The “(Deep State) Friends We Make Along the Way” Edition

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.