The Lawfare Podcast

Laura Gamboa, an Assistant Professor of Democracy at the University of Notre Dame, dives deep into the pressing issue of democratic backsliding. She analyzes how authoritarian leaders undermine democracy and discusses effective resistance strategies employed by opposition movements in Colombia and Venezuela. Gamboa highlights the importance of organized mobilization and the lessons from Latin America, offering insights into how the U.S. can learn from these struggles. Her research is a call to action for safeguarding democracy in an increasingly challenging landscape.

Join Anastasiia Lapatina, a savvy journalist and researcher focused on Ukrainian politics, as she engages in a riveting discussion about recent shifts in national security leadership and the implications for U.S.-Ukraine relations. They delve into a controversial minerals agreement and its potential to exploit Ukraine’s vulnerability while exploring Russia's ambitions in the Arctic amidst sanctions. The conversation is rich with insights, revealing the complexities of geopolitics, and sprinkled with light-hearted moments that keep it engaging.

Alexis Loeb, a former deputy chief at the U.S. Department of Justice and now a partner at Farella, Braun, and Martel, dives into the implications of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s memo that dismantles the Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative. She discusses how this shift threatens national security by allowing foreign corruption to persist and possibly fuel extremism. Loeb also highlights the loss of specialized expertise in prosecuting corruption and the challenges local offices will face in tackling these complex cases without proper resources.

Mary Anne Franks, an advocate for cyber civil rights and professor at George Washington Law School, joins Becca Branum from the Center for Democracy and Technology and Adam Conner of the Center for American Progress. They discuss the TAKE IT DOWN Act, a landmark federal law targeting non-consensual intimate imagery and digital forgeries. The conversation delves into its bipartisan support, the balance between protecting victims and free speech, and concerns over potential censorship and enforcement challenges that may arise.

A lively discussion unfolds around the civil litigation targeting President Trump’s executive actions, including immigration cases and the implications of the Alien Enemy Act. The panel dives deep into judicial authority and recent court rulings shaping immigration policy. They also touch on unusual legal challenges against fossil fuel companies and the government's role in these lawsuits. The conversation blends serious legal analysis with humor, providing critical insights into the intersection of executive actions and individual rights.

Anne Applebaum, a columnist and historian known for her book "Twilight of Democracy," delves into the unsettling rise of authoritarianism globally. She discusses how political shifts and social media fuel these movements, while illustrating the surprising commonalities across countries such as the U.S. and Poland. Applebaum highlights the interconnectedness of right-wing ideologies and their strategic use of nationalist rhetoric, reflecting on the risks posed to democratic institutions and emphasizing the need for vigilance against these emerging threats.

Gregory Johnsen, an expert on Yemen and the Houthi movement, joins Scott R. Anderson to discuss the recent surge in Houthi attacks on shipping and military forces in the Red Sea. They delve into the U.S. and U.K. military responses and the legal complexities surrounding these actions, including the War Powers Resolution. The conversation highlights the implications of these attacks on global trade, the Houthis' strategic gains amidst conflict, and the persistent challenges of engaging with non-state actors in the region.

Kathleen Romig, Director of Social Security and Disability Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and Devin O’Connor, Senior Fellow at the same center, delve into alarming developments regarding the Social Security Administration's 'Death Master File.' They discuss how this data is being misused in immigration enforcement, risking grave consequences for living immigrants wrongly marked as deceased. The conversation addresses ethical concerns, oversight failures, and the broader implications of politicizing Social Security in the current landscape.

Tanvi Madan, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in Indian foreign policy, sheds light on the escalating crisis in Kashmir. She discusses the recent terrorist attack, detailing its implications for India-Pakistan relations and the impact on local communities. Madan also highlights the limited roles of global powers like the U.S. and China in alleviating tensions. The conversation emphasizes the historical context, human rights concerns, and the urgent need for diplomacy amidst rising violence.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Molly Reynolds and James Pearce to talk through the week’s big national security news, including:“Rounding the ‘Feels Like It’s Been a Century’ Mark.” As President Trump comes to the end of his second first 100 days in office, he and his supporters are laying claim to FDR’s mantle as the president to accomplish the most in such a short period of time. But how much success has Trump really had in enacting his broader policy agenda? How should we be seeing Trump’s administration as it rounds this milestone?“The Art of the Appeal.” More than three months into his second term in the White House, President Trump has clearly embraced a new legal strategy: antagonistic towards the courts, aggressive in its claims of presidential power, and more than willing to run to the Supreme Court for validation. But so far that validation has been slow to come, and there are signs that even some judges appointed by Trump are growing weary and wary of his tactics. How successful is Trump’s legal strategy proving? Could an alternative be more effective?“DOGE-ing a Bullet.” A new report from the minority staff of the Senate’s permanent subcommittee on investigations claims that Elon Musk’s involvement in the Trump administration and his role in dismantling federal agencies could save his various companies billions in regulatory costs and other potential liabilities. Is this a clear conflict of interest? Or does this report reflect other factors in play?In object lessons, Molly had a mighty craic in happening upon Blue Lights, a police procedural set in Belfast, and urges you to give it a lash. Scott, hailing victory and fighting for Old DC, cheered the thought of a new RFK Stadium. And James encouraged listeners to maki their way over to a local Japanese restaurant, where the sushi isn’t the only thing rolled.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.