Uploaded April 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Foreign influence operations have become increasingly important in geopolitical competition and American national security. China is among the most active would-be influencers, with efforts to infiltrate decision-making in federal, state, and local governments, corporate America, Silicon Valley and Wall Street, within cultural and educational institutions, and most importantly, within the minds of Americans. A House Oversight Committee government-wide investigation showed that Chinese Communist Party influence operations even extended into federal agencies and the intelligence community — to the very people responsible for safeguarding American interests.
Israel has been another key target in recent years. Especially after 10/7, there has been an explosion of bias and misinformation, with foreign influencers stoking antisemitism in the U.S., especially among younger generations. Join us for a discussion that will explore the key actors behind these operations, their sources of funding, and their underlying motivations as well as the broader implications for U.S. national security.
Featuring:
Margaret Harker, Litigator and Former DOJ Attorney
Park MacDougald, Writer and Editor, Tablet Magazine
(Moderator) Vince Vitkowsky, Fellow, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Foreign influence operations have become increasingly important in geopolitical competition and American national security. China is among the most active would-be influencers, with efforts to infiltrate decision-making in federal, state, and local governments, corporate America, Silicon Valley and Wall Street, within cultural and educational institutions, and most importantly, within the minds of Americans. A House Oversight Committee government-wide investigation showed that Chinese Communist Party influence operations even extended into federal agencies and the intelligence community — to the very people responsible for safeguarding American interests.
Israel has been another key target in recent years. Especially after 10/7, there has been an explosion of bias and misinformation, with foreign influencers stoking antisemitism in the U.S., especially among younger generations. Join us for a discussion that will explore the key actors behind these operations, their sources of funding, and their underlying motivations as well as the broader implications for U.S. national security.
Featuring:
Margaret Harker, Litigator and Former DOJ Attorney
Park MacDougald, Writer and Editor, Tablet Magazine
(Moderator) Vince Vitkowsky, Fellow, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

![[LIVE] Did the Constitution Lay the Groundwork for Abolition?
As the nation marked the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, renewed attention has turned to what our Constitution, ratified just over a decade later, said about slavery. Critics have long argued that the Framers—by ratifying the Fugitive Slave Clause, the Slave Trade Clause, and the Three-Fifths Compromise—entrenched slavery in the Constitution. Yet others point to the anti-slavery sentiments of many of the Founders and argue that the Constitution provided a roadmap to contain and ultimately abolish slavery.
This webinar will examine that debate. Did the Constitution entrench slavery, or did its compromises reflect a strategy of containment, one aimed at letting the institution wither rather than confronting it directly at the Founding? How should provisions like the Fugitive Slave Clause be reconciled with the anti-slavery views of key Founders, and what should we make of the gap between those views and the Founders’ conduct?
Featuring:
• Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute
• Prof. Kenneth Williams, Professor and Fred Gray Endowed Chair for Civil Rights and Constitutional Law, Texas Tech University School of Law
• (Moderator) Hon. Cory Liu, State District Judge, Austin, Texas
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/did-the-constitution-lay-the-groundwork-for-abolition
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. [LIVE] Did the Constitution Lay the Groundwork for Abolition?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iBx0JWFGE8Q/mqdefault.jpg)


![[LIVE] Originalism and State Constitutions
Originalism has quickly become the leading approach to interpreting the U.S. Constitution, drawing from the work of Justice Antonin Scalia and others over the past three decades. But what place does originalism have in the states?
State constitutions often contain unique provisions that have no federal analogue. Take Alaskas unique constitutional provision empowering grand juries to investigate matters of public welfare and safety and to issue reports. This power falls outside the traditional role grand juries play and raises interesting questions. Recent scholarship published by the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy explores the text, history, and tradition behind this provision, offering a window into how originalism might operate differently at the state level.
What lessons can be drawn about the similarities between originalist interpretation of state constitutions and the federal constitution? Does originalism look different from state to state and between state and federal governments? How might judges and scholars take up the originalist mantle and shed light on other underexplored state constitutional provisions? Join our panel of experts as they explore how originalism is playing out in the states.
Featuring:
• Dr. Nicholas Cole, Senior Research Fellow, Pembroke College, University of Oxford; Director, the Quill Project
• Hon. Stephen Cox, Attorney General, Alaska
• Prof. Richard Garnett, Paul J. Schierl Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
• Savannah Shoffner, J.D. Candidate, Notre Dame Law School
• (Moderator) Hon. John D. Couriel, Justice, Florida Supreme Court
• (Introducer) Sean-Michael Pigeon, Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/originalism-and-state-constitutions
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. [LIVE] Originalism and State Constitutions](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iZFvV6XJQ4s/mqdefault.jpg)





![Government Speech and the First Amendment: Does the Government’s Own Expression Have Limits?
The government-speech doctrine generally permits the government to select and promote its own messages without being subject to First Amendment scrutiny. But does that principle have limits? What about when public funds, facilities, or employees are used to convey partisan messages or selectively promote particular viewpoints?
Join us for a discussion on whether and to what extent the First Amendment constrains the government’s own speech.
Featuring:
Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP
Prof. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law
[Moderator] Hon. Susanna Dokupil, Justice, Texas First Court of Appeals
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Government Speech and the First Amendment: Does the Government’s Own Expression Have Limits?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kmqDtmFI_bA/mqdefault.jpg)