The Lawfare Podcast

Rational Security: The “Pickled Fish in Cozy Sweaters” Edition

Date: October 22, 2025
Host: Scott R. Anderson, The Lawfare Institute
Panel: Anastasia "Nastya" Lapatana, Lauren Voss, Eric Columbus

Episode Overview

This episode of Rational Security dives into three major U.S. national security stories:

1. The Trump administration's shifting stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, including reports that Trump pressured Ukrainian President Zelensky to consider territorial concessions to Russia.
2. An important Supreme Court fight over the President’s authority to deploy the military domestically, prompted by recent attempts to send National Guard troops to several “blue” states.
3. The administration’s first criminal indictment labeling an alleged “Antifa cell” as a terrorist organization, and the use and limits of federal “material support for terrorism” statutes in the domestic context.

Throughout, the panel analyzes administration logic, legal strategies, Ukrainian perspectives, and potential future risks, drawing on personal experiences, expert legal analysis, and the latest reporting.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Trump Administration’s Ukraine Policy Whiplash

(Start ~05:05)

Background and Reporting

• Recent developments: Trump announced plans to meet Putin in Budapest, and shortly thereafter reportedly pressured Ukraine’s President Zelensky to accept territorial concessions regarding Donbas, in exchange for an end to the war and possible Russian withdrawal from other territories.
• Zelensky’s requests: Ukraine sought Tomahawk missiles and concrete U.S. security commitments, but Trump’s support has been inconsistent.

Ukrainian Perspective (Nastya Lapatana)

• Exasperation and Cynicism (09:46):

  "Everyone in Ukraine is so just tired of trying to figure out what the hell is going on... There’s so much chaos... until we see those Tomahawks flying... we’re not believing any of those truth social posts because we’ve been here before."
  (Anastasia Lapatana, 09:46)

• Cycle of Rhetoric: Ukrainians have become accustomed to unpredictable U.S. signaling, with cycles of support, withdrawal, and contradictory statements.
• Practical and Symbolic Reasons Against Concessions:
  • Donbas is a heavily fortified, populous region—militarily advantageous and symbolically critical to Ukraine.
  • Giving up Donbas would create both security vulnerabilities and a political/psychological crisis.
  • Russian promises of withdrawal from the south (Zaporizhzhia and Kherson) in exchange for Donbas are viewed with skepticism.

Panel’s Analysis

• Lauren Voss (21:16):

  • The U.S. has lacked coherent Ukraine policy across administrations—"never really a clear strategy."
  • Trump seems driven by impatience and a desire for a quick win, possibly inspired by perceived diplomatic progress elsewhere (e.g., Gaza/Israel).
  • Suggests Trump is frustrated that Ukraine won’t easily compromise, underestimating both the stakes and public opinion.

• Eric Columbus (23:49):

  • Trump’s approach may not be strategic, but rather reactive—driven by "whoever the last person told him."
  • Raises possibility (but is skeptical) that Trump is using an intentional "madman theory" to keep both sides off balance.

• Scott Anderson (25:29):

  • Trump is fixated on achieving “a deal,” seeing diplomatic settlements as personal victories—including sacrificing long-term policy for perceived short-term wins.
  • In Ukraine, lack of internal team unity and understanding may make the U.S. more likely to pressure Ukraine (rather than Russia) for concessions.
  • "The United States has much more leverage over Ukraine... It’s a lot easier to force them to make concessions."

Nastya’s Counterpoint (30:45):

• Trump administration's lack of expertise about the conflict's context and parties is a deeper issue than merely impatience.
• The reality: Russia’s demands are "ridiculous"—Ukrainians want peace, but not at the cost of existential security.

• "Deals like this require a lot of painstaking, long, detail-oriented work... It’s not just saying, well, let’s all stop fighting and the war is going to end." (Anastasia Lapatana, 34:25)

• Cultural and historical issues are just as important as territory—but are overlooked by U.S. policymakers.

Notable Moment:

• Nastya describes recording the podcast during an active air raid siren in Kyiv, underlining the real stakes for Ukrainians (09:46).

2. Supreme Court Fight Over Domestic Military Deployments

(Start ~35:03)

Context:

• Trump administration requested authority to deploy federally-controlled National Guard troops to "blue states" like Illinois, Oregon, and California, invoking 10 USC §12406, which deals with militia/National Guard mobilization.
• An injunction blocked deployment to Chicago; Trump administration sought Supreme Court intervention.
• Legal question: Is the President’s decision to deploy domestic military forces under this statute reviewable by courts, and what standards apply?

Lauren Voss’s Legal Analysis (37:10):

• Administration claims Presidential determinations are unreviewable; lower courts have so far rejected this.

• Even if reviewable, government claims they can easily meet the legal standards—but there are deep factual disputes about the necessity and justification for the deployments.

• Argues this raises fundamental governance questions about Presidential "good faith":

  "Our whole system is predicated on that assumption of good faith... If not acting in good faith, then what?...I really don't think it'll be the courts that'll give us a good answer there." (42:55)

• The case is pivotal, but only a piece of a larger debate involving the Posse Comitatus Act, the Insurrection Act, and other legal authorities for federal troop deployment.

• The Insurrection Act, seen as the "nuclear option," has yet to be invoked in the current crisis, possibly due to public perception and internal resistance within the military.

Scott Anderson’s Perspective (52:30):

• Key differentiation: §12406 is a mobilization authority (to "call up" troops), while the Insurrection Act explicitly permits using troops for law enforcement domestically.
• Political and internal military resistance are likely bigger barriers to Insurrection Act invocation than legal uncertainty.

Panel Discussion on Legal Uncertainty:

• Ongoing debate about whether §12406 itself provides independent operational authority or just the ability to federalize troops. The historic record is murky, with the Nixon-era postal strike as a key example.
• Future litigation may have to resolve the scope of Presidential authority and whether the military could be used for law enforcement against U.S. citizens under these statutes.

3. Antifa, Domestic Terrorism, and the Terrorism Statutes

(Start ~62:34)

Case Overview:

• In July, a violent attack targeting a Texas immigrant detention facility led to attempted murder charges. Now, two individuals have been indicted for "material support for terrorism," with the administration labeling their group a “North Texas Antifa cell.”

Eric Columbus (64:22):

• The new indictment’s "material support" charge is largely performative, adding little to the case but significant for political branding.

• Trump’s executive order designating "Antifa" as a domestic terrorism organization "is not a thing" legally—no domestic equivalent exists for FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization) designations.

• Legal Context:

  • Section 2339A (material support for terrorism) requires intent or knowledge that support will aid certain criminal acts. This is a tough standard, not commonly used for domestic groups.
  • Section 2339B, used far more widely, is inapplicable because it only covers foreign terrorist organizations—impossible to apply to entirely U.S.-based groups.

• Bottom line: This prosecution and the administration’s messaging appear designed to prepare the ground for further actions—potentially targeting alleged organizations or funders (e.g., political mentions of George Soros).

Scott Anderson (69:43):

• This use of "material support" is not new, but is rare; prior administrations have struggled with its fit for domestic terrorism.
• The attempt to “blur the lines” between domestic and foreign terror group prosecution is meant to create a climate for broader crackdowns, but current law places sharp limits on such efforts.

Lauren Voss (73:39):

• Dangers lie in the blending of domestic military deployment rhetoric with domestic terrorism allegations—especially as labeling criminals "terrorists" can open doors for expanded federal/military responses.
• Key worry: Erosion of legal and constitutional limits, with scenarios where the military might take on an expanded domestic role under broad "counterterrorism" justifications.

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• “Everyone in Ukraine is so just tired of trying to figure out what the hell is going on.” (Anastasia Lapatana, 09:46)
• “If you give this extreme deference [to the president’s domestic mobilization of troops], but for whatever reason the facts...are not accurate, the reasoning...our whole system is predicated on that assumption of good faith.” (Lauren Voss, 42:55)
• “This is largely an exercise in branding... [labeling Antifa] as a real thing, that the government is doing real stuff against them.” (Eric Columbus, 69:10)
• “You start calling criminals terrorists, you open up different avenues to responding to them.” (Lauren Voss, 73:39)

Lighthearted Moments:

• Nastya shares that Norwegian officials are “big fans of Rational Security” and describes Oslo’s style: “The style and fashion choices just make me want to cry in the best way.” (02:30)
• Discussion of pickled fish, moose, and whale as Norwegian cuisine.

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 05:05: Introduction to episode topics and panel
• 09:46: Ukrainian perspective on U.S./Trump policy shifts
• 19:29: Panel critique of U.S. strategy, Trump’s approach
• 35:03: Supreme Court case on National Guard deployments
• 42:55: Deeper legal analysis on Presidential authority and faith
• 50:39: Why the Insurrection Act hasn’t (yet) been used
• 62:34: Antifa prosecution; “material support” statutes and their limits
• 73:39: Danger of military-civil domestic counter“terrorism” blurring
• 78:09 – end: Object lessons and closing remarks

Episode Tone & Style

• Conversational, candid, full of legal and policy expertise but approachable
• Panel frequently punctuates serious discussions with wit, personal anecdotes, and good-natured teasing

Panelist Object Lessons (78:09 – end)

• Lauren Voss: Recommends Wayside Farms (DMV-area pumpkin picking for kids—less crowded, charming)
• Eric Columbus: J.Crew chambray shirts, inspired by a Wirecutter review (and unexpected street compliments)
• Scott Anderson: NYT Magazine essay on "darkness retreats" and a recent Katie Pruitt concert (with Lawfare fans present!)
• Nastya Lapatana: Zadie Smith’s essay collection "Feel Free" for its sharp political and cultural critique

Summary Takeaways

• The Trump administration’s Ukraine policy remains unpredictable, and its lack of historical/contextual expertise unsettles its closest allies.
• The legal fight over federal troops’ deployment domestically is just the first round in a much deeper constitutional struggle.
• Labeling domestic groups as “terrorists” is legally murky and potentially dangerous, setting precedent for expanded executive power.
• The Rational Security crew brings both expertise and humor—a welcome combination for making sense of turbulent headlines.