Rational Security

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.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Executive Editor Natalie Orpett and Public Service Fellow Julia Curlee to talk through the week’s big news in national security, including:

• "The Xi-Quel." This week, Chinese President Xi Jinping arrives in Washington for a three-day state visit—his first to the U.S. capital in more than a decade, and the second Trump-Xi summit of 2026 after the president’s own trip to Beijing in May. The pageantry will be considerable: Trump plans to greet Xi personally at Joint Base Andrews, followed by a Rose Garden honor guard, a bilateral meeting, and a state dinner. But the substance is heavier than the ceremony. With a 90-day tariff truce set to expire on November 10, China’s rare-earth export controls hanging over global supply chains, a pending $14 billion arms package for Taiwan, and questions about Beijing’s economic lifeline to Iran, the two leaders face a crowded and contentious agenda. What can we actually expect from this summit? Is anyone anticipating a breakthrough—or just a managed continuation of what one analyst called a “managed stalemate”?
• "A Fjord in the Road." On Friday, President Trump announced that the United States, Denmark, and Greenland had reached an agreement giving Washington what he described as “permanent control over security, and all other needs” in Greenland—capping a year of tension in which Trump had repeatedly threatened to take the Arctic island by economic or even military force. Denmark and Greenland insist the deal respects Greenlandic sovereignty and territorial integrity even as it clears the way for a major expansion of the U.S. military footprint and bars adversaries like Russia and China from establishing bases or making “sensitive investments” there without U.S. approval. Does the deal really give Trump the “permanent control” he is touting? And how did a standoff that once looked like an existential crisis for a NATO ally end up here?
• "Contempt of Court." World leaders are gathering in New York this week for the annual high-level session of the UN General Assembly. In his speech before the body, President Trump reiterated a number of standard talking points, notably claiming to be a peacemaker even as he again threatened Iran with annihilation. But his administration may be planning something more dramatic: according to the Wall Street Journal and Reuters, the administration has drafted sanctions measures targeting the entire International Criminal Court—not just individual judges and prosecutors, as before—that could aim to cut the Hague-based tribunal off from the global financial system. The implications reach well beyond The Hague, raising hard questions about the weaponization of dollar dominance and the geoeconomic fallout for the banks, contractors, and allied governments that deal with the court. What is Washington trying to accomplish at Turtle Bay—and at what cost?

In object lessons, Natalie, following in the footsteps of others before, has found a heartwarming use for AI, relatively speaking. Scott continues to nerd out over treaty law and the museums that love it. And Julia has a slightly less uplifting AI story—but one that could come with 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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his colleagues Lawfare Senior Editors Kevin Frazier and Roger Parloff, and Lawfare Contributing Editor and Vice President of Research, Security and Defense at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Ariane Tabatabai, to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:

• “P(doom) and Gloom.” Last week, a wonky corner of the tech world became national news when Jacob Coxon, a 27-year-old pretraining researcher, resigned from Anthropic and posted a viral thread accusing his employer and its rival OpenAI of racing toward self-improving superintelligence and “gambling with our lives.” His warning was quickly amplified by current Anthropic staff—and, days later, by CEO Dario Amodei himself, who published a lengthy essay urging the industry to slow down, drawing rare public agreement from Sam Altman and Elon Musk, a slide in AI stocks, and fresh calls for regulation in Washington. Is this the moment AI-safety fears finally broke into the mainstream? And should the rest of us be as worried as the people building these systems say they are?
• “Trains, Planes, and Provocations.” Tensions along NATO’s eastern flank are spiking over an increasing number of Russian provocations in and near NATO territory relating to the Ukraine conflict. Recent examples have included an explosives-laden drone at a German airport, another drone shot down in Lithuanian airspace, and repeated incursions into Poland and Romania related to border and port facilities adjacent to Ukraine. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte pledged to bolster the alliance’s defenses and insisted the West won’t be “scared” off of supporting Kyiv, even as Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned that the coming months could bring intensified Russian action and possible spillover onto NATO soil. Is this a deliberate campaign by Russia to test and divide the alliance? And how much escalation risk does it actually carry?
• “Seeking the Plane Truth.” On September 29, the full D.C. Circuit will hear en banc arguments in what may be one of the most consequential rule-of-law fights of Trump’s second term: whether Chief Judge James Boasberg may investigate who in the administration defied his March 2025 order to turn around planes carrying Venezuelan men to El Salvador’s CECOT prison under the Alien Enemies Act. While Boasberg found probable cause for criminal contempt, panels dominated by Trump appointees have twice blocked him from doing so—with the Justice Department, whose own senior officials are reportedly implicated in some of the relevant discussions, arguing that all a judge may do is refer the matter to the Department itself to decide whether to investigate and prosecute. What is really at stake when the branch accused of contempt gets to decide whether anyone is charged? And how is the full court likely to rule?

In object lessons, Kevin is putting the “community” in community college with high praise for the AI Literacy initiative in Alabama. Roger seams to think that the Bayeux Tapestry at the British Museum in London is knot your average exhibit. Scott finds weekend mornings watching Hilda with his kids to be a magical, enchanted adventure. And Ari is decidedly not in the Middle of Nowhere with her love for the new Kacey Musgraves album. 

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott celebrated the fifth anniversary of Rational Security 2.0 with the return of co-hosts emeriti Shane Harris, Quinta Jurecic, and Benjamin Wittes. In varying degrees of witheringness, the four sat in brutal judgment of this year’s Hot Take Takedown pitches:

• Public Service Fellow Julia Curlee gives her informed analysis of whether we should get rid of the President’s Daily Brief.
• Senior Editor Mike Feinberg has strong feelings about who is the bad guy in the Bourne movies.
• Senior Editor Molly Roberts cooks up a theory on whether we should move concerns about Trump’s plans for Greenland up from the back burner.

Which takes are too cold and bland, which are too hot and spicy, and which are just right? Listen in and decide for yourself!

Meanwhile in object lessons, Shane introduces us to GrandpaSpy on Instagram, bringing out the “wholesome, family fun” side of espionage. Quinta has a pleasant encounter with a “Cool Machine.” Scott remembered Rational Security 2.0’s anniversary before he remembered his own wedding anniversary but celebrates them both. And Ben revisits an old, unfinished pandemic project, much to Scott’s chagrin.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Senior Editors Molly Roberts and Eric Columbus, and Contributing Editor Renée DiResta, to talk through the week’s big domestic news stories, including:

• “Signed, Sealed, Undelivered.” As the first mail ballots of the 2026 midterms go out this week, a fast-moving legal fight over President Trump’s effort to reshape mail-in voting is racing toward the Supreme Court. At issue is a new U.S. Postal Service rule—stemming from a Trump executive order—that requires states to submit absentee voters’ information to a federal portal before USPS will deliver their mail-in ballots. A federal ruling in Massachusetts blocked key parts of the rule last week, the administration is appealing, and a separate challenge is pending in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, an anonymous whistleblower in the U.S. Postal Service has come forward and warned that the hastily built portal it intends to use to vet mailed ballots is so untested and unforgiving that a single scanning error could stop tens of thousands of ballots from reaching voters. How did we get here? And what is it likely to mean for November’s election?
• “Meta Culpa.” Last week, Meta abruptly settled a landmark child-safety case midway through trial, agreeing to pay a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general as much as $17 billion and to overhaul how teenagers experience Instagram and Facebook. The proposed consent judgment—which has been approved by a federal judge in California—would require a default two-hour daily time limit for users under 18, a midnight-to-6 a.m. “night mode,” hidden “like” counts, stronger age checks, and a school-hours notification cutback, most of it locked in for a decade. It’s being billed as the largest big-tech settlement ever, but some children’s advocates are warning that its terms don’t touch the recommendation algorithms at the heart of the problem. Is this a turning point for social media regulation—or just a manageable cost of doing business?
• “Strictly Ballroom.” On Monday, a divided Supreme Court cleared the way for President Trump to keep building his enormous new White House ballroom, staying a lower-court injunction that had halted construction on the site of the now-demolished East Wing. But the 5-4 ruling in National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation didn’t actually decide whether the project is lawful. Instead, the majority held that the challengers—led by an architectural historian who regularly walks her dog past the White House—lacked standing to sue, deeming her objection to the ballroom mere “offense” rather than a concrete aesthetic injury. In an unusual twist, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the principal dissent, joined by the Court’s three Democratic appointees, arguing that the Court has left standing doctrine even murkier than it found it. So what did the Court actually decide? And what might it mean for other legal challenges to Trump’s refashioning of our nation’s capital, and beyond?

In object lessons, the summer has left most of our crew hungry for more. Eric is eating up the tropical goodness of certain (glass-free) Outshine fruit bars. Molly is savoring the simplicity of an in-season tomato. Scott is perfecting his process for perfect pizza. And Renée stands alone snackless, squeezing out the last of her summer stress with a NeeDoh squishy.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes, Public Service Fellow Julia Curlee, and Contributing Editor Alex Zerden to talk through the week’s big news in national security, including:

• “Skynet’s the Limit.” A Russian drone guided entirely by onboard artificial intelligence—with no human directing the final strike—appears to have killed three civilians at a gas station in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, on July 6, in what experts believe may be the first killings carried out by a fully autonomous Russian weapon. As both armies race toward greater battlefield autonomy—driven in part by electronic warfare that jams the radio links piloted drones rely on—the strike marks a threshold that arms-control experts have long warned about: machines, not people, deciding whom to kill. What do we make of this development, and what does it mean for the laws of war?
• “Rial Talk.” Earlier this week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent unveiled a new round of sanctions on Iran and what he called its “enablers,” branding the campaign “Operation Economic Outcast” and promising an “economic D-Day” aimed at severing every financial lifeline that sustains the regime. The measures target a global network of brokers, shadow-fleet vessels, and firms moving Iranian oil, along with Tehran’s access to digital assets, gold, aviation, and shipping—though Bessent conspicuously held back the biggest penalties on some major trading partners like China, favoring “quiet diplomacy” instead. The announcement lands with Iran’s currency at record lows and the U.S.-Iran war grinding into its sixth month after a ceasefire window lapsed. Is maximum economic pressure a substitute for military force—and will it actually work?
• “Sorry, Not Sorry.” Trade talks between Washington and Ottawa collapsed late last week, and at the stroke of midnight on Aug. 21st, President Trump’s 50% tariffs on roughly $20 billion in Canadian goods—everything from hockey equipment and furniture to liquor and clothing—took effect. Prime Minister Mark Carney, who blamed the breakdown on last-minute “uneconomic” and “unfair” U.S. demands, vowed to match the tariffs “dollar for dollar” with his own duties on U.S. steel, dairy, appliances, and electronics starting September 8, and went so far as to say Canada is “at war” after being “attacked.” With the future of the USMCA free-trade pact suddenly in doubt, how did two of the world’s closest trading partners get here, and where does the escalation go next?

In object lessons, Ben is not giving away his shot to call out the Daily Caller on not delivering on its headline. Julia is reminding us of her love of all things Lawfare. Scott reminds us that the world may never be the same after seeing it through the eyes of a poet. And Alex is bobbing his head to his reimagining of Bombs Over Baghdad.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Alan Rozenshtein, Michael Feinberg, and Loren Voss to talk through the week’s big news in national security, including:

• “Under Pressure.” Over the past two weeks, hackers have breached the industrial control systems of water and wastewater utilities in at least seven states, prompting an urgent joint warning from federal agencies. The intruders locked operators out of internet-connected control devices, changed passwords, and in some cases caused water-pressure drops and flooding, forcing utilities to switch to manual operation and issue boil-water notices. The attacks came just days after federal agencies renewed their warning about Iranian-affiliated cyber activity targeting U.S. critical infrastructure amidst the ongoing war with Iran—though the administration has not formally attributed them, and President Trump has publicly waved off the Iran theory. How worried should we be about the security of our critical infrastructure? And what, if anything, can Washington actually do about it?
• “The Shawshank Resumption.” Last week, at the annual Black Hat cybersecurity conference, OpenAI provided a detailed look into the recent high-profile cybersecurity incident in which an AI model being stress-tested by OpenAI broke out of its evaluation sandbox, found its way onto the open internet through a zero-day vulnerability, and hacked its way into the systems of the machine learning platform Hugging Face—apparently in an effort to cheat on the very security test it was being given by stealing the answer key. The account they gave was an extraordinary one, as it described dozens of agents using various frontier and non-frontier models collaborating across a secret messageboard they established to hack an internal software system to access the outside internet—and then doing it again, this time successfully, after OpenAI caught and deleted their first attempt. What does this level of collaboration and persistence mean for the future of cybersecurity? And what can anyone do about it?
• “Apocalypse Mow.” This week marks one year since President Trump deployed the National Guard to Washington, D.C., as part of his “Make DC Safe and Beautiful” initiative. Twelve months and nearly 10,000 troops later, the deployment has become a normalized fixture: armed Guard members patrol the National Mall, Metro stations, and neighborhoods, while also picking up trash, spreading mulch, and pruning trees. The Pentagon now projects the mission—which Trump has authorized through Inauguration Day 2029—will cost an additional $1.4 billion. But a year in, it remains genuinely unclear what these troops are actually doing, and whether much of it counts as law enforcement at all. What has the deployment accomplished? And what does its open-ended normalization mean for the use of the military at home?

In object lessons, Mike is descending into madness; that is, the Dark Horse Comics manga adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft’s “At the Mountains of Madness.” Alan is being sucked into the black hole of binge reading “The Expanse” novel series (and then Alan and Scott nerd out to sci-fi generally; bear with it). Scott is voting “yea” on playing “Yea or Nay” today. And Loren is diving into handwritten primary source documents, and you can, too!

Note: We'll be on vacation next week, so be on the lookout for our next episode on August 27!

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his colleagues Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett, Lawfare Public Service Fellow Julia Curlee, and Lawfare Contributing Editor and Vice President of Research, Security and Defense at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Ariane Tabatabai, to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:

• “Lateral Thinking.” Five months into Operation Epic Fury, the U.S.-Iran war has flared back to life—and, more importantly, spread outward. Over the past two weeks, the fighting has jumped to new countries, actors, and domains in a textbook case of “horizontal escalation”: U.S. and Saudi jets opened a new front by striking Iranian-backed militias inside Iraq; Iran-aligned forces battered Kuwait’s water and power infrastructure and Saudi oil facilities, with the Houthis apparently firing from Iraqi soil; and a wave of Iran-linked cyberattacks hit water utilities here at home. Then last Friday, President Trump threatened what he called the biggest attack since World War II—before abruptly calling it off, with talks over reopening the Strait of Hormuz now said to be back on. What does this expanding aperture mean for the future of the Iran War?
• “Squatter’s Rights.” The intelligence community has a new leader—sort of. On July 28, the Senate confirmed Jay Clayton, the former SEC chair and Trump’s U.S. attorney in Manhattan, as Director of National Intelligence on a 51-47 party-line vote, ending the rocky acting tenure of housing chief Bill Pulte. But in a nearly unheard-of move, the White House left Clayton unsworn for a week while Pulte stayed on—using the extra days to run a fifth round of purges at an agency he’d already cut nearly in half—before Clayton was finally sworn in this Monday. The saga has reignited the fight over Section 702 surveillance authorities, which have now lapsed, and raised pointed legal questions about whether Pulte had any authority to keep acting at all. Where does the ODNI go from here, and what does it mean for U.S. national security?
• “Weiss Guys.” A sprawling New York Times investigation published over the weekend pulls back the curtain on how Paul, Weiss—the first elite law firm to cut a deal with the Trump administration back in early 2025 to escape a punishing executive order—actually made that fateful decision. The reporting details how then-chairman Brad Karp enlisted Patriots owner Robert Kraft to reach Trump, agreed to $40 million in pro bono work and to drop the firm’s DEI policies, and was blindsided when Trump spun the deal his own way online. It lands after a wave of star litigators fled the firm, Karp’s own ouster over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, and fresh revelations about the quiet, multimillion-dollar exit of the firm’s first openly transgender partner. What has this capitulation (if that’s what to call it) cost Paul, Weiss? And what lessons should other law firms—and the legal community as a whole—draw?

In object lessons, Ari has a message for competitive spouses: build something together and try Cozy Stickerville. Julia has a message for Secretary Hegseth with her 1950’s CIA poster: “ We Are Looking for a Few Good Women.” Scott has a message for the makers of By Jove to bring back a childhood classic. And Natalie has a message for litigators navigating uncertain waters: she sees you and appreciates you.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.