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.

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.

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