Foreign Agents, Political Violence, and the Rule of Law: Show Us the Evidence

Foreign Agents, Political Violence, and the Rule of Law: Show Us the Evidence

Foreign influence operations are real. As a former federal prosecutor in the National Security Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, I spent part of my career enforcing the statutes designed to combat them. In this episode, I explain what an agent provocateur is, why Congress enacted multiple overlapping statutes to address foreign influence, and why those laws already provide prosecutors with the tools they need to investigate and prosecute genuine foreign interference. I also explain one of the most misunderstood distinctions in federal national security law: the difference between the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and 18 U.S.C. § 951. While both address foreign influence, they regulate fundamentally different kinds of conduct, and understanding that distinction is essential to understanding how the United States responds to covert foreign operations. Finally, I discuss the Internet Research Agency investigation as a real-world example of a documented foreign influence campaign. That case demonstrates an important principle: the existence of an influence operation does not necessarily mean it changed the outcome of an election. That distinction matters, because overstating the effectiveness of foreign influence operations without publicly presented evidence risks undermining confidence in democratic institutions—the very outcome many foreign adversaries seek to achieve. In a constitutional republic, allegations are not enough. If the government believes foreign actors are orchestrating political violence inside the United States, it should investigate, indict where appropriate, and present the evidence. The rule of law requires nothing less. If you value careful legal analysis grounded in evidence rather than rhetoric, please consider subscribing to The Rule of Law Brief. At Charles International Law, we routinely take on difficult cases for underserved communities because we believe advancing constitutional values and the rule of law is a public service. That work is rarely the most profitable path for a law firm, but we believe it’s the right one. Your subscription or donation directly supports our ability to represent clients, produce educational content like this, and continue advancing the rule of law through both advocacy and public education. Thank you for helping make that work possible. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe [https://natecharles.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Why the Trump Administration Wants to Destroy the International Criminal Court

For decades, the United States has maintained a complicated relationship with the International Criminal Court. Although the United States has never fully accepted ICC jurisdiction over American nationals, it has generally tolerated the Court’s existence because it serves broader U.S. interests in promoting international law and accountability. That approach appears to be changing. In this episode, I examine Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s reported announcement that the Trump administration intends to actively dismantle the ICC, following sanctions against ICC judges and prosecutors and efforts to undermine the Court’s operations. I discuss: * Why the United States historically kept its distance from the ICC without attempting to destroy it. * The constitutional and practical limitations of impeachment as a mechanism for presidential accountability. * Why an international tribunal independent of the U.S. political system occupies a unique position. * My analysis of why the administration views the ICC as a threat. * Why these developments could have lasting implications for international law and the global rule of law. As always, this episode reflects legal analysis and commentary on current events. While I’m taking a brief break to spend time with my children, I wanted to address this development because I believe it raises significant questions about accountability, international institutions, and the future of the rule of law. If you found this analysis valuable, please consider subscribing or making a small donation. Charles International Law exists to take on difficult cases for people and communities that are underserved, while defending the constitutional principles and rule of law that protect all of us. That work is deeply rewarding—but it is not especially profitable. Your subscription or contribution directly supports our ability to continue representing vulnerable clients, producing educational content like this, and advancing the values that strengthen our Constitution. If you are able to help, thank you. Your support genuinely makes this work possible. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe [https://natecharles.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Textualism Defends Birthright Citizenship

The debate over birthright citizenship has produced no shortage of historical quotations—but are those quotations being interpreted correctly? In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, attorney Nate Charles examines one of the most frequently cited statements from Senator Jacob Howard, the principal Senate sponsor of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather than arguing politics, he applies traditional canons of statutory construction to the text itself. The episode covers: * Why the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment should be the starting point for any legal analysis. * What “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means under ordinary principles of legal interpretation. * The difference between constitutional text and legislative history. * The Series-Qualifier Canon and the Canon Against Surplusage. * Why Senator Howard’s statement, read according to ordinary English grammar, supports a much narrower exception than many online commentators suggest. * The surprising source of these interpretive rules: Justice Antonin Scalia’s Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Whether you agree with the outcome or not, legal interpretation requires consistency. Textualism only has value if it is applied the same way regardless of whose argument is being evaluated. If you’re going to claim to be a textualist, you have to follow the rules of textualism. Here’s why Antonin Scalia’s own canons of statutory interpretation undermine a common argument against birthright citizenship. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe [https://natecharles.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Survive: The Most Important Lesson Before America's 250th

This episode concludes my four-part Run-up to the 250th series with what I believe is the most important lesson of all: survive. The challenges facing the United States were decades in the making. Rebuilding trust, restoring constitutional norms, and strengthening our institutions will take decades as well. That means thinking beyond election cycles, avoiding burnout, making strategic decisions, and remembering that stewardship is a responsibility we inherit—not a race we finish ourselves. I also share why my wife and I are taking our first real vacation together since getting married, and why we’ve chosen to spend America’s 250th birthday in Canada. Far from diminishing my appreciation for the United States, I believe stepping away briefly to reflect on our shared North American history—including Benjamin Franklin’s mission to Montreal and the Loyalist founding of much of modern Ontario—will help me return with a renewed appreciation for the American experiment. As T. S. Eliot wrote: “We shall not cease from exploration,And the end of all our exploringWill be to arrive where we startedAnd know the place for the first time.” Happy 250th Birthday, America. I’ll see you after the Fourth. Sometimes the most important contribution you can make is simply to endure. This concludes my Run-up to the 250th series with a reflection on stewardship, resilience, and why I’m spending America’s 250th birthday in Canada before returning home with fresh eyes. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe [https://natecharles.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

What the Third Amendment Reveals About NATO

For years, the debate over NATO has been framed almost entirely around one question: Are America’s allies spending enough on defense? That question misses one of the alliance’s greatest strategic assets. In this episode, I argue that the Third Amendment—although not directly applicable to NATO—captures an enduring principle about sovereignty: the presence of foreign troops on a nation’s territory is a profound political imposition. Americans understood that so deeply that they enshrined protection against involuntary quartering in the Constitution. Today, America’s NATO allies voluntarily host U.S. military forces because they believe the alliance strengthens the security of the democratic world. Those basing rights provide the United States with extraordinary strategic advantages, enabling rapid power projection across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Yet they also require our allies to bear political costs at home—costs that rarely appear in discussions about “burden sharing.” This episode explores why those political and strategic contributions deserve far more recognition than they often receive, and why reducing NATO to a simple accounting exercise fundamentally misunderstands how alliances create power. Topics discussed: * The historical purpose of the Third Amendment * The political sensitivity of hosting foreign troops * Why overseas basing rights are indispensable to American power projection * The hidden political costs borne by NATO allies * Why alliances cannot be measured solely by defense spending The debate over NATO usually focuses on dollars. That’s the wrong metric. The Third Amendment reminds us that hosting foreign troops has always been a profound political sacrifice—and America’s allies make that sacrifice every day. Here’s why that matters. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe [https://natecharles.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]