Show Notes
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. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
More from The Lawfare Podcast
From November 22, 2024: After more than a year of pleas from Kyiv, the U.S. finally let Ukraine use Western long-range weapons for attacks inside Russia. Lawfare Ukraine Fellow Anastasiia Lapatina sits down with Fabian Hoffmann, a doctoral research fellow at the University of Oslo, to talk about the strategic and tactical effects of such attacks, what’s behind the timing of this decision, and why it took so long for the U.S. to finally change course. 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 podcast, Executive Editor Natalie K. Orpett talks with Lawfare Senior Editors Molly Roberts and Loren Voss, Contributing Editor Renée DiResta, and Public Service Fellow Julia Curlee about what they're watching in the run-up to the midterm elections. Each of them is focused on different potential threats to election security and integrity—from what’s being challenged in the courts to what’s happening in the online information ecosystem, from concerns over physical security at the polls to concerns over the health of government institutions. They talk about how they are identifying and evaluating the threats, what impact they might have, and what, if anything, can be done about it. 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 his Lawfare colleagues Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes; Contributing Editor and Vice President of Research, Security and Defense at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Ariane Tabatabai; and Contributing Editor and Managing Director of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace Joel Braunold, to talk through the week’s big international news stories, including: “Pick Me, Bibi, One More Time.” Israelis head to the polls next Tuesday, October 27, in an election widely seen as a referendum on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—held just weeks after the third anniversary of the October 7 attacks, which Netanyahu has steadfastly refused to submit to an independent state commission of inquiry. Polls show his Likud trailing former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot’s new Yashar party, with neither Netanyahu’s bloc nor the opposition anywhere near the 61 seats needed to govern. Netanyahu has scrambled for a late boost, including by securing a “Complete and Total Endorsement” from President Trump, who suggested that if Israelis choose anyone else, he may not be inclined to “finish the job” against Iran. Is this finally the end of the Netanyahu era? And what would a new government—or a hung Knesset—mean for Israel’s wars and its relationship with Washington? “Crude Awakening.” U.S.-Ukraine relations have hit perhaps their lowest point of the second Trump administration. In the aftermath of President Trump’s deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin easing U.S. sanctions on Russian diesel exports, Trump told Ukraine it had “better damn well stop” striking Russian oil refineries and even called on Ukrainians to replace President Volodymyr Zelensky. Kyiv, meanwhile, says U.S. intelligence sharing was briefly cut off and its Starlink access throttled—just as Russia launched some of its largest drone barrages of the war. Ukraine initially respected Trump’s call to pause attacks on Russia’s diesel refineries but, after Russia did not reciprocate, resumed long-range strikes on Russian energy infrastructure. Now Putin is reportedly floating a summit next month with Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to decide Ukraine’s fate—without Zelensky at the table. Is Trump actively switching sides? And can Ukraine sustain its momentum on the battlefield if Washington keeps pulling the rug out from under it? “French Toast.” France is reeling after a weekend of some of the worst unrest it has seen in years. What began in mid-September as student protests over overcrowded classrooms and teacher shortages has snowballed into a nationwide movement against the rising cost of living, joined by unions, farmers, and veterans of the “Yellow Vest” movement. On Saturday, more than half a million people marched across the country—before the day degenerated into rioting, looting, and arson, with roughly 1,800 people ultimately getting arrested. President Emmanuel Macron has blamed far-left “insurrectionist elements,” while his would-be successors are already trading blame with an eye on next spring’s presidential election – one in which Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally is currently the frontrunner. What’s driving the unrest? And who stands to benefit politically as France heads toward 2027? In object lessons, Ben issues an enlightened apology to our neighbors to the north. Ari is sailing through her free time with Sleeping Gods. Scott is teaching his kids how to kick it old school in a new way. And Joel, somehow, in a way only Joel can, finds a patriotic message in this age-old battle for devotees and how you spend your weekends. 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, Lawfare’s Renée DiResta sits down with Riana Pfefferkorn, a policy fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, and Cyndie Demeocq, a doctoral researcher at the University of Edinburgh’s School of Informatics, to discuss their new research examining how existing federal criminal law applies to AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and what 71 federal prosecutions reveal about the legal issues created by generative AI. Together, they unpack the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Anderegg; the First Amendment distinctions between real, AI-manipulated, and wholly synthetic imagery; and why the authors argue that existing criminal statutes are proving more effective than public debate suggests. They also discuss what the prosecution data can—and cannot—tell us about the scale of the problem, and how policymakers should approach defining the responsibilities of AI developers, platforms, and safety researchers. Please note that this episode contains content that some people may find disturbing, including conversation about child sexual abuse material. Listener discretion is advised. 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.
With the rise of AI-driver cybersecurity incidents, the conversation on how to monitor and assess these incidents is increasingly on the rise. Lawfare Senior Editor Kevin Frazier sits down with Asad Ramzanali, the Director of Artificial Intelligence & Technology Policy at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator. The two discuss the creation of a Cyber Safety Review Board, a mechanism based on the National Transportation Review Board designed to independently monitor cybersecurity incidents; how it would monitor incidents; and what advantages it would have over current independent monitoring firms.