The Lawfare Podcast

Rational Security: The “Inadequate Chicken Moved to Inferior Location” Special End-of-Year Edition

Date: December 30, 2025
Hosts: Scott Anderson, Benjamin Wittes, Anna Bauer, Tyler McBrien

Episode Overview

This special end-of-year edition of Rational Security features the Lawfare team answering listener-submitted questions that range from the geopolitics of spheres of influence, media lawsuits, and war powers, to the fate of American democracy and even the relocation of a beloved local chicken statue. The conversation weaves between serious analysis and irreverent banter, capturing the unique Rational Security tone—thoughtful, candid, and at times delightfully absurd.

Festive Beginnings & The Gainesville Chicken Saga

Timestamps: 01:09–04:18

• Anna Bauer shares a personal holiday story: the Gainesville, GA “chicken lighting” tradition was disrupted because the building housing the festive chicken wire structure changed owners.
  • New owner removed the chicken—locals replaced it with a more “corporate” one located off the main square, to the town’s chagrin.
  • Quote (Anna, 03:07): “People hate the new chicken because it looks very corporate. It’s not ugly and dorky and kind of charming like the other chicken that we all loved.”
  • The title of the episode comes from Benjamin Wittes' dry summation:
    Quote (Ben, 04:07): “Inadequate chicken move to inferior location.”

Listener Q&A: Key Discussion Points

1. Spheres of Influence – Where Does Western Europe Stand?

Timestamps: 06:23–12:37

• Question: Is Western Europe still in the U.S. sphere of influence, especially under Trump-era realignment?

• Benjamin Wittes:

  • Traditionally, Western Europe has been in the American sphere, but U.S. hostility and unpredictability have made Europe doubt this (threats to security guarantees, trade wars, intervention in domestic politics).
  • Europe’s options: Deny the shift, triangulate with Russia/China, or build real autonomy (regulation easier than defense).
  • Quote (Ben, 10:17): “Western Europe is very much still in the United States’ sphere of influence, but very uncomfortably so, and the future of that relationship is very much in doubt.”

• Scott Anderson emphasizes Europe’s agency and power parity, warning that treating Europe as a mere subordinate risks losing an essential ally.

• Tyler McBrien pushes back on the “sphere of influence” framing, arguing today’s world is multipolar and alliances are more fluid than fixed.

2. Trump’s Lawsuit Against the BBC

Timestamps: 12:45–14:58

• Question: What’s the significance of Trump’s lawsuit against the BBC for defamation related to January 6 coverage?

• Tyler McBrien: Sees it as part of Trump’s broader media intimidation strategy, picking big numbers for optics rather than legal merit. Unlikely the suit will succeed in the U.S. legal system (especially given jurisdiction issues), but signals pressure on media institutions.

  • Quote (Tyler, 14:58): “There’s not much downside right now for Trump to just keep filing these suits, even if it’s against a broadcaster that’s not even...broadcast here.”

• Scott Anderson: Points out the BBC is under other pressures (UK domestic politics, Gaza coverage), making the lawsuit as much a PR move as a legal one.

3. Merrick Garland’s Legacy as Attorney General

Timestamps: 16:38–20:40

• Question: How should AG Merrick Garland’s record be viewed, especially regarding the Jan 6 prosecutions and possible Trump pardons?
• Anna Bauer: Finds it hard to assess Garland’s impact, since ultimate outcomes hinge on the Supreme Court, not just prosecutorial speed. Behind-the-scenes legal battles delayed some action, but the pace may not have changed outcomes.
  • Quote (Anna, 16:51): “For me, it was always going to come down to the question of what the Supreme Court would decide to do...it almost kind of didn’t matter.”
• Points out political motivations for mass pardons are mostly unaffected by who was prosecuted at which level.
• Ben Wittes: No indication that a faster DOJ would have changed outcomes.

4. Checks on U.S. Military Force – Counter-Narcotics Strikes and Political Constraints

Timestamps: 21:29–29:27

• Question: Dubious legal status of U.S. counter-narcotic/terrorist strikes—what do ongoing operations suggest about U.S. checks and balances?

• Scott Anderson:

  • Legal limits on executive military authority exist but are weak and rarely enforced by courts; practical checks are more political than legal.
  • Real risk for the executive could arise only if a big enough military action triggers avenues for legal challenge or political backlash.
  • Quote (Scott, 25:56): “...there’s not any of these great avenues. What I will say, though, is that I don’t think it’s zero risk...the checks are most effective on larger, enduring ground campaigns.”

• Ben Wittes: Courts have consistently refused to police war powers; Congress is the real check—but only if it cares enough to act.

  • Quote (Ben, 25:56): “Congress could stop at least tomorrow if it cared enough about it to do it.”

• Debate over how easy it is for Congress to assert itself—takes a supermajority to override a veto, and institutional inertia is powerful.

5. Escalating Rhetoric in Venezuela – Lessons from the Iraq War

Timestamps: 29:27–35:56

• Question: With Trump officials invoking “terrorism” and “WMDs” re: Venezuela, what lessons apply from the Iraq War?
• Ben Wittes:
  • Key difference: Bush admin acted in mistaken good faith; current admin rhetoric is more transparently bad faith.
  • Quote (Ben, 29:58): “They did really believe it [re: Iraq WMDs]...here, there is not actually a lot of evidence that anybody in government...actually believes that the Maduro regime...is a bunch of narco-terrorists waging war on the United States...even to say that is to laugh at it a little bit.”
  • Warns that good faith legal arguments can be repurposed for cynical ends.
• Scott Anderson:
  • Public and press much more skeptical post-Iraq; little appetite for military adventurism or demonization.
• Tyler McBrien:
  • Sees less susceptibility now to xenophobic or anti-Latin American narratives compared to post-9/11 anti-Muslim sentiment.

6. American Tolerance of Democratic Backsliding & Resistance

Timestamps: 37:31–44:35

• Question: What can reverse Americans’ tolerance/embrace of illiberal democracy?
• Tyler McBrien:
  • Warns of not just tolerance but “enthusiastic embrace,” citing foreign antidemocratic models (Orban, current Israeli government).
  • Stresses importance of defending the rule of law and combating fascist appeals to irrationality and will with both rational defense and positive, hopeful imagination.
  • Quote (Tyler, 38:09): “What worries me is holding up models of illiberal democracy abroad as allies or as something to aspire to...”
• Benjamin Wittes:
  • Cites Timothy Snyder: don’t give up or check out; democratic defense needs protest, creativity, and “non-cooperation.”
  • Quote (Ben, 40:33): “The most important things...have happened when people put on inflatable frog costumes...when people turned out...to protest under the ‘no kings’ banner...Everybody should be getting involved in things.”
• Scott Anderson:
  • Stresses optimism in U.S. institutions—processes take time but still work; civic engagement is essential.

7. On the Record: Ben’s Martial Arts Challenge to Putin

Timestamps: 44:47–46:59

• Light-hearted segment: Is Ben Wittes’ longstanding challenge to Vladimir Putin for a martial arts duel still open?
• Ben Wittes:
  • Keeps the offer alive, notes Putin seems to be in poor health and maybe unfit, but will accept any terms (with some tongue-in-cheek bravado).
  • Quote (Ben, 45:03): “The offer still stands. Here are the rules...I will meet him anytime, any place. He can’t have me arrested after he’s taken an independent drug test...It can’t be just grappling. I have to be able to strike.”

Notable Moments & Quotes

• Wittes, on the “chicken relocation” drama:
  “Inadequate chicken move to inferior location.” (04:07)
• Wittes, riffing on democratic activism:
  “I see very few problems that can’t be solved with a projector.”
• McBrien, on spheres of influence:
  “I think we’re far past the unipolar moment...spheres of influence are much more fluid in this moment than...the height of the Cold War.” (12:05)
• Wittes, on Iraq-Venezuela parallels:
  “Good faith legal moves can later be hijacked for bad faith purposes.” (32:48)

Object Lessons – Listener Recommendations

Timestamps: 47:17–end

The hosts share books, podcasts, and unique recommendations submitted by listeners, ranging from architecture photography books and NPR’s “Sources and Methods” podcast, to personal fiction favorites (Donna Tartt’s The Secret History, Elif Batuman’s The Idiot, Tolkien, and Phil Kay’s Redeployment).

• Notable:
  • Ukrainian sumo wrestler Aonishiki in Japan
  • Video game “Clair Obscur: Expedition 33”
  • UT Austin’s SNL memorabilia exhibit

Tone and Banter

The conversation oscillates between wonk-level serious (detailing political science and law) and playful irreverence (the chicken saga, Putin fight challenge, book and pop culture recs). The hosts’ camaraderie is continually evident, each offering both insights and good-natured ribbing of themselves and each other.

Conclusion

This episode of Rational Security delivers a blend of sharp analysis and holiday camaraderie. From shifting global politics to the nuts and bolts of democratic activism—and even who you'd bet on in a fight between Ben Wittes and Vladimir Putin—it’s an illuminating and amusing tour of national security, law, and the human quirks behind it all.

Quick Reference – Key Segment Timestamps

• Gainesville Chicken Story & Festivities: 01:09–04:18
• Western Europe / Spheres of Influence: 06:23–12:37
• Trump v. BBC Lawsuit: 12:45–14:58
• Garland DOJ / Jan. 6 Prosecutions: 16:38–20:40
• Military Strikes & Checks/Balances: 21:29–29:27
• Venezuela Rhetoric & Iraq War Lessons: 29:27–35:56
• Defending Democracy: 37:31–44:35
• Wittes vs. Putin Martial Arts Challenge Update: 44:47–46:59
• Object Lesson Extravaganza / Listener Recommendations: 47:17–end