Podcasts > Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News > Lawrence: Trump's court outbursts are 'the last thing competent Trump lawyers would want'

Lawrence: Trump's court outbursts are 'the last thing competent Trump lawyers would want'

By Rachel Maddow

Dive into the complexities of justice and policy with "Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News" as host Dr. Austin Dennard explores the intersection of law, politics, and society with a dynamic panel including Lawrence O'Donnell, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and others. In one segment, an intense courtroom drama unfolds as E. Jean Carroll stands against former President Donald Trump, examining the tense interplay between personal trauma and public scrutiny. Experts weigh in on Trump's courtroom antics as strategic moves, offering insights into the psychological warfare at play in high-profile legal struggles.

Meanwhile, the reverberations of Roe v. Wade's rollback stir poignant discussions on reproductive rights, with Senator Tammy Baldwin championing the cause at the forefront. As advocates and politicians clash over the future of federal regulatory power, Justice Jackson and Senator Whitehouse dissect the implications of dismantling long-established doctrines and the expertise of federal agencies. The episode doesn't shy away from national security either, as Sir Richard Dearlove and Congressman Adam Schiff articulate the global stakes of political leadership, underlining the international ramifications of a Trump presidency. Join this panel of experts as they dissect the current socio-political landscape and its far-reaching consequences.

Listen to the original

Lawrence: Trump's court outbursts are 'the last thing competent Trump lawyers would want'

This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Jan 18, 2024 episode of the Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.

Lawrence: Trump's court outbursts are 'the last thing competent Trump lawyers would want'

1-Page Summary

E. Jean Carroll Takes the Stand Against Donald Trump

E. Jean Carroll testifies against Donald Trump, emphasizing his disruptive courtroom behavior and the profound impact of the case on her life. Trump's co-counsel attempts to get the presiding judge recused, pointing to alleged bias, while experts interpret Trump’s behavior as strategic to create a narrative of judicial prejudice. Carroll’s personal account reveals severe lifestyle changes due to violent threats, including taking extreme security measures in her daily life. She contrasts her public persona with her private experience of pain and frustration during the legal battle. The Trump campaign seeks to undercut Carroll’s credibility by suggesting she enjoys the attention from the case.

Abortion Rights and Reproductive Freedom after Roe v. Wade

The rollback of Roe v. Wade incites emotional reactions and political mobilization. Affected doctors and patients share distressing experiences such as travel hardships and denial of care. Senator Tammy Baldwin contrasts President Biden's support for abortion rights with the Republican push for a national ban. Baldwin, facing a staunchly anti-abortion opponent in an upcoming election, is an outspoken advocate for legislatively restoring Roe v. Wade protections and countering state-level restrictions. Much of the American public supports the right to access abortion care and make personal bodily decisions.

Conservative Challenge to Federal Regulatory Power

Legal and political circles debate the Chevron doctrine's fate, which empowers federal agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expresses concern over the prospect of courts replacing agencies as policymakers, a shift she believes they are unequipped for. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse exposes the fishing industry lawsuit as part of a broader movement to weaken regulatory authorities, propelled by interests like Koch Industries. The potential repeal of the Chevron doctrine threatens the functionality and power of federal agencies, as Senator Whitehouse advocates for the necessity of agency expertise in decision-making and references the Congressional Review Act as an existing check on agency overreach.

Trump Presidency Poses Security Concerns

Sir Richard Dearlove, former MI6 chief, and Congressman Adam Schiff express significant concerns over the implications of a potential second Trump presidency on global security. Dearlove emphasizes the risk Trump poses to NATO stability and European defense, while Schiff criticizes Trump for eroding democratic alliances, praising Biden for his efforts to restore these relationships and support Ukraine. Schiff underscores the crucial role of a robust democratic foundation within the US for maintaining and bolstering the post-World War II international order, suggesting that Trump’s actions threaten this rules-based system.

1-Page Summary

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • E. Jean Carroll testified against Donald Trump, highlighting his disruptive behavior in court and the impact of the case on her life. Trump's legal team tried to have the judge removed, citing bias, while experts viewed Trump's actions as a strategic move to paint the judiciary as prejudiced. Carroll detailed significant lifestyle changes due to threats, including heightened security measures, and shared her personal struggles during the legal battle. The Trump campaign aimed to undermine Carroll's credibility by suggesting she sought attention from the case.
  • The Chevron doctrine is a legal principle that gives deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous laws. It allows agencies to fill in gaps left by Congress in statutes they administer. Critics argue that this doctrine can give too much power to agencies, potentially allowing them to act as lawmakers. The potential repeal of the Chevron doctrine could impact how federal agencies make decisions and interpret laws.
  • The concerns over a potential second Trump presidency's security implications primarily revolve around fears related to NATO stability, European defense, erosion of democratic alliances, and the impact on the post-World War II international order. Critics worry that Trump's policies and actions could weaken global security structures and strain relationships with key allies, potentially leading to instability and challenges in maintaining the existing rules-based international system.

Counterarguments

  • Trump's co-counsel might argue that their motion to recuse the judge is based on legitimate concerns about impartiality, not merely a strategic move.
  • Some might argue that public figures like E. Jean Carroll must expect and manage public scrutiny and attention when engaging in high-profile legal battles.
  • Opponents of abortion might argue that the rollback of Roe v. Wade corrects what they see as a judicial overreach and returns the decision-making power to the states.
  • Some may believe that Senator Baldwin's advocacy for abortion rights does not consider the moral and ethical concerns of those who oppose abortion on principled grounds.
  • Critics of the Chevron doctrine might argue that it gives too much power to unelected bureaucrats and that agencies should not have the authority to interpret laws in ways that effectively create new regulations without congressional approval.
  • Proponents of reducing federal regulatory power could argue that agencies have overstepped their bounds and that more direct oversight and control by elected officials is necessary.
  • Regarding global security concerns, supporters of Trump might argue that his foreign policy approach, including skepticism toward international alliances, puts America's interests first and challenges the status quo to the benefit of the nation.
  • Some may contend that Trump's actions during his presidency were aimed at recalibrating international relationships rather than eroding democratic alliances, and that his approach to NATO was about ensuring fair contributions from member states.
  • It could be argued that a strong democratic foundation in the US does not necessarily depend on the policies of a single administration and that the international rules-based system is robust enough to withstand changes in leadership.

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Lawrence: Trump's court outbursts are 'the last thing competent Trump lawyers would want'

E. Jean Carroll Takes the Stand Against Donald Trump

As E. Jean Carroll takes the stand in her case against Donald Trump, various courtroom dynamics unfold, from the former president's disruptive behavior to the impact the case has had on Carroll's life.

Trump's Disruptive Behavior in Court

O'Donnell raises the question of how the court can handle disruptions, citing President Trump's in-court remark about his willingness to be thrown out—an action that represents the most severe disciplinary measure available to a judge. Weissmann sheds light on tactics occasionally used by defendants and defense counsel to provoke a judge, such as causing the judge to lose their temper with the aim of forcing a mistrial. He points to Judge Kaplan's experience and capability to manage the trial and maintain order, despite Trump's co-counsel Michael Madeo's attempt to get the judge recused. Madeo cited what he perceived as general hostility toward the defense and an immediate acceptance of the prosecution's claims without allowing the defense to respond. Faith Gay interprets Trump's behavior as an attempt to support a narrative of judicial prejudice against him, which would play well for him if the judge were to eject him from the court.

Security Concerns and Impact on Carroll's Life

Carroll's testimony highlights the grave impact that Trump's alleged actions and the subsequent death threats have had on her life. Carroll described receiving threats of violent and public nature, leading to drastic changes in her lifestyle, which now involves seclusion in a small cabin with a pit bull, an electronic fence, and taking extreme precautions, such as altering driving routes and abandoning groceries due to perceived threats. She has also taken security measures like informing her neighbors to be vigilant and purchasing bullets for a gun she inherited from her father.

Contrast Between Public and Private Pe ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

E. Jean Carroll Takes the Stand Against Donald Trump

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Defendants and defense counsel may use tactics to provoke a judge, such as attempting to incite the judge's anger to disrupt the proceedings or create a mistrial situation. This can involve behaviors or statements aimed at eliciting a strong reaction from the judge, potentially impacting the fairness of the trial. Such tactics can be strategic in nature, intended to influence the judge's decisions or perceptions during the legal proceedings. These actions can be controversial and may vary in effectiveness depending on the judge's temperament and experience.
  • Judge Kaplan's experience and capability to manage the trial indicate his background and skills in overseeing legal proceedings. This suggests that he has the necessary knowledge and expertise to handle the complexities of the case effectively. It implies that Judge Kaplan is well-equipped to ensure a fair and orderly trial process. His experience may include previous cases he has presided over and his reputation for managing courtroom dynamics.
  • Trump's co-counsel Michael Madeo attempted to have the judge recused from the case. Recusal is when a judge voluntarily steps down from a case due to a conflict of interest or the appearance of bias. Madeo argued that the judge showed hostility towards the defense and favored the prosecution, which could impact the fairness of the trial. This move aimed to challenge the judge's impartiality and potentially influence the outcome of the legal proceedings.
  • Faith Gay interpreted Trump's behavior as an attempt to portray judicial bias against him, potentially aiming to benefit from being ejected from the court if the judge were to take such action.
  • Carroll's drastic lifestyle changes, including seclusion in a small cabin with security measures like a pit bull and an electronic fence, altering driving routes, and abandoning groceries due to perceived threats, were prompted by the alleged actions of Donald Trump and the subsequent death threats she received. These security measures were taken to protect herself from potential harm and to address the fear and disruption caused by the threats she faced. Carroll's decision to inform her neighbors to be vigilant and her purchase of bullets for a gun inherited from her father further illustrate the extent of the security concerns impacting her daily life.
  • Carroll highlighted the difference between how she presents herself publicly as a che ...

Counterarguments

  • The court is designed to handle disruptions, and Trump's behavior, while notable, may not necessarily indicate a strategy to provoke a mistrial but could be a reflection of his personality or legal strategy.
  • Defense counsel's attempts to get a judge recused can be a legitimate part of legal strategy if there is a perceived bias that could affect the fairness of the trial.
  • The narrative of judicial prejudice could be a genuine concern from the defense's perspective, and raising it could be seen as a necessary defense tactic rather than a calculated disruption.
  • Carroll's lifestyle changes and the impact on her life could be questioned in terms of their direct causation by the alleged actions and threats, as the defense might argue other factors could contribute to such changes.
  • The contrast between public and private personas is a common human experience and may not necessarily be unique to Carroll or directly relevant to the legal facts of the case.
  • The defense's argument that C ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Lawrence: Trump's court outbursts are 'the last thing competent Trump lawyers would want'

Abortion Rights and Reproductive Freedom after Roe v. Wade

The impact of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is examined through emotional testimonies from doctors and patients and the political response led by Senator Tammy Baldwin.

Emotional Testimony from Affected Doctors and Patients

Stories of forced pregnancy, travel burdens, and denial of care

Dr. Austin Dennard discusses the changed dynamics in the relationship between OB-GYNs and their patients due to regulatory intrusion into their conversations. Dennard shares her harrowing experience with terms like "forced pregnancy" and "forced delivery," as she describes the agony of potentially having to witness her baby die either in the womb or post-delivery. Furthermore, despite her own socio-economic privilege, Dennard recounts the logistical nightmare and emotional trauma of traveling to access abortion services.

Senator Baldwin Contrasts Biden's Support for Abortion Rights with Republican Opposition

Senator Tammy Baldwin spoke to O'Donnell about the moving stories emerging nationwide that highlight the ramifications of the decisions made by Donald Trump and the Supreme Court. She draws attention to the dire new landscape of abortion access in the United States as evidenced by testimony from medical professionals like a doctor in Washington, D.C., who shared a patient's ordeal in getting care. Baldwin specifically mentions the situation in Wisconsin, where an archaic criminal abortion ban, reactivated by the reversal of Roe, has effectively stripped away access in the majority of the state's counties.

Republican push for national abortion ban

Baldwin expresses concern about the forthcoming N ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Abortion Rights and Reproductive Freedom after Roe v. Wade

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Regulatory intrusion in OB-GYN-patient relationships involves government regulations that impact how doctors communicate with patients about reproductive healthcare, including abortion. This intrusion can create challenges for doctors in providing comprehensive care and may affect the trust and confidentiality within the doctor-patient relationship. It can lead to limitations on the information doctors can share with patients and influence the medical decisions that patients can make regarding their reproductive health. Such regulations can alter the dynamics of these relationships and potentially hinder access to necessary healthcare services.
  • Traveling for abortion services can be emotionally and logistically challenging due to factors like distance, cost, and time constraints. Patients may face difficulties in finding nearby providers, arranging transportation, securing accommodations, and managing work or family responsibilities during the trip. These challenges can add stress and anxiety to an already sensitive situation, impacting the overall experience and well-being of individuals seeking abortion care.
  • The political landscape surrounding abortion rights in the United States is highly contentious, with ongoing debates between those who support access to abortion and those who seek to restrict or ban it. Politicians like Senator Tammy Baldwin advocate for protecting abortion rights and criticize efforts by some Republicans to impose national abortion bans. The overturning of Roe v. Wade has intensified these debates, leading to increased focus on state-level legislation and the potential impact of federal elections on abortion policies. The issue of abortion rights remains a key point of contention in American politics, with significant implications for healthcare, women's rights, and legal precedents.
  • A national abortion ban would mean a federal law prohibiting abortion across the United States. This would override state laws and restrict access to abortion services nationwide. The consequences could includ ...

Counterarguments

  • The term "forced pregnancy" may be seen as politically charged, and some may argue that it does not accurately reflect the legal restrictions on abortion, which they might view as protecting the rights of the unborn.
  • The logistical challenges of traveling for abortion services could be countered by the argument that many medical procedures require travel to specialized centers, and this is not unique to abortion.
  • While Senator Baldwin contrasts Biden's support for abortion rights with Republican opposition, it's important to note that not all Democrats uniformly support abortion rights, nor do all Republicans uniformly oppose them; there is a spectrum of beliefs within each party.
  • The characterization of the post-Roe landscape as "dire" is subjective and could be challenged by those who view the overturning of Roe v. Wade as a correction of what they believe was a judicial overreach, returning the decision-making power to the states.
  • The reactivation of an archaic criminal abortion ban in Wisconsin could be defended on the grounds that it reflects the will of the state's constituents or the state's legislative history.
  • Concerns about a national abortion ban could be met with the argument that federalism allows states to make their own decisions about abortion legislation, and a national ban would be an expression of the collective will of the electorate if passed through the democratic process.
  • The importance of Senate and House races in influencing abortion legislation could be countered by pointing out that the judiciary also plays a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution and the rights it protects.
  • ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Lawrence: Trump's court outbursts are 'the last thing competent Trump lawyers would want'

Conservative Challenge to Federal Regulatory Power

A significant legal and political debate is underway regarding the Chevron doctrine, a cornerstone of federal regulatory authority. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse warns against efforts to dismantle it, which could potentially reshape the power balance among Congress, the courts, and federal agencies.

Fishing Industry Lawsuits and the Chevron Doctrine

Senator Whitehouse and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson enter the discussion as they address the implications of legal challenges against the doctrine.

Justices debate policymaker role of courts if Chevron overturned

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns about the courts potentially becoming policymakers if the Chevron doctrine—which stipulates that courts defer to administrative agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous statutes—is overturned. She highlights that Chevron allows agencies to make policy decisions delegated by Congress. Without it, she fears this responsibility could undesirably shift to the courts, which are not equipped to perform this function.

Senator Whitehouse ties lawsuits to broader anti-regulatory effort

Meanwhile, Senator Whitehouse views the lawsuit involving New Jersey fishermen as part of a broader, well-funded campaign to weaken the American regulatory system. He identifies that attorneys for the petitioners have connections with Koch Industries and that a network of amicus curiae briefs supporting the case have been filed by linked front groups receiving funds from conservative figures like the Koch brothers. Whitehouse warns that these groups not only aim to influence court decisions but also have a vested interest in having conservative justices on the bench who are likely to rule in their favor.

Potential Broad Impact on Federal Agencies

The implications of upending the Chevron doctrine are daunting, as it could broadly affect the efficacy and authority of federal agencies.

Senator Whitehouse, fierce in his support for the doctrine, argues that it is essential for enabling expert regulatory agen ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Conservative Challenge to Federal Regulatory Power

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The Chevron doctrine is a legal principle that guides how courts should defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. It gives agencies the authority to interpret laws within their expertise, promoting consistency and expertise in regulatory decision-making. Overturning Chevron could shift more interpretive power to the courts, potentially altering the balance of authority between Congress, agencies, and the judiciary. This doctrine plays a crucial role in shaping the regulatory landscape by defining how much deference courts should give to agency interpretations of laws.
  • The legal case involving New Jersey fishermen is part of a broader effort to challenge the Chevron doctrine, a principle that guides how courts defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of laws. Senator Whitehouse suggests that the lawsuit is backed by groups with ties to conservative figures like the Koch brothers, aiming to weaken regulatory oversight. This case is seen as a strategic move to influence court decisions and potentially shift power away from expert agencies towards the courts. The involvement of well-funded interests raises concerns about the independence and effectiveness of regulatory agencies in shaping policy decisions.
  • Amicus curiae briefs are legal documents filed by non-parties in a case to provide additional information or perspective to the court. They allow interested parties to offer insights on the legal issues at hand and can influence the court's decision-making process. These briefs are meant to assist the court in understanding the broader implications of a case and are commonly used in complex or high-profile matters. The information presented in these briefs can help shape the court's understanding of the case and its potential impact beyond the immediate parties involved.
  • The Chevron doctrine is a legal principle that guides courts to defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Overturning this doctrine could shift more policymaking responsibilities to the courts, potentially impacting the balance of power among Congress, the courts, and federal agencies. This change might affect the ability of expert regulatory agencies to make informed decisions and could lead to increased uncertainty and challenges in regulatory frameworks and agency operations.
  • The major questions doctrine is a legal principle that suggests certain significant policy issues are too important for agencies to decide without clear authorization from Congress. It impacts congressional control by emphasizing that major policy decisions should be made by elected representatives rather than administrative agencies. This doctrine aims to ensure that crucial policy matters are debated and decided upon by lawmakers who are directly accountable to the public. It serves as a check on agency power in cases where the implications of a regulatory decision ...

Counterarguments

  • The Chevron doctrine may lead to excessive deference to administrative agencies, potentially allowing them to create de facto laws without proper oversight.
  • Courts are already involved in policymaking through their interpretations of the law; overturning Chevron would not necessarily change that but might ensure more rigorous judicial review.
  • The involvement of conservative groups in legal challenges does not inherently invalidate the legal arguments against the Chevron doctrine.
  • The efficacy and authority of federal agencies could be maintained or even improved with clearer statutory guidance from Congress, reducing the need for Chevron deference.
  • The argument that agencies are highly accountable and sensitive to political pressures can be contested, as some believe agencies often operate with significant autonomy and are subject to regulatory capture.
  • The Congressional Review Act is rarely used and may not be an effective check on agency overreach.
  • The major questions doctrine could provide a more nuanced approach to agency authority, ensuring that signi ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Lawrence: Trump's court outbursts are 'the last thing competent Trump lawyers would want'

Trump Presidency Poses Security Concerns

Former UK intelligence head sees Trump undermining NATO

Adam Schiff relays the concerns of Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of British intelligence agency MI6, regarding the potential impact of a second Trump presidency on the security of the United Kingdom and the stability of international alliances.

Dearlove underscored the critical importance of the American nuclear umbrella for the security of Europe, and he highlighted the potential damage to the Atlantic Alliance due to Trump's apparent unwillingness to support NATO decisively. He referenced the UK's significant reliance on the NATO framework for its defense strategy, hinting at the vulnerabilities that could arise if that alliance were undermined.

Congressman Schiff agrees Trump weakens democratic alliances

Praises Biden rebuilding relationships and confronting autocracies

In addition, Schiff stresses Donald Trump's troubling track record of questioning the commitment to defend NATO allies, his tendency to favor relationships with authoritarian figures like Putin, and his seemingly stronger rapport with dictators rather than with leaders of democratic nations.

Adam Schiff commends Joe Biden for his efforts to repair international relationships that he believes were weakened under the Trump administration. He applauds the sanctions enacted on Russia, in coordination with Europe and other nations, and the aid that has been provided to Ukraine. Schiff warns about the potential for a Trump return to power to reverse these efforts and destabilize the international stance taken against Russian e ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Trump Presidency Poses Security Concerns

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The American nuclear umbrella is a security assurance provided by the United States to its non-nuclear allies, promising protection through its nuclear capabilities. This concept originated during the Cold War to deter potential adversaries and reassure allied nations of American defense commitments. It serves as a strategic deterrent against aggression and helps prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons among allied states. The American nuclear umbrella is a key component of the security architecture that underpins alliances like NATO and contributes to global stability.
  • The Atlantic Alliance typically refers to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a political and military alliance established in 1949 to promote security and defense cooperation among North American and European countries. NATO's primary purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its member countries through collective defense and political solidarity. The alliance is based on the principle of mutual defense, where an attack on one member is considered an attack on all members, fostering stability and security in the North Atlantic region. NATO plays a crucial role in maintaining peace and security by promoting democratic values, cooperation, and military readiness among its member states.
  • The NATO framework for UK defense strategy involves the United Kingdom's commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military alliance formed for collective defense. Within this framework, member countries agree to mutual defense in response to an attack on any member state. The UK's defense strategy is closely intertwined with NATO's principles and cooperation with other member nations to enhance security and deter potential threats. NATO provides a platform for strategic coordination, intelligence sharing, and joint military exercises to strengthen the defense capabilities of its members.
  • Sanctions enacted on Russia are punitive measures imposed by countries or international bodies to pressure Russia to change its behavior. These sanctions can target specific individuals, entities, sectors, or the country's economy as a whole. They are often used in response to actions like human rights abuses, aggression towards other countries, or violations of international norms. Sanctions aim to deter unwanted behavior, promote compliance with international rules, and signal disapproval of certain actions.
  • Russian expansionism typically refers to Russia's efforts to increase its influence and control over territories beyond its current borders. This can involve annexing territories, exerting political influence, or engaging in military actions to expand its sphere of control. The term is often used in discussions about Russia's actions in regions like Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, and Georgia, where Russia has been accused of seeking to expand its territory and assert dominance. The concept of Russian expansionism is a contentious issue in international relations, with cri ...

Counterarguments

  • NATO's purpose and effectiveness can evolve, and questioning its current structure does not necessarily undermine its core mission.
  • A nation's defense strategy should be adaptable and not solely reliant on one alliance or framework.
  • Diplomatic engagement with a variety of international actors, including authoritarian regimes, can be a pragmatic aspect of foreign policy.
  • Different administrations may have different foreign policy approaches that are not inherently detrimental to international stability.
  • The effectiveness of sanctions and aid can be debated, and there may be alternative strategies for confronting international challenges.
  • The concept of a "rules-based international order" can be interpreted in various ways, and different leaders may prio ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free

Create Summaries for anything on the web

Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser

Shortform Extension CTA