Rational Security – The “Pickled Fish in Cozy Sweaters” Edition

Date: October 22, 2025
Hosts: Scott R. Anderson, Quinta Jurecic, Alan Rozenshtein (Lawfare editors)
Guests: Anastasia (Nastya) Lapatina (Kyiv-based Lawfare Correspondent), Lauren Voss (Lawfare Public Interest Fellow), Eric Columbus (Senior Editor)

Episode Overview

The “Pickled Fish in Cozy Sweaters” edition of Rational Security opens with lighthearted banter about Nordic travels, pickled fish, and chunky sweaters, before turning to three major national security and legal issues:

1. President Trump’s reported push for Ukrainian territorial concessions amid renewed U.S.-Russia-Ukraine negotiations.
2. A Supreme Court showdown over the Trump administration's authority to deploy U.S. military domestically and the implications for Posse Comitatus and presidential war powers.
3. The Trump administration’s first use of "material support for terrorism" charges against alleged Antifa members, and the legal and political strategy behind labeling Antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization.”

The discussion features on-the-ground Ukrainian insights from Nastya Lapatina and in-depth legal analysis from panelists.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. U.S. Policy Swings on Ukraine: Trump, Putin, and a Possible Land-for-Peace Deal

[08:37 - 30:17]

News Context

• President Trump reportedly pressured President Zelensky to consider “territorial concessions” (i.e., ceding at least parts of Donbas) in exchange for a potential ceasefire with Russia. This followed a Trump-Putin call and ahead of a planned Trump-Zelensky summit in Washington.

Ukrainian Reaction & “Deal Fatigue”

• Nastya Lapatina:
  • There is ongoing frustration and confusion in Kyiv amid repeated cycles of U.S. signals swinging between strongly supporting Ukraine, then pressuring it toward concessions, seemingly “with one phone call from Moscow.”
  • “I talk to some people in the Ukrainian parliament who say, we have no idea what the strategy is, what the policy is, who is even briefing this guy. There's so much chaos.” [09:33]
  • Many Ukrainians have ceased taking such U.S. pronouncements at face value, waiting for tangible outcomes rather than “truth social posts.”
  • “Everyone in Ukraine is so just tired of trying to figure out what the hell is going on… until we see those Tomahawks flying…” [09:49]
  • Media cycles exaggerate supposed Ukrainian influence over Trump, “and people just started making fun of that.” [11:27]
  • Trump reportedly pressured Zelensky to give up Donbas, possibly in exchange for Russian withdrawals in the south—a “land swap” proposal most Ukrainians reject out of practical and symbolic concerns:
    • “How are you going to tell the Ukrainian army to just walk away? The emotion behind that...is just completely surreal for me to imagine.” [14:13]

American Panel Reactions

• Lauren Voss:
  • U.S. policy—under both administrations—never had a coherent strategy for Ukraine; initial focus was always more on NATO than Kyiv directly.
  • Trump’s vacillation is less a new shift than a pattern fueled now by “impatience,” possibly seeking legacy-building “wins” like in Gaza.
  • “He has this feeling that Ukraine doesn't necessarily want the war to end. …They're not compromising enough… that's not really, like, a peace plan. That's at best, a freezing of the conflict.” [21:01]
  • Comparison: Ceding Donbas (~9% of Ukraine’s territory) is akin to the U.S. losing Texas and Oklahoma. [22:09]
• Eric Columbus:
  • Trump seems to pursue the “madman theory”—making unpredictable swings to keep adversaries guessing—but more likely just echoes whoever he spoke to last.
  • No clear or unified foreign policy team compared to prior administrations, less baseline expertise on Ukraine/Russia.
  • “He is, in fact, just listening to whoever the last person told him.” [24:05]

Host Analysis

• Scott R. Anderson:
  • There’s an emerging “signature move” in Trump’s foreign policy—prioritizing deal-making above all, sacrificing consistency for the hope of a quick resolution and political gain.
    • Effective in Gaza, where the White House could press Israel for a ceasefire, but dangerous in Ukraine, given greater U.S. leverage over Kyiv than over Moscow.
  • “Trump's gonna be much more persuadable that it's the Ukrainians who are being unreasonable… he can force them to budge more, or at least thinks he should be able to…” [27:17]

Notable Quote:

“Until we see those Tomahawks flying towards Russia and hitting targets, or until we see a new package being passed, we're not believing any of those truth social posts because we've been here before.”
— Nastya Lapatina [09:54]

2. Supreme Court to Tackle Presidential Authority for Domestic Military Deployments

[34:35 - 58:46]

Legal Development

• Trump administration seeks the Supreme Court’s approval to override lower-court injunctions blocking its planned deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago. The core question is about the reviewability of the president’s authority under 10 USC 12406.

What’s at Stake

• Reviewability: Is the president’s decision to deploy troops “unreviewable,” or should courts set limits?
• Statutory Interpretation: The tension between historical roots in the Militia Acts and more recent limitations (Posse Comitatus Act, the Insurrection Act).
• Mission vs. Mobilization: Is 12406 just for mobilization or also for mission/operations?
• “Good faith” problem: What if the president is not acting in good faith? Mechanisms to check abuse of this power are lacking.
  • “Our whole system is predicated on that assumption of good faith. …the question will be, if not acting in good faith, then what?” — Lauren Voss [42:29]

Notable Quotes

• “The president's power is unreviewable. It does not matter how he made the determination… The courts cannot review that.” — Lauren Voss summarizing administration’s position [37:40]
• “It’s built on this assumption of good faith… what if the president is not acting in good faith?” — Lauren Voss [42:26]

Nuances & Next Steps

• The administration, despite losing in lower courts, argues for both broad deference and a “protective power.”
• The legal question may shift if deployments expand or shift in character (e.g., the Insurrection Act invoked for explicit law enforcement).
• Trends mirror a broader executive drive for unchecked domestic military powers, particularly in blue states under the guise of law enforcement or terrorism.

3. Using “Material Support for Terrorism” Laws Against Domestic Groups (Antifa as Test Case)

[58:46 - 73:19]

Case Overview

• In Texas, two individuals allegedly part of an “Antifa terrorist cell” have been charged with attempted murder of federal officers, discharging firearms, and “material support for terrorism.” This is the first such case following Trump’s executive order labeling Antifa a “domestic terrorism organization.”

Legal Analysis

• Eric Columbus:
  • The “Antifa” designation is empty: “That’s not a thing. The law provides for the executive branch to designate foreign terrorist organizations, but not a domestic one.” [63:12]
  • The statute charged (2339A — “material support for terrorism”) requires knowledge/intent support aids a listed violent crime. It does not make it a crime simply to support a “terrorist” group, as with 2339B and foreign terrorist organizations.
  • Comparison: The legal structure and mens rea hurdles make domestic cases very different from the broad net cast for foreign terrorist financing.

Political and Strategic Messaging

• The administration is using these indictments and executive orders as a branding exercise to advance the narrative that Antifa is an organized, criminal terror threat worthy of military or legal counterterrorism tools.
• These moves aim to:
  • Signal an aggressive stance to the base,
  • Lay groundwork for broader, more intrusive law enforcement/military approaches,
  • And possibly use “counterterrorism” rationales to expand domestic military deployments.

Risks and Precedents

• Lauren Voss:
  • Drawing rhetorical and legal links between “criminals” and “terrorists” could expand the logic for using military force on U.S. soil (Posse Comitatus exceptions, law of war paradigms), blurring civil/military distinctions in policing dissent.
  • “You could turn into responding to terrorists with military action… and that is what makes me nervous here.” [71:21]

Memorable Moments & Notable Quotes

• “How are you going to tell the Ukrainian army to just walk away? The emotion behind that and the symbolism behind it is just completely surreal for me to imagine.” — Nastya Lapatina [14:13]
• “I think he's just listening to whoever the last person told him… But he could be trying to throw both sides off guard and keep them guessing in this kind of sort of sadistic way…” — Eric Columbus [24:05]
• “If the president is not acting in good faith, then what? Right? If you give this extreme deference, but for whatever reason the facts as presented are not accurate… the answer might not be in the courts.” — Lauren Voss [42:26]
• “That’s not a thing. The law provides for the executive branch to designate foreign terrorist organizations, but not a domestic one.” — Eric Columbus on “domestic terrorist” designation [63:12]
• “You could see a wider deployment of the military, including in a law enforcement role, because they're responding to antifa… I see some of that playbook and how it could be borrowed here.” — Lauren Voss [71:21]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Opening and Nordic banter: 00:42 – 02:47
• Topic 1: U.S. pressure on Ukraine, land-for-peace debate: 08:37 – 30:17
• Topic 2: Domestic military deployments, Supreme Court, and legal authorities: 34:35 – 58:46
• Topic 3: Material support for terrorism charges & Antifa: 58:46 – 73:19

Object Lessons (Highlights & Recommendations)

• Lauren: Wayside Farms (pumpkin-picking, family-friendly, less crowded Halloween farm in the DMV region). [74:21]
• Eric: J. Crew chambray shirt (“almost my second skin… compliments on the street…”). [76:18]
• Scott: NYT Magazine piece “You’re Going to Lose Your Mind: My Three Day Retreat in Total Darkness” and rave review of a Katie Pruitt concert. [77:29]
• Nastya: Zadie Smith’s essay collection “Feel Free”—praised for political and cultural insight, self-critical left analysis. [79:51]

Tone & Atmosphere

The conversation is conversational, self-aware, and frank, mixing dry humor, global perspective, on-the-ground reporting, and deep legal analysis. The Lawfare team remains skeptical of easy narratives—about both foreign leaders and domestic legal powers—and committed to parsing the difference between what’s said in the news and what's happening behind the scenes.

For further reading and links to referenced articles, essays, and prior Lawfare analysis, visit lawfaremedia.org.

End of summary.