When Trump Sued Himself: The $1.776 billion Slush Fund

Trump’s Iran Gamble Is Backfiring

This week, Richard Epstein weighs in on war, deterrence, and the limits of modern military strategy. Drawing lessons from World War II, Vietnam, Gaza, and the current conflict with Iran, Epstein argues that wars are either fought to win or not fought at all. He contends that America’s fear of escalation, reliance on limited objectives, and preference for negotiated settlements have produced strategic drift rather than decisive victory. Professor Epstein also delivers a sharp critique of Donald Trump’s handling of Iran, defends the logic of unconditional surrender, and explains why he believes half-measures can be more dangerous—and more costly—than total commitment.

When Trump Sued Himself: The $1.776 billion Slush Fund

Richard Epstein analyzes the Trump administration’s controversial $1.776 billion settlement fund, arguing that it represents a profound breach of constitutional norms, public trust, and basic principles of good government. From standing doctrine and congressional power to taxation, impeachment, and the limits of executive authority, Epstein explains why he believes the scheme is legally dubious, politically explosive, and one of the most troubling examples of presidential overreach in modern American history.

A Turning Point For Section 2: SCOTUS Reins in the Voting Rights Act

Charles C. W. Cooke and Richard Epstein break down the Supreme Court’s latest Voting Rights Act decision, examining how the ruling in Louisiana v. Callais narrows the use of race in redistricting and marks a turning point in election law. Epstein argues that the Court has finally begun to rein in what he sees as decades of overreach, tracing the evolution of voting rights jurisprudence from the Civil Rights era to today and questioning whether majority-minority districts have outlived their original purpose. The conversation explores the legal foundations of racial gerrymandering, the unintended political consequences of engineered districts, and the broader implications for polarization, representation, and the future of redistricting in the United States.

The Half-War

Richard Epstein examines the unfolding U.S. confrontation with Iran through both a strategic and constitutional lens, arguing that President Trump’s approach reflects a deeper tension between military necessity and political constraint. Epstein contends that limited or “half-war” measures—such as reliance on air power or pursuit of partial ceasefires—invite instability, while effective strategy demands either decisive dominance or restraint from intervention altogether. The conversation then pivots to the constitutional stakes, with Epstein criticizing the War Powers Act as an impractical and possibly unconstitutional encroachment on executive authority, arguing that modern warfare requires speed, secrecy, and unified command that Congress is structurally ill-equipped to provide. The discussion highlights the enduring conflict between law and strategy, suggesting that America’s greatest vulnerability may lie not only in foreign adversaries, but in its own divided system of war-making power.

The Slippery Slope of Social Media Liability

A Los Angeles jury has handed down a verdict stating that Meta and Google are held liable for a young woman’s psychological harm allegedly linked to social media use—along with a $6 million damages award. But what legal theory could possibly justify it? Richard Epstein dissects the case, from the limits of Section 230 to the growing push to impose liability on platforms for user behavior. Epstein explains why the ruling rests on shaky ground, how it collides with longstanding principles of tort law, and why—if upheld—it could expose tech companies to catastrophic, system-wide liability. The conversation ranges from contributory liability and First Amendment concerns to the deeper question: who is responsible when harm flows through a network? A sharp, fast-moving analysis of a case that could reshape the legal architecture of the internet.