The Rule of Law Brief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

In this Memorial Day episode of The Rule of Law Brief, attorney and former Naval officer Nate Charles reflects on the meaning of military sacrifice, constitutional government, and civic responsibility. Drawing from the loss of his father, Captain Curtis Edward Fifer of the United States Air Force, as well as friends and teammates lost during the Global War on Terror, Charles discusses why Memorial Day is both a solemn act of remembrance and a celebration of the freedoms preserved through sacrifice.This episode explores the constitutional ideals that generations of Americans fought and died to defend — not loyalty to a king, dictator, or political party, but commitment to a constitutional republic rooted in liberty and the rule of law.Charles also argues that Memorial Day should serve as an opportunity to recommit ourselves to good citizenship: learning history, studying the Constitution, engaging in thoughtful civic discussion, and recognizing that constitutional rights belong to everyone, not merely to people we already agree with.Memorial Day is not just about remembering sacrifice — it is about asking whether we are building a constitutional republic worthy of that sacrifice. This Memorial Day, remember the fallen, enjoy the freedoms they preserved, and recommit yourself to good citizenship. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

For decades, Americans have been told to fear “Sharia law” without ever receiving a serious explanation of what Sharia actually is. In this episode, attorney Nathan Charles breaks down the reality behind one of the most misunderstood and politically weaponized phrases in modern American discourse.This discussion explains:* what Sharia actually means in Islam,* why it is not a single unified legal code,* how most Muslims experience Sharia in their daily lives,* the distinction between religious practice and state-imposed theocracy,* and why the United States Constitution already protects the peaceful religious practices of Muslims just as it protects those of Christians, Jews, and every other faith community.The episode also addresses misleading anti-Muslim survey data, the misuse of fear-based political rhetoric, and the broader constitutional principles of religious liberty under the First Amendment.Fear thrives on ignorance.Understanding requires context.“Sharia law” has become one of the most misunderstood phrases in American politics. This episode breaks down what Sharia actually is, why most Muslims practice it as a personal religious framework, and why the Constitution already protects religious liberty for everyone. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

The Department of Justice has announced the creation of a new “Anti-Weaponization Fund” tied to claims by Donald Trump and his allies that they were victims of politically motivated investigations. In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, attorney and former DOJ counterintelligence prosecutor Nate Charles explains why this fund is historically unprecedented, legally amorphous, and politically dangerous.This episode explores:* Why the DOJ’s comparison to the Obama-era Keepseagle settlement is deeply misleading* The absence of objective legal standards governing the new fund* Why terms like “weaponization” and “lawfare” are too vague to support a legitimate compensation regime* How settlements can create the illusion of vindication without actual judicial findings* Why the Russia investigation and Mar-a-Lago investigation were grounded in legitimate national security and criminal concerns* The documented role of the Internet Research Agency in Russian interference operations during the 2016 election* How politicizing federal investigations erodes public confidence in the justice systemDrawing on firsthand experience within the national security and counterintelligence community, Nate Charles explains why this entire structure may ultimately be remembered less as a triumph of justice than as a sophisticated political public-relations operation.Trump’s new “Anti-Weaponization Fund” may be one of the most politically manipulative legal maneuvers in modern DOJ history. As a former DOJ counterintelligence prosecutor, I explain why this is less about justice than manufactured vindication. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

In 1775, King George III issued “A Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition,” accusing the American colonists of being manipulated by “dangerous and ill-designing men” engaged in “open and avowed rebellion.”In 2025, the Trump administration issued NSPM-7, “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” framing modern political extremism through similarly broad ideological language.This episode explores the historical parallels between those two moments — and why governments often unintentionally radicalize opposition movements when they begin interpreting political dissent primarily through counterterrorism frameworks.Drawing on his background as a former Navy SEAL officer and graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Nate Charles examines:* The escalation dynamics that transformed colonial resistance into revolution* How heavy-handed state responses often act as force multipliers for radicalization* The historical legacy of COINTELPRO and domestic intelligence overreach* Why broad ideological profiling creates long-term instability* The constitutional tension between public order and political dissentThis is not merely a discussion about free speech.It is a discussion about how governments create the very insurgent identities they fear.What happens when governments stop viewing dissent as political disagreement and start viewing it as domestic extremism? History suggests that approach rarely ends well. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

Christian nationalists often claim that the United States was founded as a Christian nation because the Declaration of Independence references “Nature’s God” and a “Creator.” But that argument collapses once you examine the historical, philosophical, and constitutional foundations of the American system.In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles breaks down:• Why the Declaration of Independence was not the governing charter of the United States• Why the Declaration functioned more like a revolutionary “breakup letter” to England• How the Constitution deliberately rejected the old European confessional state model• The role John Locke played in shaping American political philosophy• Why Locke’s belief in God did not translate into support for Christian government• How Christian nationalism actually contradicts Locke’s theory of equality and natural rights• Why Thomas Jefferson’s skepticism toward orthodox Christianity matters• How the Constitution was designed to protect diversity of conscience rather than impose religious conformityThis episode also responds to the recent debate between Christian nationalists and Congressman Jamie Raskin on Capitol Hill, as well as the movement to “rededicate” the United States to Christianity on the National Mall.The central question is not whether religion influenced history. The question is whether the United States was constitutionally designed to grant religious authority sovereign control over public life.The answer is no.#ChristianNationalism #Constitution #JohnLocke #ThomasJefferson #JamieRaskin #FirstAmendment #RuleOfLaw #PoliticalPhilosophy #Enlightenment #FoundingFathers #Law #Legal #Lawyer #Attorney #Justice #LawFirm #ContentCreatorsChristian nationalists keep claiming the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Historically and constitutionally, that argument falls apart very quickly once you understand what the Declaration of Independence actually was—and what the Constitution was specifically designed to reject. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

In this short Rule of Law sidebar, Nate Charles reacts to reports of a new presidential task force focused on declining fertility rates in the United States. The core issue is simple: political leaders cannot simultaneously argue that America faces a looming demographic and workforce crisis while also insisting on mass deportations and aggressive anti-immigration policies.This episode examines the contradiction at the center of modern immigration rhetoric:• If birth rates are falling, the economy will require population growth from somewhere.• Immigrants historically fill labor shortages, support economic expansion, and stabilize demographic decline.• Calls for workforce growth paired with hostility toward immigration expose a deeper ideological agenda.Nate argues that the tension between these positions is not economic policy confusion — it is often rooted in racial and cultural anxiety about who gets to belong in America.This is not a full Rule of Law Brief, but a direct and unfiltered sidebar on demographic policy, immigration, and political hypocrisy.America cannot panic about declining birth rates while deporting the very people who help sustain the workforce and economy. In this Rule of Law sidebar, Nate Charles breaks down the contradiction at the heart of modern immigration politics — and asks whether the real issue was ever economics at all. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

After the Civil War, the former Confederate states were not automatically restored to the Union. Congress imposed conditions for readmission — and the central condition was ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles examines a provocative constitutional question:If acceptance of the Fourteenth Amendment was the legal condition for restoration to the Union, what are the constitutional consequences when political institutions begin openly repudiating that amendment?The discussion explores:* Congressional Reconstruction and the Reconstruction Acts of 1867* The Fourteenth Amendment as the foundation of modern constitutional America* Birthright citizenship, equal protection, due process, and incorporation* Congressional authority over admission and readmission of states* Texas v. White and the “indestructible Union” doctrine* Modern political hostility toward the Fourteenth Amendment* The historical continuity between Reconstruction-era conflicts and modern constitutional politicsThe episode also examines recent remarks by Alabama House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter regarding the Fourteenth Amendment and asks whether America is reopening constitutional questions many assumed had been settled after the Civil War.This episode is not a prediction, legal opinion, or call for violence. It is a constitutional and historical analysis of Reconstruction, federal authority, and the unresolved legacy of the Civil War.What if the former Confederate states were only restored to the Union conditionally — and the central condition was acceptance of the Fourteenth Amendment? This episode explores one of the most provocative constitutional questions in modern American politics. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

Everybody understands the obvious possibility that releasing UFO files can function as a distraction from politically damaging stories. But what if the deeper danger is something far more profound?In this episode, attorney Nathan M. F. Charles explores Hannah Arendt’s warnings about totalitarianism, propaganda, and the deliberate destruction of objective truth. Drawing from legal philosophy, political theory, and modern media dynamics, this episode examines how fragmentary and unresolved disclosures can create epistemic chaos — a condition where people stop believing not just specific facts, but the very possibility of knowing truth at all.Because authoritarianism does not necessarily require citizens to believe one giant lie. It only requires a population so overwhelmed, skeptical, and psychologically exhausted that shared reality itself begins to collapse.And once shared reality collapses, the rule of law collapses with it.Topics include:• Hannah Arendt and The Origins of Totalitarianism• Joseph Goebbels and propaganda theory• UFO disclosures and epistemic destabilization• Why transparency is usually democratic — but not always clarifying• Tribalism, nihilism, and institutional distrust• Why courts and legal systems depend on objective truth• How authoritarian systems exploit uncertainty, fear, and confusionWhat happens when a society stops believing objective truth is even possible? This episode explores Hannah Arendt, authoritarianism, UFO disclosures, and why the collapse of shared reality threatens the rule of law itself. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Nathan Charles welcomes Cavi Miller to Charles International Law and discusses why experienced law firm staff are essential to the success and growth of any legal practice.Cavi brings substantial experience from two prior law firms and the Lebanon County Bar Association, and her addition to the team represents an important step forward for the firm’s operational growth and long-term vision.But this conversation also turns to a larger issue affecting small businesses across the United States: healthcare.Nathan discusses the “50 Employee Cliff” under the Affordable Care Act and explains why many small business owners quietly support universal healthcare — not as an ideological issue, but as an economic necessity.Topics include:• Why skilled staff are critical to law firm success• The operational realities of running a small business• Employer-sponsored healthcare and hiring decisions• The economic impact of healthcare mandates• Why many businesses stop growing at 50 employees• How universal healthcare could increase competition and entrepreneurship• Why healthcare reform is fundamentally a small business issueThis episode connects law firm growth, staffing, and healthcare policy through the real-world perspective of a small business owner actively building a modern law practice.We’re excited to welcome Cavi Miller to Charles International Law as we continue growing and modernizing our operations. This episode also explores why many small business owners support universal healthcare — and how the Affordable Care Act’s “50 Employee Cliff” can discourage growth and hiring. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

In this 30-second episode, Nathan M. F. Charles responds directly to criticism surrounding Ziafuruki’s apology to the White House Correspondents Dinner shooter. The point is simple: constitutional protections do not disappear because someone is hated, dangerous, or politically unpopular.The Eighth Amendment and core constitutional principles require humane treatment of prisoners. That obligation is not weakness. It is the defining line between constitutional government and mob rule.If someone cannot understand that basic principle, they should not be anywhere near the machinery of government.This episode addresses:* Constitutional limits on government power* Humane treatment of prisoners under American law* Why rights apply even to unpopular defendants* The danger of abandoning constitutional standards for emotional reactions* The difference between justice and vengeanceThe Constitution does not stop applying because someone is unpopular. Humane treatment of prisoners is not optional in America. If you cannot understand that, you should not be anywhere near government. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles responds to a common pushback: “Didn’t a grand jury indict James Comey? Doesn’t that settle it?”Short answer: no.This episode breaks down the legal reality behind grand jury indictments and why they do not validate the strength, propriety, or legitimacy of a criminal case.If you haven’t watched the prior analysis, start here:* Todd Blanche’s Misdirection on the Comey Indictmenthttps://natecharles.substack.com/p/todd-blanche-comey-indictment-undisclosed-evidence-analysis* The 8647 Indictment Is Authoritarian, Full Stophttps://natecharles.substack.com/p/trump-doj-comey-8647-first-amendment-true-threat-analysisTopics covered:* What a federal grand jury actually does (and doesn’t do)* Why indictments are a procedural requirement—not a stamp of approval* The difference between grand juries and trial juries* The low threshold of probable cause* Prosecutorial control over grand jury proceedings* Why “a grand jury indicted him” is not a meaningful defense of a case* The prosecutor’s independent ethical duty under ABA Model Rule 3.8* Why an indictment does not cure a politically motivated or legally defective prosecutionReferenced case law:* United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992)Key takeaway:A grand jury indictment is a constitutional prerequisite in many cases—but it is not a safeguard against weak, selective, or improper prosecutions.A grand jury indictment proves only probable cause—not that the case is justified, sound, or beyond scrutiny. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

Recorded May 4th en route from Harrisburg to Nashville, this episode addresses recent media appearances by Todd Blanche, who has suggested that undisclosed, grand-jury-protected evidence may justify the indictment of James Comey.This analysis explains why that argument is a classic misdirection.The law is straightforward: an indictment must stand on its own. It must articulate the government’s theory of the case, identify the statute allegedly violated, and specify the conduct that constitutes the offense. That requirement is not optional—it is a core component of due process and fundamental fairness.Here, the indictment reportedly rests on a single act: a social media post containing “8647” . Blanche’s suggestion that additional, undisclosed evidence exists does not cure a defective theory of prosecution. Grand jury secrecy under Rule 6 governs disclosure—it does not permit the government to obscure or defer the legal basis of the charge itself.This episode breaks down:* The legal function of an indictment as notice to the defendant* The limits of grand jury secrecy as a justification in public commentary* Why “there’s more evidence” is not a substitute for a viable charging theory* How this line of argument shifts attention away from whether the alleged conduct is criminal at allBottom line: if the conduct described in the indictment does not constitute a crime, no amount of undisclosed evidence fixes that problem. Calling attention to hidden evidence is not a legal defense of the indictment—it is a rhetorical diversion.Subscribe for precise, doctrine-driven legal analysis that cuts through advocacy and focuses on what the law actually requires. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

In this one-year anniversary episode, I reflect on what started as a written Substack and has since evolved into a video platform and podcast reaching thousands across multiple channels.I discuss:* Why I still value written content—especially for complex or controversial legal topics requiring citation* How and why the platform shifted toward video and audio* The technical skills I’ve developed, from video editing (CapCut) to SEO and content distribution* How these lessons have directly improved my legal practice and professional developmentI also share more about my background for those newer to the platform:* U.S. Naval Academy graduate and former Navy SEAL officer* Experience in irregular warfare and foreign internal defense* Former counterintelligence prosecutor in the DOJ’s National Security Division* Founder of a law firm focused on immigration cases with national security dimensionsThis episode is ultimately about the intersection of law and national security—and why I believe these issues are among the most important facing the country today.Most importantly, it’s a thank you to the growing audience—now numbering in the thousands—who continue to engage with and support this work.I’m just getting started.One year in, this Substack has grown from written posts into a video and podcast platform reaching thousands—this episode is a reflection on what I’ve learned and where it’s going next. Thank you for being part of it! Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles examines the growing claim that the Biden administration “persecuted Christians”—a narrative driven by a 500-page report and amplified across conservative media.Rather than litigating individual anecdotes, this episode breaks down the constitutional framework governing religion in the United States, focusing on the tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.Key topics include:* What “separation of church and state” actually means* Why conflict between religious belief and public policy is inevitable* The Supreme Court’s framework for resolving that tension* Why neutral, generally applicable laws do not constitute persecution* The legal basis for public health measures, including vaccine mandates* The difference between religious accommodation and religious preferenceAt its core, this episode challenges the redefinition of “persecution” and explains why elevating specific religious doctrines over neutral laws is not constitutionally permissible.Cases Discussed* Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/→ Neutral, generally applicable laws may be enforced even if they burden religious practice.* Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/→ Government has broad authority to enact public health measures, including vaccination mandates.If enforcing neutral laws is “persecution,” then the word has lost all meaning. Here’s why the Constitution doesn’t give anyone a religious veto over public policy. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

Approximately 12 hours before this recording, Spirit Airlines effectively ceased operations, leaving passengers stranded, employees displaced, and a major gap in the U.S. low-cost travel market.This episode breaks down:* Why airline collapses don’t happen randomly* The structural vulnerability of ultra-low-cost carriers* How fuel price volatility can destabilize entire business models* The real-world consequences for Americans who rely on budget air travelKey Economic RealityFuel is one of the largest cost centers in aviation:* Typically 25%–30% of total airline operating costs* Can rise to as high as 40% under extreme conditions* Subject to rapid volatility, with spikes approaching 90% in short periodsFor ultra-low-cost carriers like Spirit:* Margins are extremely thin* Pricing power is limited* Cost shocks cannot be easily passed on to consumersWhen fuel prices double or triple in a short timeframe, these airlines face existential pressure.What Happened to SpiritReporting indicates that rising fuel costs alone added hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses, overwhelming an already fragile financial structure.This episode argues that sudden energy market disruption—driven by geopolitical decisions—can trigger cascading failures in industries that depend heavily on fuel.Second- and Third-Order EffectsThe collapse of a budget airline is not isolated:* Reduced access to affordable travel* Disruption to business operations* Strain on long-distance families* Job losses across the aviation sectorFor millions of Americans, low-cost carriers are not a luxury—they are essential infrastructure.Sources & Further Reading* International Air Transport Association (IATA) – Airline cost structurehttps://www.iata.org/en/publications/newsletters/iata-knowledge-hub/unveiling-the-biggest-airline-costs/* McKinsey & Company – Fuel price volatility in aviationhttps://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel/our-insights/why-rising-fuel-prices-might-not-be-as-bad-for-the-airline-sector-as-it-seems* AeroSimulations – Economics of fuel in low-cost airlineshttps://aerosimulations.com/the-economics-of-fuel-management-in-low-cost-airlines/* ScienceDirect – Cost sensitivity of low-cost carriershttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969699725000869* Investopedia – Spirit Airlines financial pressures and fuel costshttps://www.investopedia.com/tough-times-for-low-cost-airlines-spirit-is-preparing-to-shut-down-report-says-flyyq-11963735* MarketWatch – Airlines most vulnerable to fuel price increaseshttps://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-u-s-airlines-most-vulnerable-to-rising-fuel-prices-b3ed82b3Spirit Airlines didn’t just disappear—fuel costs and geopolitical decisions made its business model unsustainable. When energy markets destabilize, everyday Americans feel it first. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, we break down the reported indictment of former FBI Director James Comey over a social media image of seashells arranged to read “8647”—and why the government’s legal theory collapses under basic First Amendment analysis.We cover:* What “8647” actually means in common usage—and what it does not mean* The constitutional standard for a “true threat” and why this case fails it outright* The distinction between protected political speech and criminal conduct* Why prosecuting this case constitutes a textbook abuse of federal power* DOJ charging standards: probable cause vs. proof beyond a reasonable doubt* Ethical obligations of prosecutors under the Rules of Professional Conduct* Why knowingly bringing a deficient case may expose attorneys to discipline* How state bar associations can investigate and sanction prosecutorial misconduct* The broader implications for political speech and civil libertiesThis episode argues that the case is not merely weak—it is potentially sanctionable and represents a dangerous expansion of government power over protected speech.The government is calling seashells arranged as “8647” a death threat. That’s not just wrong—it’s dangerous. This case doesn’t come close to meeting the legal standard for a true threat. Instead, it looks like something far worse: using federal prosecution to punish protected political speech. If prosecutors can redefine speech like this as criminal, the First Amendment stops meaning anything. This isn’t about Comey. It’s about whether the Constitution still applies. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe

This episode confronts one of the most dangerous and unresolved questions in political philosophy:When, if ever, is political violence justified in a domestic context?We already apply disciplined moral reasoning to violence between nation-states through just war theory—a framework developed over centuries to restrain, not encourage, the use of force. But no comparable modern framework exists for evaluating political violence within a constitutional system.That gap matters.Because when systems fail—or when people believe they have failed—individuals begin to make that determination for themselves.This episode explores:* Why just war theory provides a useful analog for thinking about domestic conflict* The baseline rule: political violence is unjustified within a functioning constitutional system* The critical failure point: what happens when courts, elections, and lawful remedies stop working* The Declaration of Independence as an early—but incomplete—attempt to define a standard* Why the threshold must be extraordinarily high: more than disagreement, misconduct, or even serious abuses of power* The danger of ambiguity: individuals deciding, prematurely or unilaterally, that the system has collapsed* The core unanswered questions:* Who decides when the line is crossed?* By what standard?* How do we prevent abuse of that standard?This is not an argument for political violence.It is an argument for intellectual and legal clarity—because without it, the line will not remain undefined. It will be drawn in moments of fear, anger, and instability.And that is how constitutional systems unravel.We have a “just war theory” for conflicts between nations. We have nothing comparable for political violence at home. That’s a problem—because if we don’t define the line, someone else will. And they won’t ask first. When, if ever, is political violence justified in a constitutional system? This is the question we’ve avoided for 250 years. Get full access to The Rule of Law Brief at natecharles.substack.com/subscribe