app_store_button

google_play_button

DK - Details page - Device banner - 894x1036

Nyd den ubegrænsede adgang til tusindvis af spændende e- og lydbøger - helt gratis

Lyt når som helst, hvor som helst 

The Lawfare Institute

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.

The Lawfare Podcast

In a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Anna Bower, Molly Roberts, Roger Parloff and Eric Columbus to discuss the criminal trial of the man who threw a sandwich at a federal immigration officer in D.C., a hearing in the prosecution of James Comey, litigation over the conditions of an immigration detention center in Illinois, 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.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.

Lawfare Daily: The Trials of the Trump Administration, Nov. 7

From January 22, 2024: There is much debate among academics and policy experts over the power the Constitution affords to the president and Congress to initiate military conflicts. But as Michael Ramsey and Matthew Waxman, law professors at the University of San Diego and Columbia, respectively, point out in a recent law review article, this focus misses the mark. In fact, the most salient constitutional war powers question—in our current era dominated by authorizations for the use of military force—is not whether the president has the unilateral authority to start large-scale conflicts. Rather, it is the scope of Congress’s authority to delegate its war-initiation power to the president. This question is particularly timely as the Supreme Court appears growingly skeptical of significant delegations of congressional power to the executive branch.

Matt Gluck, Research Fellow at Lawfare, spoke with Waxman and Ramsey about their article. They discussed the authors' findings about the history of war power delegations from the Founding era to the present, what these findings might mean if Congress takes a more assertive role in the war powers context, and why these constitutional questions matter if courts are likely to be hesitant to rule on war powers delegation questions.

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.

Lawfare Archive: Waxman and Ramsey on Delegating War Power

From November 6, 2024: For today’s special episode, Lawfare General Counsel and Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson held a series of conversations with contributors to a special series of articles on “The Dangers of Deploying the Military on U.S. Soil” that Lawfare recently published on its website, in coordination with our friends at Protect Democracy.

Participants include: Alex Tausanovitch, Policy Advocate at Protect Democracy; Laura Dickinson, a Professor at George Washington University Law School; Joseph Nunn, Counsel in the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center; Chris Mirasola, an Assistant Professor at the University of Houston Law Center; Mark Nevitt, a Professor at Emory University School of Law; Elaine McCusker, a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; and Lindsay P. Cohn, a Professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. 

Together, they discussed how and why domestic deployments are being used, the complex set of legal authorities allowing presidents and governors to do so, and what the consequences might be, both for U.S. national security and for U.S. civil-military relations more generally.

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.

Lawfare Archive: The Dangers of Deploying the Military on U.S. Soil

In a live conversation on November 5, Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with Lawfare Contributing Editor Peter Harrell and Georgetown Law Professors Marty Lederman and Kathleen Claussen to discuss what occurred during oral arguments in the legal challenge to President Trump’s tariffs at the Supreme Court and how the justices may rule.

This episode is a part of Lawfare’s new livestream series, Lawfare Live: The Now. Subscribe to Lawfare on Substack or YouTube to receive an alert for future livestreams.

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.

Lawfare Daily: Supreme Court Oral Arguments on President Trump’s Tariffs

On today’s episode, Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sits down with Joseph Kellner, an assistant professor of history at the University of Georgia to discuss his latest book, “The Spirit of Socialism: Culture and Belief at the Soviet Collapse,” which examines the millions of Soviet people who embarked on a “spirited and highly visible search for new meaning” during the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.

They discuss the questions of epistemic authority, of cultural identity, and of history's ultimate meaning that drove people to seek new spiritual meaning during this period, as well as the era’s many colorful characters, including Hare Krishnas, astrologers, doomsayers, and neo-Pagans who pushed bio-healing, folk baths, and other answers to these questions. They also talk about why, when a superpower declines, shared reality dissolves.

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.

Lawfare Daily: Seeking Meaning at the Soviet Collapse, with Joseph Kellner

This week, Scott sat down with co-hosts emeritus Benjamin Wittes and Alan Rozenshtein, and Senior Editor Kate Klonick, to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:

 • “Cracks in the Foundation.” The conservative Heritage Foundation—and the broader conservative movement it plays a central role in—has been going through a very public crisis over the past week after its president, Kevin Roberts, came to the defense of right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson after Carlson chose to host white nationalist Nick Fuentes on his podcast. This has led to resignations at the Heritage Foundation, condemnation by certain figures on the right, and a pseudo apology by Roberts. It has also led to a little bit of a reckoning over how some on the right, and to some extent Americans more broadly, have dealt with accusations of anti-Semitism, its relationship to various policy questions, as well as hate speech and other political perspectives. What should we be making of this crisis and what does it tell us about the different policy aspects that intersect with this question of anti-Semitism?
 • “Turning Back the Clock.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent promised that President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping would “consummate” a TikTok deal at their face-to-face last week. But no details have emerged to date. What should we make of this apparent hold-up—and of the TikTok saga altogether? 
 • “A Foe By Any Other Name.” As the Trump administration has continued its military campaign against narcotics traffickers in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, U.S. officials have continued to draw parallels between current policies and the Global War on Terrorism, calling detainees “unlawful enemy combatants” and the groups being targeted “designated terrorist organizations.” “If you are a narco-terrorist…,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently tweeted in relation to one of the strikes, “we will treat you like we treat Al-Qaeda.” But how accurate are these parallels, and why is the Trump administration deploying them in this way?

In object lessons, Ben brings you a little announcement that is shorter than this sentence—you’re just going to have to listen to find out. Alan, hungry for more genre fiction, is diving into The Divine Cities trilogy, starting with “City of Stairs,” by Robert Jackson Bennett. Scott is going out of this world with what he calls “the nerdiest object lesson” he’s ever brought to RatSec: Pioneer, a tabletop role-playing game that has “launched” on Kickstarter. And Kate, not to be outdone in nerdom, displays maybe the mathiest vegetable: the beautiful romanesco.

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.

Rational Security: The “Wea Culpa” Edition

In this episode, Lawfare’s Ukraine Fellow Anastasiia Lapatina sits down with Francis Farrell, a front line reporter at the Kyiv Independent, to discuss the looming fall of Pokrovsk, the recent transformations of the front line, and whether Ukraine can ever give up Donbas, per Russia’s demand.

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.

Lawfare Daily: The Looming Fall of Pokrovsk

On today’s episode, Lawfare Senior Editor Kate Klonick sits down with NYU law professor Rick Pildes to discuss his article, “Political Fragmentation in Democracies in the West,” which was featured in a New York Times opinion column by Thomas Edsall on the link between smartphone and social media use and threats to democracy.

The two discuss the admittedly sprawling topic from a historical perspective—comparing the impact of the internet to that of the printing press, the radio, and cable television on social orders. But they also discuss how this technology that once held such promise for democracy is now impacting the United States political system in a unique way—in particular, the ability social media has to further polarize a two-party system's information ecosystem while also revolutionizing small-donor-based campaigns. The result is some very anti-democratic outcomes from what was seen as such promising democracy-empowering technology.

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.

Lawfare Daily: How Social Media Threatens Democracy, with Rick Pildes

In a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Contributor Marty Lederman, Public Service Fellow Loren Voss, and Senior Editors Scott R. Anderson, Roger Parloff and Eric Columbus to discuss the Supreme Court’s handling of the legal challenge to the federalization of the National Guard in Chicago, James Comey’s motions to dismiss the indictment against him, ongoing politicization at the Department of Justice, litigation over the Trump administration’s attempt to suspend SNAP during the government shutdown, 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.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.

Lawfare Daily: The Trials of the Trump Administration, Oct. 31

From July 18, 2024: On today’s episode, Matt Gluck, Research Fellow at Lawfare, spoke with Michael Beckley, Associate Professor of Political Science at Tufts, and Arne Westad, the Elihu Professor of History at Yale.

They discussed Beckley’s and Westad’s articles in Foreign Affairs on the best path forward for the U.S.-China strategic relationship—in the economic and military contexts. Beckley argues that in the short term, the U.S. should focus on winning its security competition with China, rather than significant engagement, to prevent conflict. Westad compares the current moment to the period preceding World War I. He cautions that the U.S. and China should maintain strategic communication and avoid an overly narrow focus on competition to stave off large-scale conflict.

They broke down the authors’ arguments and where they agree and disagree. Does U.S. engagement lower the temperature in the relationship? Will entrenched economic interests move the countries closer to conflict? How can the U.S. credibly deter China from invading Taiwan without provoking Beijing?

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.

Lawfare Archive: Michael Beckley and Arne Westad on the U.S.-China Relationship

In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, digital technology was touted as a potential savior. In particular, there was a burst of enthusiasm around so-called digital contact tracing apps, which would track people's movements and interactions and notify them if they had been exposed to COVID. Apple and Google, which together control the operating systems for virtually the entire smartphone market, joined forces and created a standard to help researchers, private entities and governments create contact tracing apps. But despite the early hype, enthusiasm about these apps quickly fizzled, and even today, they remain underdeveloped and rarely used. As part of Lawfare's ongoing Digital Social Contract research paper series, law professors Jane Bambauer from the University of Arizona and Brian Ray from the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, published a paper titled, "COVID-19 Apps Are Terrible—They Didn't Have to Be." Alan Rozenshtein sat down with Jane and Brian to talk about why contact tracing never played more than a marginal role in managing the pandemic.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jane Bambauer and Brian Ray on the Lost Promise of Digital Contact Tracing

Lyt når som helst, hvor som helst

Other podcasts you might like ...