In this urgent Thanksgiving-week briefing, Nate Charles — former Navy SEAL, counterterrorism officer, and federal prosecutor — addresses the shooting of two National Guard soldiers near the White House by an Afghan national. He explains why this incident demands seriousness, accuracy, and moral clarity.

Drawing on three Afghanistan combat tours and years inside the National Security Division of DOJ, Nate breaks down what we actually know, what we don’t know, and why this moment cannot be hijacked to fuel bigotry or collective punishment.

He details the reality facing Afghan allies who fought alongside U.S. forces, the xenophobic policies now trapping their families under Taliban rule, and the legal and moral boundaries that must not be crossed — no matter how unsettling this incident is.

If you care about national security, rule of law, or America’s obligations to those who bled beside us, this is a necessary and unflinching analysis.

Stay informed with national-security-level analysis, not pundit noise. Subscribe for sharp, uncompromising briefings on the rule of law, democracy, and America’s obligations to its allies.

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, I answer a direct question from a follower: Who can stop Donald Trump at this point? The honest answer is uncomfortable—and it exposes the structural vulnerabilities in our constitutional system.

I walk through the basic checks and balances the Framers designed: judicial review, the power of the purse, and impeachment. Then we examine how each of those mechanisms has broken down—largely because they depend on voluntary compliance and political courage that simply aren’t present today.

We look at Trump’s rejection of judicial authority, Congress’s collapse on the budget standoff, and the modern degeneration of impeachment into political performance art. We also discuss Caroline Leavitt’s recent remark that Trump “will be impeached” if Republicans lose the midterms—a line that accidentally reveals an important truth about the system’s fragility.

Ultimately, the answer isn’t the courts, and it isn’t Congress. The only people who can stop a lawless president are the voters—up and down the ballot, at both the federal and state levels. Because the Constitution is only as strong as the people entrusted to enforce it.

If you want sober, unfiltered analysis on national security, rule of law, and democratic resilience—subscribe and stay ahead of the curve. No theatrics, no sugar-coating, just clear-eyed assessments and practical insight.

In this urgent briefing, I break down new Associated Press reporting that the FBI’s counterterrorism division has opened an inquiry into Members of Congress who appeared in a video urging U.S. service members to refuse illegal orders. I explain why this is far more than a political dispute: it strikes at the core of the FBI’s own governing rules—the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG) and the Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations.

These documents prohibit opening any FBI investigation based solely on First Amendment–protected political speech. As someone who worked counterintelligence and counterproliferation cases at DOJ headquarters, I describe how these rules function in practice, why they matter, and why the Bureau’s reported actions represent a direct collision with its legal framework.

The timing—immediately after President Trump publicly accused the lawmakers of “sedition” and invoked the death penalty—raises serious questions about political pressure influencing federal law-enforcement operations.

If political dissent becomes acceptable predication for federal intelligence activity, the democratic guardrails that protect civil society begin to fail. This episode explains what’s happening, why it’s dangerous, and what Congress must demand now.

If you want clear, unsentimental analysis on the rule of law, democracy, and national security—without partisan spin—subscribe to The Rule of Law Brief and stay ahead of the headlines.

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, I break down the sudden firing of Capt. Gilbert Clark, the Commandant of Midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy. The official reason—“loss of confidence”—is the Navy’s most opaque euphemism, a phrase that conceals far more than it reveals.

I explain what that term actually means inside the fleet, and why it tells us nothing about what really happened. I talk openly about my own experience being “relieved for loss of confidence” after refusing an illegal order, and why the phrase has become a container for everything from routine misconduct to political retribution.

I also look at the broader concern: the increasing erosion of the firewall between military professionalism and partisan interference. The Hatch Act may be on the books, but its deterrent effect has collapsed. When senior officers are removed abruptly with no explanation, the question of political motive is unavoidable.

Finally, I highlight the fleet-up of Capt. Austin Jackson—an excellent SEAL officer and a contemporary of mine—and why the Brigade is in capable hands even as the circumstances behind Clark’s removal remain opaque.

If you are in Annapolis, connected to the Brigade, or aware of even scuttlebutt, drop it in the comments or send a message. Transparency matters, especially now.

Get sharp, unvarnished national-security analysis and commentary—grounded in law, experience, and plain truth. Subscribe to stay ahead of the curve.

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles breaks down two explosive developments from the past 24 hours:

1. A federal judge has dismissed the indictments against James Comey and Letitia James after finding that Donald Trump’s hand-picked interim U.S. Attorney was unlawfully appointed. Every action she took—including the indictments themselves—was legally void. The Comey charges are now dead forever due to the expired statute of limitations.

2. The Pentagon has opened an investigation into Senator Mark Kelly that could theoretically lead to recalling him to active duty for a court-martial—simply for appearing in a video stating the obvious: U.S. military personnel must refuse illegal orders. Retired military lawyers quoted by NPR call the move “very rare,” “politically charged,” and legally absurd. Kelly’s statements are squarely protected by the Speech and Debate Clause.

From there, Nate walks through the authoritarian logic behind these actions, the parallels to non-violent civil disobedience, and why “standing in the breach” sometimes matters more for the country than for the individual under attack.

If you care about the rule of law, constitutional government, and calling authoritarianism by its name—subscribe. Every episode cuts through noise, exposes abuse of power, and explains what’s actually at stake for American democracy.

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, attorney and former Navy officer Nate Charles dismantles the latest wave of Republican attacks on Democratic lawmakers who reminded U.S. servicemembers of a simple legal truth: troops must obey lawful orders and refuse unlawful ones.

Drawing on his own training at the U.S. Naval Academy—where within the first week midshipmen are taught the distinction between lawful and unlawful orders—Nate walks through the bedrock principles of military leadership, the controlling Supreme Court precedents, and the UCMJ provisions that demand refusal of manifestly illegal commands.

He then explains, with precision and legal clarity, why Republican accusations of “sedition” collapse instantly under modern First Amendment doctrine, and why the Democrats’ message is not only correct but essential. The episode highlights the narrow scope of federal sedition statutes, the constitutional protections that limit them, and the Brandenburg standard that governs all advocacy-based prosecutions.

Finally, Nate lays out a concise but devastating catalogue of illegal or unconstitutional orders issued by Donald Trump, including:

* Illegal domestic troop deployments

* ICE arrest quotas and unconstitutional mass detentions

* Pentagon gag orders on congressional communications

* Unauthorized use of military force

* National Security Presidential Directive–7 targeting lawful dissent

* Antideficiency Act violations

* Government retaliation against protected speech

* Unlawful ICE raids on protected locations

Each example is grounded in established law and public record—not speculation or rhetoric.

This episode ends with a blunt warning to anyone still enabling unconstitutional conduct inside the national-security and military community: those who support violations of the Constitution are acting as enemies of the rule of law.

Stay ahead of the rising constitutional crisis.

Subscribe for grounded, legally rigorous analysis at the intersection of national security, the rule of law, and democratic resilience. Every episode cuts through political noise and explains exactly what the law requires—no spin, no sugarcoating.

In today’s episode of The Rule of Law Brief, I break down a problem that has infected American political debate for decades: the rampant misuse of the words “communism” and “socialism.”

We start with the actual Merriam-Webster definitions—not the pop-culture ones, not the partisan caricatures, but the authoritative economic and political meanings of these terms. From there, we examine how the modern political right routinely collapses “socialism” and “communism” into a vague accusation of authoritarianism, borrowing imagery from the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China while ignoring what those terms actually describe.

Then we turn to the political left, which has increasingly embraced the label “socialist” even when the policies they advocate—universal healthcare, tuition-free college, market regulation, and a stronger social safety net—have nothing to do with collective ownership of the means of production. In reality, most of these policies fall squarely under the Merriam-Webster definition of government, not socialism.

The result? Two sides talking past each other, armed with terms they do not understand, generating polarization instead of clarity.

If we want real solutions—on regulation, on public spending, on the balance between market freedom and public welfare—we need precision, not slogans. Because words matter, and sloppy language produces sloppy thinking.

If you value clear thinking, accurate terminology, and serious analysis of how political rhetoric shapes public policy, subscribe to The Rule of Law Brief. You’ll get grounded, evidence-based commentary that cuts through the noise and keeps our democratic discourse honest.

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, I take a moment to recognize a major achievement by my brother, Jordan Charles—Vice President of the New Glenn Business Unit at Blue Origin—and the entire team responsible for yesterday’s New Glenn launch and booster recovery.

But this isn’t just a family milestone. It’s a chance to examine what spaceflight represents for a democratic society: curiosity, perseverance, long-range ambition, and the kind of creative problem-solving that complex engineering demands.

I also explain why space exploration remains one of the best drivers of American education and scientific aspiration, inspiring generations of children to push harder, think bigger, and pursue difficult things. These values aren’t luxuries. They’re strategic essentials for a country that intends to remain competitive.

Join me as I explore national security, democratic resilience, and the values that keep a free society functioning—even in turbulent times.

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles examines the latest congressional release of Jeffrey Epstein’s emails — including Epstein’s own statement that Donald Trump “spent hours at my house” with one of the young women later identified as a trafficking victim.

Rather than focusing on the salacious details, this episode explores a far more dangerous dynamic: the deliberate “slow drip” strategy that numbs the public into indifference. Through controlled disclosure and incremental normalization, outrage becomes background noise. The moral baseline shifts.

What begins as horror ends in apathy — and that’s exactly the point.

I’m Nate Charles — an attorney and former Navy SEAL who writes and speaks about national security, rule of law, and the psychological machinery of propaganda. Subscribe for analysis that cuts past headlines and exposes how power shapes what we feel — and what we stop feeling.

In this Veterans Day message, Nate Charles speaks candidly about the tension between pride in service and disillusionment with the nation’s current direction.He explains that the oath of service was never to a person or a party, but to the Constitution — a document meant to outlast any single leader.

Drawing from his own experience as a Navy SEAL and federal prosecutor, Charles explores the authoritarian nature of military life, the moral meaning of sacrifice, and the betrayal felt when citizens — including fellow veterans — support leaders who scorn the rule of law.

He reminds listeners that service is not about glorifying power, but about protecting freedom from it.

“The purpose of military service was never to glorify power. It was to protect freedom from it… The oath still matters.”

Join Nate Charles on The Rule of Law Brief — where national security, constitutional law, and moral courage meet. Subscribe for honest commentary from a veteran and former federal prosecutor who still believes the oath matters.