Rational Security Podcast: “Just Chilling in My Padded Room” Edition

Release Date: January 22, 2026
Host: Scott R. Anderson (Lawfare Senior Editor)
Guests: Shane Harris (The Atlantic, former host), Lauren Voss (Lawfare Public Service Fellow), Anna Bauer (Lawfare Senior Editor & Trial Correspondent)

Episode Overview

This episode delves into a particularly heated week in U.S. national security, with in-depth analysis of:

• DOJ’s escalating moves in Minnesota, including subpoenas to state officials and the Insurrection Act threat
• The criminal probe involving Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and simultaneous Supreme Court arguments on Lisa Cook’s removal
• The latest in the Havana Syndrome saga, featuring recent revelations on potentially weaponized technology and intelligence splits
• The panel closes with lively “object lessons” and cultural recommendations.

The show maintains its signature sharp, irreverent, and occasionally sardonic tone throughout—a mix of insider policy analysis, concerned skepticism, and snappy banter.

Main Topics and Discussion

1. DOJ’s Subpoenas in Minnesota & the Insurrection Act Threat

Context (09:49):

• Minnesota faces unrest after aggressive ICE operations, especially following the killing of Renee Goode by an ICE agent.
• DOJ issues subpoenas to state Democratic officials (Governor Tim Walz, Mayor Jacob Frey, others) regarding alleged obstruction of federal enforcement.
• Rumors of military mobilization under the Insurrection Act loom, with the President openly considering the option.

Key Insights:

• Anna Bauer [10:41]: Subpoenas are “truly just seems baseless… We’ve seen this pattern before of pretextual, politicized investigations that serve a larger goal.”
• Shane Harris [13:15]: “Donald Trump has a fixation on the state of Minnesota… this is a pretty obvious case of him trying to intimidate state officials… potentially creates a pretext for the Insurrection Act.”
  • Notes public backlash: “People do not want to see… ICE agents roving the streets… The killing of Renee Goode was sort of the apex.”
  • Doubts DOJ will prevail in criminal action, but worries about intimidation effect.
• Anna Bauer [15:43]: Observes a pattern of the administration “promising big things to the MAGA base… and then it doesn’t happen because there’s not a sufficient basis.”
• Scott Anderson [17:29]: Explores the possibility the subpoenas are more about “pressure tactics… even where the viable criminal case at the other end seems very unlikely.”
  • Warns about “using investigations and other things as pressure tactics to steer people” toward compliance or silence.
• Lauren Voss [21:47]:
  • Warns Insurrection Act deployment parallels historical precedents where federal troops suppressed protests and strikes, not necessarily lawful resistance.
  • “It seems like this is an on purpose trying to escalate the situation right now… building a case that state and local officials either are unwilling or unable to deal with the problem, and that’s why you have to bring in military troops.”
  • Raises concern about the precise missions for military if deployed: “law enforcement at protest locations, tracking down agitators, conducting immigration enforcement directly.”
  • Military cultural risk: Many personnel first-generation Americans; low morale and future recruitment at stake if tasked with domestic immigration enforcement.

Notable Quote:

• Shane Harris [26:51]:
  “A lot of the military is composed of first-generation Americans… there’s a real damage he could do to just, you know, the willingness of people to do this job and serve in the future, if this is what we’re asking them to do.”

• Lauren Voss [28:00]: Agrees recruitment and retention could shift: “Just as how recruiting for ICE has gone… you could see the same thing happening in the military.”

• Legal Constraints [29:39]:

  • Courts have started challenging administration’s interpretations; Supreme Court’s narrowing of 10 USC 12406 necessitates Insurrection Act as the main legal path, but provides “significant amount of deference as the statute’s written.”

Notable Quote:

• Lauren Voss [30:46]:
  “I’m not optimistic that there would be a lot of oversight here. There would be a significant amount of deference as the statute’s written.”

Takeaway:
The panel sees the DOJ's moves in Minnesota as intimidation with thin legal grounds, designed to justify potential military deployment. The discussion is laced with skepticism about both the tactics and likely effectiveness, and deep concern about the precedent this sets.

2. DOJ’s Probe of Fed Chair Powell & Supreme Court Case on Lisa Cook

Context (35:25):

• DOJ subpoenas Powell regarding congressional testimony on cost overruns in a Fed headquarters renovation, echoing a Republican push for a criminal inquiry, seemingly aiming to pretextually justify his or Lisa Cook’s removal.
• Supreme Court hears arguments about what constitutes “cause” for removal of Fed governors, with Powell himself attending.
• Panel finds the asserted rationale for the probe, as outlined by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, “laughably bad.”

Key Insights:

• Anna Bauer [37:07]:
  • Describes the criminal referral as “ridiculous… It seems like the further we go with the weaponization of the Justice Department, the sillier some of these bases for a criminal investigation get. And this is honestly the silliest of them all.”
• Shane Harris [41:26]:
  • Wonders why markets haven’t reacted more, surmising “people are looking at this and saying like, this is nonsense. If they’re trying to weaponize the Justice Department, they really suck at it, right?”
  • Doubts the administration’s competence (“not very smart”).
• Anna Bauer [43:54]:
  • Danger isn’t just if DOJ gets a conviction, but that the administration’s legal stance is “as long as you have a pretext that the President can articulate that’s enough. Courts can’t review that decision.”
  • Increasing judicial awareness of the issue.
• Scott Anderson [45:20]:
  • Sees this as another example of a “chaos machine,” with the administration growing less coordinated and more desperate after reaching the height of presidential power.
  • Notes that aggressive bullying may backfire in the Fed context, hardening leadership resolve rather than prompting resignations.
• Shane Harris [48:09]:
  • Describes Trump as appearing “profoundly weak and flailing and unstrategic”—not a “strategy” but chaos.
• Lauren Voss [50:16]:
  • Counters that “not everything is working. But I don’t think that the administration needs everything to work… there has been some pretty extreme success in certain areas… we have to recognize that as a success for the administration and for those that are concerned about executive power, the reaches we’ve made in the last year there… are also monumental.”
• Scott Anderson [51:40]:
  • Suggests the administration’s initial game-plan (Project 2025) has peaked, and now the administration is less able to get its way.
• Lauren Voss [54:19]:
  • “Sometimes it’s still effective… especially with this reliance on military power in a way we didn’t necessarily suspect originally.”

Takeaway:
While the Fed probe is widely seen as baseless and clumsy, the broader pattern of pushing executive boundaries is reshaping the landscape. The Powell/Cook episode shows the collision of political, institutional, and legal strategies—and a judiciary starting to take notice.

3. Havana Syndrome: New Device, New Questions

Introduction (55:53):

• Major media report claims Homeland Security bought a device potentially capable of causing the symptoms tied to “Havana Syndrome.”
• Device contains Russian components, was tested for plausibility.
• This development reopens debate about whether foreign adversaries—most likely Russia—targeted U.S. diplomatic and intelligence personnel.

Key Insights:

• Shane Harris [57:24]:
  • Outlines split in intelligence assessment: CIA said no weaponized device known, citing lack of evidence; outside experts and some within DOD have always been more open to the possibility.
  • “The consensus on Havana Syndrome is cracking. This device raises a whole host of new questions about what is technically possible.”
• Scott Anderson [63:41]:
  • Suggests the divergent agency views are rooted in confidence about intelligence penetration: CIA believes “if we don’t know about it, it probably doesn’t exist;” DOD more circumspect.
• Shane Harris [66:01]:
  • Shares personal reporting: Analytical rigor at CIA, but “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a document or group of analysts so confident, so declarative in their finding of, like, no, it’s not a weapon, period… Maybe you just haven’t found the evidence yet.”
• Scott Anderson [70:47]:
  • Highlights the policy bind for both Biden and Trump: proof of hostile foreign action would force a U.S. response the administrations have sought to avoid.
• Shane Harris [72:48]:
  • Notes Trump’s tentativeness about confronting Russia, and that the White House and NSC did not want to “go public” on new information, out of discomfort with potential escalation.
• Scott Anderson [76:15]:
  • Closes the topic: “It’s an important one for national security… One day it will come to light and we will talk about it again.”

Notable Quote:

• Shane Harris [57:51]:
  “While the intelligence community found... Havana Syndrome is unlikely caused by a weapon… that opinion began to change in the White House… They made clear… new information had come to light that made them think the intelligence community assessment was maybe wrong. I think when you put these two things together, it seems very likely… the new development might be this device.”

Takeaway:
A credible, DHS-acquired device shakes the “its-all-in-your-head” consensus. The story underscores the challenges of intelligence limitation, intra-agency dynamics, and geopolitical consequences.

Object Lessons & Recommendations (76:48 onward)

Anna Bauer:

• The Night Manager, Season 2 (Amazon Prime): “Many listeners who are interested in spy thrillers or political intrigue will find it to be really interesting. It’s well acted, it’s entertaining, and I am really enjoying it.”

Lauren Voss:

• The SNOO bassinet: “I am a big fan of the SNOO… After a second child who would only sleep when touching a human being, we decided to splurge for the SNOO… Two weeks in, and I can just say it works.”

Scott Anderson:

• Grizzy and the Lemmings (kids’ show): “It is a bizarre show… none of the characters speak, just grunts and noises and music… utterly bizarre… My kid is obsessed with it and it’s utterly bizarre.”

Shane Harris:

• A Man On the Inside:
  • “Charming, delightful, created by Michael Schur… Ted Danson plays a retired engineering professor who becomes a spy in his retirement home… an antidote to all the craziness and cynicism and just the general ugliness in the world… Watch it. Feel better.”

Notable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• “[The conduct] in terms of investigating these state officials truly just seems baseless… pattern of behavior… pretextual, politicized investigations.” — Anna Bauer [10:41]
• “Donald Trump has a fixation on the state of Minnesota… this is a pretty obvious case of him trying to intimidate state officials.” — Shane Harris [13:15]
• “What does a potential pretextual criminal investigation of these state officials serve? …I’m really not sure.” — Anna Bauer [10:41]
• “I think maybe even this White House knows that’s a bridge too far.” — Shane Harris [13:15]
• “This administration on a fundamental level, including the Secretary of Defense, doesn’t really understand a lot of parts about the culture of the military.” — Shane Harris [26:51]
• “There would be a significant amount of deference as the statute’s written.” — Lauren Voss [30:46]
• “If they’re trying to weaponize the Justice Department, they really suck at it, right?” — Shane Harris [41:26]
• “As long as you have a pretext that the President can articulate, that’s enough. And that courts can’t review that decision.” — Anna Bauer [43:54]
• “The consensus on Havana Syndrome is cracking… This device raises a whole host of new questions about what is technically possible.” — Shane Harris [57:24]
• “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a document or group of analysts so confident, so declarative… no, it’s not a weapon, period.” — Shane Harris [66:01]
• “Sometimes it’s still effective. Right. …the dangers of that might be, especially with this reliance on military power in a way that we didn’t necessarily suspect originally.” — Lauren Voss [54:19]

Final Thoughts

This episode captures a period of institutional collision, executive overreach, and growing unpredictability. It is characterized by sharp skepticism, institutional memory, and an undertone of alarm at the pace and breadth of change. The Rational Security team remains both deeply informed and wryly detached, offering a much-needed blend of clarity, candor, and wit.

For More

• Visit: Lawfare Podcast Network
• Past Rational Security episodes & show notes
• Please rate and review!
• Follow @Lawfare on social media for updates!