The Lawfare Podcast: Rational Security – The “Pronghorn Shirt Daily” Edition

Release Date: June 26, 2025
Hosts: Scott R. Anderson, Benjamin Wittes, Natalie Orpet, Ashley Deeks
Description: Rational Security delves into the week's most pressing national security issues, featuring in-depth analysis from experts and policymakers. This episode tackles President Trump's unexpected military involvement in Iran, a perplexing Supreme Court decision affecting immigration policy, and a controversial whistleblower report within the Justice Department.

1. President Trump Joins Israel’s Military Campaign Against Iran

Overview:
The episode opens with a critical examination of President Trump's recent decision to support Israel's military actions against Iran’s nuclear sites. This move has stirred debates over its legality, strategic implications, and potential repercussions both regionally and domestically.

Key Discussions:

• Ashley Deeks on Legal Implications:
  Ashley Deeks, a University of Virginia Law School professor and Lawfare contributing editor, discusses the legality of the strikes, referencing her students' perspectives and international law standards.

  [09:33] Ashley Deeks: "Some think it would be lawful. In terms of your specific question, I guess I wasn't hugely surprised..."

• Decision-Making Process:
  Deeks highlights the streamlined nature of the National Security Council (NSC) and questions the depth of interagency coordination in this decision. She notes the absence of an NSC legal advisor, which likely affected the legal scrutiny of the operation.

  [12:42] Ashley Deeks: "It's really hard to tell... It sounds like DOD had a very significant role here..."

• Legal Justifications:
  The administration's 48-hour report to Congress justifying the strikes under the War Powers Resolution and Article 2 authority is scrutinized. Deeks points out the inclusion of collective self-defense and preemptive measures, raising questions about their alignment with international law.

  [15:44] Ashley Deeks: "The theory seems to be collective self defense of Israel... And there's a suggestion that this is really kind of preemptive self defense of the United States."

Notable Quotes:

• Scott R. Anderson at [02:53]:
  "We were in the Tetons in Wyoming... turns out, the pronghorn, which is the second fastest land mammal in the world, behind Scott Anderson."

• Ben Wittes at [14:07]:
  "It says a few things about reasons they think escalation isn't a risk... Specifically the anticipated nature, scope and duration of the conflict..."

2. Supreme Court’s Unexplained Stay on Immigration Precedent

Overview:
The hosts delve into a baffling Supreme Court decision that stayed a lower court’s preliminary injunction regarding the Trump administration's immigration policies. This decision has left legal experts and policymakers uncertain about its implications.

Key Discussions:

• Natalie Orpet on Judicial Responses:
  Natalie Orpet, Lawfare’s executive editor, critiques the Supreme Court's lack of explanation for the stay, emphasizing the disconnect between the Court's actions and existing legal frameworks.

  [40:33] Natalie Orpet: "The court says literally nothing about why it comes to the conclusion that it does..."

• Ashley Deeks on Diplomatic Assurances:
  Deeks explains the concept of diplomatic assurances in immigration cases, highlighting their controversy and the challenges in their credibility and judicial review.

  [48:41] Ashley Deeks: "Diplomatic assurances are basically agreements that the US Government... focus on treatment."

• Confusion and Lack of Clarity:
  The hosts express frustration over the Supreme Court's opaque decision, which has led to confusion among lower courts regarding the applicability of the injunction to specific litigants.

  [57:03] Scott R. Anderson: "The most fundamental obligation of the Supreme Court is to add clarity to the law... They cannot say that the Supreme Court added clarity..."

Notable Quotes:

• Benjamin Wittes at [08:09]:
  "But the actively litigated question right now is about notice and opportunity to contest."

• Natalie Orpet at [51:56]:
  "Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent... Justice Sotomayor said... 'This case is... operating in a vacuum.'"

3. Whistleblower Report Alleging Emil Bove’s Disregard for Judicial Orders

Overview:
The episode addresses a whistleblower report accusing Emil Bove, a principal Associate Deputy Attorney General and current 3rd Circuit nominee, of directing the Department of Homeland Security to ignore judicial orders in immigration deportations.

Key Discussions:

• Benjamin Wittes on Confirmation Implications:
  Wittes discusses the potential impact of the allegations on Emil Bove's judicial confirmation, emphasizing the ethical breaches if proven true.

  [65:59] Scott R. Anderson: "They are utterly disqualifying, assuming true... Emil Bovey is not an adequately ethical person to be a federal judge."

• Ashley Deeks on Governmental Frustrations:
  Deeks reflects on the whistleblower’s frustrations, drawing parallels to common bureaucratic challenges and the breakdown of interagency coordination.

  [71:24] Ashley Deeks: "It's an example of how lower and mid level officials can spin their wheels... senior policymakers are running their own process..."

• Natalie Orpet on Accountability:
  Orpet underscores the irony of Bove seeking a judicial position while allegedly undermining judicial authority, highlighting the broader implications for the Justice Department's integrity.

  [73:05] Natalie Orpet: "It's deeply ironic that someone who has demonstrated contempt for the judiciary wants to become a judge."

Notable Quotes:

• Benjamin Wittes at [64:06]:
  "Emil Bovey is an extraordinarily talented lawyer... His problem is that he's just not an adequately ethical person to be a federal judge."

• Scott R. Anderson at [70:07]:
  "He's a very talented man. He is also, as best as I can tell, not especially ideological. ... his behavior in office is just replete with examples of this..."

Conclusion

In this episode of Rational Security, the Lawfare team provides a thorough analysis of three critical national security issues. From President Trump’s controversial support of military actions against Iran to perplexing Supreme Court decisions affecting immigration policy, and the ethical concerns surrounding Justice Department officials, the hosts offer insightful commentary backed by expert perspectives. Notable quotes throughout the discussion underscore the complexity and urgency of these issues, providing listeners with a comprehensive understanding of the current national security landscape.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• [09:53] Ashley Deeks: "Some think it would be lawful."
• [15:44] Ashley Deeks: "The theory seems to be collective self defense of Israel."
• [48:41] Ashley Deeks: "Diplomatic assurances are basically agreements that the US Government..."
• [64:06] Benjamin Wittes: "Emil Bovey is an extraordinarily talented lawyer..."
• [73:05] Natalie Orpet: "It's deeply ironic that someone who has demonstrated contempt for the judiciary wants to become a judge."

This comprehensive summary captures the essence of the episode, highlighting the main discussions and key insights while omitting advertisements and non-content segments. For those seeking an in-depth understanding of contemporary national security issues, this episode offers valuable perspectives from seasoned experts.