Rational Security

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.