie plugs Lawfare’s new Domestic deployment tracker - plus, a fabulous, olive-filled stuffing recipe (just add croutons!)Rational Security will be having its traditional end-of-year episode later this month, which will focus on listener-submitted topics and object lessons! So if you have topics you want us to discuss and object lessons you want to share—whether serious or frivolous—be sure to send them to rationalsecurity@lawfaremedia.org by Dec. 17th! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Natalie Orpett, Eric Columbus, and Molly Roberts, to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:“I Don’t Think You’re Ready for the Shutdown.” The record-setting shutdown of the U.S. government is set to come to an end after eight Democratic senators agreed to a continuing resolution that will fund all of the government through January 30, certain chunks of the government all the way through the end of the fiscal year, and made a number of concessions along the way. What should we make of this deal, and what are the political ramifications—particularly for Democrats, many of whom are quite angry at those who ultimately voted for this plan?“Overt Acts.” Last week, in a move quite publicly celebrated by his controversial clemency czar Ed Martin, President Trump issued pardons for dozens of individuals accused of participating in efforts to manipulate the results of the 2020 election in his favor, including his former attorney Rudy Giuliani and other alleged “unindicted co-conspirators” in his own, since-abandoned federal criminal prosecution. Indeed, Trump himself was the only one who was federally indicted for 2020 election manipulations, making the most immediate legal effect of these pardons unclear. What is Trump trying to accomplish in issuing them? And what could the ramifications be for future elections?“Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.” Even as his prosecutions against James Comey and Letitia James have faced headwinds, the Trump administration appears to be moving full speed ahead with criminal investigations against other of his perceived enemies—including a large-scale investigation into government reports alleging Russian support for Trump in 2016 that was recently transferred from Justice Department officials in Eastern Pennsylvania to the more Trump-friendly terrain of Southern Florida. What is the current state of the revenge campaign the Trump administration has been pursuing, and where does it seem set to lead?In object lessons, Natalie is appreciating both “The History of the New Yorkers Vaunted Fact Checking Department” and the small army of neurotic geniuses who march forward in pursuit of journalistic integrity. Eric is appreciating The Week Junior, his daughter’s favorite magazine that proves real journalism isn’t just for grown-ups. Scott is appreciating The Far Side’s online presence, updated daily—a reminder that the line between journalism and cartooning is always thinner than we’d like to admit. And Molly is appreciating an “illuminating” visit to Glenstone, where Jenny Holzer’s art reads like journalism etched in light, documenting the lingering shadows of some dark subjects. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.