Rational Security: “The Story of Three Warrants” Edition
Lawfare Podcast – Hosted by Scott R. Anderson
Aired: February 5, 2026
Overview
In this episode, Scott R. Anderson is joined by Lawfare Senior Editors Molly Roberts and Mike Feinberg, as well as Lawfare's new Public Service Fellow, Troy Edwards. The panel dissects a trio of recent legal stories—all centered on the use (and potential abuse) of government warrants—delving into the legal, institutional, and constitutional tensions at stake. Together, they cover:
- The FBI’s highly unusual search for ballots in Fulton County, Georgia, attended by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard;
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) move to use administrative (not judicial) warrants for home raids; and
- The FBI’s seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natenson’s devices in a classified leaks probe.
Throughout, the discussion interweaves legal mechanism, policy impact, and the broader damage to institutional norms.
Key Topics & Discussions
1. Fulton County Election Search: Norms Upended (06:01–39:49)
Background & Developments
- The FBI executed a warrant to search Fulton County's 2020 ballots and voting equipment, with Tulsi Gabbard (serving as Director of National Intelligence) on site—an almost unprecedented act.
- The search was allegedly at President Trump’s direct request, possibly as part of his ongoing attempts to relitigate the 2020 election.
- State officials are suing to recover seized materials and challenge the action.
"Trump has been obsessed with Georgia ever since the 2020 election... This obsession has continued up until now.”
—Molly Roberts [06:01]
Legal Technicalities
- Statutory Basis and Statute of Limitations:
Troy Edwards unpacks the federal statutes cited (52 USC 20701 & 20511) and whether enough probable cause exists—especially given the time elapsed since the 2020 election. - Conspiracy & RICO Angles:
The team discusses whether a “big, beautiful conspiracy” claim or a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) umbrella could preserve the case despite timing challenges.“They might pull into that basically anything bad that's happened to Trump... part of this vast left wing conspiracy to deprive Trump of his ability to appear on the ballot.”
—Molly Roberts [13:24]
The Tulsi Gabbard Factor
- Mike Feinberg lays out why Gabbard’s on-site presence is not just odd but norm-shattering, potentially contaminating the chain of custody and opening the IC to unwanted court scrutiny.
- Gabbard’s post-hoc letter justifying her role is critically assessed and found lacking in genuine legal merit.
-
“It's best thought of... as Exhibit 2347 in the Erosion of Norms... This is pretty beyond the pale of what would normally occur at any scene of a search warrant.”
—Mike Feinberg [19:09]
Constitutional Obstacles & Institutional Damage
- States, not the federal government, constitutionally control election management; substantial 10th Amendment and Elections Clause issues loom over federal intrusion.
- Multiple panelists note the lasting institutional damage:
“I know that it's just significant damage to each of the institutions involved and allows some of the American public to shrug their shoulders...”
—Troy Edwards [38:36]
Forward-Looking Concerns
- The action could be a "test run" for more aggressive attempts to federalize elections—a move with little congressional appetite but high potential for sowing chaos.
“Why wouldn't he try to do that again right after the election happened? ... I don't think considering the worst-case scenario is completely crazy here.”
—Molly Roberts [38:36]
2. ICE and Administrative Warrants: Constitutional Shortcuts? (40:36–55:21)
The Policy Shift
- ICE has been instructing agents they can make home entries to detain/removal targets with only administrative warrants (signed internally) rather than judicially issued ones.
- This stretches a mechanism historically reserved for specific, non-invasive scenarios (like obtaining employment records) into constitutionally questionable territory.
“I spent 16 years in law enforcement... and neither I nor anyone I know... has ever heard of an administrative warrant being used to justify making entry in somebody's home.”
—Mike Feinberg [41:42]
Legal and Practical Risks
- Troy Edwards explains ICE’s likely efficiency rationale but notes there's little recourse for aggrieved parties given current immunity doctrines, unless Congress acts.
- Possible external remedies include class actions, injunction efforts, but compliance issues remain.
- District courts have split on whether Supreme Court dicta support or oppose the practice, likely foreshadowing future legal clashes.
“They're looking at that friction, at that split.”
—Troy Edwards [48:31]
Political & Policy Realities
- While alarming to civil libertarians, the issue currently lacks the salience to become a primary target of congressional pushback, especially amidst other immigration debates.
“Compared to a lot else that's going on, I feel like it would kind of fade into the background of priorities.”
—Molly Roberts [51:36]
Broader Implications
- The ease and speed with which administrative warrants can now be used threaten individual rights and create unexpected liability, especially when other federal agents participate in ICE-led raids.
“Targeted operation can be done very quickly... those other agencies' employees could really be opening themselves up to substantial liability...”
—Mike Feinberg [53:21]
3. The Press, Classified Leaks, and the Nathenson Case (55:21–76:54)
The Incident
- FBI seized all of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natenson’s devices (personal and professional) as part of a classified leak probe surrounding a Venezuela-related intelligence leak.
- A rare and highly controversial move, especially given the chilling potential for future reporting.
The Law and Its Gray Areas
- Troy Edwards outlines the usual protocols (filter teams, tank teams) meant to limit press freedom incursions, but acknowledges that the action—regardless of process—erodes trust and sets a disturbing precedent.
- Even if the main legal case (against source Perez Ligones under 18 USC 793(e)) is solid, the parallel warrant against a mainstream journalist crosses a line.
Press Freedom & Chilling Effects
- Molly Roberts articulates the deepening concern among journalists:
“There is a real chilling effect when the line that you believe to be in place appears to be getting eroded.”
—Molly Roberts [63:22] - She draws parallels to past failed attempts to prosecute lobbyists (AIPAC case), emphasizing the historically high threshold for such prosecutions and the vital First Amendment defense—though courts have found national security to be a “most compelling interest.”
The Government’s Tension
- Mike Feinberg and Troy Edwards each articulate (if reluctantly) the government’s competing interest: classified leaks, even via journalists, can have grave real-world impact, and current structures may inadequately address the risk.
“There is at least a colorable argument... for going after journalists who publish classified information.”
—Mike Feinberg [68:54]
Divided Norms, Institutional Distrust
- The panel’s back-and-forth demonstrates the fundamental, ongoing tension between national security enforcement and press freedom, each side wary of out-of-balance pendulum swings.
“Maybe investigators were being a little too hands off on media leak cases... But to go so far in the other direction that prosecutions of journalists are being contemplated seems to me like way overcompensating for whatever problems may have been there.”
—Molly Roberts [73:32]
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
On ODNI at a Search Warrant:
"This is pretty beyond the pale... It's problematic for quite a few reasons, which we'll get into, but I think it's best thought of... as Exhibit 2347 in the Erosion of Norms."
—Mike Feinberg [19:09] -
On Institutional Damage:
"It's just significant damage to each of the institutions involved and allows some of the American public to shrug their shoulders and say these are the things that happen. Intelligence agencies, FBI, the President, they all just kind of swirl around anyway."
—Troy Edwards [38:36] -
On ICE Administrative Warrants:
"I spent 16 years in law enforcement... and neither I nor anyone I know... has ever heard of an administrative warrant being used to justify making entry in somebody's home. This seems like a pretty clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment."
—Mike Feinberg [41:42] -
On the Chilling Effect for Journalists:
"There is a real chilling effect when the line that you believe to be in place appears to be getting eroded."
—Molly Roberts [63:22] -
On the Government’s Predicament:
"They are not operating in a vacuum. They're dealing with an administration that has called into question their motives."
—Troy Edwards [75:08] -
On the Irreconcilable Tension:
"The press is not always going to be right. But the working assumption we've always had—that sunlight should be shown on almost everything—is really leaving a lot of equities out of the equation."
—Mike Feinberg [76:54]
Timestamps for Key Segments
-
Fulton County Warrant & Tulsi Gabbard: 06:01–39:49
- Legal analysis: 08:34–18:00
- Gabbard’s presence: 19:09–26:49
- Constitutional context & institutional impacts: 26:49–39:49
-
ICE Administrative Warrants: 40:36–55:21
- Past practice vs. new practice: 41:42–44:42
- Legal risks & externalities: 45:47–50:23
- Political calculus & policy prospects: 51:36–55:21
-
Natenson/Press Leak Case: 55:21–76:54
- Case background: 57:20–62:45
- Chilling effects & First Amendment debate: 62:45–73:32
- Government vs. press viewpoint: 73:32–76:54
Tone and Style
- The conversation is candid, unsparing, and rich in personal experiences—from the comedic (“big, beautiful conspiracy”) to the deeply sobering (chilling effects, institutional decline).
- Speakers often temper legal analysis with wry or caustic commentary on a political system straining the boundaries of accepted norms.
- The complexity of the law is matched by a sense of both technical mastery and deep, sometimes rueful, institutional memory.
Conclusion
This episode is an incisive, occasionally alarming tour through the evolving—and sometimes devolving—legal and constitutional landscape of American governance. With “three stories” of warrants as their lens, the Lawfare panel weighs not only what is happening, but what is being broken (“Exhibit 2347 in the erosion of norms”) and what consequential fights may soon come.
For a full listen, see the timestamps above for your point of interest—or trust, you’ll come away better informed, if not more optimistic, about the state of American legal institutions.