The Rule of Law Brief

Folgen

• 
  Foreign Agents, Political Violence, and the Rule of Law: Show Us the Evidence 16.07.2026 5Min.

  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
• 
  Why the Trump Administration Wants to Destroy the International Criminal Court 14.07.2026 3Min.

  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
• 
  Textualism Defends Birthright Citizenship 08.07.2026 6Min.

  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
• 
  Survive: The Most Important Lesson Before America's 250th 29.06.2026 5Min.

  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
• 
  What the Third Amendment Reveals About NATO 28.06.2026 6Min.

  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 spendingThe 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
• 
  Defending the Defenseless: Why Immigration Is a Constitutional Cause 26.06.2026 8Min.

  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/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
• 
  The Search Warrant That Should Never Have Been Signed 24.06.2026 3Min.

  What happens when government officials seek a warrant to search a citizen’s entire cell phone?Most Americans assume there must be evidence of a serious crime.In this episode, attorney Nathan M. F. Charles examines the actual search warrant affidavit used to authorize the forensic search of Kimberly Baylor’s phone and asks a simple question:Where is the crime?The affidavit describes social media posts, criticism of public officials, emails to a government office, phone calls to a government office, and public advocacy concerning a matter of public controversy. Yet a local magistrate authorized a search of virtually every aspect of Baylor’s digital life.This episode explores the constitutional implications of that decision, the dangers of expanding government power, and why the Fourth Amendment exists in the first place.Most importantly, we are making the affidavit itself available to the public so you can read it and reach your own conclusions.Read the affidavit here:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i6Ilb5k1kD58KejHjuKLGbT03n-XiJC1/view?usp=sharingAt Charles International Law, we intend to continue challenging unconstitutional government conduct and holding public officials accountable when they exceed the limits imposed by the Constitution.A magistrate authorized a forensic search of an entire cell phone. After reading the affidavit, I believe every American should ask the same question: where is the crime? Read the warrant yourself and decide. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Juneteenth and America's Unfinished Promise 19.06.2026 3Min.

  Juneteenth commemorates June 19, 1865, when Union troops arrived in Galveston, Texas, and enforced the emancipation of enslaved people more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation.In this episode, we examine why Juneteenth is more than a historical observance. We discuss the life of Peter Mills, one of the last verified Americans born into slavery, who died in Pittsburgh in 1972 after witnessing the Civil Rights Movement and the Moon landing. We also explore the distinction between de jure equality and de facto equality, the unfinished work of closing the gap between America’s ideals and its reality, and the troubling reality that slavery still exists in parts of the world today.Finally, drawing on our work representing asylum seekers from Mauritania, we ask a difficult question: if slavery and slavery-like practices still exist, what responsibility do we bear toward those seeking refuge from them?Juneteenth is a celebration of freedom won through struggle and sacrifice. It is also a reminder that the pursuit of liberty did not end in 1865.Juneteenth is more than a historical holiday. From Peter Mills, who was born into slavery and died in 1972, to modern victims of slavery seeking asylum today, this episode explores why America’s promise of freedom remains an unfinished project. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  There Is No Such Thing as a Valueless Contribution 18.06.2026 4Min.

  As America approaches its 250th birthday, it is worth remembering a lesson that history teaches again and again: no successful political movement is built by heroes alone.From the American Revolution to the Civil Rights Movement, meaningful change has always depended on ordinary people making contributions according to their abilities, resources, and circumstances. Some lead. Some organize. Some educate. Some communicate. Some support the work of others.Using a recently unsealed Minnesota conspiracy indictment as a contemporary example, I examine how organizations depend on people performing different roles—and why the Constitution needs engaged citizens far more often than it needs extraordinary heroes.Whether preserving the rule of law, defending constitutional principles, or advancing any legitimate political cause, there is no such thing as a valueless contribution.History's great movements were never built by a handful of famous people. They succeeded because thousands of ordinary citizens contributed in different ways—and the preservation of the American Republic is no different. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  There Is No Peace Deal with Iran 17.06.2026 3Min.

  President Trump has announced what many are calling a peace deal with Iran. But is it actually a peace agreement?In this episode, attorney Nathan Charles examines the public facts surrounding the announcement and explains why the arrangement appears to be a temporary ceasefire rather than a comprehensive peace settlement.The central issue of the conflict—Iran’s nuclear program—remains unresolved and has reportedly been deferred for future negotiations. Nathan compares the current situation to the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), discusses the strategic importance of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and explains why declarations of either victory or failure may be premature.Topics discussed:• The difference between a peace treaty, a ceasefire, and a détente• Why public terms matter in international agreements• Iran’s nuclear program and its strategic significance• The JCPOA and how it differs from the current arrangement• Why deferred negotiations are not the same thing as conflict resolutionPresident Trump says there’s a peace deal with Iran. This episode explains why the publicly available facts suggest it’s not a peace agreement at all, but a temporary ceasefire with the central dispute still unresolved. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  The Importance of Being Annoying 16.06.2026 6Min.

  As America approaches its 250th anniversary, this is not merely a time for celebration. It is a time for reflection, stewardship, and resolve.In this episode, Nate Charles examines a recurring pattern throughout American history: the people who improved society were often viewed as troublemakers in their own time. From the American Revolution to abolition, women’s suffrage, labor reform, and the Civil Rights Movement, meaningful progress has almost always required citizens willing to make themselves inconvenient.Drawing on military studies of resistance movements, the Declaration of Independence, and the example of Martin Luther King Jr., this episode explores why nonviolent movements succeed, why legitimacy matters, and why asking uncomfortable questions is often a civic duty rather than a social failing.Sometimes the most patriotic thing a citizen can do is refuse to stop pointing out what everyone else would rather ignore.The people who changed America were often accused of being disruptive, annoying, and unwilling to let things go. This episode explores why meaningful reform depends on citizens who are willing to ask uncomfortable questions—and why being annoying is only a virtue if you’re also right. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Stewards of the Republic 16.06.2026 4Min.

  As the United States approaches its 250th birthday, many Americans find themselves conflicted. This is not a moment for blind celebration, nor is it a moment for despair.After visiting the new Thaddeus Stevens and Lydia Hamilton Smith Center for History and Democracy in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, I found myself reflecting on what it means to be an American citizen during difficult times. Thaddeus Stevens understood that America often falls short of its ideals. Instead of abandoning those ideals, he dedicated his life to bringing the country closer to them.In this opening installment of a new series leading up to the Fourth of July, we explore the concept of stewardship: the responsibility each generation inherits to preserve the rule of law, constitutional government, and individual liberty.The Constitution does not promise a perfect union. It challenges us to build a more perfect one.Topics discussed:• The 250th anniversary of the United States• Thaddeus Stevens and Lydia Hamilton Smith• The Reconstruction Amendments• The concept of a “more perfect union”• The rule of law and constitutional government• Citizenship as stewardship• Why patriotism requires responsibility, not complacency• Preserving the republic for future generationsAs America approaches its 250th birthday, this is not a time for complacency or despair. It’s a time to renew our commitment to the ideals that make self-government possible and to become better stewards of the republic we’ve inherited. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  When Kings Criminalize Their Enemies 11.06.2026 10Min.

  What do King Henry VIII and modern American counterterrorism policy have in common?More than you might think.In this episode, attorney Nathan M. F. Charles examines the history of England’s treason laws, the persecution and execution of Sir Thomas More, and the Framers’ deliberate decision to place a narrow definition of treason directly into the U.S. Constitution.The Founders understood a recurring danger in government: the temptation to stretch politically charged legal labels until they encompass ordinary political opposition. The Constitution’s Treason Clause was designed to prevent exactly that abuse.Today, the same underlying question remains relevant. What happens when governments attempt to redefine ideological opponents as threats to the state? Where is the line between punishing unlawful conduct and targeting political beliefs?To understand the present, we must understand the past.The Founders narrowly defined treason because they had seen how kings abused the charge to suppress dissent. Have we learned that lesson—or are we repeating it under a different label? Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  What I Was Missing 07.06.2026 12Min.

  Last week, I apologized for profoundly underestimating the degree to which racism, bigotry, and discrimination remained active forces in American life. This week, I want to answer the question that many viewers asked:How could I not have seen it?In this episode, I reflect on my upbringing in south-central Pennsylvania, the influence of a uniquely abolitionist and human-dignity-centered conservative tradition, and the assumptions that led me to mistake my own experience for reality.I discuss the work of political philosopher Charles W. Mills and his concept of “white ignorance,” the intelligence community’s understanding of mirror-imaging, my experiences serving overseas as a Navy SEAL, and my work prosecuting domestic violence cases in Washington, D.C.The lesson is not that I was uniquely foolish.The lesson is that all of us have blind spots.The challenge is finding the humility to identify them.Why did it take me so long to understand what now seems obvious? In this follow-up to last week’s video, I explore Charles W. Mills’s concept of “white ignorance,” the dangers of mirror-imaging, and the life experiences that forced me to confront the limits of my own perspective. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  I Was Wrong About America 03.06.2026 5Min.

  Fifteen years ago, I considered myself a conservative Republican, and I genuinely believed that America’s long struggle for civil rights had largely succeeded.When the Supreme Court decided Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, I agreed with the decision. I believed racism, religious intolerance, sexism, and anti-LGBTQ prejudice still existed, but I thought they had been pushed to the margins of American society.I was wrong.In this episode, I reflect on how the last decade changed my understanding of the country, why I underestimated the persistence of bigotry, and why intellectual honesty requires us to change our views when the facts change.Being wrong is not the problem.Refusing to learn is.As we begin Pride Month, I discuss why civil rights victories are never self-executing, why progress requires constant vigilance, and why none of us gets to hide behind ignorance once reality has made itself clear.I used to believe America’s civil rights battles had largely been won. I was wrong. This episode is an apology, a reflection on what changed my mind, and a challenge to all of us: once you’ve learned better, you have an obligation to do better. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  The FBI's Job Is Not to "Put People Down" 02.06.2026 3Min.

  When does speech cross the line from protected expression into a criminal threat?In this episode, immigration attorney Nate Charles examines the federal case against Nicholas Matthew Scelfo, who allegedly threatened to kill an ICE officer and the officer’s family during a protest outside the Delaney Hall detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. If the allegations are true, the First Amendment does not protect that conduct.But the story does not end there.Nate also analyzes FBI Director Kash Patel’s response to the arrest, including Patel’s statement that “you touch a cop, and this FBI will put you down.” While that statement is legally distinct from the alleged threat made by Scelfo, it raises important questions about the role of law enforcement in a constitutional republic, the importance of precision in official rhetoric, and the FBI’s stated mission to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution.Can a protester violate the law while government officials still have an obligation to model restraint? What does the “true threats” doctrine actually require? And what should Americans expect from the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agencies?These are the questions we explore in this episode.A protester allegedly made a criminal threat against an ICE officer's family. Then the FBI announced the arrest with rhetoric that raises serious questions about constitutional governance, due process, and the role of federal law enforcement. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Why Character Matters in a Constitutional Republic 01.06.2026 3Min.

  Americans often hear that the United States is a constitutional republic rather than a direct democracy. That’s true—but many people miss the implications.A republic depends on citizens electing representatives to govern on their behalf. Those representatives negotiate, compromise, and make countless decisions outside direct public observation. The public cannot sit in every committee meeting, attend every negotiation, or monitor every conversation.That reality makes character indispensable.In this episode, I explain why integrity in public office is not merely a moral concern. It is a structural requirement of representative government. If citizens cannot trust the people making decisions behind closed doors, eventually they stop trusting the government itself.The modern Republican Party’s embrace of the idea that character doesn’t matter is not merely hypocritical. It is fundamentally incompatible with the constitutional system the party claims to defend.A constitutional republic depends on trust. If character in public office doesn’t matter, representative government itself begins to break down. Here’s why integrity is a structural requirement of self-government. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  The Constitutional Problem with DHS's Airport Threat 29.05.2026 3Min.

  The Department of Homeland Security is reportedly considering shutting down Customs and Border Protection processing at certain airports and redirecting international travelers elsewhere. The issue is not whether DHS has authority over customs and immigration. The issue is whether it can use that authority for openly political purposes.In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, attorney Nate Charles examines the constitutional doctrine prohibiting arbitrary and capricious government action and explains why the administration’s own stated rationale may create serious legal problems.The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that agencies must base their decisions on facts, evidence, and lawful governmental objectives. Agencies cannot rely on factors Congress never authorized them to consider, and courts are not required to accept explanations that do not match reality.This episode explores:• What the arbitrary-and-capricious standard actually means• Why agencies must provide rational explanations for their decisions• The difference between legitimate operational justifications and political retaliation• Why openly political motives can undermine otherwise lawful governmental actions• How due process protects against arbitrary exercises of governmental powerAt stake is a fundamental principle of constitutional government: public power must be exercised for public purposes, not political grudges.Can the federal government use immigration and customs authority to punish cities whose politics it dislikes? In this episode, attorney Nate Charles explains the constitutional doctrine that may make such actions unlawful and why the administration’s own public statements could be its biggest legal problem. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  Why I Teach 28.05.2026 1Min.

  As many of you know, in addition to my legal practice, I previously taught in the criminology department at American University in Washington, DC. Although my schedule no longer consistently supports university teaching, I have always believed that professionals have a responsibility to help educate and mentor the generations that come behind them.That philosophy is a large part of why I create these videos. Knowledge should not remain locked away inside professional circles, institutions, or specialized industries. Some of the most valuable lessons I have learned throughout my career came from experienced professionals who were willing to publicly share their expertise, perspectives, and lived experiences. I believe that kind of knowledge-sharing is important not only professionally, but civically.Over the years, my law firm has developed several educational materials and online courses, but up to this point they have largely existed on our own platforms. Recently, however, I began exploring broader educational platforms like Udemy.com as a way to make those materials more accessible to the people who might actually benefit from them.As a result, we are seriously considering expanding our educational offerings and developing additional courses related to law, public policy, immigration, constitutional issues, professional development, and related subjects.This video is ultimately a request for feedback.What topics would you actually want us to teach?What legal concepts, practical skills, public policy issues, or professional insights would you like to see expanded into full educational courses?Please leave your thoughts and suggestions in the comments. We are actively considering these projects, and your feedback may directly influence what we create next.I have always believed that professionals have a duty to share knowledge and help train the next generation. My firm is now considering expanding our educational content into full online courses, and I would genuinely like your feedback about what we should teach next. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe
• 
  TSA PreCheck Touchless and the Surveillance State 27.05.2026

  In this short video, Nate Charles shares a firsthand experience with TSA PreCheck Touchless at the Philadelphia International Airport. The system was fast, seamless, and undeniably convenient—but it also served as a stark reminder of how deeply facial recognition and surveillance technology have become integrated into ordinary life.TSA PreCheck Touchless is incredibly convenient. It is also a vivid reminder that facial recognition surveillance is no longer theoretical—it is already embedded in everyday American life. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe