Podcast Summary

Podcast: New Books Network – International Horizons
Episode: Trump, the UN Charter, and the Strange Politics of International Law
Date: February 17, 2026
Host: Eli Karetney
Guest: Robert Howse (NYU School of Law, Author and Scholar of International Law)

Overview

This episode explores the tension between the Trump administration’s foreign policy, the role of international law (specifically the UN Charter), and the ongoing shifts within conservative intellectual circles. Robert Howse discusses the complexities behind popular narratives on Trump and international law, critiques of neoconservatism, and recent intellectual movements on the right, referencing his work and Laura Field's book Furious Minds. The discussion challenges simple moralistic narratives around the UN system, the recent conservative movement, and Trump’s relationship to legality and masculinity.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Re-evaluating Trump and International Law

• Context: Many international law scholars frame Trump as a major disruptor or “villain” in the breakdown of international law and the UN Charter. Howse pushes back against this orthodoxy.
• Quote:

  “Making Trump the major villain in the breakdown in international law orthodoxy seems at least half blind…” (B, 00:09)

• Insight: Howse notes that, paradoxically, Trump enabled progress at the UN—such as on resolutions on Gaza—where others failed, challenging simplistic attributions of blame.

2. Leo Strauss, Neoconservatism, and Misinterpretations

Strauss and Neoconservatism

• Strauss’s Critique Misapplied: Howse clarifies that Strauss was misrepresented by those linking his thought directly to neocon foreign policy, especially regarding aggression and interventionism.
• Quote:

  “The aggressive interventionist side of neoconservatism…is where Strauss definitely leaves the bus.” (A, 07:57)

• Strauss as “Man of Peace”: Emphasizes Strauss’s wariness of aggressive foreign intervention and his advocacy for peace as a prerequisite for civilized life.

The UN and Legitimacy

• Moynihan’s View: Critiques of the UN sometimes came from a place of skepticism about the institution’s fairness toward Western interests, not necessarily support for military intervention.
• Sovereignty and Law: The neocon critique questions UN legitimacy, which is contrasted against Strauss’s caution and skepticism of force as a transformative tool (A, 10:38).
• Carl Schmitt’s Influence: Some on the right are drawn to Schmitt’s ideas about virtue as readiness for existential struggle, contrasting with Strauss’s more cautious philosophy.

3. Masculinity, Virtue, and the New Right

Masculinity and Reaction

• Intersection with MAGA Movement: Anxiety about declining masculinity is a recurring theme connecting Straussians, the New Right’s MAGA factions, and critiques of liberal society.
• Quote:

  “It's the anxiety about masculinity and how to preserve or indeed restore to men their sense of their power, their sense of the meaningfulness of their lives as men—that's really…the biggest connection.” (A, 19:42)

Laura Field’s “Furious Minds” and Intellectual Factions

• Mapping the Factions:
  • Post-liberal Catholic integralists (Deneen, Vermeule)
  • National Conservatives (Hazoni, Ruffo)
  • Hard Right/MAGA underbelly (Beatty, Yarvin, BAP)
  • West Coast Straussians (Anton, Kessler; distinct from neocons)
• Claremonters & Opportunism: West Coast Straussians are seen as “opportunistic” in their alignment with MAGA, but with limited real policy influence (A, 30:22).
• East Coast Influence: The real legacy is in the attack on universities—Bloom's Closing of the American Mind paved the way for intellectual skepticism of higher education, which Trump capitalized on (A, 32:05).

4. Peter Thiel, Schmitt, and the “Catacombic” Right

• Thiel’s Interpretation: Thiel blends Strauss and Schmitt to critique “global liberal control,” advocating for resistance (“catacomb” politics) and potentially authoritarian nationalism.
• Is Trump Executing a Catacombic Vision?
  • Howse dismisses the idea that Trump pursues a grand anti-liberal, Schmittian project.
  • Quote:

    “I don't think this has anything to do with a comprehensive theory about resisting liberalism. Trump himself was some kind of liberal…” (A, 39:38)

• Trump’s Method: Howse frames Trump’s approach as ad hoc, brand-driven, appealing to populist grievances, and lacking deep ideological consistency.

5. International Law, the UN Charter, and Intervention

The Venezuela and Iran Cases

• Venezuela: Howse critiques the “UN Charter purists” who insist on a rigid self-defense standard and argues for a more flexible, purpose-driven reading that can accommodate interventions in some cases.
• Quote:

  “There are some kinds of interventions that minimally threaten … but which may be consistent with the purposes and principles of the United nations, such as bringing war criminals to trial.” (A, 46:23)

• Iran: With Iran, military options are more fraught, with regime change posing risks of chaos; use of force should be weighed with caution (A, 54:25).

Rethinking International Law

• Legal Rigidity vs. Flexibility: Howse argues for interpreting the Charter in line with its original purpose: safeguarding international peace and security, potentially using force collectively when necessary, not static prohibitions (A, 47:25).

6. Concluding Perspective on Policy and Ideology

• No Ideological Grand Plan: Howse insists that Trump’s relationship to international law and power is pragmatic, transactional, and about brand maintenance—not doctrinaire anti-liberalism or Schmittian politics (A, 42:06).
• Structural Issues in International Law: Points to the inherent contradictions and operational weaknesses of the UN Charter system, revealed by both Trump’s actions and the geopolitical context.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the neoconservative misinterpretation of Strauss:

  “Wolfowitz was really a disciple of Wohlstetter, Albert Wohlstetter, a kind of Dr. Strangelove figure...not Stratusian thought, which would have pointed to a great deal more caution…” (A, 07:10)

• On masculinity and MAGA:

  “This is really what connects the Straussians to some of the MAGA crowd. It's the anxiety about masculinity and how to preserve or indeed restore to men their sense of their power…” (A, 19:42)

• On Trump’s approach:

  “He'll use the tools available to try and achieve whatever goal...Often it's more important to shock and offend and make unhappy the liberals than to achieve anything positive…” (A, 41:02)

• On UN Charter interpretation:

  “The difference we just described is in how rigidly or purposefully you read the text. I read it more flexibly and...there are some kinds of interventions that minimally threaten...but which may be consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations…” (A, 46:23)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Strauss, Neoconservatism & Iraq – 03:44
• Sovereignty & UN Critique; Carl Schmitt – 09:11
• Masculinity, Virtue & MAGA – 19:35
• Laura Field’s Book & Factions of the New Right – 22:28, 25:05
• West vs. East Coast Straussians – 30:22
• Peter Thiel’s “Catacombic Trumpism” & Ideology – 34:55, 38:06
• Venezuela Case & Legal Balancing Test – 44:05, 45:14
• Iran, Military Force, and Diplomacy – 49:36, 51:02
• Regime Influence vs Regime Change – 57:16

Tone and Style

The conversation is critical, analytical, and reflective, with both participants blending legal, philosophical, and political analysis. Howse’s tone is measured and subtly skeptical; he consistently resists sensationalism or oversimplification, emphasizing nuance and the importance of reading both political thought and international law flexibly but purposefully.

For listeners or readers seeking to understand the complicated intersections of conservative thought, international law, and Trump-era politics, this episode unpacks the intellectual genealogies, exposes key misinterpretations, and challenges easy assumptions about American power and legitimacy on the world stage.