The Lawfare Podcast:
Rational Security: The “Master of the House” Edition
Date: September 3, 2025
Host: Lawfare Institute (Scott R. Anderson)
Guests: Peter Harrell, Anna Bauer, Tyler McBrien
Episode Overview
This episode of Rational Security delves into three central national security issues at the intersection of law and policy:
-
“Faganomics” & the Government Stake in Intel
A deep dive into the Trump administration’s newly announced policy to take a 10% equity stake in Intel, exploring the broader context of American industrial policy, tariffs, and their legal and policy implications. -
India-Pivot: New Alignments at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
Analysis of the recent diplomatic embrace between India, Russia, and China, what this signals for U.S.-India relations, and the strategic ramifications within ongoing U.S. trade tensions. -
Midnight Planes Going Nowhere: Emergency Stay on Child Deportations
A firsthand account of a D.C. federal judge issuing a temporary restraining order late at night to block the removal of hundreds of unaccompanied Guatemalan minors, illustrating the Trump administration’s approach to immigration and legal safeguards.
The panel provides nuanced commentary, memorable quotes, and a blend of policy insight and lived experience—punctuated by musical and culinary object lessons.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. “Faganomics”: U.S. Government’s Equity Stake in Intel
[06:00–35:29]
Policy Background & Context
-
Broad Bipartisan Consensus: There’s been a policy drive in Washington since 2020 to build U.S. capacity in producing "leading edge" semiconductor chips, previously dominated by Intel but now led by TSMC out of Taiwan.
"There is a bipartisan consensus in Washington that the U.S. needs capacity to manufacture leading edge chips, in particular...Intel used to be the world's leader...TSMC out of Taiwan is now the world leader."
—Peter Harrell [09:24] -
CHIPS Act: Passed to subsidize semiconductor manufacturing, mostly through grants (~15% of project cost, e.g., $11 billion to Intel under previous administration).
Trump Administration’s Pivot
- Grant-to-Equity Conversion: The Trump administration renegotiated the Intel deal, giving Intel $8B for a 10% government stake, with Intel relieved of prior obligations to build several new fabs except for one specialized line for the Defense Department and intelligence community.
"This converted what was a grant program…into a kind of grant-to-equity conversion, where instead of giving them a grant to build fabs, now the US government owns 9.9% of Intel, and Intel has less of an obligation to actually go out and build new fabs. But we’re all shareholders now."
—Peter Harrell [09:24]
Industrial Policy Implications
-
Hands-Off Approach: The government holds no board seat and commits to vote its shares with the board’s recommendations in almost all matters, further consolidating board/management control.
"On most questions, the government has committed to vote its 10% share the way the board recommends."
—Peter Harrell [13:32] -
Corporate Structure: The deal discourages, but does not prohibit, Intel spinning off its design or manufacturing arms.
-
Extra-Leveraged Influence: The panel speculates whether the government’s "quiet" ownership will remain truly passive, and what unspoken sticks may be at play.
Legal Mechanisms and Debates
-
Legal Gray Area: The CHIPS Act did not explicitly authorize equity purchases; the administration is relying on “other transaction authority” and broad drafting.
“Given the US government has not historically…held shares of companies, there’s not kind of a standing statutory authority… The Trump administration’s logic here appears to be ‘if it’s not prohibited, it is allowed.’”
—Peter Harrell [23:53] -
Standing & Litigation: It’s unclear who, if anyone, has standing to challenge these deals, complicating judicial review.
Big Picture: What’s the Strategy?
-
Shift from Reaganomics: This marks a radical departure from classic Republican, Reagan-era free market policies.
“You cannot imagine…a sharper 180 from the Republican Party of the 1980s...It is a remarkable departure.”
—Scott R. Anderson [18:57] -
Motivation: The consensus is that the new approach is a mix of opportunism, political optics, and perhaps some need to bolster government revenue (e.g., through tariffs and profit shares).
“Trump cut another deal, you know, added to the tally...Maybe, in his head, thinks, maybe we got this stake in Intel for free.”
—Tyler McBrien [34:40]
Notable Quotes
- “It is a remarkable departure for a Republican president to not only be taking a 10% stake in Intel…but also…in July…the Defense Department took a 15% stake in a US rare earths mining company.”
—Peter Harrell [20:19]
2. India’s New Positioning (Shanghai Cooperation Organization Meeting)
[35:29–52:07]
The Diplomatic Photo Op
-
India Embraces China and Russia: Indian PM Modi publicly embraced Xi Jinping and Putin at the SCO, highlighting a tilt away from the U.S.
“It is, quote, time for the dragon and the elephant to dance together, which I think is just about the coolest way you can talk about that.”
—Tyler McBrien [38:50] -
Impact on U.S. Policy: The Trump administration’s tough trade negotiations and new tariffs with India have led to visible cooling in the U.S.-India partnership.
Strategic Analysis
- Not a Global Realignment—Yet: Despite the spectacle, the experts argue this is more signal than substance, yet illustrative of a shifting global dynamic.
“One group hug does not a new global order make, but it’s certainly trending that way.”
—Tyler McBrien [39:05]
U.S. Relationship Dynamics
-
From Strategic to Transactional: Multiple administrations (Obama/Trump I/Biden) all sought a deep strategic partnership with India to balance China, but the current Trump administration appears more motivated by transactional economics than long-term strategy.
“[Trump] looks relatively less China-focused to me than his first time around…he’s concerned about, in his mind, every country who’s ripping us off, not just China.”
—Peter Harrell [42:54] -
Optics of Deprioritization: Recent U.S. policies have prioritized short-term economic wins over strategic or values-based relationships.
-
Putin’s Win: The episode is a diplomatic "coup" for Russia, elevating its global standing amidst its ongoing war in Ukraine.
“Putin is getting a sweet deal. It's a photo op with two major powers...It's just, it’s elevating Putin’s Russia on the world stage.”
—Tyler McBrien [50:58]
3. Emergency Legal Intervention on Child Deportations
[52:07–74:35]
Timeline of Emergency (Labor Day Weekend)
-
News Breaks & Legal Response: Reports surfaced that hundreds of unaccompanied Guatemalan minors were being placed on planes for deportation. Within hours, emergency legal filings were made and a D.C. district judge (Sparkle Sukhnanan) was urgently contacted.
“On Sunday night around 1am, [plaintiffs] file a complaint in D.C. district and then…a motion for a temporary restraining order to block the removal of these kids.”
—Anna Bauer [53:26] -
Immediate TRO Issued: Unable to reach DOJ, Judge Sukhnanan issued a TRO at 4am for the named plaintiffs, later expanded to a class of potentially affected minors.
“[The judge] could not get in touch with any Justice Department officials. And so by 4am she actually issued a temporary restraining order…only as to the named plaintiffs…”
—Anna Bauer [53:26]
Legal Issues and Arguments
- Statutory Protections: Plaintiffs argue that removal violates extensive statutory process and protections for unaccompanied minors.
- Government’s Defense Confused: The Justice Department struggled to articulate a clear legal justification for bypassing legal procedures, claiming a provision about “reunification with parents abroad” as authority.
“I frankly don’t see how that can be the case, that that provision about the care and custody of children overrides all those other protections…”
—Anna Bauer [61:43]
Judge’s Active Oversight
- Micromanagement of Compliance: Given government confusion and precedent of near-violations, Judge Sukhnanan imposed detailed reporting requirements to verify that children were returned to ORR custody.
“It felt at times like watching this, like Judge Sukhnen...could not trust the Justice Department to obey her order...”
—Anna Bauer [65:19]
Broader Policy Implications
-
Escalation & Precedent: This case marks a deeply troubling escalation in targeting children and apparent procedural disregard, diverging even from the Trump administration’s earlier, more circumspect deportations.
“You can’t even make a bad faith argument that this particular population, children, are…threat to national security, are bad people, are criminals because they're children.”
—Tyler McBrien [70:37] -
Government Narrative: Officials claim the court intervened to block reunification with families, but plaintiffs’ declarations indicate many children fear abuse or neglect if returned.
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
On the radical shift in economic policy:
“You cannot imagine…a sharper 180 from the Republican Party of the 1980s...It is a remarkable departure.”
—Scott R. Anderson [18:57] -
On global photo op diplomacy:
“One group hug does not a new global order make, but it’s certainly trending that way.”
—Tyler McBrien [39:05] -
On judicial intervention:
“If it hadn’t been for the judge…proactive decision to move the hearing up and then go ahead and issue a class certification, it very well could have been the case that some of these children would have already been removed.”
—Anna Bauer [53:26] -
Musical Sidebar (on Trump and Les Mis):
“You know who else likes musicals, particularly Les Mis? Donald Trump.”
—Anna Bauer [03:09]
“[W]ho else would play ‘I Dreamed a Dream’ from Les Mis in the Rose Garden?”
—Anna Bauer [03:28]
Timestamps for Key Segments
- Faganomics/Intel Stake:
[06:00–35:29] - India and the SCO:
[35:29–52:07] - Guatemalan Minor Deportations:
[52:07–74:35] - Object Lessons:
[74:52–82:28]
Closing Object Lessons
The episode ends with each panelist sharing a cultural or culinary ‘object lesson’:
- Tyler: A trip to City Island in the Bronx, NY for seafood.
- Anna: The play “John Proctor is the Villain”—a moving, music-infused Broadway show tackling themes of #MeToo and high school readings of “The Crucible.”
- Scott: After years of grilling, he finally bought a dedicated backyard pizza oven for perfect Neapolitan crusts.
- Peter: Recommends the book "When the Clock Broke" about the roots of today’s politics in the ‘90s and highlights pending Supreme Court litigation on tariffs.
Final Thoughts
This episode captures how U.S. national security and economic policy are being remade—in sometimes opportunistic and sometimes deeply strategic ways. It highlights the tensions emerging between short-term gains and long-term relationships, the politicization of economic statecraft, and the high-stakes, fast-moving world of immigration enforcement and legal protections. The panel’s frank exchanges, humor, and cultural recommendations humanize complex policy and legal dilemmas, making this episode a must-listen for anyone following the evolving landscape of law and national security.