Discover
The Lawfare Podcast

The Lawfare Podcast
Author: The Lawfare Institute
Subscribed: 12,432Played: 1,455,886Subscribe
Share
© The Lawfare Institute
Description
The Lawfare Podcast features discussions with experts, policymakers, and opinion leaders at the nexus of national security, law, and policy. On issues from foreign policy, homeland security, intelligence, and cybersecurity to governance and law, we have doubled down on seriousness at a time when others are running away from it. Visit us at www.lawfareblog.com.
Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
2683 Episodes
Reverse
In a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Scott Anderson, Anna Bower, Eric Columbus, and Roger Parloff to discuss the Supreme Court granting certiorari in Rebecca Slaughter’s challenge to the president’s attempt to remove her as FTC commissioner, the indictment of James Comey, the Supreme Court allowing President Trump to withhold foreign aid funds, a lawsuit challenging warrantless immigration arrests in D.C., and so much more.You can find information on legal challenges to Trump administration actions here. And check out Lawfare’s new homepage on the litigation, new Bluesky account, and new WITOAD merch.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
From May 10, 2024: David Pozen is the Charles Keller Beekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author of the new book, “The Constitution of the War on Drugs,” which examines the relationship between the Constitution and drug prohibitions. He joined Jack Goldsmith to talk about the constitutional history of the war on drugs and why the drug war was not curbed by constitutional doctrines about personal autonomy, limits on the federal government’s power, the Equal Protection Clause, or the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. They also talked about whether the political process is working with advancing decriminalization and how this impacts the constitutional dimension of the drug war.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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
From June 28, 2024: On June 26, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Murthy v. Missouri—the “jawboning” case, concerning a First Amendment challenge to the government practice of pressuring social media companies to moderate content on their platforms. But instead of providing a clear answer one way or the other, the Court tossed out the case on standing. What now? Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes discussed the case with Kate Klonick of St. Johns University School of Law and Matt Perault, Director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina.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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Gavin Wilde, Nonresident Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, adjunct lecturer at Johns Hopkins University, and author of the recent paper, “Pyrite or Panic? Deepfakes, Knowledge and the Institutional Backstop,” joins Lawfare’s Justin Sherman to discuss worries about deepfakes and their impact on information and society, the history of audiovisual media and what we can learn from previous evolutions in audiovisual technologies, and the role that fakery has played over the centuries in said media. They also discuss the social media and political context surrounding deepfake evolutions circa 2015; what happened, or not, with deepfakes in elections around the globe in 2024; and how institutions, policy, and law might pursue a less technology-centric approach to deepfakes and their information impacts.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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
This week, Scott sat down with Senior Editors Kate Klonick and Eric Columbus to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including: “An Un-Airing of Grievances.” Since the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, some supporters of his—including several figures within the Trump administration—have actively sought to have individuals who have said critical or purportedly insensitive things about Kirk removed from their jobs or otherwise punished. This arguably came to a head after Jimmy Kimmel Live! was pulled from the air following statements by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr suggesting networks might face additional regulatory scrutiny for not addressing alleged misinformation about Kirk’s killer he purportedly put forward. And while Kimmel is now back on the air, several major local affiliates are refusing to air his show. How do these efforts comport with the First Amendment? And what do they mean for freedom of speech regardless?“You Can’t Spell Appeasement Without App.” After months of negotiations—during which it has held off on enforcing a statutorily mandated ban—the Trump administration has announced that it has reached a deal with China regarding the disposition of the social media platform TikTok and its operation in the United States. But the public details of the deal have been few and far between, and much more remains to be worked out. How close to a deal are the parties in actuality? And does it address the national security concerns motivating Congress’s ban in the first place?“Playing with White House Money.” The Trump administration has been rocked by two major corruption-related stories in the past week. First, the Justice Department is reported to have closed an investigation into White House immigration czar Tom Homan, who reportedly accepted $50,000 from undercover FBI agents prior to joining the administration on the understanding that he would help the donors gain access to the incoming Trump administration. And second, new details suggest that the recent deal to permit chip sales to the UAE were tied up in a variety of major cryptocurrency deals that enriched both the Trump Organization and others in the Trump administration—only the latest in a long history of suspect cryptocurrency transactions by Trump-related businesses. How big a problem are these transactions? And what do they tell us about the state of corruption on the second Trump administration?In object lessons, Eric marked the Jewish New Year with a novel recommendation: “To Rise Again at a Decent Hour,” by Joshua Ferris, a midlife-crisis tale woven through Judaism, baseball, and dentistry—two subjects close to his heart, and one that isn’t. Scott, meanwhile, is back on the D.C. concert circuit and wants you to join him at Union Stage on October 14 to see Katie Pruitt, whose rock-infused Americana sound he thinks deserves a bigger audience. Kate rounded things out with a little blue hippo—specifically the souvenir version of the famous Egyptian figurine better known as “William,” a reminder of a past mother-daughter trip to Paris that involved butchering French while scouring the Louvre.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Alan Rozenshtein, Lawfare Senior Editor and Research Director; Renée DiResta, Lawfare Contributing Editor; and Jess Miers, visiting assistant professor of Law at the University of Akron School of Law, discuss the distinct risks that generative AI systems pose to children, particularly in relation to mental health.They explore the balance between the benefits and harms of AI, emphasizing the importance of media literacy and parental guidance. They also examine recent developments in AI safety measures and ongoing legal implications, highlighting the evolving landscape of AI regulation and liability.Find Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Loren Voss, Public Service Fellow at Lawfare, sits down with Dan Byman, Lawfare Foreign Policy Editor and the Director of the Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Ryan Berg, Director of the Americas Program and Head of the Future of Venezuela Initiative also at CSIS; and Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson. They talk about the new United States approach to drug smuggling, the lethal strikes against drug smuggling boats, and the ongoing counterdrug efforts in Mexico.Anderson applies international law to the facts as known on the military strikes on drug smuggling boats, highlighting the difficulties of treating drug smuggling as a “use of force” and a transnational criminal organization as a non-state armed group. Byman and Berg discuss the importance of the host government in dealing with terrorist or criminal threats, but are skeptical that the counterterrorism framing will be effective without also addressing the demand for drugs within the United States. The group ends with a discussion on how current strategies and legal analysis could be applied to other geographies or criminal groups. Mentioned in this episode:“Deploying U.S. Vessels to the Caribbean Is a Show of Force,” by Ryan Berg and Eric FarnsworthTo 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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In this episode, Lawfare’s Ukraine Fellow Anastasiia Lapatina sits down with Minna Ålander, an associate fellow at Chatham House Europe Program, and Mykhailo Soldatenko, a scholar of international law and a doctoral candidate at Harvard Law School, to discuss Russia’s recent air incursions into Poland and Estonia, and whether NATO’s response to it has been proportional.For more, read a report about Russian hybrid warfare co-authored by Minna Ålander.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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Anna Bower, Eric Columbus, and Roger Parloff to discuss Kash Patel’s testimony in front of Congress, a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from deporting some Guatemalan children, updates in Fed. Governor Lisa Cook’s challenge to President Trump’s attempt to remove her, and so much more.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
From September 18, 2024: Jane Bambauer, Professor at Levin College of Law; Ramya Krishnan, Senior Staff Attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School; Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, join Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to break down the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ hearing in TikTok v. Garland, in which a panel of judges assessed the constitutionality of the TikTok bill.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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
From September 12, 2024: Without new congressional authorization for its post-Oct. 7 operations in the Middle East, the Biden administration has sought to legally justify its military activities in the region based on the president’s constitutional authority and the application of existing statutory authorities to operations against new adversaries. These executive branch arguments are the outgrowth of similar arguments presidential administrations have made over the last few decades, largely related to the requirements in the War Powers Resolution. The International Crisis Group recently analyzed these arguments and related issues in a new report, “Bending the Guardrails: U.S. War Powers after 7 October.” Tyler McBrien and Matt Gluck of Lawfare spoke with Brian Finucane, a senior adviser for the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group and an author of the report, and Matthew Waxman, a professor at Columbia Law School, about the Crisis Group’s report. They discussed the history relevant to the current war powers moment, how the Biden administration has continued to justify its operations without new legislative authority, and the possibility of war powers legal reform moving forward.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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
On today's Scaling Laws episode, Lawfare Senior Editor and Research Director Alan Rozenshtein sits down with Pam Samuelson, the Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, to discuss the rapidly evolving legal landscape at the intersection of generative AI and copyright law. They dive into the recent district court rulings in lawsuits brought by authors against AI companies, including Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta. They explore how different courts are treating the core questions of whether training AI models on copyrighted data is a transformative fair use and whether AI outputs create a “market dilution” effect that harms creators. They also touch on other key cases to watch and the role of the U.S. Copyright Office in shaping the debate.Mentioned in this episode:"How to Think About Remedies in the Generative AI Copyright Cases," by Pam Samuelson in LawfareAndy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. GoldsmithBartz v. AnthropicKadrey v. Meta PlatformsThomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc.U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 3: Generative AI TrainingFind Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
On today’s episode, Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sits down with with Maia Woluchem, the Director of Data & Society’s Trustworthy Infrastructures program, along with one of the program’s researchers, Livia Garofalo, and Joan Mukogosi, an affiliate with the program and a PhD candidate at the London School of Economics. They discuss their recent research trips across Pennsylvania, where they learned about the state’s industrial histories and futures, as well as the immediate and potential future impacts of the nascent AI data center industry.Read more on the work of Data & Society’s Trustworthy Infrastructures program here: “Digital Infrastructures, Material Consequences: A Road Trip Through Pennsylvania’s Industrial Histories and Technological Futures”“In Pennsylvania, a Nuclear Revival for an Uncertain AI Future”“Data Centers Aren’t the Future of American Prosperity”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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
For this week's very special episode on Rational Security's 10th anniversary, Scott sat down with a slew of co-hosts emeritus, each of whom brought their own topic to discuss.Shane Harris flagged the connections between online radicalization and the young men behind many recent public acts of gun violence, including the alleged perpetrator of the Charlie Kirk killing;Benjamin Wittes insisted we are STILL not talking enough about Russian drone incursions and other forms of gray zone warfare in Eastern Europe;Quinta Jurecic brought some statistics about the success (or not) of the Trump administration's federalization of law enforcement in D.C. (and elsewhere) that are worth contemplating; andAlan Rozenshtein asked how it can still be true that no one but him seems to care about the Trump administration blatantly disregarding the TikTok ban.In object lessons, Shane is basking in the glory of HBO’s “Somebody Somewhere”—partly because his buddy Jeff Hiller just won an Emmy for his role in it. Ben praises Adam Boehler—and even Donald Trump—for helping secure Elizabeth Tsurkov’s release. Alan is definitely not using this opportunity to use Pacific Rim for his object lesson—really—instead recommending fantasy mystery “The Tainted Cup,” by Robert Jackson Bennett. Scott takes us into orbit with Samantha Harvey’s “Orbital,” a lyrical meditation on life and reflection in space. And Quinta dives into the future with “Empire of AI,” by Karen Hao, a deeply reported look at OpenAI and its role in shaping the technology’s trajectoryLast call to help us celebrate Lawfare’s 15th anniversary! Get your tickets now to join us this Friday, 9/19, to hear from some of your favorite Lawfare people past and present, take a look back on the key moments that have shaped our first 15 years, and get a sneak peek into what’s coming next.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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
For today's episode, Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sits down with Dan Byman, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Joel Braunold, Managing Director of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace; and Natan Sachs, Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute, to discuss several recent developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict and the broader region.Together, they discuss Israel's latest offensive in Gaza, its decision to launch airstrikes against Hamas's leadership in Qatar, and Benjamin Netanyahu's recent meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio—and what it all says about his (and Donald Trump's) vision for a new regional order.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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Lee Gelernt, Deputy Director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, speaks to Senior Editor Roger Parloff about the cases he has led challenging the validity of Pres. Trump's Alien Enemies Act Proclamation.They discuss the ACLU's recent victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the status of the group's original case, in Washington, D.C., including its attempt to inquire into whether Executive Branch officials defied court orders. 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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
In a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Scott Anderson, Anna Bower, Eric Columbus, and Roger Parloff and Lawfare Public Service Fellow Michael Feinberg to discuss the Supreme Court staying a lower court order that prevented the firing of Rebecca Slaughter as FTC Commissioner, a federal appeals court upholding E. Jean Carroll’s judgement, Fed. Governor Lisa Cook’s lawsuit challenging President Trump’s attempt to fire her, the politicization of the FBI and its impact on investigations like the search for Charlie Kirk’s shooter, and more.You can find information on legal challenges to Trump administration actions here. And check out Lawfare’s new homepage on the litigation, new Bluesky account, and new WITOAD merch.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
From June 3, 2024: Rachel Rizzo, a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center, joins Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien to talk about last month’s NATO Youth Summit. Building off of her chapter “NATO, Public Opinion, and the Next Generation: Remaining Relevant, Remaining Strong,” in the 2021 book, “NATO 2030: Towards a New Strategic Concept and Beyond,” Rizzo discusses what NATO thinks of Gen Z and Millennials, the many efforts the Alliance is making to pitch to them its relevance and purpose, and the ways in which NATO could better integrate youth voices into discussions about the Alliance’s future. She also explains how and why Gen Z and Millennial views on NATO, foreign policy, and America’s changing role in the world differ from older generations. And yes, they even discuss Taylor Swift and Olivia Rodrigo.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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
From September 27, 2022: In just under a week, on October 2, Brazil will hold the first round of its general election, which will determine the country's next president. To talk through all things Brazilian politics, Lawfare managing editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Brian Winter, editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly and a journalist with over a decade of experience living and reporting across Latin America. They discussed the leading candidates, Jair Bolsonaro and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the potential election crisis, and what's at stake as Brazilians head to the polls on Sunday.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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Steven Adler, former OpenAI safety researcher, author of Clear-Eyed AI on Substack, and independent AGI-readiness researcher, joins Kevin Frazier, AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas School of Law and Senior Fellow at Lawfare, to assess the current state of AI testing and evaluations. The two walk through Steven’s views on industry efforts to improve model testing and what he thinks regulators ought to know and do when it comes to preventing AI harms.Thanks to Leo Wu for research assistance!Find Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.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.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
sandwich guy clearly committed *misdemeanor* assault, but felony assault requires bodily harm.
Buddy! Don't talk about "the bad guys!" Until the USA deals with its Republican problem, that's your club, too.
what does he think 'pig in the python effect' means?
Jack G. exposed himself as a complete hack a doodle do. All of his arguments were busted and his defense was so weak & pathetic. Thanks for the laugh Jack.
iuiiiiiiiiiiiiuiii iiiiiiii
I'm my. I'm an be mm can
Can a group of voters sue Cannon for delaying the due process of getting a clear verdict before the Election Day?
It would be fantastic to see The Trump Trial documentary before the election. Just look at the popularity of the O J Simpson trial, and it was decades after it happened, this would definitely be a money maker. The script is already half-written since the transcript is available. Big name actors would probably be happy to join, if cast. Think of the impact of the 34 "guilty" at the end. Just before the Election Day? It would be bigger than Comey to Hillary. Any body?
has anyone been looking into Trump being an agent of Russia?
ads are so quiet?
An easy way to check if a podcast is legitimate is to find an obvious truth and see how they treat it. The obvious truth is that Jan 6th was NOT an insurrection. Insurrection is a legal term with which 0 people were charged. the irrationality of these 2 is profound but the name of the podcast is accurate. authoritarianis use lawfare and the left has perfected it to the Shame if all real Liberals. this podcast is pathetic
💚CLICK HERE Full HD>720p>1080p>4K💚WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK> 👉https://co.fastmovies.org
This is less work than following this from the news.
Why are you assuming Trump would need to be released to perform his duties? The pandemic taught us that many jobs can be done remotely.
Please help her ditch the "you knows".
adzcctcc
Please don't confuse yourself. There is no predicament. Trump is a defendant. His appearance in Court is statutorily required. The fact that he is a candidate for anything is irrelevant. Trump does not have a constitutional right to be a candidate. He is statutorily required to be in Court. Thus, the "national interest" theory that Trump's interest in presidential candidacy is weighed against his requirement to appear is a fallacious analysis. Want to ensure his presence? Offer remand as his only alternative. Please do not confuse yourself or your listeners.
Ll L L L L L L L https://www.heraldnews.com/story/entertainment/local/2023/07/22/french-canadian-families-get-together-aug-5-in-westport/70403102007/ https://www.heraldnews.com/story/entertainment/local/2023/07/22/french-canadian-families-get-together-aug-5-in-westport/70403102007/ Ll
this pod use to be interesting. sadly it's just another tedious lefty circle jerk.
After Roe is gone how many rich white republicans will be sitting in a private clinic somewhere committing a felony seeking their own abortions? 😂