Tyler McBrien (2:24)

Everything I do, I do it for you, Scott.

Scott R. Anderson (2:26)

There we go. There we go. Ooh. A little. A little anticipation of some things to come for folks who. We'll get that in a second. And of course, thrilled to be joined by our senior editor, Roger Parloff and legal correspondent extraordinaire, Roger. Thank you for coming back on the podcast.

Roger Parloff (2:39)

Thanks for having me, Scott.

Scott R. Anderson (2:41)

And we are thrilled to be joined for the first time on this podcast. I think she's been on our other sister podcast a few times. We're thrilled to be joined by U.S. correspondent for LePoint, Claire Mignal. Thank you, Claire, for coming on the podcast for the first time. Thrilled to have you jumping into this very chaotic corner of the Lawfare podcast universe.

Claire Mignal (2:58)

Thank you so much for having me.

Scott R. Anderson (3:00)

We have all enjoyed your coverage. We followed your work for a long time. You've done a lot of really interesting things that intersect with our work. And we have a story in particular that is taking the top spot in our queue of things to talk about this week that we very much want your perspective on. I think it is shaking up a lot of things on both sides of the Atlantic, and you are the perfect person to talk it over with. So without further ado, let me get into our three topics for this week. Topic 1 Make Europe aghast again. Vice President J.D. vance stunned the Munich Security Conference last week with remarks that criticized European allies for suppressing far right and anti immigration voices while playing down threats from China and Russia. Combined with the Trump administration's past hostility to the transatlantic relationship, many are taking Vance's remarks as a sign of a downgrade in the US European relationship altogether. But is this overstating things? And how far can the Trump administration truly take things on its own? Topic 2 I would do anything for Beau Vay, but I won't do that. That's a quick credit to that one on Twitter, I believe it was to Mr. Robert Anderson via one Mike Stern. I can't claim credit for that particularly inspired section title. The resignation of seven Justice Department attorneys over their refusal to move to dismiss charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams at the direction of Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Beauvais, has brought national attention to the Trump administration's apparent intent to use its discretion over criminal prosecution as a policy tool to advance its immigration and potentially other agendas. What do these recent events tell us about the potential for and limits on such a Strategy and Topic 3 Animus Instinct, the legal challenge to President Trump's executive order banning transgender individuals from military service and halting gender affirming care, finally had a hearing in federal court this week. And in a barn burner, U.S. district Judge Ana Reyes raked the Justice Department over the Kohl's querying whether the ban was the result of animus. But how big a difference will her line of inquiry make in the end? Is there a realistic chance that the courts will intervene on the plaintiff's behalf? So for our first topic, Claire, I want to turn it over to you first, but I want to set the scene for a little bit. We had a pretty remarkable speech by Vice President J.D. vance last week at the Munich Security Conference, which has become kind of, I think it's fair to say, the signature convention, the signature con for transatlantic heads of all stripes over the last decade or two. Once a year, everyone gathers together to talk over the big issues facing Europe and the United States together and their shared security relations. And there are lots of side conversations about other aspects of the relationship that aren't as security related. Lots of other events, lots of other discussions. But the speeches often are a major moment for people to put down markers, usually on items that are a major security concern or area for security collaboration. But we didn't get that from Vance. In fact, Vance basically said, I'm not really worried about China or Russia. I think he actually said that almost verbatim at one point. I don't know how much he meant us to take that literally in isolation. But instead he launched in this speech that's really more than anything about European domestic politics, I think it's fair to say, criticizing a lot of European governments for what he perceives as a sort of bias against individuals engaging in certain types of religious practice. Particularly, he repeatedly mentioned people engaging in prayer in relation to abortion protesting, specifically in Scotland. I think most of the stories he's talking about are coming from and maybe the UK More broadly, as well as talking about efforts to suppress certain kind of we consider what we could generally consider far right voices in Germany and Romania, including the cancellation of elections planned that were planned in Romania a few months ago, and specifically talking about the threat of immigration and the importance of allowing people who are afraid of immigration and its consequences to have a political voice. It was an odd speech, I will say, as somebody who's followed msc the Munich Security Conference fairly closely these last few years, last decade really, at this point that I've been here, and then prior to that in government. So talk to us about. About how these REM are being perceived in European circles, because my sense is here in the States, they've kind of raised eyebrows among people watching the transatlantic relationship very closely, but they haven't really penetrated the broader public kind of awareness. But I don't think that's the case in Europe. So talk to us about how these remarks are being received.

Claire Mignal (7:13)

Yeah. So, first of all, it's completely true. On Monday, there was a protest in D.C. on President's Day against Trump and everything. And I was asking people, did you hear about the Munich speech? And no, people have too many things to worry about. The few people who'd heard about it were a woman who had German origins, and then there was a guy who was also very involved in politics. But I understand people don't have time to follow this. And in Europe, yes, people noticed. It's been really interesting because since Trump was elected, it's almost like no one took some of Trump's threats seriously. Like, no one thought what he was saying could actually happen. It's always the risk with Trump, right? People abroad see him a little bit like a buffoon, like a clown. They don't think he's going to do the stuff he says. Like for Denmark, for example, they thought in Greenland, they thought it was funny, but ridiculous. Canada, 51st state, Gaza, they're all like, he's not really serious. He's not going to build a resort in Gaza, is he? And then Munich happens, and they're like, oh, my God, they're actually serious. And there are so many things in this speech that are incredibly remarkable, even the first few lines. And I guess as Americans, you probably don't notice this, but Vance talks about a terror attack that just took place in Germany, and he offers thoughts and prayers. That is really not something that anyone in Europe would do. When something like that happens, leaders are going to offer condolences, stand in solidarity with. We. We don't pray publicly. It's just not something that leaders do because we recognize a lot of people are atheist and there is a separation of church and states. And people from my magazine are calling, writing, saying, are they actually serious? It's very difficult for people to realize that the US in their point of view, has changed so much. And I was trying to explain. Well, I understand you haven't been paying attention, but this is basically what I've been hearing in Trump rallies and CPACs for four years. It is just that Vance is addressing those European leaders the way he would a MAGA crowd. I don't know if you noticed. At some point he says, trust me, if the United States could stand through 10 years of scolding by Greta Thunberg, you guys can. You guys can stand a few months of Elon Musk. And he pauses because he wants to give people time to laugh. And the room is dead silent for a few seconds, like, nobody laughs. And just like, this is such a.

Tyler McBrien (10:04)

Get used to that. Don't worry.

Claire Mignal (10:06)

But the thing is, he pauses for it and you're just like, well, first of all, you're comparing a teenager who used to chain herself to buildings. That's supposed to be freedom of speech. So you would find a lot of people, even in Europe, to say that she probably went too far, probably was used by some far left movement. You will kind of hear that. But comparing her with a grown man who actually has power inside the administration of the most powerful country in the world and who also happens to be the richest man on the planet is weird. And then the second thing is the environment actually is an issue in Europe. That's why we don't wrap apples in plastic. That's why we try to take the train instead of flying. That's why we don't use air conditioning so much. It's the thing. And so I thought all of this was so fascinating because people are like, why? What is this man actually talking about? Is he serious right now? And yeah, it's also really interesting to see on Twitter so many comments saying Vance showed them he gave America its dignity back. This is really not the reaction people had inside that room.

Scott R. Anderson (11:20)

So I'm kind of curious what parts of his remarks most stood out as most discordant to a European audience in particular, because I'm wondering whether it's different than even Americans who may have a fairly critical view, including, I will put myself out there, I'll share what my criticisms, I'm sure down the line. But like, critical view of this might be different. I mean, we had the anti immigrant sentiment, we had the saying you need to engage with far right party sentiment. You had the religious prayer. And allowing for, you know, more public space, I think essentially for it is a generous way to phrase what he was discussing. And then you have just the weird choice to use this moment to intervene in domestic politics essentially to make a strong statement about what are generally considered domestic affairs. Which of these was like kind of the biggest faux pas in European eyes or the biggest shocker? Or is it the Combination of them that really got people to know one stand above the others.

Claire Mignal (12:15)

The one thing that no one understood was freedom of speech. That happened to me so many times. And one time I think was I went to the Reawaken America tour in Detroit and I remember a man telling me, everybody wants to come to America because we're the only place on earth where there is freedom of speech. And I was like, do you think I don't have freedom of speech in France? It's like we are known for going on strike and protesting. That's what we do. If, you know, I think when I was maybe 19, I'm 48 now, I was in 95. I can't really even tell you what it was all about, but I think we protested for a month. It was great in Paris, and the law protects you for doing this. You're not going to lose your job over it. It's a basic, fundamental right. The other thing is, as you know, we've had journalists and cartoonists die over this because they draw, you know, cartoons of the prophet in Charlie Hebdo. And so no one understands what Vance was talking about when he was talking about freedom of speech. To be honest, as a French person, I have to really be cautious when I speak in the US because you guys don't curse as much as we do. I really have to.

Scott R. Anderson (13:31)

That's universally true. At least not in law for offices. But fair enough.

Claire Mignal (13:34)

No, no, but I mean, in everyday speech, you know, the way you guys talk about religion, you know, there are some things. And so I guess the one thing that Americans don't understand well is the whole part on the Holocaust. And, you know, we have a law against this in France, against negationisme. But honestly, I mean, if I can tell a personal story. I lived for 10 years with a great aunt who was a doctor during the war in La Pitie Salpetriere, which was one of the. Still is one of the very big hospitals in Paris. She was hiding people and that's the only thing she could think of by the end of her life. I mean, I remember her telling me about, like, what she would do was she would make some wounds look worse so that people could stay for three months in the hospital and then they would have to find a basement something in Paris where. Because, you know, it had to. It was a network. And she had this anecdote where a nurse came to see her and say. And said, gestapo is coming tomorrow. We don't, you know, we shouldn't tell Mr. Levi, who's on that bed because otherwise will get into trouble. And she, so she waited for the nurse to be doing something else. She went to that gentleman, she said, I'm gonna put your little, like, metal suitcase on your bed. I'm gonna turn around. When I'm back, you're, you're gone. We don't know where they're taking you. But my contacts, my sources tell me, no one is coming back. You need to leave. And he said, I'm too tired. You know, I, I, it can't be true what they're saying. Those camps. It seems completely ridiculous. At least I'll be with people who, I'll be with my people. And of course, he left on the following day. And that's all she could think of. And second thing is where my parents live in Paris, in the basement, there is still a number, which is the number of the classroom of the school just in front. And the kids of that specific classroom were taking shelter when the Germans were flying over Paris. And there were alerts because they feared Paris was going to be bombed. This is pretty fresh. This is not something Europe wants to see come back. And on January 6th, I was at the Capitol under the West Terrace, as you know, I mean, my friends with whom I've covered all those tries know about that. And I remember seeing a man with a T shirt that said 6 million was not enough. And I remember it took me a few seconds to understand what that meant. And I remember wondering, what, how abstract does it have to be for you to wear this kind of T shirt? And I guess it's completely understandable that the Holocaust is not seen the same way in the US and in Europe. I get it. But to my parents, my dad was born in January 43, so Paris was still occupied to my generation because I was lucky enough to live with somebody who told me about it all the time. It's still very fresh. The perspective of seeing the AfD win elections in Germany, for example, which is clearly a far right neo Nazi party. It's terrifying. And so I understand how it could be seen differently in the U.S. but in Europe, people are scared. For real.

Tyler McBrien (17:00)

Yeah. I was really curious at how freedom of speech issues registered, at least in the US press. In some parts of the US press, reporters have been pointing out the apparent hypocrisy of talking about freedom of speech in Europe while kicking out reporters from the White House press room that the administration doesn't agree with and other concerning attacks on at least the freedom of the press. It's also interesting, like saying it in a country where Nazi symbols are banned. And I don't know if that's especially controversial, or at least I hope not anymore. But you mentioned that the AF, D'Dar, the AfD and Vance, I believe, on the same day as his speech, it was on Friday, he met with the leader of the AfD. Elon Musk, of course, has spoken at AfD rallies, saying that almost kind of the we should all get over it, the past is the past kind of messaging, which I think also has a certain register coming from someone with family ties to apartheid South Africa. So, yeah, I think I'm really glad you brought that up, because I was curious. Freedom of speech can be a dog whistle in some places. It can mean so many things. There's so many layers of meaning and symbols and messaging when you say it here in the US So it's great to hear your perspective on it.

Scott R. Anderson (18:19)

Well, something that really jumped out at me is the sense of hypocrisy is one way to describe it, but the lack of kind of understanding about the limits that usually put on as a relationship and engaging the stuff of this sort of forum. Imagine if European leaders came to the United States and started closely commenting on how the United States approaches abortion or approaches January 6th these days, or approaches content, moderation and disinformation. All things the Europeans have generally, and European governments have fairly strong views on that do not align with how the Trump administration certainly approaches these things. And to some extent, a lot of Americans don't. Even outside of kind of Trump orbits, Right. There are genuine political cultural differences there, like there are with. With lots of countries in any different parts of the world. It would be absurd for a European leader to come and do that at a major forum hosting, you know, the president, the vice president, the senior figures of Congress, because those are things that are usually outside the zone of something that we comment on as allied governments. There is this question about, like, okay, you know, we want to ensure people are respecting human rights. So sometimes people meet with opposition parties. And that does happen. There are places where we've carved out, both in international law and kind of international practice, acceptable zones of that sort of interference. But none of this really lines up with that. This was very much treading in areas that if the reverse were true, the Trump administration would be very clearly and quite appropriately upset by European leaders doing that. And so it's just so tone deaf from that perspective. And then my kind of diplomat hat, you know, my putting on the hat of the realm I used to work in, also says, man, What a giant lost opportunity by the Trump administration where they walk into one of the biggest forums where you can really agenda set and steer the conversation among European leaders, focusing on national security and foreign relations policy. And you have your keynote address teed up and what do you do? You use it to give a speech that's better tailored to your domestic political audience than it is to the people there. What did he accomplish? What could he possibly accomplish in any of this? I don't think much of anything, although.

Tyler McBrien (20:27)

I do think that there are more intended audiences beyond the domestic base. I think he's speaking to certain elements in Germany, in France, in Hungary. I think the general take has been that this represents a turn away from Europe or imperiling the transatlantic relationship. But I think it's signaling a desire for a shift, a reorientation toward other parts of Europe, the ascendant far right, rather than a wholesale abandoning of US Europe relations. I think they very much want US Europe relations, but with far right groups instead of traditional allies of the center, center left, those kinds of leaders.

Scott R. Anderson (21:10)

I don't disagree with that. I think that might be right. But the real question is, if that's what you want to do, why is the Munich Security Conference the right forum for doing that? Maybe there's something to be said. It's like, oh, we're going to bolster these alt right elements we want to bolster because we're sticking our thumb in the eye of European establishment elites. And there might be that element that would be very consistent with the Trump administration's approach to a lot of things in this particular domain, and particularly the kind of J.D. vance corner of it that's very kind of anti establishment, without a lot of sense of what the alternative would be, if I'm being honest, as my general sense of it. But at the same time, you have things you want Europeans to help you accomplish. You just declared a wild new Gaza policy building off of actually a very successful ceasefire implementation in Gaza, a conflict that has lots of European, European influences. You just sanctioned the icc, a situation that's going to cause headaches with all sorts of aspects of European relationship, including a lot of ones you actually still want cooperation on, including in relation to ICC to some extent. Although depending on how toxic Ukraine go over Ukraine go with Russia, that might fade a little bit. There's just all sorts of things you could accomplish and move the ball on a conversation in this forum where it would be a much better venue for doing it. And we didn't see any effort to do that. Literally just not even mentioned in the key remarks. And doesn't really appear to have been a focus of this sorts of engagement there, like on Ukraine. What are they doing? Are they bringing Europe in? No, Europe didn't even have a seat at the table. They're just talking to Saudi and Russia, Gaza. Europeans also seem to be pretty marginalized. But Europeans are gonna be important partners for all of those things if you're actually gonna get these policy initiatives the Trump administration wants off the ground. And nobody appears to be telling the Trump administration that. Or if they are, they're not coordinated enough to actually execute on it. And that's a problem.

Roger Parloff (22:54)

I just wondered if one of his audiences is Putin also, if he's just signaling to Putin that we're on your side now and we're torching this relationship.

Claire Mignal (23:08)

Yeah, that happens after Hegseth has said that it was unreasonable for Ukraine to think they're going to go back to their 2014 borders and that they won't be able to integrate NATO. And so Macron, Macron did what Emmanuel Macron does. He had a very small European meeting in Paris on Monday and just another one today that was wider with Canada, with Iceland, et cetera. And Macron repeats, the existential threat is actually Russia, because that's what Europeans are focused on. Right. I mean, think of Poland, think of Finland, countries that have historic, you know, a very charged history with Russia. They don't think about freedom of speech for now. I mean, I'm sure they do, but it's, it's. The real threat right now is what's going to happen to Ukraine if there is any deal with Russia. Will they stick to it? Will they respect it? You know, that that's what people are thinking of right now.

Scott R. Anderson (24:06)

Well, and it does underscore to me some of the weird trade offs of alienating Russia because Europe has something important. A lot of things important, but one particularly big strategic thing important that the Trump administration seems to care about. If you buy its rhetoric around foreign policy, which is that Europeans care a lot more about Russia and a lot less about China and great power competition. And Americans care a lot more about China and a lot less about Russia. And the reason you can get European cooperation in trying to hedge in China is because you backed them up on Russia. If I'm being honest, that's oversimplifying things, but I think that's a big part of the equation that looks like it's just dropping out here now. Maybe the Trump administration doesn't want to take on China anymore. That's Quite possible. But certainly the rhetoric coming in. A lot of people in the foreign policy circles within the Trump administration, very big China hawks. It was a big talking point throughout the campaign, a huge focus of the first Trump administration. And there's a lot of good reasons maybe to tone down a little bit of what they were doing during the first Trump administration. But if you take them at face value, they're saying, and a lot of people genuinely in their circles appear to believe China's our biggest strategic consideration, our biggest strategic problem. And you're now compromising your ability to address that by compromising this relationship with Europe in a lot of ways. And you really do need Europe because short of a shooting war, which is something no one wants with China, your biggest toolkit is economic pressure. And the Europeans are a huge multiplier on economic pressure in a way that nobody can replace. So it's just a lot of shooting yourself in the foot on this stuff.

Claire Mignal (25:31)

I think just to confirm what Tyler was saying, CPAC this year will have people who've always been around for a while list Truss and Nigel Farage, Meloni, Giorgio Meloni from Italy is coming back. There are people from Poland, Czech Republic, and there is Jordan Bardella, who is the leader of the National Front and National Rally now in France. So there's really something of what Steve Bannon had always tried to do, which was kind of grouping all the Western far right movements.

Scott R. Anderson (26:09)

So, Claire, I want to ask you, where does the conversation go from here and how Europe responds to this? Right. I don't think Europe can respond in kind. I don't think it's smart for them to walk in and start criticizing the Trump administration over its own speech policies and immigration policies and sort of other things. Although we know there's lots that people disagree with there. We're beginning to see signs of more chatter about a European security force for Ukraine, certainly about more European European coordination cooperation. And in a way that is actually something the Trump administration and the United States more broadly to some extent has been pushing for a little bit more European self sustainment on the security front. Is that likely to come out of that? If this is really speech proves to be what some people are saying it is the psychological break of Europeans finally realizing America's not solidly in our corner anymore, at least not as solid as we thought they were for 70 odd years, what does that lead to?

Claire Mignal (27:01)

Well, as you saw, there was this first meeting in Paris on Monday and the second one today, but. But all the countries are not on the same page. Meloni for example, she arrived 15 minutes late in a Maserati, by the way, signaling very much that she was hostile to any kind of force, that she thought it was ridiculous. For Germany, it's always really complicated to envision having a military force of some kind for obvious historic reasons. They also are very, what we call Atlantist in French. They're very pro US and they can't believe the US is, is not their ally anymore. That's impossible to think from a German point of view. What's interesting is that Macron is bringing back the UK in that conversation. I mean, he's trying to bring back countries that have an actual military. I used to be an embed with the French in Africa, in various countries, in Central African Republic, in Mali. And remember that the UK lost, I think, 454 soldiers in Afghanistan. For the US, 2000 were wounded. France lost 90 soldiers and 700 were wounded. So they're trying to have that conversation, but it's really difficult because those are different cultures and those economies are smaller. But, yeah, that's where it's headed right now.

Tyler McBrien (28:25)

Before we move on, I just wanted to make one more point. This is about a related Secretary of Defense Hegsest related comments about Ukraine saying that they should abandon hope of NATO membership and that a negotiated settlement would. They'd have to give up territory, sovereignty. I put this in the same kind of category of what we're talking about. And I just wanted to point out that some Senate Republicans who may be bristling at Vance's speech have backed themselves into a corner. So I'm speaking specifically of Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker. This quote really stuck out to me after Hegseth's remarks. He called them a rookie mistake, quote. He said he made a rookie mistake in Brussels, and he's walked back some of what he said, but not that line. I don't know who wrote the speech. It is the kind of thing Tucker Carlson could have written. And Carlson is a fool. None of this is a surprise. This is a continuation of Trump 1.0. I mean, they voted for it. And by voting for Hegseth Wicker kind of seeds any sort of credibility on the, you know, he's proven that he has no leverage. If he so objected to Hegseth, he would have voted against him. So I don't know, those just kind of ring hollow. And at this point. And if Senate Republicans who do want to continue supporting Ukraine and do want to continue orienting toward transatlantic relations with European allies, it seems like they've given that up. They've just backed themselves into a corner. And I'm not sure for the Republicans who do want to return to these old alliances, if they have any leverage.

Scott R. Anderson (29:56)

It's a fair point. Although I will say this on one point, which is that there is still a very solid and enduring foundation of the US European relationship, or many aspects of it, that is embedded in law, embedded in a lot of tradition and institutions. And I don't think it's that easy to shake. That doesn't mean that Trump administration can't with a concentrated effort. We've already heard them doing things like leveraging five eyes relationship and stuff like that, which is intelligence sharing relationship the United States benefits from more than anyone else. It would be a foolish thing to start kicking UK and other close allies out of the five eyes relationship, other sorts of transatlantic cooperation. You could see the Trump administration disrupt a lot of it, but it would be to its own detriment. And they are going to get a lot of pushback, not the bureaucracy which increasingly is getting under assault and going to be silenced and going to be disregarded as a distrustful kind of third column by this administration foolishly to its own detriment immensely, but also by members of their own party. There is a strong transatlantic caucus and sentiment even within this current Republican Party. It's just very quiet and they're going to wait for a real crisis moment. But there's nothing that's going to get through Congress that's going to seriously compromise that. I think, I don't think. And I think that means that like a lot of key security relationships, a lot of other things are likely to stay in place and be there. And like you said, we still have, you know, the NATO withdrawal provision that's, that's in a law right now that makes withdrawing from NATO formally a much more complicated venture at a minimum by the Trump administration. All that together in my mind says that the foundation is still there. We could see a lot of damage over the next four years, but there's still something there to keep building up on. And my hope is that, that people remember that and we don't completely sever ties. We keep engaging because I think there are lots of Americans who want to take this up, frankly, on both sides of the aisle. They're just not the people who are in charge at this current election by the dane of a few thousand votes in a handful of states. Hopefully this is not the end of a relationship, maybe just a bad spell in one. So turning from some dissent overseas, let us turn to some dissent here. At home, we had a pretty remarkable week, even in a month of remarkable weeks. Last week in the city of New York, your home city, Tyler, where we saw an effort to dismiss criminal charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams by the Justice Department, directed by Acting Deputy Attorney General Emile Beauvais, that was then rejected BY the Acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, who then resigned or actually wrote a letter to the attorney general pointing out and arguing, I think, very effectively why what Bovet was proposing to do was inappropriate and asking for reconsideration and then offering resignation. That resignation appears to have been accepted, and so she resigned. Then another senior prosecutor on the case resigned as well, after being put on kind of administrative suspension by the Justice Department. And then we saw five attorneys in the public Interest section in Main justice, which then inherited the case, resign. The only way they got them to stop the resignation, they put, according to reports, which may be exaggerated, but they. I think they've seen it confirmed a few different circles now. They essentially put all of the public interest attorneys left in one room and said, you guys decide who's going to file this. Someone is Public Integrity. Excuse me. You guys decide who is going to file this case, or else everyone is fired. And finally, one person broke and did. Although it's worth noting, what they ultimately filed is not much of an endorsement of Bovet's arguments. If anything, it kind of just puts it on him to essentially make his own arguments, and it just reiterates them on behalf of the Justice Department. There's a hearing in that case happening basically as we're recording this. This is February 19th, Wednesday, a day later than usual. Sorry, folks, we're a little off schedule this week. Tyler, talk to us about what this case means and its significance. I mean, the underlying bargain here. What Sassoon and others objected to was what they described as a quid pro quo, actually initially pitched by Adam Adams's defense team, essentially saying, if you give a pardon, they were initially asking for a pardon. Instead, they appear to have been talked down to this dismissal of charges with some potential of them being resurrected down the road. But with this dismissal of charges, Eric Adams will actually back you on your immigration policy and enforce it in New York, which would be a big deal for the Trump administration if New York authorities really, really did back them up. And it's worth noting, Adams had a press conference with Tom Homan, the kind of immigration czar at the White House, where Homans said this, basically said, yes, we have a deal on this, and I will be up your ass if you do not abide by your deal. It is hard to deny there's a quid pro quo happening when you have the White House confirming it on audio at a joint press statement. And Adams didn't really walk away from.

Tyler McBrien (34:26)

It as well as the Fox News appearance. I believe Homan and Adams were together on the couch, kind of.

Scott R. Anderson (34:31)

Maybe that's what it was. Maybe that's what I'm thinking.

Tyler McBrien (34:32)

Buddy buddying, you know, ribbing each other.

Scott R. Anderson (34:35)

So, yeah, it's pretty remarkable. It is transparent, and there's not much doubt about it, but at the same time, it's not clear it's working out really well. Eric Adams now is under threat of being removed by Governor Hochul in New York. I'm not actually sure exactly how that works illegally, but it appears to be something she's seriously considering and believes is within her power to do. If nothing else, Eric Adams seems very unlikely to be reelected at this point, as I don't think the city of New York thinks very highly of his actions. So the question I have for you is what do you make of this strategy by the Trump administration? You know, they made the strategic choice to take this, make this sort of quid pro quo exchange that they may get their way on. We're waiting to hear from a judge today as to whether that will actually go through or not. Is this going to be a success story for them? Is it going to be a cautionary tale that shows some limits, like what should we supposed to learn from this incident about this broader weaponization of the Justice Department that the Trump administration now very clearly seems to be intending to pursue to advance its policy goals.

Tyler McBrien (35:31)

Well, I'm a little cautious because a lot can hinge on this hearing right now with Judge Ho and in which he's sort of demanding the appearance of the Justice Department and Adams to justify why this should be dismissed? I also first want to say that when the indictment first dropped, we had a conversation within Lawfare of whether or not we should cover it at all, because I was a little worried about New York provincialism. I'll just say that it has proven itself more and more and more and more in Lawfare's lane with each new news item. I mean, what you just said, Scott. Now we have immigration enforcement, we have sanctuary city policies, we have, you know, federalism. We have weaponization of the Justice Department. It is. It has just become like a microcosm of greater dynamics that are happening, playing out in US Politics. But to answer your question, it does Seem like it's not playing out that well for either Trump and the Justice Department nor Adams. I think on the latter, Adams perhaps was making this calculation that he will avoid criminal prosecution. But this was. I think you had to be deluding yourself if you didn't think you would take a political hit for this. I mean, the headlines write themselves that he's selling out New Yorkers to avoid prison. You know, it's not a complicated narrative for the people of New York to grasp. Like, it's a pretty clear quid pro quo if you believe you know what's alleged. And as you said, the walls are closing in. The governor has had a series of meetings this week with Brad Lander, the City comptroller, the speaker of the City Council, I believe, with Reverend Al Sharpton. And she's used the strongest language yet about the possibility of removing Adams, for which she definitely has the authority under the New York City Charter and I believe other also state law as well. So it doesn't seem like it's going that well for Adams. And I think we've pointed out in the past that the Justice Department is, is requesting the dismissal of charges without prejudice, which means he's not off the hook, you know, completely on the Justice Department. It does seem like they are pushing too hard. There's profile after profile of Bovi that is painting him in really harsh light, that he's this just this ambitious climber and he actually was pretty instrumental in January 6th prosecutions, and now he's has totally changed his tune and is this bulldog for the Trump administration. I mean, if you look at the press coverage, it's not great. I do think one thing that the Justice Department and the Trump administration were banking on was the impression of New York City, like other big cities like Chicago, of being these cesspools of criminal immigrants and crime and the subways, you can't even ride them. And that comes through in some of Emil Bovey's briefings and the letters back and forth. So I think that's still the political message, at least to the MAGA base, that we're cleaning up New York City and we're getting Adams. All this unfair prosecution of Adams is taking away from what he really should be doing, which happens to align with our administration policies, which is cleaning up New York City and these big cities that are crime ridden and have immigrants everywhere and everything. But I don't think it's panning out, at least not yet.

Claire Mignal (38:51)

I was inside the Capitol for the inauguration. That tells you how little of life outside of work I have that I spent so much time at the Capitol that they had asked me a few months before if I wanted to be inside. So you went through additional background checks, and people who had gone through those additional background checks a few months ago could be inside the Capitol that day. But I was in the overflow room downstairs in what is called Emancipation hall where tourists usually buy their tickets, and with me in that room where people who were instrumental to Trump's victory, I think like Greg Abbott, like Glenn Youngkin, who was the first to really run an education, and Eric Adams was there too. So of course a few reporters were talking to him and asking him if he was waiting for a pardon. And of course his answer was he talked about Biden's pardons that day. And then I'm reading the transcript of the interview here, and then he said, I did absolutely nothing wrong. I should never have had to pay $2 million out of my salary in savings to pay for legal defense, et cetera, et cetera. But that was pretty striking to see him at the inauguration in this very, very enthusiastic audience for Trump. And of course also I asked him about immigration in New York and he said it was clearly the thing that made more people vote for Trump this time.

Scott R. Anderson (40:22)

It is pretty wild. What an unlikely political arrangement from the Bureau of Brooklyn, where I do not think there were a ton of Trump voters. I'm sure there are a number, but not that many to hear. Hey folks, Scott R. Andersen here. Things are finally beginning to cool down here in Washington, D.C. there's a nip in the air. The days are getting shorter. Football is back on tv. All the signs are here. Autumn is coming. While the kids are sad to be back in school, it's a favorite season for those of us who are bearded, burly and sartorially inclined, as it's finally a chance to bring back the flannels, sweaters, denim and tweed we had to put away for the summer. But if you need a little help getting your closet ready for the season, don't sweat it. Quince has you covered. From new denim jeans to leather jackets to woolen sweaters, Quince has everything you need for cooler days ahead. And all of it is comfortable, classic and high quality, the types of items that will stay in rotation for years to come. The Mongolian cashmere sweaters, which go for an incredibly reasonable 60 bucks, are what got me into Quince in the first place. And if you are going to be back in my regular rotation this fall, I also picked up an Italian wool overshirt that's set to be my main light layer when things get nippy. An organic cotton long sleeve polo that's already begun to make its way back into my regular outfits. Plus, Quince is now offering more than just clothes. From houseware to luggage to rugs, Quince has tons of the everyday items you need. Personally, I'm thinking some flannel sheets may be just the thing to get before the temperatures really drop. And the best part is that by cutting out the middlemen, Quint's offers all these high quality products at half of what they would cost you at other stores. Plus, Quince only works with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices. So keep it classic and cool this fall with long lasting staples from quince. Go to quince.comsecurity for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q U I N C E.com Security to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Again, that's quince.com Security now let's get back to the show.

Boost Mobile Advertiser 1 (42:24)

If this back to school season talking to your teenager sounds like this.

Roger Parloff (42:30)

With.

Boost Mobile Advertiser 1 (42:30)

Boost Mobile make it sound like this. Come to your Boost Store store, get a line and take home a tablet for only 99.99. Perfect for staying connected and studying anywhere they're happy and you safe. Visit your nearest boost store requires ID verification, new $20 per month tablet plan and $35 device setup fee. Taxes extra.

Marc Maron (42:54)

Hey folks, it's Marc Maron from wtf. Today I want to talk to you about Boost Mobile offering reliable nationwide coverage backed by a 30 day money back guarantee. Love your service or get your money back. No questions asked. Boost Mobile offers the coverage, network speed and service you're used to, but at more affordable prices. Why pay more if you don't have to? You can get an unlimited plan for $25 a month that will never increase in price, ever. No price hikes, no multi line requirements, no stress. Visit your nearest Boost Mobile store or find them online@boost mobile.com After 30 gigabytes, customers may experience slower speeds. Custom will pay $25 per month as long as they remain active on the Boost Unlimited plan.

Scott R. Anderson (43:45)

Roger, I want to turn to you actually on another part of this broader question, this weaponization question, because there's another story we've had actually just breaking or getting a new chapter just the last few hours that I think is the other less high profile but also pretty meaningful aspect potentially of the strategy that we're seeing and that's actions by Ed Martin, the man who's the acting U.S. attorney here in Washington, D.C. the nominee to become the U.S. attorney by President Trump. We've seen him post on Twitter, primarily a number of strange directives initially kind of presented at the Doge team being headed by Elon Musk, essentially threatening with criminal prosecution anybody who harasses them or does anything lawful against them and then also anything unethical against them. Not sure what that is because you cannot just prosecute somebody for doing something unethical, to say the least. And now in the last 12 hours, 15 hours or so, we've seen another report, another letter suggesting through pretty weaselly language, I would say, that somehow he's opened an investigation into Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer investigating regarding his threats against federal employees and things along these lines, referring there to Trump administration individuals. Talk to us about this strategy. Where does this fit into the weaponization strategy? And, and where are the limits and potential uses of this? Because the Eric Adams case is notable because it was so high profile from the get go. You had the Bovet letter leak. Everybody was looking at the case, everybody was wondering what was going to happen. And because of that, to some extent, these resignations had a lot of impact because it got a lot of attention. And part of that also is just because it happened in New York. Everything that happens in New York gets five times more attention than stuff that the same thing happens in any other city in America, including Washington, D.C. this Adam Ed Martin situation is quieter. Like, who resigns over this? Maybe when somebody brings charges, there's some sort of issue, but it's pretty irresponsible and contrary to norms. And it's easy to say, well, this is all just talk. And maybe it is. Hopefully it is. But A, talk itself can be quite damaging in terms of chilling legitimate speech, legitimate activities. And B, you know, what if it's not? What if it goes one step further? And I think people could be genuinely, quite, quite intimidated by that. What are the checks, if any, on that sort of weaponization of the Justice Department?

Roger Parloff (46:06)

Well, there's really been a series of these lower profile events. This tweet, or actually a memo that was sent around by him, talks about a whirlwind project or something like that. And the whirlwind is a word that comes from Senator Schumer. He had talked about when the justices were overturning Doe, that there was going to be a whirlwind of a response. Actually, the way I read it, it was still really focusing. I may have read it wrong, but I think he's still focusing mainly on a sort of thuggish protection of Doge and of Musk. And, you know, you saw at some point earlier, I think, with treasury, there was some sort of possibly physical altercation where people were trying to protect the Doge, the machines, from having Doge people come in, obviously concerned about this being illegal under various laws. And he immediately tweeted out his support for Doge and a threat that anyone who messed with Doge was going to have to deal with him. It was so to ordinary thinking, unprofessional. You would want the prosecutor to do an inquiry, you see who was in the right, what happened, who was in, you know, try to. Nothing like that. This was just a completely naked political and public response. There's been a sort of continual stream of shocking tweets coming out of his accounts. There was also yesterday, I didn't get much news, but an important person in his office, a career person, resigned. The head of the Criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office in D.C. denise Chung, and CNN and Reuters really broke this. Sarah lynch and Kaitlin Pollan, according to the letters that they saw, it had to do with what Denise Chung regarded as an improper demand to launch a criminal inquiry into a government contract that had been awarded at the end of the Biden administration. And the documentation provided to her came from Bovey from the Deputy Attorney General's office. And she said it wasn't supported by evidence. And so she tried to pursue maybe a letter to the bank, freezing, putting a freeze on certain assets. And Ed Martin called her and said, that's not sufficient. We need a criminal investigation. And at that point, she resigned. So this is weaponization, political weaponization of the Justice Department. We are there. Weaponization. When you use the word Orwellian, it always seems like a cliche now, but this use of the word weaponization that we are seeing from Trump and we are seeing from Pam Bond Gandhi is just Orwellian. The notion that the DOJ was ever weaponized before Trump was always. This was always. It was a campaign theme. It was a empty defense to the two federal criminal cases. There was never anything to it. Judge Chutkan rejected it when it was posed in court in a short order. It wasn't a difficult question because there was no evidence backing it, but it was accepted by his backers and it was an effective campaign tool. And now that they've taken over that he's won, this weaponization thing is being taken over seriously, or at least nobody is willing to say that it's false. It never happened. And so we got an EO, we got an executive order on January 20th about weaponization, about fighting weaponization of the Justice Department. And when you read it, it was patently aggressive in tone. It was to ensure accountability for the previous administration's weaponization. It wasn't just we're going to make sure things aren't politicized. It was we're going to go after the people who politicized it. And it assumes that somebody politicized it. Justice was weaponized against crime in 1870 and there was overwhelming evidence that Trump committed crimes. And that's why he was indicted and that's why he was pursued. All of this is nonsense. And then Pam Bondi's one of her first memos, she created a weaponization working group. It's to Review instances where DOJs and other agencies actions may have been politically motivated or improper over the last four years. The newly created group will examine various issues, including the conduct of Special Counsel Jack sponsored Smith, the Manhattan District Attorney, the New York Attorney General. So we are there in the past, the president would set policies and the Justice Department for his Justice Department priorities and the Justice Department would pursue those. But he would not interfere in individual cases. I mean, going back to Watergate, so say the last 50, 60 years. Years. And that's gone now. We are seeing political intervention. You see it obviously in Eric Adams case, but we saw it in 470 of the January 6th cases. The President is allowed to grant pardons and he granted them in about 1200 cases. But in 470 of them, he just directed the cases be dismissed. So it, we are in a new place here.

Claire Mignal (52:53)

Yeah.

Scott R. Anderson (52:53)

And it's worth noting a lot of this seems to be coming to a substantial extent are being justified in part in terms of the president's absolute control over the decisions as a prosecutor, something we saw the Supreme Court harp on in its immunity decision last term. And we're seeing that language pop up again and again, this idea that the president is the one who gets to determine his delegate's prosecution decisions. When Denise Chung resigned, it's because, because her superiors told her we don't agree. We think there is enough evidence here to start a criminal investigation. She disagreed and they told her she has to resign or follow their directives and their determination or resign as that kind of top down fact fighting, determination making. That facilitates a lot of this because it doesn't really give working level people the opportunity to push back except through resignation. But before we move on for this topic, Tyler, let me throw it back to you on an aspect of this. How effective are these designations and how effective are they likely to be moving forward? Right. Because right now we're getting a lot of attention being brought to this case. But I have to say, like, part of the problem when you start seeing mass resignations in the first month of the Trump administration is that there are only so many lawyers at the Justice Department, certainly only so many senior lawyers that are going to be confident enough in their careers to be able to do something like this. And that if they all start resigning if asked to do these things and it keeps up at a clip at a substantial pace, there's going to be fewer people around with kind of the stomach or the mores that actually draw that line in the sand and say, I am going to resign, or there just aren't going to be that many attorneys left in the Justice Department. Right. It's kind of a time limit on this. This strategy gets less effective if the Trump administration isn't reined in. Am I wrong about that? And I guess the question then becomes, what is the next line of defense? Is it leaks? Is it grand jury and judicial pushback? Is it prior restraint, lawsuits over things like Ed Martin trying to chill speech of protesters and criticisms of Doge separate and apart from potential criminal activities threatening them, which is fairly limited as far as we can tell, where do these sources of pushback come from?

Tyler McBrien (55:02)

I think that's exactly right. There is a diminishing marginal return of these types of resignations because there's no one left to man the line of defense. And then I think you're right. I think the next line is, is probably the judiciary and judges and court orders. But we are seeing some evidence that the Trump administration may begin to start ignoring court orders. And then I don't know what's left besides a constitutional crisis? Not to be too alarmist, but I also wanted to bring in one other scary point for me, which is something that Noah Schachtman brought up in Vanity Fair. It was a really great, and I don't want to give too much away because it'll be my object lesson, a really great play by play of this entire drama that happened at SDNY where he said, quote, from a particular MAGA point of view, this isn't much different from the deals prosecutors cut with defendants all the time. So that's another scary point. If you think of another line of defense as public opinion and whipping up public outcry over what's happening. I do think he's right in that there's a large portion of the country that not only doesn't even see this as weaponization, but sees it as business as usual. I turn on the tv, I see these corrupt, these dirty cops, these dirty prosecutors on my TV shows at night, and it seems like this is what you do.

Claire Mignal (56:21)

Yeah, no, I listened to that EO that Roger was mentioning. I was in front of just outside the DC jail because I was waiting for all the January 6ers to be released that day, which didn't happen because they were all in pretrial. So it was a little bit longer. But everybody was clapping and really happy. And all those people and their families really think that they've been wronged by the government, that justice was weaponized against them, and they're all waiting for retribution. I mean, that's what I spent the week there by the jail, and that's what they were all talking about. They want retribution.

Scott R. Anderson (56:58)

Yeah. Well, I have a feeling we are going to have the opportunity to circle back on this topic because there are a lot more chapters left to be written in addition to the high profile one we saw play out in New York this past week about this story. But we are out of time for today. Let us move on to our third topic, another topic involving the question courts and the Justice Department, this time a legal challenge to President Trump's executive order barring transgender individuals from military service. Also ending different types of gender affirming care and other important health care to transgender service members. This all has been challenged by a number of plaintiffs who are transgender members of the military, being represented by a number of LGBTQ rights groups, among others, as well as well, by note being spearheaded by those groups, as I recall. And we saw a hearing actually have a remarkably aggressive line of questioning against the government that's gotten a lot of play just yesterday, Roger, you either attended or listened in on this hearing. I can't remember which it was. Tell us a little bit about it, about what we heard and where it fits into this broader picture about the legal argument over the executive order.

Roger Parloff (58:05)

Yeah, this is, I listened by a telephone hook up. It's actually continuing today. It's a preliminary injunction hearing called Talbot versus Trump and it challenges the executive order from January 27th that Scott described. And the wording of the executive order is important and has come into play. It's called prioritizing military excellence and readiness. And it talks about, it says armed forces have been afflicted with radical gender ideology to appease activists. It says the medical, surgical and mental health constraints on individuals with Gender dysphoria and use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual sex are inconsistent with the policy of the United States government to establish high standards for troop readiness, lethality, cohesion, honesty, humility, uniformity, and integrity demanded for military service. I'm reading some of this because one issue is animus, as I'll get into in a moment. Just read one other portion that becomes relevant. Adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful and disciplined lifestyle. Even in one's personal life. A man's assertion that he is a woman and his requirement that others honor this falsehood is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member. So this is the executive order, and seven active duty transgender soldiers are plaintiffs in the Talbot case. I think there's another case going on as well, but that's the one I'm focusing on, and it's here in D.C. before Anna C. Reyes and because of transgender soldiers were allowed, have been allowed to be in the military, sort of on and off and in a grandfathered way for a while. You have some members who have compiled very impressive records of service, like these plaintiffs, Bronze stars, commendation medals, deployments. And that makes the case gives the plaintiff some strong facts to work with. So the challenge is under the Fifth Amendment, the right to equal protection. And the theory is that by singling out transgender people for differential treatment, that might be sex based classification, or it could be a different. It could be that transgender people are a quasi suspect class of their own. And then there's this animus theory, which means you aren't supposed to aim legislation at a group out of a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group. The defense has responded. The Defense Department and DOJ representing them are saying the issue isn't ripe yet, which is their strongest argument, because they're saying the executive order is going to have implementing regulations and it's not self executing, so they don't want a TRO right now. Basically, the judge has indicated that she buys that, but the implementing regulation is due like next week, so this isn't going to push it off very long. So she was asking very pointed questions, particularly about the animus issue. And she was calling, isn't this unadulterated animus, the rhetoric about dishonesty and dishonorableness and irrationality, especially in the face of this record where you have seven plaintiffs with sort of stellar records? She said, not everyone with gender dysphoria is unfit to serve. We have proof Right here. That a history of gender dysphoria does not make you mentally unfit to serve. Right. And the lawyer sort of agreed that. That these plaintiffs had served honorably. How will pronoun usage impact military preparedness? She said, it's frankly ridiculous. Get me an officer who will get on the stand and say pronoun usage makes the US Military less prepared than it needs to be. I'll give you 10 days to find me a declarant. You and I both agree, the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen is not going to be impacted in any way by less than 1% of the soldiers using a different pronoun than others might want to call them. Would you agree with that? So, yeah, it was very. I think we see the direction in which she's moving.

Scott R. Anderson (63:30)

It was a fascinating hearing to read, kind of the readout stuff, even though I wasn't listening to it. And I'll say she also did my favorite line of questioning. It's something I broke out on a group of students, students 10 years ago on a moot court about essentially this topic, which is that she pointed out there actually aren't biologically two sexes. Right. There's a whole range of chromosome arrangements. And while we have the most dominant and socially constructed one is male and female, in fact, lots of people have different chromosome arrangements. On. What do you do with intersex people and different people with different chromosomal arrangements? That's a very good question. I don't think there's a very clear legal answer to that that really throws to some extent some of the framework we tend to think of this thing through, and certainly that the executive order operates in kind of in a very weird zone. But stepping back from this, I want to ask, you know, clearly, this judge, I think, is taking this as a moment to really hit on some of the logic of this. Right. And hit on this point of, like, what is this relationship to the military and the relationship to military, you know, effectiveness. But that relationship to military effectiveness is something that courts are traditionally incredibly deferential on. We've seen it just recently, Right. Like the Supreme Court said essentially in the last. Last term, before last, I think, two terms ago, in their affirmative action decision, where they essentially struck down a bunch of college affirmative action programs. They said, but this doesn't necessarily apply to the military because we give the military extra deference about what they think is necessary to maximize military effectiveness. And maybe that means diversity programs, maybe that means no transgender people. And that's all something determined, most importantly here, by the President, because the president's the commander in chief. At least that's how the. The Supreme Court seems to be framing it. Right. There's a question as to whether the president. I think that's what she's getting at. Is that really what's motivating the president here? But I'm wondering how much they're willing to pierce the veil on this, even if this might be a symbolically significant, culturally significant stand. Even if Judge Reyes does ultimately say, I'm not going to uphold this executive order because I think it's motivated by animus, I think it's unconstitutional, I don't know if that wins in the end. Maybe it's symbolically important, politically important. Important. But it strikes me as a hard legal road to hoe. Claire, I wanted to bring you in on this, on an aspect of this, because I know you wrote about the political salience of transgender issues in your book about kind of American politics from two, three years ago, a few years ago, as I recall. Is that right? I think. Tell us a little bit about what lens that gives you to look at this debate and how it plays out and how it fits into the broader political scheme. I think it's useful for Americans for how, frankly, to have someone help us step back and put these things in relationship to each other in a way that it's hard to do when you're kind of more in the thick of it.

Claire Mignal (66:02)

Yeah. So initially I started writing about it because the US Was in a position that most of Europe is backing off from. They're making transitioning more difficult for children in particular. And some doctors I was interviewing in the US Told me that that Europe was actually backwards on this issue and that we were going in the wrong way. But then it started becoming more and more obvious that it would also be a political issue for this election. And I say that because I went to a few meetings of parents who used to be very Democratic. But after, I think I started noticing this when DeSantis was still a candidate and there were. They heard his views on this, and they were sympathetic because they had kids who were either transitioning or who had detransitioned. And so I wrote about this issue. And then before the election, I did a sort of swing state tour. I go to almost all of them. Not Georgia and Wisconsin, though, but in particular in North Carolina. I focused on black men in. And I was with a organization that was trying to motivate black people to vote in a black suburb of Charlotte. And the first man we interviewed told me he would not vote for Kamala Harris because of that, that ACLU form she filled where she said that she wanted trans people like illegal aliens in prison to be able to transition on taxpayers money. That was the first thing he told me. And then there was the ad. That was the, you know, the ad she's for they, them Trump is for you. That was one of the ads on which the Republicans spent the most money. And that worked really well. And so after the election, I did a series of interviews. One with John Judas. You remember, he wrote the Emerging Majority with Burita Shera. And then where have all the Democrats gone? So, so he's a Democratic strategist and he was telling me that obviously no one voted on that specific issue, but that for a lot of people in the US it was a symbol of what some consider the cultural insularity of the Democrats. I also interviewed Dustin Guastella, who's the director of operations for a Teamsters union in Philadelphia and also a political scientist. And he, he said Democrats kind of lost the blue colors on that issue because you're telling them to troglodize. That's the word he used, troglodytes, not to see those issues the way they're supposed to. And he said somehow the economic program that the Democrats had and that could have really benefited the middle class and the blue collars, they kind of became inaudible because of cultural issues. Issues. And you also remember what Seth Moulton said after the election, the congressman from Boston. He said, I'm supposed to be afraid to say that I don't want my daughters to compete with transgender athletes. But as a Democrat, I'm supposed to be able to be afraid to say that. But I think it's ridiculous. I think. And I was talking to somebody from Boston who said, yeah, he's saying this because he knows it's going to get him reelected. That's what people in his district think. He's, he's not stupid. And I was just reading numbers right now, but that was on, on athletes too, I think. There was just a, there was a poll in the New York Times, ipsos, saying that 79% believe that men should not compete in women's sports. And so I think, I don't know how it plays out in the, in the military, because everything that Roger is describing, the use of pronouns in the military, it's hard to see how it could really endanger combat or anything. But I'm not sure if the Hill that Democrats should be trying to die on right now because it didn't really work for the election.

Tyler McBrien (70:29)

I don't have much to add other than a couple of things. First, I remember there was a lot of Democratic post mortem after the election that they shouldn't have run on the trans issue. But if you look at Kamala's campaign, she didn't, she didn't touch it really. And putting that aside, I think I just the MAGA attack on trans people, I think is the most bad faith example of issues that are based on bad faith arguments. And I think that's why we saw Judge Reyes lash out in the way that the judge did because it is so absurd, I mean, to it call call into question that if a trans person is expressing their gender identity that they think is true to themselves, to then call them dishonest and dishonorable and that they're lying, as if taking away that freedom of gender expression isn't forcing someone then to live a lie is just preposterous. And so it's just, I think it's exactly right. It's a cultural war issue and it's not a military readiness issue. It's part of the entire campaign against trans people.

Scott R. Anderson (71:35)

Well, we will have to leave the conversation there for now because we are out of time. But this would not be rational security if we did not provide you with some object lessons to ponder over in the week to come before we are back in your podcast. Roger, what do you have for us for an object lesson this week?

Roger Parloff (71:50)

Well, you know, I moved to Washington. Well, it seems recently, it's actually like over three years ago now. But I hadn't been to the Holocaust Museum and my wife and I went a couple weeks ago. I think it was the day before the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. And it's worth doing if you haven't gotten around to it. And I must say it was not very crowded. I was even on that occasion and even on a Sunday, and it was a little concerning. But it's extremely well laid out and explained and complete and moving and obviously moving. It's well designed. If there's something that's going to be hard to look at, they've got a little wall and you can decide whether you peek over it or not. And at the end there's a room where you can contemplate, there's an eternal flame and so on. I recommend it.

Scott R. Anderson (73:08)

Well, thank you, Roger. Tyler, what do you have for us this week?

Tyler McBrien (73:11)

Yeah, so as I mentioned, I want to recommend Noah Schachtman's Vanity Fair Play by Play of the what he calls the bloody battle over the DOJ's crown jewel. A lot of listeners I think will be familiar with SDNY's nickname as the sovereign district of New York. And Noah has this great line where he says SDNY has a well earned reputation as a sovereign district immune to any pressures from Washington. But in the second Trump administration there is no room for two sovereigns. It's just a great rundown of everything we've been talking about. I think if Jesse Armstrong, if you're out there listening, the writer of Succession, among other things, this would make great source material for another season of something. It's just it's high drama and I can't recommend it enough.

Scott R. Anderson (73:55)

I do seriously think we are probably going to get some sort of TV dramatization of some chapter of that at some point. I think it's got enough media attention and personalities are too involved and might be part of a much bigger story yet to come. So we'll see. Which is always very strange when people you've your life path has intersected with tangentially over the years end up being TV characters characters. But that is certainly something that might happen in that particular case. For my object lesson this week I am going to turn back to the Cooking File, something I have not done for a while because I hit on a really, really phenomenal cooking win in the last few weeks. I wanted to recommend people this is a recipe that is in the New York Times cooking website for pasta al sugo finto suggo sugo sugo finto I think it is where vegetable ragu it means fake pasta or fake sauce in Italian. I'm told by this ad. I don't my rough grasp of Italian. I didn't think that was the case but I'll defer to them on that particular one. It is entirely vegetarian vegan I think if you originally make it the original way basically version of a Bolognese that uses mushrooms and carrots celery kind of a mirepoix that is really really phenomenal cooked down a lot of red wine. I made it for my kids a few times and they have been devouring it and I have two kids under four and getting them to eat something that is essentially just a bunch of of vegetables put on sometimes fairly modest amount of pasta is a gargantuan win and it's pretty amazing. I highly recommend it. The one thing I would do is you know, spike up of the red wine a little bit. I think Claire, you will approve of this. Hopefully this appeals to Your French instinct. I think they have you cook it down like a half cup of red wine. I think I used a full cup or up to at least half a cup for the recommended. And they have a really good kind of like walnut topping. I forget what they call it exactly that they put on top that gives a little crunch and texture. Highly recommend. But not as popular with the kids. But if you're not committed to it being vegan, I frankly put a couple of knobs of butter in there and a bunch of Parmesan cheese and even a Parmesan rind and let it cooked and slow cook in there and it gave it like a lot of that kind of fatty ness that you're missing often for vegetarian cooking. That was very nice to have on a cold weather day. Probably a little less healthy but very comforting and a little more appealing even to the kids. So highly recommend it. This is my new favorite pasta recipe. Surprisingly easy, easy, really delicious. Highly, highly recommend. And I have been looking for a good vegetarian Bolognese alternative for a long time and I think this is the one I finally settling on. So that's my endorsement. Claire, bring us home. What do you have for your object lesson today?

Claire Mignal (76:12)

So as you know, of course March 8th is the International Women's Rights Day and I was preparing a story on abortion. So I'm just back from Missouri, Illinois, Tennessee and Alabama where I met Diane Derzis who has five abortion. She's the owner of five abortion clinics and she was the owner of the Jackson, Mississippi clinic that led to the Dobbs decision. Anyway, what she's focusing right now, she brought my attention to that act. I didn't know which is the Comstock Act. It's 1873 law that considered any material linked to sex and contraception obscene and illicit. So it means that you cannot send abortion pills through the mail. It's a zombie law. It would also affect any paraphernalia, any, any, any tools that clinics have to use to perform abortions. And there are a few anti abortion activists in Texas right now who are trying to through the creation of sanctuary cities for the inborn at the New Mexico Texas border for trying to create lawsuits that would clash with the Comstock act so that they can then bring it to the Supreme Court. I was absolutely not aware of that case. So I'm going to follow up on this now.

Scott R. Anderson (77:38)

It is really, really fascinating, if somewhat terrifying potential application. Our colleague Stephanie Pell, both a lawfare and herb Brookings, has written a very interesting paper about this which I strongly recommend to folks, it's on Brookings. It's not a Lawfare piece entitled the Criminalization of Abortion and Surveillance of Women in a Post Ops World delves into a couple of angles, but the Comps Act, I recall, being a substantial part of the analysis. Something worth checking if you're interested in this stuff.

Claire Mignal (78:05)

I just want to say France enshrined abortion and its constitution this year. I mean, it was actually more or less on Super Tuesday. And so it's always very difficult to explain to a French audience what's going on here.

Scott R. Anderson (78:21)

No doubt, no doubt. Well, on that note, that brings us to the end of this week's episode. But Rational Security is of course a production of Lawfare, so be sure to Visit us@lawfaremedia.org for our show page, for links to past episodes, for our written work and the written work of other Lawfare contributors, and for information on Lawfare's other phenomenal podcast series, including our new docu series on the war in Ukraine entitled Escalation, debuting in a Matter of days, debuting in just next Monday, I think February 24th, co hosted by our own Tyler McBrien. So very excited to listen that. Do not miss out. While you're at it, be sure to follow Lawfare on social media wherever you socialize your media. Be sure to leave a rating or review wherever you might be listening and sign up to become a material supporter of Lawfare on Patreon for an ad free version of of this podcast and other special benefits. For more information, visit love for media.org support our audio engineer and producer this week was Noam Osband of Goat Rodeo and our music as always was performed by Sophia Yan and we are once again edited by the wonderful Jen Pacha. On behalf of my guests Tyler, Roger and Claire, I am Scott R. Andersen and we will talk to you next week. Until then, goodbye.

Boost Mobile Advertiser 1 (79:33)

If this back to school season talking to your teenager sounds like this.

Roger Parloff (79:39)

With.

Boost Mobile Advertiser 1 (79:39)

Boost Mobile make it sound like this. Come to your Boost store, get a line and take home a tablet for only 99.99. Perfect for staying connected and studying anywhere they're happy and you save visit visit your nearest Booth store requires ID verification, new $20 per month tablet plan and $35 device setup fee taxes extra.