The Lawfare Podcast: Rational Security – The “Ten Years, Still Off-Key” Edition

Date: September 17, 2025
Host: Scott R. Anderson
Guests: Benjamin Wittes, Shane Harris, Alan Rozenshtein, Quinta Jurecic

Episode Overview

This special edition of Rational Security marks the 10th anniversary of the podcast and 15 years of Lawfare. Host Scott Anderson reunites multiple generations of the podcast’s co-hosts—Benjamin Wittes, Shane Harris, Alan Rozenshtein, and Quinta Jurecic—to revisit major issues at the nexus of national security, law, and policy. The panel discusses neglected or under-examined stories, including the cultural dynamics behind high-profile political violence, evolving NATO security threats, the limits and perils of prosecutorial crackdowns in D.C., and the rule of law implications of the TikTok saga. The episode is rich with insider perspectives, memorable moments, and provocative quotes.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Psychology of Political Violence in the Internet Age

[05:48 – 29:51] Lead Discussants: Shane Harris, Scott Anderson, Benjamin Wittes

• Incident Prompt:
  The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk sparks debate on how to interpret violent acts committed by extremely online young people.
• Shane Harris’ Argument:
  Drawing from his reporting on Jack Teixeira (the “Discord leaker”), Harris suggests that motives intertwine with deeply online subcultures where irony, memes, and nihilism override clear political ideologies.

  “Irony is actually the lingua franca of these people... everything is about subtext and not text, where you can read the shooting... almost as a kind of act of performance rather than strictly an act of political violence.”
  —Shane Harris [09:01]

• Political Motive vs. Internet Performance:
  The hosts agree that understanding recent violence requires a lens that looks beyond traditional political frameworks to the culture and psychology of chronically online youth.
  Benjamin Wittes:

  “Murder just isn't that rational... internet culture is often a better guide... than what you would think from reading the political rhetoric on Twitter or Blue Sky.” [18:19]

• The “Boy Crisis” and Social Disconnection:
  Scott Anderson brings up sociological data on rising male loneliness and its intersection with online culture, noting higher risks for violence among isolated youth.

  “It strikes me as this sort of depth of social isolation... puts young men... in a situation of social crisis, personal crisis, and then you have the Internet intersecting that which provides these very powerful affirming communities...” [26:41]

• Policy Limits:
  There is skepticism over whether government policy can effectively address these intertwined challenges of social and digital culture.

2. Russian Provocations and the Fragility of NATO

[30:45 – 49:45] Lead Discussants: Benjamin Wittes, Scott Anderson, Shane Harris

• The Issue:
  Recent incursions by Russian drones into Polish and Romanian airspace have been largely ignored by the US media and met with minimal diplomatic blowback, raising concerns over NATO’s deterrence posture.
• Wittes’s Provocation:

  “What if Russia was making a point of probing NATO borders multiple times per week and nobody cared?... The European alliance is kind of coming apart. That's all I got.”
  —Benjamin Wittes [33:00]

• Media Critique:
  The lack of coverage is seen as a symptom of waning public vigilance.
• Shane Harris:

  "Putin is a master at just the constant probing and the pushing and allowing this kind of resignation to settle in amongst the allies..." [34:44]

• Is NATO Collapsing?
  Scott Anderson contextualizes the alliance's internal dynamics, noting both vulnerabilities and the resilience of operational coordination, but questions whether these gray-zone provocations signal a functional break or are simply strategic noise.

  “Russia is a habitual provocateur and has been for two decades… I wonder what the strategic objective is exactly…” [42:35]

• Long Game vs. Backfire:
  While Harris and Wittes see method in Putin’s actions—to undermine confidence in Western deterrence and cohesion—Anderson is less convinced, noting Europe's recent militarization and improved US-EU relations.

3. D.C. Federal Crime Crackdown and Grand Jury Nullification

[57:45 – 85:17] Lead Discussants: Quinta Jurecic, Alan Rozenshtein, Scott Anderson

• The Data:
  Jurecic analyzed the dramatic surge in felony cases brought in D.C. district court under a new federal crackdown. Despite volume, many cases—especially marginal assault charges involving minor incidents—were dropped or downgraded due to grand juries’ refusal to indict.
• Notable Statistical Insights:
  • On peak days, up to 14 cases were filed—comparable to early January 6th numbers.
  • Grand juries have refused to indict in cases involving minor physical "assaults," e.g., the "sandwich guy."
• Alan Rozenshtein’s Take:

  “It is just not that hard to get a grand jury to return a true bill… Is this effectively grand jury nullification?” [59:42]

• Historical Function of Grand Juries:
  Jurecic contextualizes grand jury nullification as part of their original, constitutional role—a check on prosecutorial overreach (e.g., John Peter Zenger case) [63:34].
• Rule of Law Implications:
  Rozenshtein raises concerns about long-term consequences if grand juries routinely disregard cases that technically fit the law.

  “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander… if you have a norm of grand juries not returning true bills… that’s… corrosive to those very institutions over the long term.” [69:28]

• Limitations of the Data:
  Jurecic cautions that the apparent post-crackdown drop in crime may reflect underreporting (due to fear, e.g. among immigrants) rather than gains in public safety.
• Unintended Effects:
  Enhanced federal presence may further erode trust and worsen underreporting of domestic violence and other crimes, undermining both policing legitimacy and community safety.

4. The TikTok Law: Rule of Law, Executive Overreach, and Corporate Capitulation

[86:23 – 99:41] Lead Discussants: Alan Rozenshtein, Quinta Jurecic, Scott Anderson

• Background:
  Despite passage of the TikTok divestment law, the Trump administration essentially ignored enforcement while pursuing a deal for ByteDance to sell TikTok to a US company. The Supreme Court let the law stand, but executive enforcement lapsed.
• Rozenshtein’s Critique:

  “For just the clarity of demonstrating the Trump administration’s imperial conception of itself, there's nothing as clean as the TikTok non enforcement.” [88:36]

• Corporate Complicity:
  Rozenshtein is dismayed that leading tech companies acquiesced, despite clear legal risk, apparently trusting Trump's personal assurances over statutory requirements.

  “Big companies fold… literally biggest companies in the world… agreed to go along with nearly a trillion dollars of liability each on the sort of nonsense say-so of Trump.” [90:09]

• Why Didn’t Business Push Back?
  • Jurecic: “The state is supposed to be the executive committee of the bourgeoisie. Where are the bourgeoisie?” [93:36]
  • She draws parallels with Ernst Fraenkel’s “Dual State,” suggesting monopolistic businesses have adapted to personalist governance, believing they can cut deals—until, suddenly, they can't.
• Congressional Abdication:
  Anderson observes that Congress signaled it had lost the appetite to enforce the law, weakening checks on executive power.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Discord Generation:
  “If you talk to any person under the age of 25 about this, who spends a lot of time in Discord, I think that they would look at what I'm saying and say, yeah, right… they are nihilistic, ironic, and who don't think the way that we think they are thinking.”
  —Shane Harris [11:10]

• On Political Violence and Motive:
  “The direct line between I identify with Donald Trump… and therefore whoever attacks it must be who I would imagine my political enemies to be is wrong much more often than it's right because most people don't say, ‘here is my ideology and therefore when I pick up a gun and kill people…’ because murder just isn't that rational.”
  —Benjamin Wittes [16:58]

• On NATO and Russian Probing:
  “What if you poke Romania and people don't care, and then maybe you poke Estonia and people don't really care, and all of a sudden you've kind of made the point that … the United States really isn't up for it right now, because we'd rather extort concessions from the Ukrainians. And all of a sudden, the whole thing looks a little bit like Swiss cheese.”
  —Benjamin Wittes [33:30]

• On Prosecuting Sandwich-Throwing:
  “You shouldn't throw sandwiches at CBP officers. Like, I'm happy to say that, right?... How do we feel about grand juries saying… ‘I do think there's probable cause, but I don't want to do it.’”
  —Alan Rozenshtein [60:00]

• On Grand Jury Nullification and History:
  “The idea of grand jury nullification is foundational… John Peter Zenger… published things critical of the king. A grand jury… refused to indict him, even though he had clearly done the thing...”
  —Quinta Jurecic [63:34]

• On the Power of Rule Evasion:
  “Even if the result is that ByteDance divests of TikTok—which would be a good result—it doesn’t make up for the nine months of just real law breaking on Trump’s part. ... It demonstrates the Trump administration’s imperial conception of itself…”
  —Alan Rozenshtein [89:50]

• TikTok, Capital, and the Authoritarian Temptation:
  “It bums me that when I die, if I’m remembered for anything, it’s going to be for this series of primal screams into the void that I wrote this year about the stupid TikTok law.”
  —Alan Rozenshtein [86:23]

• On the Limits of Rational Security:
  “There’s not a lot of crime in North Korea, either. Right? So, you know, there are margins at which all this becomes somewhat excessive.”
  —Alan Rozenshtein [79:31]

Key Timestamps

• 05:48–29:51: The psychology and culture of online violence; assassination of Charlie Kirk; Discord/Teixeira parallels; generational shifts; social isolation data.
• 30:45–49:45: Russian drone incursions, NATO’s response, media coverage, Putin's strategy, and alliance fragility.
• 57:45–85:17: DC federal crackdown, overwhelmed grand juries, functional limits of law, and wider challenges of policing.
• 86:23–99:41: The TikTok law, rule of law breakdown, business community’s response, and parallels with historic authoritarianism.
• 100:02–111:43: Object lessons (media, TV, books, foreign policy accomplishments) and closing reflections.

Tone, Style, and Dynamics

Reflective, collegiate, irreverent, and deeply engaged, the panelists mix high-level legal and policy analysis with self-deprecating banter and references to pop culture (“Hunt for Bread October”; “sandwich guy”; comparisons to North Korea and The Sopranos). The mood is often serious but leavened by inside-joke humor and references to contemporary internet and political culture. The conversation is self-aware—panelists often acknowledge their own surprise at institutional failures and confess anxieties about the state of democracy.

Closing — Object Lessons (Personal Picks)

[100:02 – end]

• Shane Harris: TV recommendation – Somebody Somewhere (HBO), for its portrayal of friendship and perseverance.
• Benjamin Wittes: Recognition of the Trump administration’s effective work in hostage negotiation, specifically citing Adam Bowler’s approach.
• Alan Rozenshtein: Book rec – The Tainted Cup by Robert Jackson Bennett.
• Scott Anderson: Book rec – Orbital by Samantha Harvey, for space and the experience of being in orbit.
• Quinta Jurecic: Audiobook rec – Empire of AI by Karen Hao, about the opaque, global impacts of OpenAI and corporate-driven AI.

In Summary

This anniversary episode combines insider discussion of political violence, grand strategy, and institutional drift with wit and cultural references, providing not just news analysis but a portrait of how legal and security professionals are grappling with a period of intense uncertainty and transformation. The group’s willingness to critique, question, and occasionally praise all ends of the spectrum—across party lines and institutional boundaries—gives the episode a distinctively honest and sometimes urgent energy.

Memorable quote:

“Sometimes the worst person, you know, makes a great point.”
—Benjamin Wittes [102:11]

For more episodes, analysis, and event info, visit: lawfaremedia.org