Scott recorded this week’s special episode live from the 2025 Aspen Security Forum, where he sat down with a panel of top national security journalists—including co-host emeritus Shane Harris of The Atlantic, Mark Goldberg of the Global Dispatches podcast, and Alex Ward of the Wall Street Journal—to talk about some of the issues that have emerged at and around this year’s Forum, including:

• “Putting the Ass in Aspen.” Twenty-four hours before the Aspen Security Forum was set to begin, the Defense Department barred more than a dozen officials who had been publicly set to participate, for months, on the grounds that the Forum promotes “the evils of globalism.” What does this tell us about the Trump administration’s relationship to the foreign policy establishment?
• “Rolling Alone.” While U.S. officials were in short supply at the Forum, foreign officials were not, as foreign ministers and other officials from Europe, Asia, and other corners of the world had a heavy representation on the panels. And while those panels often addressed different topics, at least one common theme tended to emerge across them: the challenges of the new era of major power competition, especially at a moment when the United States seems especially skeptical of traditional alliances and multilateral institutions. What did we learn about the challenges these countries are facing? And what does it mean for the United States’ ability to strategically compete?
• “Deus Ex Machina.” If there is one topic that was represented at almost every panel at this year’s Forum, it is the question of Artificial Intelligence — how important it is, what it will do to solve the world’s problems, new problems it will cause, and all it will cost to win the race to perfecting it. But is AI really that important? Or does its ubiquity in national security conversation reflect more hype than substance?

For object lessons, Shane shared his latest piece for The Atlantic about an old man, a dog, and the CIA’s efforts to keep them apart. Scott endorsed the Aspen Security Forum itself and urged those not in attendance to check out Aspen’s recordings of the event—as well as the recordings of various side conversations he made, which will be up on the Lawfare Daily feed later this week. Mark recommended his new podcast with Anjali Dayal on the United Nations, To Save Us From Hell, which they release as part of his U.N. Dispatch newsletter. And Alex shared his quest to read a book about each U.S. president, what it’s taught him about how weird the presidents are, and the online community that’s helping him get through it.

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

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Benjamin Wittes and Eric Ciaramella to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including:

• “With Arms Wide Open.” After years of open skepticism toward Ukraine (and uncharacteristic deference to Russia), it seems President Trump may have turned a page. His rhetoric has grown cooler toward Russian President Vladimir Putin, and he has proven more willing to provide arms to Ukraine, even over contrary efforts by some of his advisers—including an agreement to provide Ukraine with Patriot missiles and other U.S.-made, Europe-funded weapons. What explains this switch? And how durable is it likely to prove?
• “Hitting Foggy Bottom.” Just days after the Supreme Court removed a preliminary injunction, the State Department went forward with substantial personnel cuts, RIFing 1,350 foreign and civil service personnel in Washington, D.C. It’s all part of a much broader reorganization that State Department leadership claims will make the Department leaner or more efficient, even as it guts personnel working on issues disfavored by the Trump administration.
• “Waiting for the Intel Impressment.” Since the Trump administration’s June 21 airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, a heated debate has raged over their effects. The administration maintains the strikes were “historically successful” and permanently set back the Iranian nuclear program. But media reports source to people within the intelligence community have suggested a much more limited effect. How should we weigh these competing claims? And when will we know the truth?

In object lessons, Ben asks for your public service in supporting Lawfare’s Public Service Fellowship. Scott pulled a Quinta with his recommendation of the New Yorker essay “Zohran Mamdani and Mahmoud Khalil Are in on the Joke,” by Hanif Abdurraquib. And Eric makes his summer travels epic by listening to the podcast, The Rest is History.

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

This week, Scott sat down with fellow Senior Editors Molly Reynolds and Alan Rozenshtein to talk through the week’s big national security news, including:

• “One Bill to rule them all, One Bill to find them, One Bill to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.” Republicans in Congress narrowly enacted President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” last week, just in advance of the July 4 deadline he had set early in the year. What will its contents mean for elements of Trump’s national security agenda, including his immigration policies? And what does it say about his influence over fellow Republicans in Congress?
• “Even a Stopped Clock is Right More Often Than This Letter.” In response to a FOIA lawsuit, the Justice Department has released copies of the letters that it sent to tech companies regarding President Trump’s pause on the enforcement of a statute intended to curtail TikTok’s availability in the United States. In the letter, the Trump administration not only suggests that the law may unconstitutionally interfere with the president’s authority over foreign affairs, but suggests that the president can “waive” the enforcement of civil penalties and otherwise commit not to enforce the law for certain periods of conduct. How persuasive are these legal arguments? And what explains tech companies’ willingness to rely on them?
• “Nationwide, Not On Your Side.” At the end of its term last week, the Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision in the birthright citizenship cases, wherein it sided with the Trump administration in ending the practice of “universal” (or nationwide) injunctions pursued by lower courts in many cases regarding challenges to government conduct. What with this holding mean, both for the birthright citizenship cases and for the broader legal system moving forward?

In object lessons, Alan marveled at the majesty of Cranbrook Schools during a recent trip to Michigan. Scott’s been here the whole time with a recommendation of Dropout TV’s Game Changer. And Molly took us down a dark and dirty, Danish-derived, detective direction with Dept. Q on Netflix.

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