Rational Security – “Don’t Cry for Me, Lawfare” Edition

Date: January 29, 2025
Hosts: Scott R. Anderson, Quinta Jurecic, Alan Rozenshtein
Guests: Kevin Frazier, Eugenia Lostry, Peter Harrell

Episode Overview

This episode of Rational Security centers on three major national security and foreign policy developments:

1. Trump administration’s escalating international spat with Colombia over migrant repatriation flights, its resort to sanctions and tariff threats, and what this “America First” moment signals for U.S. diplomacy and global partnerships.
2. The United States’ high-stakes bets on artificial intelligence, including Project Stargate, and China’s disruptive advances (specifically Deepseek’s open-source AI breakthrough), with discussion of how these shape global technology competition.
3. A sweeping Trump-ordered freeze on U.S. foreign assistance, including its deep impact on development, security, and international standing, especially as China steps in with an alternate model.

Noting that this is Eugenia Lostry’s farewell episode, the discussion is both reflective and rich with expert insight, peppered with characteristic Lawfare wit and memorable moments.

1. "Tariff or Takeoff": U.S.-Colombia Diplomatic Incident

[05:01–33:47]

Key Points

• The Spat: The Trump administration attempted to deport migrants to Colombia on military flights. Colombia’s president, Gustavo Petro, refused the flights, accusing the U.S. of disrespect and even racism. Trump’s team, caught off guard, fired back with threats: tariffs, visa restrictions, sanctions.
• Swift Back-and-Forth: Petro reversed course within hours after intense pressure, even retweeting the U.S. summary of the call—each side claimed victory, with mutually incompatible narratives.
• What Was at Stake: For Trump, military repatriation of migrants is a political priority, and symbolic pushback by foreign leaders can’t be tolerated—domestic optics were important. For Colombia (and similar countries), dignity and treatment of deportees were central concerns, as was signaling some independence from Washington.
• Diplomatic Style: The episode highlighted the return of foreign policy by social media and the unpredictability—or calculated brinkmanship—of the Trump approach.

Insights and Analysis

• Peter Harrell: "We are definitely back to the era of foreign policy by social media post." ([08:53])
  • U.S. staff were surprisingly unprepared; typically such flights would be negotiated well in advance, avoiding these confrontations.
  • Short-term "wins" (i.e., Colombia backing down) can come at the expense of long-term relationships: “If you tick these guys off too much, well, they might cave to you in the short run, but over the mid and longer run, your partners may drift away from you.” ([14:36])
• Eugenia Lostry: Emphasized that Colombia’s main objection was dignity, and some concessions were actually achieved: “I believe [Petro] got assurances that, you know, they would not be handcuffed, there would not be pictures taken, they would not be treated as criminals...” ([17:21])
• Scott Anderson: Warns of echo-chambered narratives, as both governments trumpet their version of events to save face. ([18:51])
• Use of Tariffs: Trump moved to weaponize tariffs (and other economic actions) under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA); while this is legally novel and possibly challengeable, it provides a fast way to exert pressure, bypassing normal regulatory and review processes.
  • Peter Harrell: “When he does use IEEPA to implement tariffs...there’s going to be some interesting litigation to sort out...” ([24:10])
  • Trump’s preference for tariffs over sanctions reflects both emotional and pragmatic reasons—tariffs can theoretically encourage reshoring, and he’s publicly criticized America’s overreliance on financial sanctions.

Memorable Quotes

• Scott Anderson: “Foreign policy by golf club and Truth Social.” ([10:32])
• Peter Harrell: “Trump...wants to send a signal...that diplomatic process you were used to...that’s over. If you cross the United States, I’m going to unload on you very, very heavily.” ([13:34])
• Kevin Frazier: On China’s comparative narrative: “The PRC has really leaned into offering stability...while Trump is instead focusing on short-term negotiations.” ([30:42])
• Eugenia Lostry: “There seems to be an opening window...that China is going to really exploit if they’re savvy.” ([33:07])

2. “Project Stargate” & Disruption in the AI Race

[33:47–59:23]

Key Points

• Project Stargate: Major U.S. government-backed initiative—a half-trillion-dollar partnership with OpenAI, Oracle, SoftBank, to build AI infrastructure, focused on “compute” (processing power).
• The Twist: Days later, China’s Deepseek unveils a highly efficient, consumer-facing AI model, releasing model weights (open-source), which matches top U.S. AI performance with radically lower resource use. This triggers massive financial panic—markets reevaluate if “compute” (hardware) is really the strategic moat the U.S. assumes.
• Five "Ingredients" of AI Power: Compute, data, algorithms, talent, energy. Deepseek's advance shows algorithms and talent might matter more than compute alone.
• Strategic Re-think: The U.S. bet has been on maintaining a “qualitative edge” at the frontier of AI (“AGI”) by cornering compute, but China’s approach—algorithmic and open—may accelerate diffusion and erode those advantages.

Insights and Analysis

• Kevin Frazier: “What Deepseek showed in releasing this far more efficient...model...is that maybe compute isn’t as important as we thought, and as a matter of fact, algorithms and talent...can go a lot further than we previously acknowledged.” ([34:43])
  • Stargate’s vision may already be undermined: the calculus for U.S. dominance needs revision.
• Scott Anderson: “Obviously Project Stargate was intended as a big investment in the energy and compute kind of inputs...where is the comparative advantage for the United States if compute’s less important than we think it is?” ([40:49])
• Peter Harrell: Noted that even Deepseek’s "low-compute" claim needs scrutiny—it was likely trained with substantial Nvidia GPU resources bought pre-export control.
  • The open-source posture of Chinese AI may prove strategically brilliant: “It does seem to be quite cheap to use...and I think China posting this...is an interesting play for developing world developers.” ([48:01])
• Kevin Frazier: Warns that U.S. export controls might be a “moat” easily bypassed if open-source algorithms close the gap.

Memorable Quotes

• Peter Harrell (on Deepseek’s open-source release): “This may be a very attractive model for you [as a developer in the developing world]—it’s almost as effective as the latest from OpenAI, it’s open source, and it’s cheaper to use.” ([49:27])
• Kevin Frazier: “If the rest of the world is going the open source route, then all these efforts to try to create artificial moats for U.S. leaders aren’t going to last very long.” ([53:28])
• Eugenia Lostry: “I don’t truly know how to square that with Trump’s comments yesterday that he is thinking about imposing almost 100% tariffs on chips and semiconductors coming from Taiwan.” ([55:22])

3. A 90-Day Freeze on U.S. Foreign Assistance

[59:23–72:24]

Key Points

• Trump’s Freeze: An immediate, near-total halt on U.S. foreign assistance for 90 days. Only a few programs were exempt (some food assistance, Egypt/Israel security aid). Dozens of USAID employees abruptly suspended.
• Global Impact: The U.S. provides roughly 40% of global bilateral assistance; sudden cuts risk collapsing critical programs—health, security, development—and destabilizing fragile partnerships.
• Programmatic Chaos: Many implementing partners operate with razor-thin margins, and losing funding even temporarily may permanently cripple capacity to deliver assistance or respond to crises.
• Foreign Policy Consequences: Foreign assistance serves strategic U.S. interests—health, security, development, cyber partnerships, and diplomatic leverage—often in competition with China’s own infrastructure and investment outreach.

Insights and Analysis

• Peter Harrell: “I have—I’m unfamiliar...with anything remote approaching the scale of this pause...I think that’s going to have some real world ramifications if they can’t sort this out and get at least most of it turned on quickly.” ([62:19])
  • U.S. assistance is about both humanitarian impulse and building/maintaining key alliances; both are jeopardized.
• Scott Anderson: “What a delicate ecosystem it is...when you pull a lot of this out, you are potentially really undermining the infrastructure you rely on to implement these programs.” ([64:44])
• Eugenia Lostry: Focuses on the cyber dimension—recent U.S. investments in international cyber capacity-building (e.g., response teams in Costa Rica) are now frozen, undermining years of efforts to win partners and counter adversaries.
  • “This was supposed to be a way for the United States to engage with countries that were maybe engaging with China...and now all of that has stopped.” ([67:22])
• Kevin Frazier: Points to demographic and strategic ripple effects, especially in Africa: “If we’re not actively investing in developing countries...that has huge geopolitical ramifications over the next decades as we see demographic changes accelerate in Africa and very much slow down in the rest of the world.” ([70:19])

Memorable Quotes

• Eugenia Lostry: “China was on hold, you know, like they are already there, right?” ([70:13])—underscoring how quickly China can swoop in to occupy vacuums left by the U.S.
• Scott Anderson: On potential for bipartisan pushback: “Ninety days is a long time to pause these indefinitely...Maybe we’ll see a correction on this path if we see a bipartisan reaction, but we’ll have to wait and see.” ([71:02])

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• Eugenia’s Farewell:
  • “Don’t cry for me, Rational Security.” ([03:33])
• Scott (riffing): “Foreign policy by golf club and Truth Social.” ([10:32])
• Humor Over “Bazookas” and “Sticky Notes”:
  • Kevin (on Trump’s style): “Can we not bring out phones, let alone economic bazookas on the fourth green?” ([10:58])
  • Opening banter about minimalist “art” in remote recording spaces—“Optimized for art. That’s great.” ([01:33])

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Colombia Spat / Tariffs: 05:01–33:47
• AI Competition / Project Stargate / Deepseek: 33:47–59:23
• Foreign Assistance Freeze: 59:23–72:24
• Object Lessons (Fun Recommendations): 72:25–end

Object Lessons & Farewell to Eugenia

[72:25–79:08]

• Kevin Frazier: Applauded legal education efforts around AI, emphasizing “knowledge diffusion” and tech literacy. ([72:25])
• Eugenia Lostry: Signed off with a recommendation for the indie RPG “Wildermyth”—“it’s adorable,” a storytelling game where characters evolve across adventures. ([74:20])
• Scott Anderson: Recommended the solo journaling RPG “Thousand Year Old Vampire”—for those seeking escapes “when the real world gets a little too much.” ([75:49])
• Peter Harrell: Suggested the book “Freedom’s Forge,” about U.S. industrial policy and WWII mobilization, with lessons for current policy debates. ([77:16])

Tonal Note

As always, the episode balances deep policy analysis with signature Lawfare humor, anecdote, and warmth—especially for Eugenia’s last appearance. While topics are weighty and timely, the back-and-forth remains sharp, collegial, and insightful throughout.

Summary Conclusion

This episode offers a front-row seat to the abrupt—and at times, erratic—turns of U.S. national security and foreign policy at the start of Trump’s second term. From diplomatic standoffs and the weaponization of tariffs, to reshaping the technological arms race in AI and the risks of rolling back decades of global development investment, each segment explores not just what’s happening, but how, and why it matters for America’s standing and alliances. China’s steady hand and long-term strategy—in diplomacy as well as tech—underlies every debate. The conversation closes with a reminder of the importance of knowledge, adaptability, and perhaps an occasional “cute” RPG, in facing a turbulent world.

For more, listen to the full episode or visit Lawfare.