The "Snifting Up to Boston" Edition

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Foreign Policy Editor Daniel Byman and Public Service Fellow Julia Curlee, and Contributing Editor and partner at Steptoe LLP Michel Paradis, to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including: “Fuel Me Once, Shame On You.” On Friday, President Trump announced that he had struck a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring more than 3 million tons of previously sanctioned Russian diesel onto U.S. and global markets. The move came as Ukraine’s strikes on Russian refineries had forced Moscow to halt diesel exports—and, according to U.S. officials, after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky repeatedly refused U.S. demands that those strikes stop on the grounds that Russia would not stop targeting Ukraine’s own energy infrastructure. Trump has suggested the move will reduce prices for U.S. consumers ahead of the midterms, but experts are doubtful. He’s also declared an energy ceasefire that neither side recognizes and that only Ukraine is pretending to respect. Could Trump’s diesel deal really pay off? Or is it another example of him getting rolled by Putin? “The Third Front is the Charm.” Yemen’s civil war is back with a vengeance—and spilling across the border. Since a U.N.-brokered ceasefire collapsed earlier this year, the Iran-aligned Houthis have seized much of Yemen’s Red Sea coast and repeatedly targeted Saudi oil infrastructure, among other targets. This past week, Houthi missiles struck several Saudi airports, killing at least 20 people. President Trump has suggested that the United States may join the fight in support of Saudi Arabia, while Iran has offered to mediate. Is Tehran opening a new front in its war with the United States? And what options does Saudi Arabia (and the United States) have to respond? “Going Dutch.” Last Friday, just hours after former International Criminal Court judge Navi Pillay was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced new sanctions against the court itself. Unlike previous rounds, which targeted individual judges, prosecutors, and their supporters, the new sanctions target The Hague-based ICC as a whole, blocking its U.S. assets and barring Americans from providing it with funds, goods, or services. Rubio has framed the choice in stark terms: either the court ends its threats against the United States and Israel, or the United States ends the court. Several key U.S. allies have objected, and the EU is weighing whether to deploy its “blocking statute” in response. Can U.S. sanctions really throttle the ICC? And how far will Europe split from the United States to protect the court? In object lessons, Dan continues to engage in questionable forms of escapism with an endorsement of the second edition of An Infamous Traffic. Julia observes the 10th anniversary of Russian interference the 2016 elections with a recommendation of “The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World,” by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin. Scott mourns the loss of a favorite RatSec Fan Club hangout—City State Brewing—and wonders where the new clubhouse will be. And Michel passes on the age-old tradition of doing your kids’ work for them with a heartfelt tribute to the Pinewood Derby. 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 Lawfare Editor in Chief and cohost emeritus Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare Senior Editor Molly Roberts, and Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution Molly Reynolds to talk through the week’s big news in national security, including: “Pocket Change.” Late on Friday, September 25, the White House sent Congress an $810 million “pocket rescission”—a request to cancel already-appropriated federal funding, timed so the money will expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30, before the 45 days Congress has to review the rescission request. It’s the second time the Trump administration has used the maneuver after the Supreme Court let the pocket rescission of about $4 billion in foreign assistance funds go forward last year. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins and Democratic appropriators have denounced the move as illegal, the Government Accountability Office agrees, and seven states (among other plaintiffs) have already sued. And this time, some district courts may be gravitating toward a novel, if largely untested, solution: using equitable and statutory authority to suspend the disputed funds’ expiration date. Could this measure help bring an end to pocket rescissions? And how far is the Trump administration willing to go in seeking to assert control over federal funds? “Poll Position.” With less than a month to go before the midterms, the Trump administration’s campaign to reshape U.S. elections is getting mixed results. The Supreme Court decided on September 25 to allow the Department of Homeland Security to resume using its revamped SAVE citizenship database to help states screen their voter rolls for noncitizens. But federal courts have pushed back on other measures, from the administration’s proposed mail-in-ballot rule, to efforts to coerce states into providing their voter rolls, to the withholding of counterterrrorism grants from states and localities that don’t adopt the administration’s preferred election changes. What part of our elections seem safe 30 days out, and which are still under peril? And what could the consequences be? “Straining Credulity.” Last week, a 28-year-old laboratory technician at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute in Siberia died of severe pneumonia, reportedly after being exposed to the bacterium that causes pneumonic plague, prompting Russian authorities to quarantine a local hospital and place nearly 200 people under medical observation. Russian officials have since insisted she died of “pneumonia of unknown etiology” and told the World Health Organization on Tuesday that no plague has been found among her contacts. But shifting official accounts, disappearing local news reports, and Russia’s long history of biological weapons work—including the U.S. government’s assessment that Moscow still maintains an offensive program—have fueled concerns. What do we actually know about what happened in Irkutsk, and to what extent should we believe the official account being offered by the Russian government? And what does it tell us about the risks posed by Russia’s biological research enterprise? In object lessons, Molly L. is a notebook-carrying member of the pink soup club. Ben, in ingesting the Congressional Precedents into RAGtime, discovers what Senators may ingest on the floor. Scott expresses his concern over the state of the United States Code. And Molly E. once again makes the case for the pleasures of regionally produced NPR, with a story that manages to combine two of her favorite things: excellent local journalism and the legislative process. 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 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: