President Donald Trump this week put weapons behind his growing irritation with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intransigence on negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. Meeting at the White House with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, President Trump announced that the United States will work with European allies in NATO to send advanced weapon systems, including Patriot missile batteries, to Ukraine. He also threatened tariffs and additional sanctions against Russia and countries that do business with it if it doesn’t ease its assault on Ukraine and make progress on stalled peace talks within 50 days. 

What impact is this policy shift likely to have on the war in Ukraine? Will the combination of military support for Ukraine and economic threats toward Russia succeed in forcing President Putin to the negotiating table, or could they spur further escalation? 

On this episode, host Viola Gienger is joined by Ambassador Daniel Fried and Dara Massicot to discuss Trump’s policy shift on Ukraine and its impact.

Show Notes:

• The Just Security Podcast: A Ukrainian MP Takes Stock of the NATO Summit and the Prospects for Peace, with Ukrainian MP Oleksiy Goncharenko, Lauren Van Metre, and Viola Gienger. 
• Ambassador Daniel Fried’s “Can Trump Seize a Win in Ukraine?” in Just Security 
• Ambassador Daniel Fried’s “How to Land the Emerging Deal on Peace for Ukraine” in Just Security 
• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine War Archive 
• Russia's Eliminationist Rhetoric Against Ukraine: A Collection by Clara Apt in Just Security

In a picturesque valley in the mountains of eastern Bosnia, thousands of white gravestones bear witness to a mass atrocity that still struggles for a place in Europe’s conscience. Nearly 8,400 names are etched into a stone memorial, a stark reminder of the Srebrenica Genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces against Bosnian Muslims in July 1995 – 30 years ago this year. And yet, too many political leaders and others continue denying the scale and scope of the travesty that unfolded there.

What has the world learned about genocide denial since Srebrenica? How has that denial echoed persistent efforts to negate or diminish the Holocaust? And how does denial and the politics around it tie into efforts to prevent a repeat elsewhere in the world?

Viola Gienger, Washington Senior Editor at Just Security is joined by Sead Turcalo, Professor of Security Studies at the University of Sarajevo and author of Thirty Years After the Srebrenica Genocide: Remembrance and the Global Fight Against Denial, published in Just Security; Velma Saric, founder and president of the Post-Conflict Research Center in Sarajevo; and Jacqueline Geis, Senior Director at the consulting firm Strategy for Humanity and a Research Fellow at the Human Rights Center at the University of California Berkeley School of Law

Show Notes:  

• Sead Turcalo’s “Thirty Years After the Srebrenica Genocide: Remembrance and the Global Fight Against Denial,” published in Just Security
• Jackie Geis’ “From Open-Source to All-Source: Leveraging Local Knowledge for Atrocity Prevention,” published in Just Security
• Velma Saric’s Post-Conflict Research Center and the associated blog Balkan Diskurs.
• Michael Schiffer and Pratima T. Narayan’s “Trump Administration’s Proposed Cuts to Accountability for Mass Atrocities Undermine Its Own Strategic Goal,” published in Just Security 
• Menachem Z. Rosensaft’s “Refuting Srebrenica Genocide Denial Yet Again, as UN Debates Draft Resolution,” published in Just Security
• Just Security’s Bosnia-Herzegovina archives 
• Just Security’s genocide archive 

Today, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered its highly anticipated judgement in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia–a watershed moment in international human rights law. 

In this episode, Just Security Executive Editor and professor at American University Washington College of Law Rebecca Hamilton, and Just Security editorial board member and professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy Tom Dannenbaum join Just Security co-editor-in-chief Ryan Goodman to break down the Court’s reasoning, the legal standards applied, and the potential ramifications for the ongoing conflict and the future of international justice. 

Show Note: 

• Tom Dannenbaum’s “Legal Frameworks for Assessing the Use of Starvation in Ukraine” in Just Security
• Olga Butkevych, Rebecca Hamilton, and Gregory Shaffer’s “International Law in the Face of Russia’s Aggression in Ukraine: The View from Lviv” 
• Ryan Goodman and Ambassador (ret) Keith Harper’s “Toward a Better Accounting of the Human Toll in Putin's War of Aggression” in Just Security 
• The Just Security Podcast: ICC Arrest Warrants for Russian Attacks on Ukraine’s Power Grid with Kateryna Busol, Rebecca Hamilton, and Paras Shah 
• Case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia Judgement (July 9, 2025) 

Iran’s nuclear program has long been a source of international tension. Early in U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term, hopes for a diplomatic resolution resurfaced—until June, when Israel launched strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites. Days later, the United States joined the conflict, bombing three sites within Iran. Iran retaliated with missile attacks in Israel and a U.S. base in Qatar, and suspended cooperation with nuclear inspectors.

With both Washington and Tehran signaling interest in returning to talks despite the violence, what are the prospects for diplomacy now? To discuss where things stand and what a path forward might look like, Just Security’s co-editor-in-chief Tess Bridgeman is joined by Richard Nephew, a leading expert on Iran’s nuclear program and former Deputy Special Envoy for Iran.

Show Notes: 

• Just Security’s Israel-Iran Conflict Collection
• Richard Nephew’s “Did the Attacks on Iran Succeed?” in Foreign Affairs 
• Kelsey Davenport’s “Israeli Strikes Risk Driving Iran Toward Nuclear Weapons” in Just Security
• Brianna Rosen, Tess Bridgeman, and Nima Gerami’s “The Day After U.S. Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Program: A Policy and Legal Assessment” in Just Security
• Brianna Rosen’s “Intelligence Implications of the Shifting Iran Strike Narrative” in Just Security
• Brian O’Neill’s “What Counts as a Win?: Battle Damage Assessments and Public Messaging” in Just Security
• Brian Finucane’s “The Need for a Congressional Rebuttal on Trump’s Iran Attack” in Just Security
• James Acton’s “Guest Post: Sorry, Mr. Secretary, producing uranium metal isn’t particularly difficult” in Arms Control Wonk

The leaders of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, just finished their annual Summit in The Hague in The Netherlands, as Ukraine continues its existential fight against Russia’s full-scale invasion that began more than three years ago. That invasion, preceded six years earlier by the capture of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine, set off the biggest war in Europe since World War II. 

How do Ukrainian leaders see the outcome of the NATO Summit? What are the prospects for negotiations, and how are Ukrainians faring in the meantime? And what about relations between Ukraine and the United States under this new administration in Washington? And with its European partners? 

Washington Senior Editor Viola Gienger and guest host Lauren Van Metre spoke with Ukrainian MP Oleksiy Goncharenko to answer some of these crucial questions. 

Show Notes:

• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine War archive.
• Just Security’s tracking of Russia’s Eliminationist Rhetoric Against Ukraine
• Hidden in the U.S. Army’s New Reform Initiative Is a Warning for Europe by Jennifer Kavanagh
• Can Trump Seize a Win in Ukraine? By Ambassador Daniel Fried
• International Law at the Precipice: Holding Leaders Accountable for the Crime of Aggression in Russia’s War Against Ukraine by Mark Ellis

Over the past several days, the Trump administration has taken increasingly drastic steps in response to protest activity and unrest in Los Angeles — including federalizing 4,000 National Guard troops and sending hundreds of Marines, against the objections of California’s state and local leadership. 

As events unfold on the ground in LA, and in the lead-up to further anticipated protests this weekend, Just Security and the Reiss Center on Law and Security hosted a YouTube Live event to examine the pressing legal and policy issues at stake. 

Notes: 

• Watch the full June 12th, 2025 event on YouTube, here.
• Elizabeth Goitein: Senior Director, Liberty & National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice
• Mary B. McCord: Visiting Professor of Law and Executive Director, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Georgetown Law; Member, Board of Directors, Just Security 
• Steve Vladeck: Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Federal Courts, Georgetown Law; Executive Editor, Just Security   
• Ryan Goodman: Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Director, Reiss Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law; Founding Co-Editor-in-Chief, Just Security 
• Just Security’s Civilian-Military Relations coverage. 
• Just Security’s Domestic Deployment of the U.S. Military coverage.  
• Just Security’s Law Enforcement archives. 

In recent years, the United States has sustained some of the most severe cyber threats in recent history– from the Russian-government directed hack SolarWinds to China’s prepositioning in U.S. critical infrastructure for future sabotage attacks through groups like Volt Typhoon. The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) is responsible for responding to, and protecting against these attacks.  

How do leaders steer through cyber crises, build trust, and chart a path forward? 

In conversation with Dr. Brianna Rosen, Just Security Senior Fellow and Director of the AI and Emerging Technologies Initiative, Jen Easterly, who just completed a transformative tenure as Director of CISA under the Biden Administration, unpacks the challenges, breakthroughs, and lessons from the front lines of America’s cybersecurity efforts.  

• Jen Easterly   
• Just Security’s Cybersecurity coverage 
• Empathy Matters: Leadership in Cyber by Jen Easterly ( 2019) 

For nearly 70 years, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division led efforts to protect voting rights and fight racial discrimination at the polls. But in January 2025, DOJ political appointees froze all new civil rights cases and dismissed every major pending voting rights lawsuit—prompting most career attorneys to leave the Division. 

With federal challenges to restrictive voting laws now dropped in several states, the fight for voting rights falls to individual voters and advocacy groups, raising urgent questions about the future of enforcement.

In this episode Dani Schulkin, Director of Democracy Initiatives at Just Security, is joined by Chiraag Bains. Chiraag is a senior fellow at Democracy Fund, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and former Deputy Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council for Racial Justice & Equity. He also previously served in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. 

 Show Notes:  

• Chiraag Bains, “What Just Happened: The Trump Administration’s Dismissal of Voting Rights Lawsuits.” 
• Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of Trump Administration Executive Actions  
• Just Security’s DOJ Archives 
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

The State Department has released a reorganization plan that would usher in significant changes to the way the United States conducts its diplomacy and foreign assistance, at a time of considerable geopolitical change. Proposals by the Trump administration include eliminating or restructuring a number of the Department’s longstanding functions, dissolving and/or folding USAID into State, and imposing large budget and staffing cuts. 

Debates over how to structure and optimize the State Department, and U.S. foreign assistance programs in particular, are nothing new. But important questions remain about these proposals—including how they may interact with Congressional prerogatives; their implications for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy amidst compounding global crises; and, ultimately, whether these changes may herald a more streamlined and effective bureaucracy or undermine U.S. diplomatic power.

On May 14, 2025, the Reiss Center on Law and Security and Just Security convened an expert panel to consider these vitally important developments and to unpack what’s happening, what’s at stake, and what lies ahead. 

Show Notes: 

• Dani Schulkin, Tess Bridgeman, and Andrew Miller’s “What Just Happened: The Trump Administration's Reorganization of the State Department – and How We Got Here” 
• Ambassador Daniel Fried’s “The US Government’s Self-Harm in Killing RFE/RL” and “Is the U.S. Abandoning the Fight Against Foreign Information Operations?” 
• Hon. Dafna Rand’s “Stopped Security Assistant: From Counter-Narcotics to Combating Human Trafficking Programs”  
• Michael Schiffer’s “Secretary of State Rubio’s Reorganization Plan Could Offer a Chance to Rescue U.S. Foreign Assistance -- If He’s Smart About It” 
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

As the Supreme Court holds oral arguments on Thursday, May 15, Kristin A. Collins, Gerald Neuman and Rachel E. Rosenbloom argue that Executive Order 14160, which denies birthright citizenship to any child born in the United States who does not have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, clearly violates the birthright citizenship federal statute.  They note the statute has not received as much public attention, as they discuss the 1940s and 1950s legislative history.

Show notes:

• Kristin A. Collins, Gerald Neuman and Rachel E. Rosenbloom, Another Reason Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order is Unlawful, Just Security, May 15, 2025