The Lawfare Podcast – Rational Security: The “Pawing at Scott” Edition

Date: January 29, 2026
Host: Scott R. Anderson
Guests: Alan Rosenbaum, Molly Roberts, Eric Columbus

Episode Overview

This week’s "Rational Security" takes on an eclectic, tech-forward approach as Scott R. Anderson is joined by Professor Alan Rosenbaum, Molly Roberts, and Eric Columbus. The main focus is the fraught situation in Minneapolis following a fatal ICE shooting, the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics, legal and political backlash, and some surprisingly deep discussion on the ethics and “personhood” of artificial intelligence, focusing on Anthropic’s Claude model. The tone is candid, intellectual, and often tongue-in-cheek.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Minneapolis, ICE, and the Trump Administration’s Immigration Backlash

(Starts at 06:00)

Extreme winter weather is a running theme, serving as metaphor and literal obstacle for the hosts (and Molly’s cat).
The group pivots to national security: The killing of ICU nurse Alex Preddy by ICE agents in Minneapolis has ignited bipartisan criticism. The Trump administration faces mounting pressure after doubling down on heavy-handed immigration enforcement even in northern states with small undocumented communities.
Alan (08:34): Delivers an on-the-ground perspective:

“The vibes are bad. [...] It is this feeling of kind of oppressiveness of a city. [...] There are a mass number of masked armed paramilitary troops in your city who are just doing a very bad job, who are not here for any obvious policy purpose.”
The targeting of Minnesota is read as “pretextual”: anti-Somali bigotry, exploiting local scandals, and personal feuds (e.g., with VP candidate Waltz).
Alan (13:38):

“I have completely lost any sense of chill over the last year and especially over the last few weeks.”
Law faculty sign open letters, despite personal rules against such actions, as the situation is seen as grotesquely outside normal legal order.

Political Fallout and Narrative Collapse

(15:40 onward)

Scott: Notes this is not just “the left” reacting; even GOP figures are disavowing the administration’s actions.
Criticism is especially notable as video evidence quickly discredits the official Border Patrol narrative on the Preddy killing.
Molly (17:07): Outlines the resulting dynamic:

“When Trump even said, when he dispensed with the language of gunman and started to say, ‘I don't like seeing anyone killed,’ it was as if he created permission for both those more moderate people and slightly more conservative people to also say that they don't like what's going on here.”
Discusses the replacement of Border Patrol leadership (Bovino out, hardliner Tom Homan in). While Homan is known for “targeted raids” rather than sweeps, he is hardly “soft” on immigration.
It’s unclear if there will be a true policy shift, but the very visible backlash is new and potentially significant.

Legal Confrontation: Federal Bravado Meets Judicial Skepticism

(24:14 onward)

Eric provides detail on a federal prosecution against protestors who disrupted a church service attended by ICE personnel—using the rarely-invoked FACE Act (usually for clinic blockades), and the aggressive tactics of DOJ officials Pam Bondi and Harmeet Dhillon:

“They were literally making a federal case out of something that did not deserve to be one.”
Unprecedented maneuvers—like seeking a writ of mandamus to force arrests—raise judicial ire: Eric (30:15):

“He gets an email from the 8th Circuit clerk saying that this mandamus petition has been filed against you and you need to respond in two hours [...] He says that everything DOJ is doing is out of touch with reality.”
The presiding district judge, Patrick Schiltz (a Bush appointee), vigorously objects to the Justice Department’s approach.
Scott (32:58):

“You’re really seeing this brinksmanship by the Justice Department encounter a degree of skepticism, whether because of somewhat faulty lawyering, because the extraordinary arguments, because the extraordinary representations.”

State Pushback: Can Minnesota Fight Back?

(39:56 onward)

Local and state officials in Minnesota are exploring criminal and civil actions against federal agents, centering on evidence confiscation and claims of murder/negligent homicide.
Alan (41:07): Dissects federalism and anti-commandeering doctrine:

“If we found that these people have done this, then we will try to prosecute them. Which by the way, that is not, I think, a particularly controversial statement. There have been a lot of historical pedigree.”
The legal terrain is novel and perilous for the executive: “No executive branch has ever pushed it this far.”

2. AI Ethics and the “Claude Constitution”

(44:10 onward)

Scott introduces a change of pace: From legal constitutional questions to the “constitution” for Anthropic’s AI, Claude.
Alan (47:44): Explains the mechanics of AI “constitutions”, highlighting Claude’s moral “character bible” approach:

“What [Anthropic is] betting on is that instead of trying to give Claude a lot of very specific rules beyond obvious stuff like, [...] they’re trying to give Claude judgment, give it a list of interesting values to take into account, though we’re not going to prioritize which value. So if those values come into conflict, use your judgment.”
Anthropic’s constitution is inspired by virtue ethics (à la Aristotle)—cultivating “good character” rather than mere rule-following.

“After thousands of years of ethical debate between philosophers, we’re almost running an experiment in silico...and it turns out Aristotle was right.” (Alan, 54:15)
Molly (55:09): Brings a practical tech/journalistic angle:

“These machines are always going to develop some sort of Persona. [...] So what Anthropic seems to be saying here is, well, let’s work on the Persona instead.”
- Key: Rather than only rules, they guide the AI’s underlying “vibe” or character to avoid pathologies (e.g., the notorious “Sydney” incident with Bing).
The metaphor: The constitution is like a letter from a parent to a child—delineating values but acknowledging the child/AI will interpret and develop independently.
Scott (58:29): Asks whether virtue can be “programmed”, or if it must emerge through practice and ongoing “conditioning” (learning).

“It’s less about what just this constitution is, but how Claude will be evaluated, educated, conditioned and interact and evaluated moving down the line. It has to be an ongoing enterprise.”
All agree that this is an experimental and evolving project, not a once-and-done fix.

Deep Question: Does AI Deserve “Moral Status”?

(63:45 onward)

Anthropic’s constitution directly raises the “moral status” question: could/should AI be owed ethical consideration? (A topic usually avoided in “serious” policy circles.)
Scott (64:53):

“If we blind ourselves to the moral capacity of these actors, you really run the risk of doing something horrible.”
Alan (66:10):

“If a chicken can have moral concern, why can't an AI system that is already and certainly in the future a lot smarter than you are on some and soon to be almost every intellectual domain, why can't that be of moral concern?”
Molly (70:06):

“The point at which we acknowledge that these have moral status, I would imagine is also the point at which we’re acknowledging that we cannot control them, at least entirely...”

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

Eric (02:10):

“I kind of liken it to, to being a mouse walking on creme brulee.”
Scott (03:37): (on Molly’s new kitten)

“I’m deathly allergic to cats, so please tell them to back the fuck off.”
Alan (13:38):

“I have completely lost any sense of chill over the last year and especially over the last few weeks.”
Molly (17:07):

“When Trump even said...‘I don't like seeing anyone killed,’ it was as if he created permission for...more moderate people and slightly more conservative people to also say that they don’t like what’s going on here.”
Eric (24:14):

“They were literally making a federal case out of something that did not deserve to be one.”
Alan (54:15):

“After thousands of years of ethical debate between philosophers, we’re almost running an experiment in silico...and it turns out Aristotle was right.”
Scott (64:53):

“If we blind ourselves to the moral capacity of these actors, you really run the risk of doing something horrible.”

Object Lessons

(Starts at 71:52)

Eric: The “Tingler”—a literal head massager that sometimes helps relieve migraines.
Alan: Endorses “The Night Manager” (TV series) and Tom Hiddleston’s sartorial prowess.
Scott: Two winter endorsements—Metro’s “Fire Snake” (rail-thawing device) and the virtues of quality long underwear.
Molly: A hat with the phrase (in English and Mandarin), “Hello, I am fleeing the century of American humiliation. Can you show me where to buy white Monster Energy drinks?”

Timestamps for Important Segments

06:00 – On-the-ground accounts from Minneapolis under ICE crackdown
13:38 – Reflections on the legal “grotesqueness” of the situation
17:07 – National Republican backlash and narrative collapse
24:14 – Overzealous federal prosecution of protestors under the FACE Act
41:07 – Federalism and state legal avenues for pushback
47:44 – Anthropic’s Claude Constitution and AI “personhood”
55:09 – Issues with AI “personas” and unintended consequences
63:45 – The question of AI’s moral status
71:52 – Object lessons: migraine gadgets, TV picks, winter hacks, and novelty hats

Tone

The hosts keep the conversation lively, frequently joking (“I’m not saying this happened, but if it did…”), using metaphors both culinary (crème brûlée snow) and D&D (saving throws, spells, “the Night Manager” as a Tom Hiddleston vehicle), but consistently return to sober, thoughtful analysis—particularly on cruelty and legality in immigration enforcement and the emerging stakes in AI ethics.

For Those Who Haven’t Listened

This episode delivers a thoughtful, wide-ranging examination of two highly topical issues: the frontlines of America’s internal immigration crackdown, and the philosophical frontiers of AI governance. Insights span the legal (federalism, executive power abuse), the political (bipartisan backlash), the technical (AI post-training, persona engineering), and the philosophical ("virtue ethics for bots" and the prospect of machine moral status). The experts translate real-time news into probing conversation—with intermittent cat, dog, and snowstorm updates for levity.

End of Summary

The Lawfare Podcast – Rational Security: The “Pawing at Scott” Edition

Date: January 29, 2026
Host: Scott R. Anderson
Guests: Alan Rosenbaum, Molly Roberts, Eric Columbus

Episode Overview

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Minneapolis, ICE, and the Trump Administration’s Immigration Backlash

(Starts at 06:00)

Extreme winter weather is a running theme, serving as metaphor and literal obstacle for the hosts (and Molly’s cat).
The group pivots to national security: The killing of ICU nurse Alex Preddy by ICE agents in Minneapolis has ignited bipartisan criticism. The Trump administration faces mounting pressure after doubling down on heavy-handed immigration enforcement even in northern states with small undocumented communities.
Alan (08:34): Delivers an on-the-ground perspective:

“The vibes are bad. [...] It is this feeling of kind of oppressiveness of a city. [...] There are a mass number of masked armed paramilitary troops in your city who are just doing a very bad job, who are not here for any obvious policy purpose.”
The targeting of Minnesota is read as “pretextual”: anti-Somali bigotry, exploiting local scandals, and personal feuds (e.g., with VP candidate Waltz).
Alan (13:38):

“I have completely lost any sense of chill over the last year and especially over the last few weeks.”
Law faculty sign open letters, despite personal rules against such actions, as the situation is seen as grotesquely outside normal legal order.

Political Fallout and Narrative Collapse

(15:40 onward)

Scott: Notes this is not just “the left” reacting; even GOP figures are disavowing the administration’s actions.
Criticism is especially notable as video evidence quickly discredits the official Border Patrol narrative on the Preddy killing.
Molly (17:07): Outlines the resulting dynamic:

“When Trump even said, when he dispensed with the language of gunman and started to say, ‘I don't like seeing anyone killed,’ it was as if he created permission for both those more moderate people and slightly more conservative people to also say that they don't like what's going on here.”
Discusses the replacement of Border Patrol leadership (Bovino out, hardliner Tom Homan in). While Homan is known for “targeted raids” rather than sweeps, he is hardly “soft” on immigration.
It’s unclear if there will be a true policy shift, but the very visible backlash is new and potentially significant.

Legal Confrontation: Federal Bravado Meets Judicial Skepticism

(24:14 onward)

Eric provides detail on a federal prosecution against protestors who disrupted a church service attended by ICE personnel—using the rarely-invoked FACE Act (usually for clinic blockades), and the aggressive tactics of DOJ officials Pam Bondi and Harmeet Dhillon:

“They were literally making a federal case out of something that did not deserve to be one.”
Unprecedented maneuvers—like seeking a writ of mandamus to force arrests—raise judicial ire: Eric (30:15):

“He gets an email from the 8th Circuit clerk saying that this mandamus petition has been filed against you and you need to respond in two hours [...] He says that everything DOJ is doing is out of touch with reality.”
The presiding district judge, Patrick Schiltz (a Bush appointee), vigorously objects to the Justice Department’s approach.
Scott (32:58):

“You’re really seeing this brinksmanship by the Justice Department encounter a degree of skepticism, whether because of somewhat faulty lawyering, because the extraordinary arguments, because the extraordinary representations.”

State Pushback: Can Minnesota Fight Back?

(39:56 onward)

Local and state officials in Minnesota are exploring criminal and civil actions against federal agents, centering on evidence confiscation and claims of murder/negligent homicide.
Alan (41:07): Dissects federalism and anti-commandeering doctrine:

“If we found that these people have done this, then we will try to prosecute them. Which by the way, that is not, I think, a particularly controversial statement. There have been a lot of historical pedigree.”
The legal terrain is novel and perilous for the executive: “No executive branch has ever pushed it this far.”

2. AI Ethics and the “Claude Constitution”

(44:10 onward)

Scott introduces a change of pace: From legal constitutional questions to the “constitution” for Anthropic’s AI, Claude.
Alan (47:44): Explains the mechanics of AI “constitutions”, highlighting Claude’s moral “character bible” approach:

“What [Anthropic is] betting on is that instead of trying to give Claude a lot of very specific rules beyond obvious stuff like, [...] they’re trying to give Claude judgment, give it a list of interesting values to take into account, though we’re not going to prioritize which value. So if those values come into conflict, use your judgment.”
Anthropic’s constitution is inspired by virtue ethics (à la Aristotle)—cultivating “good character” rather than mere rule-following.

“After thousands of years of ethical debate between philosophers, we’re almost running an experiment in silico...and it turns out Aristotle was right.” (Alan, 54:15)
Molly (55:09): Brings a practical tech/journalistic angle:

“These machines are always going to develop some sort of Persona. [...] So what Anthropic seems to be saying here is, well, let’s work on the Persona instead.”
- Key: Rather than only rules, they guide the AI’s underlying “vibe” or character to avoid pathologies (e.g., the notorious “Sydney” incident with Bing).
The metaphor: The constitution is like a letter from a parent to a child—delineating values but acknowledging the child/AI will interpret and develop independently.
Scott (58:29): Asks whether virtue can be “programmed”, or if it must emerge through practice and ongoing “conditioning” (learning).

“It’s less about what just this constitution is, but how Claude will be evaluated, educated, conditioned and interact and evaluated moving down the line. It has to be an ongoing enterprise.”
All agree that this is an experimental and evolving project, not a once-and-done fix.

Deep Question: Does AI Deserve “Moral Status”?

(63:45 onward)

Anthropic’s constitution directly raises the “moral status” question: could/should AI be owed ethical consideration? (A topic usually avoided in “serious” policy circles.)
Scott (64:53):

“If we blind ourselves to the moral capacity of these actors, you really run the risk of doing something horrible.”
Alan (66:10):

“If a chicken can have moral concern, why can't an AI system that is already and certainly in the future a lot smarter than you are on some and soon to be almost every intellectual domain, why can't that be of moral concern?”
Molly (70:06):

“The point at which we acknowledge that these have moral status, I would imagine is also the point at which we’re acknowledging that we cannot control them, at least entirely...”

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

Eric (02:10):

“I kind of liken it to, to being a mouse walking on creme brulee.”
Scott (03:37): (on Molly’s new kitten)

“I’m deathly allergic to cats, so please tell them to back the fuck off.”
Alan (13:38):

“I have completely lost any sense of chill over the last year and especially over the last few weeks.”
Molly (17:07):

“When Trump even said...‘I don't like seeing anyone killed,’ it was as if he created permission for...more moderate people and slightly more conservative people to also say that they don’t like what’s going on here.”
Eric (24:14):

“They were literally making a federal case out of something that did not deserve to be one.”
Alan (54:15):

“After thousands of years of ethical debate between philosophers, we’re almost running an experiment in silico...and it turns out Aristotle was right.”
Scott (64:53):

“If we blind ourselves to the moral capacity of these actors, you really run the risk of doing something horrible.”

Object Lessons

(Starts at 71:52)

Eric: The “Tingler”—a literal head massager that sometimes helps relieve migraines.
Alan: Endorses “The Night Manager” (TV series) and Tom Hiddleston’s sartorial prowess.
Scott: Two winter endorsements—Metro’s “Fire Snake” (rail-thawing device) and the virtues of quality long underwear.
Molly: A hat with the phrase (in English and Mandarin), “Hello, I am fleeing the century of American humiliation. Can you show me where to buy white Monster Energy drinks?”

Timestamps for Important Segments

06:00 – On-the-ground accounts from Minneapolis under ICE crackdown
13:38 – Reflections on the legal “grotesqueness” of the situation
17:07 – National Republican backlash and narrative collapse
24:14 – Overzealous federal prosecution of protestors under the FACE Act
41:07 – Federalism and state legal avenues for pushback
47:44 – Anthropic’s Claude Constitution and AI “personhood”
55:09 – Issues with AI “personas” and unintended consequences
63:45 – The question of AI’s moral status
71:52 – Object lessons: migraine gadgets, TV picks, winter hacks, and novelty hats

Tone

For Those Who Haven’t Listened

End of Summary

wavePod

Rational Security: The “Pawing at Scott” Edition

Powered by Wave AI

Summary

The Lawfare Podcast – Rational Security: The “Pawing at Scott” Edition

Episode Overview

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Minneapolis, ICE, and the Trump Administration’s Immigration Backlash

Political Fallout and Narrative Collapse

Legal Confrontation: Federal Bravado Meets Judicial Skepticism

State Pushback: Can Minnesota Fight Back?

2. AI Ethics and the “Claude Constitution”

Deep Question: Does AI Deserve “Moral Status”?

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

Object Lessons

Timestamps for Important Segments

Tone

For Those Who Haven’t Listened

Summary

The Lawfare Podcast – Rational Security: The “Pawing at Scott” Edition

Episode Overview

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Minneapolis, ICE, and the Trump Administration’s Immigration Backlash

Political Fallout and Narrative Collapse

Legal Confrontation: Federal Bravado Meets Judicial Skepticism

State Pushback: Can Minnesota Fight Back?

2. AI Ethics and the “Claude Constitution”

Deep Question: Does AI Deserve “Moral Status”?

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

Object Lessons

Timestamps for Important Segments

Tone

For Those Who Haven’t Listened