The Lawfare Podcast

Rational Security: The “F*cked by Five” Edition

Date: October 8, 2025
Host: Scott R. Anderson
Panel: Dan Byman, Tyler McBrien, Lauren Voss

Episode Overview

In this lively “Rational Security” roundtable from The Lawfare Podcast, Scott R. Anderson and colleagues discuss three major, high-stakes national security stories of the week. With the gravity of recent domestic troop deployments, the prospects of a dramatic Gaza peace breakthrough, and mounting military posturing near Venezuela, the team brings sharp analysis, informed skepticism, and characteristic wit.

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. Domestic Military Deployments: The Trump Administration’s New Frontier

• [11:27] Lauren Voss opens with deep concerns about the Trump administration’s use of federal troops in Portland and Chicago:
  • These deployments lack the clear, traditional predicates (i.e. massive unrest or rioting) usually required for such measures.
  • There’s confusion and opacity: federal rhetoric about “war-torn” cities and “domestic terrorism” is at odds with the technical justifications for the deployments.
  • Lack of transparency: “There is actually confusion on what we are doing with these troops. Is it really just to do federal protection of…one single ICE facility or is it this wider mission against Americans and Antifa…?” (Lauren Voss, [12:17])
  • The legal requirements for invoking the Insurrection Act (including clear presidential proclamations) are unmet.
• [13:30] Tyler McBrien underscores the partisan geography: deployments are targeting cities and states led by Democrats.
  • Armed ICE agents with no identification are also on the ground, creating a “tinderbox” scenario.
• [14:14] Dan Byman notes that Portland and Chicago have been depicted in right-wing media as failed, chaotic cities – stoking the political motivations behind such interventions.
  • There’s a risk these deployments will escalate to justify further crackdowns: “Each time there’s a deployment, especially in a combustible area, that risk increases.”
• [15:19] Lauren Voss warns of a “strategy to change the facts on the ground,” potentially inciting enough unrest to justify military action.
  • Alarming disinformation: Video feeds and social media claim to show “chaos” in Portland—but are often repackaged from old or out-of-context footage.
  • “People don’t actually know what the facts on the ground are, just because of the amount of disinformation.” (Lauren Voss)
• [16:45] Scott R. Anderson highlights the challenge for courts: The administration’s public rhetoric makes sweeping claims, but the Justice Department’s official justifications are vague.
  • This puts judges in an unusual fact-finding role—one that challenges traditional deference to executive national security claims.
  • “It does get at this recurring issue…the Trump administration leans into…the idea that in areas where it knows it generally gets deference…they’re really running it to the hilt.” (Scott R. Anderson)
• [20:50] Tyler McBrien notes the “split screen” between public and legal arguments; the president seems to regard the military as a law enforcement arm, blurring the crucial distinction between crime and war in law and policy.

Notable Quote:

“There is actually confusion on what we are doing with these troops. Is it really just to do federal protection of…one single ICE facility or is it this wider mission against Americans and Antifa…? And…the amount of disinformation we’re seeing…people don’t actually know what the facts on the ground are.”
— Lauren Voss ([12:17])

Antifa and the Militarization of Response

• [22:00] Discussion shifts to the role of Antifa—designated by Trump as a “domestic terrorist organization.”
  • Dan Byman contextualizes: Historically, right-wing terrorism has far outweighed left-wing, but there has been a recent uptick in left-wing politically motivated violence, albeit from a low base.
  • The threat of “Antifa” is rhetorically powerful, but legally hollow and organizationally amorphous.
  • The “terrorism” label is more about political signaling than statutory substance—meant to communicate seriousness and justify escalated force.
  • Stephen Miller’s public rhetoric inflames these tensions, vastly distorting the empirical picture.

Notable Quote:

“There’s always an attempt to create some organizational order that allows you to get a grasp on these tricky groups. But the left wing, like the right wing, has actually not been groups—it’s been individuals radicalized, often as part of broader networks…with Antifa, it’s become a rhetorical label, [but] it’s not really a group, it’s just an ideology.”
— Dan Byman ([28:40])

Legal Mechanisms and Past Precedents

• [32:38] The team breaks down legal mechanisms: Title 10 (federalization of National Guard), Title 32 (state authority, federal funding), and the Posse Comitatus Act restrictions.
  • The administration has used “accept Title 32 or we’ll federalize under Title 10” as a pressure tactic.
• [35:35] Lauren Voss reflects on the 2001 John Yoo OLC memo—which suggested extreme leeway for domestic military deployments to counter terrorism.
  • Although partially walked back, dangerous precedents about suspending constitutional protections linger.
  • “If you’re doing a military mission, Posse Comitatus doesn’t apply…The gloves come off…The Fourth Amendment won’t apply…you could override the First Amendment…” (Lauren Voss)

2. Middle East Diplomacy: The 21-Point Gaza Peace Plan

• [42:50] Scott R. Anderson recaps the Trump administration’s surprising diplomatic breakthrough—a detailed, multi-stage peace plan for Gaza, heavily authored by Tony Blair and regional stakeholders.
  • Details: Palestinian Authority (after reforms) would govern Gaza; two-state solution is explicitly revived; the region, particularly Gulf states, is on board.
  • Israel reportedly agreed to the terms with only minor changes, despite looming cabinet hurdles; Hamas is negotiating but is open to the plan’s core hostage exchanges.
  • “It’s kind of extraordinary in my mind…something the Biden administration would have been thrilled if they’d gotten.” (Scott R. Anderson)
• [43:00] Dan Byman notes the unusual moment of alignment: U.S., Israel, regional actors, and heavy international pressure have all converged.
  • War exhaustion and the burden of continuous reservist call-ups within Israel are shifting domestic political opinion toward peace.
  • The fundamental stumbling block: Will Trump’s notoriously short attention span and political vagaries let the process move forward through the inevitable hard details of disarmament, withdrawals, and third-party oversight?

Notable Quote:

“You never lose money when you bet against Israeli-Palestinian peace…but that said, I think the odds have changed…I’m certainly more optimistic than I’ve been in quite some time.”
— Dan Byman ([43:19])

• [52:15] Tyler McBrien registers caution, noting ongoing violence, entrenched right-wing opposition in Israel, and likely Palestinian skepticism toward the proposed transitional government.
  • Tyler: “A lot of the details…could be completely unpalatable to the hard right in Netanyahu’s coalition, and also to Hamas.”
• [54:51] Scott R. Anderson points out the historic shift:
  • For years, the Republican Party erased the two-state solution from its platform; now, Trump is enforcing it as policy.
  • “Embracing a deal…that expressly says ‘no annexation’…is extraordinary…Trump’s able to force this on his own political party.”
• [61:33] Lauren Voss, drawing from her experience in Jerusalem, details why the lack of specificity over transitional governance and power handovers is worrisome for durable peace.
  • “You have a victory on an agreement of end state…but there’s so much work…you can see how different parties might read very different obligations.”

3. The Maduro Doctrine: U.S. Military Posturing Toward Venezuela

• [64:43] Scott R. Anderson outlines the Trump administration’s saber-rattling toward Venezuela:
  • Recent U.S. operations have struck narcotics vessels, and a significant military buildup is underway in the southern Caribbean.
  • There is open talk in Washington about regime change, with key officials like Marco Rubio and Stephen Miller pressing for Maduro’s ouster.
  • Parallels are drawn to interventions in Panama and Granada, but with far less regional legitimacy and higher humanitarian stakes.
• [67:44] Dan Byman draws a parallel to the “get-tough” political theater of domestic troop deployments—escalating both rhetoric and military tools to project strength.
  • Such moves pressure neighboring governments (e.g., Mexico) to concede on issues to avoid U.S. intervention, but actual efficacy against drug flows is highly dubious.
  • “Will blowing up several boats affect the supply of drugs entering the United States?…With just a huge demand in the United States…it’s very, very hard to stop this.”
• [73:35] Tyler McBrien is baffled by the internal contradiction: The administration campaigned on restraint, yet neoconservative interventionism is being revived under the Monroe Doctrine.
  • “If you view Maduro as an illegitimate dictator and your goal is to push him out by other means…everything being done right now is likely uniting the people of Venezuela around Maduro…What does make sense is…political theater and wanting to look tough to your base.”
• [75:27] Lauren Voss reflects on operational logic:
  • Stronger intelligence/law enforcement coordination could help, but military action alone is ineffective without addressing U.S. demand.
  • The “terrorism” label is used to “take the gloves off” on policy constraints—though actual regime change by force appears unlikely, with the administration more likely trying to force concessions.
  • “I’m having trouble following the argument that these specific military attacks…will actually address the problem.”

Legal Contours

• [78:01] Scott R. Anderson critiques the legal justifications for strikes on narcotics traffickers and any looming move against Maduro himself.
  • Under both international and U.S. law, these actions are “clearly unlawful”—the people targeted are civilians, not combatants.
  • The administration seems to rely on the “power of bullying” and brinkmanship to gain policy leverage, which sometimes yields results in the short term but is risky in the medium-to-long run.
  • “The administration really, really does believe that if you act crazy enough, act like you’re really going to do something nuts, people will cave…and start giving you what you want.”

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “It’s all chutes all the way down these days…”
  — Scott R. Anderson ([04:20]), in a board-game-as-geopolitics riff
• “You never lose money when you bet against Israeli-Palestinian peace.”
  — Dan Byman ([43:19])
• “We’ll be fucked by five on this. That is the official title of this episode…”
  — Scott R. Anderson ([85:45]), on how their analysis might be overtaken by breaking developments
• “I will say, Dan, you’re living my dream. Living in Hanover … playing strategy games in the evenings. It sounds amazing.”
  — Scott R. Anderson ([87:12]), bantering during the “object lesson” segment

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [03:16] – Lighthearted banter about professional Zoom backgrounds (and “Chutes and Ladders” as a metaphor)
• [11:27] – Start of detailed domestic deployment discussion (Portland, Chicago)
• [20:50] – “Split screen” between legal and political messaging; blurred lines between law enforcement and military
• [23:56] – The politics and law of “Antifa”; history of domestic terrorism trends
• [32:38] – Statutory bases for federal and state control of National Guard deployments
• [35:35] – Danger of dusting off post-9/11 OLC memos for use against domestic targets
• [43:00] – Assessing the Gaza Peace Plan
• [54:51] – The policy shift of Republican support for two-state solution
• [61:33] – Transitional governance challenges in Gaza
• [64:43] – Venezuela: History, rhetoric, and risks of military intervention
• [78:01] – Legal overview of narcotics strikes and possible Venezuela intervention
• [85:45] – Episode title explained

Language & Tone

The panel maintains Lawfare’s signature blend of deep expertise, policy seriousness, and irreverence. The seriousness is leavened by a conversational, often self-deprecating tone—reflecting both the high stakes and the fatigue of monitoring a chaotic news cycle.

Closing: Object Lessons

• Dan Byman: Recommends “The British Way,” a GMT counterinsurgency board game. ([86:11])
• Tyler McBrien: TV pick—“The English Teacher” as a smart comfort sitcom. ([87:31])
• Scott R. Anderson: Repeats praise for musician Katy Pruett and the spy series “Slow Horses.” ([88:16])
• Lauren Voss: Advocates trying (non-alcoholic) “dirty soda” as a quirky cultural find from Utah. ([90:31])

Summary

This Lawfare Podcast episode is essential listening for anyone trying to keep pace with the evolving intersection of law, policy, and national security in the Trump 2 era. The team offers sharp, evidence-based debate over the alarming normalization of domestic military use, the fragile ambition of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, and the dangers of revived U.S. interventionism in Latin America. All this is delivered with Lawfare’s trademark mix of gravitas and wit, offering both expert context and memorable commentary for national security practitioners and casual observers alike.