TSA PreCheck Touchless and the Surveillance State

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]

Defending the Defenseless: Why Immigration Is a Constitutional Cause

What do asymmetric warfare, domestic violence, Hannah Arendt, George Washington, and immigration law have in common? More than you might think. In this birthday fundraiser, I explain how my experiences as a Navy SEAL, my work in national security, my time prosecuting domestic violence cases in Washington, D.C., and my career as an immigration attorney all led me to the same conclusion: The defining question of a constitutional republic is not how it exercises power—but how it restrains it. Throughout American history, our greatest leaders have understood that strength is demonstrated not by accumulating power, but by placing principled limits upon it. George Washington’s greatest legacy was not winning the Revolutionary War. It was voluntarily walking away from power. Today, I believe that defending the constitutional rights of immigrants is part of defending that same American tradition. The overwhelming majority of immigrants are not seeking conflict. They are seeking safety, opportunity, and the chance to build peaceful lives. The Constitution exists precisely to ensure that government remains constrained by law when dealing with those who possess the least political power. For my birthday this year, I’m asking you to support the National Immigration Law Center and the work they do defending due process, equal protection, and the rule of law. If this message resonates with you, I hope you’ll consider making a contribution. Donate here:https://www.facebook.com/donate/36580229138258728/ [https://www.facebook.com/donate/36580229138258728/] Thank you for helping defend those who cannot defend themselves. What does being a Navy SEAL have to do with defending immigrants? More than you might expect. 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]