Podcast appearances and mentions of brennan center

The Pentagon wants AI that can fight wars — without limits. One of the United States' leading AI companies says there are lines it won't cross. And this week, that standoff turned into an all-out confrontation. To discuss the implications of the dispute between Anthropic and the Pentagon, including the determination that the company represents a supply chain risk, Justin Hendrix spoke to two experts:Kat Duffy, senior fellow for digital and cyberspace policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, andAmos Toh, senior counsel in the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Just who is a “domestic terrorist,” and what is the danger when a protest is labeled “an act of domestic terrorism”? President Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, has announced a drawdown of troops in Minnesota, where immigration raids swept up many, including U.S. citizens, triggered protests and left two of those citizens dead. But the administration hasn't ruled out future surges across the country. In analyzing federal actions – in the past and yet to come -- Rachel Levinson-Waldman, director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, does not deny the presence of domestic terrorists among us. But does the Trump administration's expansive definition of the term clash with First Amendment rights? And do recent enforcement activities make us more or less safe? Levinson-Waldman explains on this episode of Equal Time. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Just who is a “domestic terrorist,” and what is the danger when a protest is labeled “an act of domestic terrorism”? President Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, has announced a drawdown of troops in Minnesota, where immigration raids swept up many, including U.S. citizens, triggered protests and left two of those citizens dead. But the administration hasn't ruled out future surges across the country. In analyzing federal actions – in the past and yet to come -- Rachel Levinson-Waldman, director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, does not deny the presence of domestic terrorists among us. But does the Trump administration's expansive definition of the term clash with First Amendment rights? And do recent enforcement activities make us more or less safe? Levinson-Waldman explains on this episode of Equal Time.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Pentagon wants less restricted, more dangerous AI—and it seems like they're getting it. Pete Hegseths's showdown with Anthropic is just the latest instance of this administration's pursuit of radical deregulation of artificial intelligence that shows no signs of slowing. The Brennan Center's Amos Toh joins David Rothkopf to explore the ramifications of deregulation for defense, public safety, and the future of the industry.  This material is distributed by TRG Advisory Services, LLC on behalf of the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates in the U.S.. Additional information is available at the Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Pentagon wants less restricted, more dangerous AI—and it seems like they're getting it. Pete Hegseths's showdown with Anthropic is just the latest instance of this administration's pursuit of radical deregulation of artificial intelligence that shows no signs of slowing. The Brennan Center's Amos Toh joins David Rothkopf to explore the ramifications of deregulation for defense, public safety, and the future of the industry.  This material is distributed by TRG Advisory Services, LLC on behalf of the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates in the U.S.. Additional information is available at the Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"The House hasn't reorganized committee jurisdictions since the early 70s—before the internet existed." — Maya KornbergAmerica is stuck stuck stuck stuck. Almost exactly a year ago, I interviewed the Atlantic's Yoni Applebaum about Stuck, his influential critique of the housing crisis. Now we have another Stuck—this one by Maya Kornberg, a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice. Only her subtitle is about Congress, not housing: How Money, Media, and Violence Prevent Change in Congress.This is, Kornberg argues, one of the toughest times in modern American history to sit in Congress. Members are forced to spend most of their time making fundraising calls. They face record-high threats against themselves and their families. And the media incentivizes spectacle over policymaking—what she describes as "Kings and Prophets"—where members have the power of the megaphone but not the power to drive legislation.One fact captures Congressional stuckness: The House hasn't reorganized its committee jurisdictions since the early 1970s—before the internet existed. Half the Senate, then, questioned Mark Zuckerberg because no single committee is responsible for tech. Not even mad libertarians like Elon Musk could make that one up.Kornberg recently ran for New York City Council in Park Slope and, as a friend of Israel, discovered firsthand how media latches onto the most salacious angle. That said, she's not giving up on Congress. Kornberg is hopeful that a fresh wave of reformers, like the Watergate babies of '74 or the class of 2018, can unstick it. But she is, nonetheless, clear-eyed about what we're facing: a four-alarm fire for our democracy. Five Takeaways●      This Is the Hardest Moment in Modern History to Be in Congress: Members face astronomical campaign costs, record-high threats and violence against themselves and their families, and a leadership-driven system that has stripped rank-and-file members of real power to drive legislation.●      Money, Media, and Violence Keep Congress Stuck: Members spend every mealtime making fundraising calls. They pay "dues" to the party just to get on good committees. Media incentivizes spectacle over policymaking. And threats against members have risen year after year.●      Congress Hasn't Reorganized Since Before the Internet: The House hasn't reorganized committee jurisdictions since the early 1970s. Half the Senate questions Mark Zuckerberg because no single committee is responsible for tech. When everyone's responsible, no one is.●      More Chairmen Named Mike Than Women Committee Leaders: The pay-to-play system in Congress disadvantages women, communities of color, working-class Americans, and young Americans—anyone who faces greater barriers to fundraising faces greater barriers to power.●      Waves of Reformers Can Unstick Congress: The Watergate babies of '74, the Republican Revolution of '94, the class of 2018—frustrated reformers have reshaped Congress before. The midterms could bring another wave, if the public frustration is deep enough. About the GuestMaya Kornberg is a senior fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice. She holds a PhD from Oxford and is the author of Inside Congressional Committees. She recently ran for New York City Council in Brooklyn's Park Slope.ReferencesBooks mentioned:●      Stuck: How Money, Media, and Violence Prevent Change in Congress by Maya Kornberg — her new book on why Congress is stuck and how to unstick it.●      Stuck: How the Privileged and the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity by Yoni Applebaum — on the housing crisis, interviewed on this show a year ago.●      Why Nothing Works by Marc Dunkelman — on who killed progress and how to bring it back.People mentioned:●      Henry Waxman served four decades in Congress and passed landmark health and environmental legislation even under Reagan.●      Lauren Underwood came to Congress in 2018 and co-founded the Black Maternal Health Caucus after losing a friend who died after childbirth.●      Hélène Landemore is a Yale political theorist who advocates for citizen assemblies as an alternative to representative democracy.About Keen On AmericaNobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States—hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,800 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting.WebsiteSubstackYouTubeApple PodcastsSpotify Chapters:(00:00) - Introduction: America is stuck (02:04) - Why everyone woke up to this problem at once (03:49) - Why study Congress? Is it boring? (06:33) - Money, media, and violence (07:11) - Congressional chameleons: Waxman, Underwood, Andy Kim (10:24) - Is this bipartisan? (12:37) - The crummiest job in Washington (15:53) - Money: 'I spend every mealtime making fundraising calls' (17:29) - Should Congress get a pay raise? (19:53) - Media and the Gaza third rail (23:14) - Kings and Prophets: Spectacle over policy (25:32) - Can Congress stand up to Trump? (27:43) - Congress is woefully unprepared to regulate tech (31:54) - Gerontocracy: More Mikes than women (37:34) - Can citiz...

From Washington to Lincoln to FDR to the present day, presidents have long been drivers of American progress. Yet the presidency has also been prone to immense abuse.Today, we are experiencing an executive power grab at a scale never seen before. Is this merely a continuation of trends or something entirely new? How should we understand this moment in American history? And what do we need to do to restore checks on the office?Listen as David Frum, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and staff writer at The Atlantic, speaks about this moment in our constitutional history and what it will take to correct course.Recorded on February 17, 2026.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

Trump, facing the wave of popular opposition to pretty much everything he's doing, is working to block Democrats from voting in the midterms, and “election protection” has become a key part of the preparations underway from blue state attorneys general and from voting rights groups like the Brennan Center and the ACLU. Harold Meyerson explains.Also: A large proportion of slaves who escaped from slavery in the South escaped not on foot, but by boat. Marcus Rediker tells their story – his new book is ​"Freedom Ship: The Uncharted History of Escaping Slavery by Sea.​"Plus: The Battle for Black History: On February 1, 1976 President Gerald Ford – a Republican – asked the public to "seize the opportunity to honor the too often neglected accomplishments of Black Americans in every area of endeavor throughout our history" – commemorating the first Black History Month. Fifty years later, February 1, 2026, Trump sent workers with crowbars who pried off all 30 interpretive signs about slavery from the walls of the Presidents' House in Philadelphia. The city sued and a federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore the displays about slavery, stating that Trump did not "have the power to erase or alter historical truths."

It may seem the government's technique of denigrating the people they kill to make it appear that the killing was justified is a new fun thing in 2026, but we've been here before. It's likely you've never heard of Viola Liuzzo, the only white woman murdered during the Civil Rights Movement. Her name kept popping up on the social media accounts of historians after the murders of Renee Good and Alexi Pretti, trying to tell us all once again to maybe pay attention to the past. In this episode of Strange Country, cohosts Beth and Kelly talk about Liuzzo's life and how J. Edgar Hoover made sure to smear her as a drug-taking, orgy-loving, baby-neglecting mother who deserved being shot in a head by klansmen. Theme music: Big White Lie by A Cast of Thousands Cite your sources: Baird, Jonathan. "The tragic and forgotten story of Viola Liuzzo." The Nation, 4 November 2024, https://www.thenation.com/travellog/the-tragic-and-forgotten-story-of-viola-liuzzo/. Accessed 30 January 2026. Baumgartner, Neil. "Viola Gregg Luizzo." Jim Crow Museum, February 2013, https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/witnesses/violaliuzzo.htm. Accessed 30 January 2026. "City officials unveil new civil rights memorial monument honoring Viola Liuzzo at park bearing her name." City of Detroit, 28 September 2023. Accessed 8 February 2026. Crayton, Kareem. "The Voting Rights Act, Explained." Brennan Center for Justice, 17 July 2023, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-rights-act-explained. Accessed 8 February 2026. Dalby, Beth. "Killed by KKK and Smeared by FBI, Civil Rights Martyr Finally Hailed as Hero." Patch, 7 April 2015, https://patch.com/michigan/ferndale/killed-kkk-and-smeared-fbi-civil-rights-martyr-finally-hailed-hero-0. Accessed 8 February 2026. Daley, David. "John Roberts's Decades-Long Project to Neuter the Voting Rights Act." The Atlantic, 10 December 2025, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2025/12/justice-roberts-voting-rights-act/685193/. Accessed 8 February 2026. di Florio, Paola, director. Home of the Brave. Emerging Pictures, 2004. Amazon Prime. Kaufman, Michael T. "Gary T. Rowe Jr., 64, Who Informed on Klan In Civil Rights Killing, Is Dead (Published 1998)." The New York Times, 4 October 1998, https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/04/us/gary-t-rowe-jr-64-who-informed-on-klan-in-civil-rights-killing-is-dead.html. Accessed 8 February 2026. May, Gary. The Informant: The FBI, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Murder of Viola Liuzzo. Yale University Press, 2005.

California senator Adam Schiff says that President Donald Trump will try to “subvert” the midterm elections this year by attempting to overturn any result that disadvantages Congressional Republicans. The President has recently called for nationalizing elections, made multiple unproven claims about voter fraud and pushed the FBI to seize ballots from a Georgia district he lost in 2020. Meanwhile, election integrity experts say U.S. voting systems are secure and that the courts will continue to reject election challenges brought by Trump. We unpack what we might see come November and how election officials are preparing. Guests: David Graham, staff writer, The Atlantic Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law Natalie Adona, registrar of voters, Marin County Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Trump, facing the wave of popular opposition to pretty much everything he's doing, is working to block Democrats from voting in the midterms, and “election protection” has become a key part of the preparations underway from blue state attorneys general and from voting rights groups like the Brennan Center and the ACLU. Harold Meyerson explains.Also: A large proportion of slaves who escaped from slavery in the South escaped not on foot, but by boat. Marcus Rediker tells their story - his new book is Freedom Ship: The Uncharted History of Escaping Slavery by Sea.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Trump, facing the wave of popular opposition to pretty much everything he's doing, is working to block Democrats from voting in the midterms, and “election protection” has become a key part of the preparations underway from blue state attorneys general and from voting rights groups like the Brennan Center and the ACLU. Harold Meyerson explains.Also: A large proportion of slaves who escaped from slavery in the South escaped not on foot, but by boat. Marcus Rediker tells their story - his new book is Freedom Ship: The Uncharted History of Escaping Slavery by Sea.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY), ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, is leading efforts in the House to craft the Democrats' agenda to fight corruption and strengthen democracy. Recently, he has spoken emphatically about the dangers of the SAVE Act, which would effectively bar millions of eligible Americans from voting.Watch or listen as Morelle discusses what it will take to defend the right to vote, end political corruption, and renew our democratic values.  Speakers:Rep. Joe Morelle, New York's 25th Congressional DistrictHost: Michael Waldman, President and CEO, Brennan CenterRecorded on February 13, 2026.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtroom drama unfold like a blockbuster thriller, but here we are in mid-February 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal battles are heating up faster than a Florida summer. Just two days ago, on February 11, a judge in Miami made waves by greenlighting Trump's massive $10 billion libel lawsuit against the BBC. Picture this: the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse at 400 North Miami Avenue, where Judge Roy K. Altman set a trial date for February 15, 2027. Trump accuses the BBC's Panorama documentary—aired right before the 2024 election—of doctored editing. They spliced clips from his January 6, 2021, speech at the Ellipse, making it sound like he said, "We're going to walk down to the Capitol... and I'll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell." According to court documents from the US District Court Southern District of Florida, Trump's lawyers call it "false and defamatory," claiming the BBC maliciously misled viewers worldwide. The leak of a memo from Michael Prescott, the BBC's former external adviser, fueled the fire, pointing to bias in that episode. BBC chair Samir Shah admitted an "error of judgement" but insists there's no defamation case. The BBC's fighting back hard, arguing the Florida court lacks jurisdiction since they didn't produce or air the show there—despite Trump pointing to BritBox streaming. A BBC spokesperson told The Independent they're defending vigorously and won't comment further. Trump's no stranger to media suits; he's already tangling with The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.But that's just the appetizer. Shift to the Supreme Court, where whispers of bigger clashes are building. SCOTUSblog reports the justices are eyeing Trump-related heavyweights for their April session, including immigration tweaks, Fourth Amendment fights, and even claims against companies aiding torture. A News4JAX segment from late January flags 2026 as the real showdown year: will the court let Trump reshape birthright citizenship via executive order? Chief Justice John Roberts has been subtly defending judicial independence, hinting at history over politics. Cases like the Federal Reserve governor dismissal—tied to alleged mortgage fraud claims—are bubbling up, with the court skeptical of quick removals without full hearings. Then there's the mass detention policy upheld by the 5th Circuit, but federal judges are finding workarounds, per Politico. The Brennan Center tracks three active prosecutions against Trump from his pre-presidency days: the federal election interference case in Washington, D.C., the Georgia Fulton County probe, and the classified documents mess in Florida—plus that New York hush money conviction from May 2024. Lawfare's litigation tracker notes ongoing appeals, like vacating Trump's executive orders.As a guy who's followed this rollercoaster since the 2024 win, it feels like the judiciary's drawing a line in the sand during Trump's second term—midterms looming, no re-election bid, courts bolder. The BBC trial's a year out, but Supreme Court arguments kick off February 23, with more on February 20. Will tariffs, citizenship, or Fed power test the limits? Buckle up, listeners; the gavel's about to drop.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

With the national midterm elections alongside high-profile contests such as the Los Angeles mayoral and California gubernatorial races, voters, election officials, and policymakers alike are being forced to confront AI's growing role in democratic life. Can AI be responsibly integrated into election systems without compromising transparency or fairness? Who bears responsibility for governing its use—technology companies, election officials, lawmakers, or voters themselves? And what safeguards, norms, or reforms are needed to ensure that innovation serves democracy rather than undermines it? Featured guests: Kristen Muller (Executive Editor, The LA Local) Darwin Mastin, Ph.D. (Founder & CEO, Synaptic Spike Venture Studio & TwinWise AI) Michael Moore (Chief Information Security Officer, Arizona Secretary of State's Office) Gowri Ramachandran (Director of Elections and Security on the Elections & Government team, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU) This program is co-presented by Zócalo Public Square, LA Local, and the ASU Mechanics of Democracy Lab. Visit www.zocalopublicsquare.org/ for more programs, interviews and essays.

Recently, we've seen an escalation in efforts to meddle with elections, from the dangerous SAVE Act, which is gaining momentum in Congress, to President Trump himself calling for “nationalizing” the counting of ballots.  Less known is how the administration is leveraging the Department of Justice (DOJ) to subvert the vote. Over the last several months, the DOJ has been demanding access to voter rolls and suing states that don't comply — a move that is not only unlawful but raises numerous alarms.  In this episode, former DOJ officials and Brennan Center experts break down what's happening inside the department, why it matters for the future of free and fair elections, and what can be done to stop the administration from undermining the rule of law.Recorded on February 10, 2026.Speakers:Eileen O'Connor, Senior Counsel and Manager, Democracy Program, Brennan Center Chris Berger, Patricia Bauman Senior Fellow, Brennan CenterHost: Michael Waldman, President and CEO, Brennan CenterKeep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching court battles unfold like a high-stakes thriller, but here we are in the thick of President Donald Trump's second term, with legal fights erupting everywhere from federal appeals courts to the steps of the Supreme Court. Just last Friday, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Trump administration's immigration detention policy, mandating that people arrested in the crackdown stay detained without bond, as reported by Reuters journalist Nate Raymond. It's a win for the White House's tough stance on borders, keeping the momentum from earlier victories.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is buzzing with Trump-related pleas. On February 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, vacated a nationwide injunction blocking two of Trump's executive orders targeting what he calls illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in federal grantees and contractors. Chief Judge Albert Diaz wrote the opinion, remanding it to the District of Maryland and signaling these orders might survive scrutiny, according to Law and the Workplace analysis. Employers, especially government contractors, are on notice—DEI initiatives could face real enforcement heat now.Over in immigration again, the Trump team filed an official appeal notice in a Haitian Temporary Protected Status suit, challenging U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes' February 2 ruling that halted the cancellation of TPS for Haitian immigrants, per The Columbus Dispatch's Bethany Bruner. Government lawyers even asked Reyes to pause her order by noon that day, pushing the case toward the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court itself.Redistricting wars rage on too. The Supreme Court recently cleared new maps for Texas and California—Texas gaining five Republican-friendly House seats, California countering with five for Democrats—yet battles like Louisiana v. Callais over race and the Voting Rights Act continue, as detailed by Washington Examiner's Jack Birle. And get this: Trump's lawyers are petitioning the Supreme Court to toss the 2023 E. Jean Carroll civil verdict against him, arguing in their final brief that the president is too busy running the country to fight old allegations, according to USA Today's Maureen Groppe. The justices will conference on it February 20.Don't forget the bigger picture from the Brennan Center: while Trump was convicted in New York City state court in May 2024 for falsifying business records over hush money to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, three criminal cases linger—federal ones in Washington, D.C., for election interference, Fulton County, Georgia, for the same, and Florida over classified documents. Lawfare's litigation tracker counts 298 active challenges to Trump administration actions on national security, plus 14 Supreme Court stays favoring the feds.Even whispers of impeachment surfaced, with ET Now's February 6 livestream claiming the House of Representatives is deciding Trump's fate—though details remain murky amid the chaos. From Venezuelan TPS revocations paused by the Supreme Court despite U.S. District Judge Edward Chen's rulings in San Francisco, to National Guard deployment blocks in Illinois that Trump ultimately pulled back from Chicago and Portland, these shadow docket moves have real-world bite, as SCOTUSblog explains.It's a legal whirlwind, listeners, with Trump fighting on multiple fronts, courts picking sides, and the Supreme Court wielding quiet power that reshapes policies overnight. Stay tuned as these cases collide toward 2026 elections.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

On Monday, February 9, BigTentUSA convened Lauren Groh-Wargo, Founder and CEO of Fair Fight Action, and Wendy Weiser, VP for Democracy at The Brennan Center for Justice‬, to sound the alarm on escalating threats to the 2026 election. From the unprecedented seizure of Fulton County voting records to pushes for proof-of-citizenship laws and federal overreach, speakers warned of a coordinated effort to reshape election control and suppress participation. The Constitution remains a guardrail, and courts have begun pushing back against unlawful overreach—but institutional defenses alone won't hold. Protecting democracy now demands mass civic engagement: vote, become a poll worker, track ballots, organize locally, support election officials, and use every legal and advocacy tool available. The warning was stark but empowering—autocracy thrives on silence, so the moment calls for visible, relentless participation. Democracy will only survive if we show up, lock arms, and defend it.Want to do something tangible to help protect democracy? Check out BigTentUSA's calls to action, updated regularly - https://bigtentusa.org/act-now/ Learn more about Fair Fight Action here: https://www.fairfight.com/Learn more about The Brennan Center for Justice here: https://www.brennancenter.org/ ABOUT THE SPEAKERS:Lauren Groh-Wargo is a political and civic engagement strategist, executive, and advocate for economic and voting rights. She partnered with Stacey Abrams in 2012 to build Democratic and progressive infrastructure in Georgia, and in response to 2018 voter suppression, founded and serves as CEO of Fair Fight Action, which combats suppression and advances voter education. Fair Fight played a key role in the 2020 election and 2021 Georgia runoff. An organizer at heart, Lauren has led campaigns and advised nonprofits nationally for over 20 years. She holds an Economics degree from American University and lives in Atlanta with her partner and son.Wendy Weiser is Vice President for Democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, where she oversees work on voting rights, elections, redistricting, courts, and abuse of power. A constitutional lawyer and democracy expert, she directs research, litigation, policy, advocacy, and public education initiatives, including programs on voting access, judicial reform, and executive power safeguards. Weiser has litigated landmark cases, authored Supreme Court briefs, advanced policies like automatic voter registration, and contributed to the Freedom to Vote and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Acts. She is a frequent speaker and media commentator. She holds a BA and JD from Yale. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bigtentnews.substack.com

Monday, February 9th, 2026Today, Trump posted a disgusting racist video on Truth Social and the right wing is making excuses; Tulsi Gabbard hid an intelligence report about a phone call involving someone close to Trump; DHS requested expedited deportation for five-year-old Liam Ramos, but a judge said no; members of Congress will review unredacted Epstein files; the federal judge will allow Marimar Martinez to release ICE text messages about her shooting; another judge says Trump can't block funds for the Getaway Tunnel project; the New Mexico governor has signed the Immigration Safety Act; and Dana delivers your Good News.Thank You, WildgrainGet $30 off your first box + free Croissants in every box. Go to Wildgrain.com/DAILYBEANS to start your subscription.Thank You, CoyuchiGet 15% off your first order when you visit Coyuchi.com/dailybeansGuest: Andrew BakajAttorney Representing The Gabbard WhistleblowerWhistleblower AidWhistleblower Aid - @wbaidlaw.bsky.socialWhistleblower Aid - @wbaidlaw - TwitterDaily Beans Listeners Fundraiser for Whistleblower AidThe LatestWhistleblower SOUNDS ALARM on Trump SCANDAL Gabbard Tried to BURY | AG | The Breakdown | MeidasStories​MAGA star claims Trump doesn't have 'attention span' to know Obama vid was racist | Raw StoryFederal judge will let Marimar Martinez release text messages sent by Border Patrol agent who shot her | Chicago Sun-TimesJudge denies DHS bid to rush removal of Liam Ramos and his family | MS NOWMembers of Congress will be able to view unredacted Epstein files next week | NBC NewsU.S. Judge Says Trump Cannot Halt Funding for Gateway Tunnel Project | The New York TimesNew Mexico governor signs Immigrant Safety Act among other bills into law | KFOX14Good TroubleTell Your Senators to reject the SAVE Act (or the SAVE America Act as it's been re-named). The SAVE Act could block millions of American citizens from voting by requiring people to produce documents like passports or birth certificates to register to vote. The Brennan Center shows that 21 million Americans don't have these documents readily available.You can use this form or call your senators!https://secure.brennancenter.org/secure/tell-your-senators-reject-save-ahttps://www.senate.gov/general/resources/pdf/senators_phone_list.pdf→How to Film ICE | WIRED→Standwithminnesota.com→Tell Congress Ice out Now | Indivisible→Defund ICE (UPDATED 1/21) - HOUSE VOTE THURSDAY→Congress: Divest From ICE and CBP | ACLU→ICE List  →iceout.org →Demand the Resignation of Stephen Miller | 5 Calls→2026 Trans Girl Scouts To Order Cookies From! | Erin in the MorningGood NewsCentral Vermont Council on AgingDonate to the Work of The United Methodist Church | UMC.org Tour — DANA GOLDBERG→Go To Good News & Good Trouble - The Daily Beans to Share YoursSubscribe to the MSW YouTube Channel - MSW Media - YouTubeOur Donation LinksPathways to Citizenship link to MATCH Allison's Donationhttps://crm.bloomerang.co/HostedDonation?ApiKey=pub_86ff5236-dd26-11ec-b5ee-066e3d38bc77&WidgetId=6388736Allison is donating $20K to It Gets Better and inviting you to help match her donations. Your support makes this work possible, Daily Beans fam. Donate to It Gets Better / The Daily Beans FundraiserJoin Dana and The Daily Beans with a MATCHED Donation http://onecau.se/_ekes71More Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - Donate

The Hoover Institution Center for Revitalizing American Institutions webinar series features speakers who are developing innovative ideas, conducting groundbreaking research, and taking important actions to improve trust and efficacy in American institutions. Speaker expertise and topics span governmental institutions, civic organizations and practice, and the role of public opinion and culture in shaping our democracy. The webinar series builds awareness about how we can individually and collectively revitalize American institutions to ensure our country's democracy delivers on its promise. The Center for Revitalizing American Institutions (RAI) held The Declaration of Independence: History, Meaning, and Modern Impact with Michael Auslin, Jonathan Gienapp and Jane Kamensky on February 4, 2026, from 10:00-11:00 a.m. PT. As America observes the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the Hoover Institution's Center for Revitalizing American Institutions (RAI) provided a renewed look at the origins and enduring influence of this defining national document. Expert speakers examined the Declaration's cultural and physical history, its philosophical foundations and contested meanings, and its evolving role in shaping debates about rights, equality, and self-government. Participants gained insight into how the Declaration continues to inform national identity, animate civic discourse, and guide the ongoing effort to fulfill the promise of America's democratic ideals. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Michael Auslin is the Payson J. Treat Distinguished Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. A historian by training, Auslin is the author of the forthcoming National Treasure: How the Declaration of Independence Made America and The End of the Asian Century. He is a regular contributor to leading print and broadcast media and was a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Library of Congress's John W. Kluge Center.  Jonathan Gienapp is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a leading historian of the United States and its constitutional origins, with dual appointments in Stanford's History Department and Law School. He is the author of two acclaimed books on American constitutional history and interpretation, and his scholarship on the Declaration and the nation's founding informs lectures and public programs nationwide. A dedicated educator and award-winning teacher, he also works closely with institutions such as the National Constitution Center and the Brennan Center's Historians Council to deepen public and legal understanding of constitutional issues. His public-facing writing, advisory work, and civics initiatives help connect historical insight to today's constitutional debates. Jane Kamensky is president and CEO of Monticello/The Thomas Jefferson Foundation and a leading historian of early America and the United States. She earned her BA and PhD in history from Yale University and spent thirty years as a professor and higher education leader, most recently as the Jonathan Trumbull Professor of American History at Harvard University and director of the Schlesinger Library at the Harvard Radcliffe Institute. Kamensky is the author or editor of numerous acclaimed works. Her award-winning A Revolution in Color: The World of John Singleton Copley earned multiple major prizes, and she coedited The Oxford Handbook of the American Revolution with the late Edward G. Gray. Her latest book, Candida Royalle and the Sexual Revolution, was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award. A dedicated public historian, she has served on boards and advisory councils, including the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery and More Perfect. Her work has been supported by NEH, Mellon, and Guggenheim fellowships, and she is an elected fellow of several distinguished historical societies. She also invites readers to explore Monticello's vibrant online book club.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Feb. 10, 2026With Election Disinformation Again on the Rise, Bipartisan Policy Groups Remind Americans that Elections are Secure, Accurate and TransparentDisinformation claiming rigged elections and widespread illegal voting is on the rise.  A new explainer from three prominent bipartisan policy groups shows how our state procedures, preparation and infrastructure keep our elections secure.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:Bipartisan Policy Center / R Street / Institute for Responsive Government - United in Security: How Every State Protects Your Vote in 2026Protect Democracy - Voter list maintenance, explained  Brennan Center for Justice - Election Security ResourcesIssue One - Understanding and mitigating election official turnover to build election workforce resiliencyGroups Taking Action:Bipartisan Policy Center, R Street, Institute for Responsive Government, Protect Democracy Register or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #ProtectElections #ElectionDisinformation #Donald Trump #ElectionIntegrity

The power to regulate federal elections rests with states and Congress, according to the Constitution. Yet President Trump repeatedly questioned the integrity of election systems, despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and in recent days has urged Republicans to take over voting operations in a number of states. Wendy Weiser, the vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, a think tank and voting rights advocacy group, examines the administration's actions ahead of the midterm elections. This episode was produced by Henry Larson and Kai McNamee, with audio engineering by Damian Herring. It was edited by Sarah Robbins and Ahmad Damen. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at considerthis@npr.org. Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

As protests against federal immigration agents' use of deadly force in Minneapolis spread nationwide, privacy experts are raising alarms. Immigration agencies are using facial-recognition and other tools to identify immigrants – and to track American citizens who observe or protest ICE operations. The surveillance technology allows agents to scan people's faces and link them to government databases. It's a practice that those targeted say amounts to intimidation and retaliation. We talk about how the technologies work and what they mean for enforcement and civil liberties. Guests: Rachel Levinson-Waldman, director of Liberty and National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice Sheera Frenkel, technology reporter, The New York Times; co-author, "An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook's Battle for Domination" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our government can often be defined by inefficiency and gridlock. We see big promises but inadequate action on many issues Americans care about, from health care to the environment.Author and scholar Marc Dunkelman thinks he can explain why. In his new book Why Nothing Works, he makes the case that progressive efforts to constrain authority and make processes more democratic have, in fact, left many parts of our government unresponsive and unable to function, creating a cycle of distrust and disappointment.This episode is part of a broader conversation seeking to answer this question: What will the next reform movement look like? Listen as Marc explains how we can break through the red tape and better ensure our democracy is able to serve everyone.SpeakersMarc Dunkelman: Fellow, Brown University's Watson School for International and Public Affairs; Senior Fellow, Searchlight Institute; and author of Why Nothing WorksMichael Waldman, President and CEO, Brennan CenterRecorded on January 26, 2026.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

Imagine this: it's a crisp February morning in New York City, and I'm standing outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan, the wind whipping through the streets as lawyers hustle inside for what could be a game-changer in President Donald Trump's legal saga. Today, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein is hearing arguments in a case that's got everyone buzzing—Trump's latest push to wipe out his hush money conviction from state court and shift it to federal ground, where he can invoke presidential immunity. According to ABC News, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Hellerstein back to the drawing board last November, saying he overlooked key evidence from the trial that might tie into Trump's official White House acts. That conviction back in May 2024? Thirty-four felony counts of falsifying business records to cover a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels, right before the 2016 election. Trump got an unconditional discharge—no jail time—but the stain remains, and he's fighting tooth and nail, denying any wrongdoing while appealing in state court too.I dash across town in my mind to the bigger picture, because this isn't isolated. The Brennan Center for Justice reports Trump still faces three active prosecutions: the federal election interference case in Washington, D.C., the state version in Fulton County, Georgia, and the classified documents mess in Florida. But the Supreme Court? That's where the real fireworks are brewing. SCOTUSblog announced oral arguments set for April 1 in Trump v. Barbara, challenging Trump's bold move to end birthright citizenship—the constitutional guarantee that almost anyone born on U.S. soil gets automatic citizenship. Picture the justices grilling lawyers on whether a president can rewrite that with executive fiat alone.And it's not just citizenship. News4JAX highlights how 2026 is shaping up as the Supreme Court's ultimate test on Trump's power grabs. Take Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook—Trump tried firing her over alleged mortgage fraud in two homes, one in Atlanta, but the court blocked it, saying she stays put until a full hearing. Then there's the tariff battles, where Trump wants sweeping unilateral duties without Congress, and cases like Kilmar Orega testing removal powers. Chief Justice John Roberts has been defending judicial independence quietly, but with midterms looming, the court might push back harder on these emergency appeals that bypass normal channels.As I weave through the crowds near the Supreme Court steps in my thoughts, it's clear: these trials aren't just legal footnotes; they're seismic clashes over presidential limits. From Hellerstein's courtroom today to April's birthright showdown, Trump's team is betting big on immunity and separation of powers. Will the courts bend, or draw the line?Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production—for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

On this new episode of THE POLITICRAT daily podcast Omar Moore on why you must vote, and vote in every election in your jurisdiction.WARNING: This episode contains foul language. Listener discretion is advised.Recorded February 4, 2026.SUBSCRIBE: https://mooreo.substack.com - please be a paid subscriber (or a free subscriber)SUBSCRIBE: https://youtube.com/@thepoliticratpodBUY MERCH FROM THE POLITICRAT STORE: https://the-politicrat.myshopify.comRECOMMENDED READS:Trump Regime Quietly Seeks To Build National Voter Roll (Sept 9, 2025, NY Times) :https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/09/us/politics/trump-voter-registration-data.htmlFederal And State Election Laws Ban Federal Forces From Polling Places (Oct 22, 2025, Brennan Center) :https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/federal-and-state-election-laws-ban-federal-forces-polling-placesBUY BLACK!Patronize Black-owned businesses on Roland Martin's Black Star Network: https://shopblackstarnetwork.comBLACK-OWNED MEDIA MATTERS: (Watch Roland Martin Unfiltered daily M-F 6-8pm Eastern)https://youtube.com/rolandsmartin

The MAGA movement plans to disenfranchise married women from their right to vote as the midterm elections approach. Voter suppression is the specialty of the GOP's manipulation of politics as part of a decades-long plot to prevent the will of the majority. Plus DJT attempts to game the system to take more of the tax-payers money as his tax fraud has been publicly exposed. For the Book Club, Thom reads from The Fight to Vote by Brennan Center president Michael Waldman.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In one suburban school district outside Minneapolis, at least four students have been picked up by federal immigration agents over the last few weeks. Columbia Heights Public Schools Superintendent Zena Stenvik talks about the mood in her district. Then, White House border czar Tom Homan says he will "draw down" the presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minnesota if state officials cooperate with the Trump administration on their immigration crackdown. Minnesota Public Radio's Brian Bakst explains how Homan's message is being received in Minnesota. And, the Brennan Center's Lauren-Brooke Eisen discusses how a huge increase in ICE spending in the past year is fueling what she calls the "detention-industrial complex" for migrants arrested in the United States.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Following the second killing of an American by ICE agents in Minneapolis, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz linking the violence in Minnesota to a demand that the state give the Justice Department complete access to the state's voter rolls, among other requests.It's an outrageous and unambiguous abuse of power. It's also part of a broader strategy to undermine elections heading into the 2026 midterms. Listen as experts break down what has happened and discuss how we can both respond to ICE and protect our elections in this troubling moment.Recorded on January 27, 2026.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson examines the fallout from the second fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis.The Brennan Center’s Michael Waldman details their new report on corruption and strategies for curbing it.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, we explore the life of an influential and yet, often overlooked founder, James Wilson. Whose ideas and influence continue to shape current debates about popular sovereignty, constitutional structure, and democratic self-government.   Legal scholar William Ewald of the University of Pennsylvania and Jesse Wegman of the Brennan Center for Justice join to discuss Wegman's new book, The Lost Founder: James Wilson and the Forgotten Fight for a People's Constitution, which explores the life and legacy of this founder and Supreme Court justice. Julie Silverbrook, vice president of civic education of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources Jesse Wegman, The Lost Founder: James Wilson and the Forgotten Fight for a People's Constitution  Jesse Wegman, Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org ⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr   Explore the ⁠⁠⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠⁠  Explore ⁠⁠⁠Pursuit: The Founders' Guide to Happiness⁠⁠⁠  ⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate  Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen  Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠  Support our important work: ⁠⁠⁠Donate

As protestors clash with some 3,000 federal immigration agents in the Twin Cities, we look at the legal issues with law professor Emmanuel Mauleón and Brennan Center for Justice's Elizabeth Goitein. "The principle that the military should not act as a domestic police force goes back centuries, all the way to the Magna Carta," Goitein says. "I think the reason for it is obvious: If a leader can turn the army inward against the people, that can be a very powerful instrument of tyranny and oppression."Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

As protestors clash with some 3,000 federal immigration agents in the Twin Cities, we look at the legal issues with law professor Emmanuel Mauleón and Brennan Center for Justice's Elizabeth Goitein. "The principle that the military should not act as a domestic police force goes back centuries, all the way to the Magna Carta," Goitein says. "I think the reason for it is obvious: If a leader can turn the army inward against the people, that can be a very powerful instrument of tyranny and oppression."Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

President Trump's threat to invoke the Insurrection Act is sparking concern among critics who warn that the law's sweeping powers make it easy to misuse, particularly in moments of domestic unrest. To help us understand what's at stake, Geoff Bennett spoke with Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Over the weekend, the Trump administration launched a military operation in Venezuela to capture President Nicolas Maduro. Such an aggressive use of war powers without congressional consent is alarming and in many ways unprecedented. Trump is declaring victory. Critics are decrying a breach of checks and balances. What are the implications of this unilateral abuse of military force, and what could happen next?Listen as leading experts from the Brennan Center discuss what happened, break down the legal issues at play, and reveal what Congress can do right now to respond.Speakers:Elizabeth Goitein, Senior Director, Liberty and National Security Program, Brennan CenterKatherine Yon Ebright, Counsel, Liberty and National Security Program, Brennan CenterModerator: Michael Waldman, President and CEO, Brennan CenterRecorded on January 6, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen, watching the Supreme Court become the hottest ticket in town, but here we are on this crisp January morning in 2026, with President Donald Trump's legal battles dominating the headlines. Just days ago, on December 23, 2025, the justices handed down a key ruling in Trump v. Illinois, partially siding with the administration in a tense showdown over federalizing the National Guard in Illinois. The majority allowed the move, with Justice Kavanaugh writing a concurrence, while Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, arguing it overstepped state authority. According to the Brennan Center's Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker, this decision came after a First Circuit ruling let it stand, underscoring Trump's push to assert federal control amid rising urban unrest in Chicago.But that's just the appetizer. The real drama kicks off next week. On January 13, the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., will hear oral arguments in two massive challenges to state bans on transgender students—like those in West Virginia and Idaho—playing on sports teams matching their gender identity. KVUE News reports these cases hinge on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. Challengers say the bans unfairly sideline kids like Becky Pepper-Jackson in West Virginia, who's been fighting since 2021 to compete in girls' track.Then, on January 21, all eyes turn to Trump v. Cook, a blockbuster testing presidential firing powers. President Trump tried to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in August 2025, citing alleged mortgage fraud from before her 2023 appointment to the Fed's Board in Washington. A D.C. district judge blocked it, and now the Supreme Court has deferred any stay until arguments, per the official docket for case 25A312. The Constitution Center notes this stems from the Federal Reserve Act, which only allows removal "for cause," not at-will. If Trump wins, it could reshape independent agencies like the Fed, which steers the U.S. economy with trillions in influence—think interest rates affecting your mortgage or job market.These aren't isolated fights. The Court's fall term already tackled Trump v. Slaughter on firing a Federal Trade Commissioner and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump over tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker logs dozens more, from immigration deportations under the Alien Enemies Act in Trump v. J.G.G. to earlier agency head removals. With decisions due by June, the stakes couldn't be higher—executive power, civil rights, economic stability all colliding.As I sip my coffee, scrolling updates from the National Constitution Center, I can't help but wonder: will this term redefine Trump's second presidency? The justices, from Chief Justice John Roberts to the newest voices, hold the gavel.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Hey there, listeners, buckle up because the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been on fire these past few days, handing President Donald Trump and his administration a string of high-stakes wins in battles over everything from the National Guard to passports and federal spending. Just eight days ago, on December 23, 2025, the Court ruled in Trump v. Illinois, siding against the administration's bid to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Illinois without state consent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence, while Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the move was essential for national security amid rising unrest in Chicago. The Brennan Center's Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker notes this as one of only five losses for the administration since January, out of 25 emergency decisions, with most favoring Trump at least partially and often with minimal explanation.But don't let that one setback fool you—the Court has been overwhelmingly pro-administration lately. On November 6, the justices greenlit the State Department's policy refusing passports that reflect transgender applicants' gender identity for a certified class of plaintiffs, overruling lower courts in a terse order. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented sharply, warning it tramples civil rights. This fits a pattern: back on October 3 in Noem v. National TPS Alliance, the Court forced the government to release congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds, with Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, blasting it as executive overreach. Earlier, September 22's Trump v. Slaughter let the administration dodge discovery demands from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington over DOGE Service materials under the Freedom of Information Act.Rewind a bit further into this whirlwind year, and the shadow docket explodes with immigration clashes. In Noem v. Doe on May 30, the Court allowed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to revoke parole en masse for half a million noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, skipping individual reviews—Justice Jackson dissented alongside Sotomayor. April's Trump v. J.G.G. permitted deportations of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, despite dissents from Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and even partial pushback from Amy Coney Barrett. A.A.R.P. v. Trump on April 19 blocked removals of Venezuelan nationals, a rare check, with Kavanaugh concurring and Alito dissenting.Civil service purges? Check: McMahon v. New York on July 14 okayed firing Department of Education employees, while Trump v. Boyle upheld Trump's power to boot Consumer Product Safety Commission members without cause. Even LGBTQ+ rights took hits, like United States v. Shilling in May letting the Defense Department terminate transgender service members. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker highlights ongoing suits, including a coalition of nonprofits and cities challenging the suspension of November 2025 SNAP benefits—a case that echoes lower court fights like District of Rhode Island's order to fully fund them.Since Inauguration Day, the Supreme Court's emergency docket—mostly Department of Justice filings—has tilted 20-to-5 toward Trump, per SCOTUSblog and Shadow Docket Watch data. Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh often push back against blocks, while the liberal trio fights rearguard actions. As 2025 wraps, two applications still pend, promising more drama.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court hand President Donald Trump a rare courtroom defeat, but here we are, listeners, on the heels of Christmas 2025. Just days ago, on December 23, the Justices in Washington, D.C., issued a sharp three-page unsigned order in Trump v. Illinois, rejecting the Trump administration's emergency plea to deploy the Illinois National Guard and Texas National Guard troops to Chicago. Picture this: Back on October 4, President Trump federalized 300 Illinois National Guard members to safeguard federal property amid reports of riots—protesters hurling tear gas canisters at officers, yanking off gas masks, even targeting them with bullhorns that could cause permanent hearing loss. The administration argued it was essential under federal law, citing unrefuted declarations of violence that local police in Chicago couldn't handle alone.But a federal judge in Chicago slapped down a temporary restraining order, and the Supreme Court let it stand. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented fiercely—Alito's opinion called out the lower court for ignoring the facts, questioning why grand jury no-indictments for some rioters weren't enough to discredit the violence claims. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred separately, but the majority sided against the administration, marking a loss in the shadow docket frenzy that's defined Trump's second term. According to the Brennan Center's tracker, since January 20, 2025, the Court has ruled on 25 such emergency applications challenging Trump actions—20 at least partially in his favor, but this one, no dice. SCOTUSblog reported it straight: the deployment stays blocked while litigation drags on.This isn't isolated. Oral arguments wrapped up just last month on November 5 in Learning Resources v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. VOS Selections before the Supreme Court. At stake? Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets President Trump slap trade tariffs during national emergencies he declares—and if so, does it unconstitutionally hand Congress's power to the executive? Dykema's legal alert calls it the term's biggest case, pitting presidential authority against separation-of-powers limits. Whispers from the bench suggest the Justices are skeptical, probing the delegation doctrine hard.Meanwhile, Trump's legal battles echo from his first term. In New York, Judge Juan Merchan's decision in People v. Donald J. Trump keeps sentencing on ice—pushed from July 2024 past the election to November 26 at Trump's own request, now stayed pending Supreme Court immunity fallout from Trump v. United States. Federal appeals upheld a jury's E. Jean Carroll verdict against him, with no reversal in sight. And the floodgates? Education policies sparked 71 lawsuits in 2025 alone, per Education Week, with Trump losing nearly 70 percent at lower courts. Immigration clashes rage on—from Noem v. Doe revoking parole for half a million from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, to Alien Enemies Act deportations where the Court sometimes greenlights, sometimes blocks.It's a whirlwind, listeners—tariffs, troops, tariffs again—reminding us the courts are checking power like never before. As 2025 closes, Trump's docket tests every constitutional seam.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Hey listeners, picture this: it's been a whirlwind week in the courts for President Donald Trump, with the Supreme Court dropping bombshells that could reshape his administration's bold moves. Just three days ago, on December 23, 2025, the nation's highest court issued a key ruling in Trump v. Illinois, tackling whether President Trump could federalize the Illinois National Guard and even pull in Texas troops to safeguard federal property in Chicago amid escalating violence. According to the Supreme Court's opinion, Trump activated 300 Illinois Guard members on October 4, followed by Texas forces the next day, citing riots where protesters hurled tear gas canisters at officers, tried grabbing firearms, and blasted bullhorns to cause hearing damage. Justice Alito's dissent slammed the lower District Court in Rhode Island for dismissing the government's unrefuted evidence of chaos, arguing it justified the President's call under federal law. While a majority granted the stay with some reasoning, Kavanaugh concurred, but Alito and Thomas pushed back hard, calling out the eleventh-hour shifts in opponents' arguments. This shadow docket decision, tracked by the Brennan Center, marks one of 25 emergency rulings since Trump took office on January 20, 2025—20 leaning his way, often with minimal explanation.But that's not all from the past few days. Fast-forward to the New York hush money saga: a fresh decision in People v. Donald J. Trump from the Manhattan court, penned by Judge Juan Merchan, shut down Trump's post-election bid to dismiss his 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Remember, a jury convicted him unanimously back in May 2024 for scheming to hide payments to Stormy Daniels, aiming to boost his presidential run through unlawful means. Trump requested delays himself—pushing sentencing past the election to November 26, 2024, then begging for a stay and dismissal after winning. The court wasn't buying it, noting Trump consented to those adjournments without opposition from prosecutors. Merchan emphasized the premeditated deception that eroded public trust, rejecting claims the case evaporates with his presidency, citing the Supreme Court's Trump v. United States immunity ruling but insisting justice demands accountability.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been a Trump turbo-boost all year. Brennan Center reports victories like Trump v. Boyle in July, greenlighting firings at the Consumer Product Safety Commission; McMahon v. New York upholding Education Department workforce cuts; and immigration wins such as Noem v. Doe, allowing mass parole revocations for half a million from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Even on LGBTQ+ fronts, November's ruling backed the State Department's passport gender policies. Not every call went his way—A.A.R.P. v. Trump lost on Venezuelan removals under the Alien Enemies Act—but the pattern's clear: 20 partial wins, with liberals like Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting repeatedly.Lawfare's litigation tracker highlights nonstop challenges, from SNAP benefit suspensions sparking suits by nonprofits and cities, to DOGE transparency fights where CREW got blocked from records. As of now, two more applications simmer. These battles in places like the First Circuit, DC Circuit, and beyond show Trump's team firing on all cylinders, testing presidential power's edges.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I walk into the studio with one question on my mind: how do I explain the latest turns in the courtroom battles surrounding Donald Trump in a way that cuts through the noise for you, the listener, without losing the legal stakes that have the whole country on edge?Over the past few days, the headline moment has come from Washington, where the United States Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a sharp setback in a case called Trump v. Illinois. According to the Supreme Court's own opinion and analysis from SCOTUSblog, the Court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to federalize and deploy the Illinois National Guard, along with Texas Guard units, into Chicago to respond to protests and violence around federal property. The administration argued the Insurrection Act and related statutes gave President Donald Trump broad authority to call up the Guard. A lower court had blocked him, questioning both the factual basis and the scope of that power, and the Supreme Court, in an emergency ruling, refused to restore his plan.In practical terms, that meant National Guard troops would not be marching into Chicago under federal orders, at least not on the legal theory the administration offered. The opinion revealed a divided Court. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dissented, accusing the lower court of underestimating the seriousness of the violence that federal officials described. But the majority, as summarized by commentators at the Brennan Center and SCOTUSblog, signaled limits on how far a president can go in using military force at home without close judicial scrutiny.That ruling landed against a broader backdrop of ongoing litigation involving Donald Trump and his administration's actions. Lawfare's “Trials of the Trump Administration” tracker notes that federal courts around the country continue to referee battles over immigration enforcement, civil service protections, the scope of independent agencies, LGBTQ rights, and government spending. In several shadow-docket cases this year, like Trump v. Boyle on firing members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Supreme Court sided with Trump on presidential control over agencies, but in others, especially involving immigration detention and bond hearings, lower courts have pushed back, and the justices have sometimes let those limits stand.Taken together, the last few days have underscored a pattern: Donald Trump is still testing the outer edge of presidential power in court, and the judiciary is no longer giving him a nearly open field. Instead, each new ruling sketches a tighter map of what a president can and cannot do, from sending troops into a state like Illinois to restructuring the federal bureaucracy or reshaping immigration courts.You, as listeners, are watching a slow, legal tug-of-war over the future of the presidency itself, conducted one opinion, one injunction, one emergency application at a time.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

This year we saw extraordinary threats to American democracy: an executive power grab, attacks on the freedom to vote, and more. Yet we also saw a growing response, from court rulings to citizen alarm. What happened? And what can we expect next?Speakers:Sean Morales-Doyle,  Director, Voting Rights and Elections ProgramWendy Weiser, Vice President, Democracy ProgramDaniel I. Weiner, Director, Elections and Government ProgramKatherine Yon Ebright, Counsel, Liberty and National Security ProgramModerator: Michael Waldman, President and CEORecorded on December 16, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

I step into the studio knowing that, for many listeners, the Donald Trump court saga feels endless. So let's get right to where things stand in the past few days.Across the country, Donald Trump is still juggling fallout from his earlier criminal and civil cases while his administration fights a new wave of lawsuits over how his Justice Department, Homeland Security, and other agencies are using federal power. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker describes a sprawling map of challenges, from immigration crackdowns to fights over federal workers and independent agencies, all feeding into a sense that the courtroom has become a second West Wing for this presidency.One of the biggest developments in the last few days comes from the Supreme Court and the immigration judges' free‑speech case. According to SCOTUSblog, the justices just rejected the Trump administration's request for emergency relief in a dispute over whether immigration judges can challenge speech restrictions in federal court. Commentator and law professor Stephen Vladeck called it the administration's first real loss at the Supreme Court since April, a rare sign that even this Court has limits on how far it will go on Trump's emergency asks. The order does leave the door open for the administration to come back if the trial court pushes into discovery, but for now, Trump's lawyers will have to keep fighting on the merits.At nearly the same time, another federal courtroom dealt the administration a blow on immigration detention. The ACLU of Massachusetts reports that a federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it denied bond hearings to people arrested by ICE in New England and then misclassified them to keep them in mandatory, no‑bond detention. The court granted partial summary judgment and held that, under the immigration statutes, these detainees must have access to a bond hearing. For thousands of people in New England lockups, that decision is not abstract law; it is the difference between indefinite confinement and a chance to argue for release.Overlay these fresh rulings on top of Trump's personal legal history and the picture sharpens. Outlets such as WABE have tracked how civil judgments for defamation and sexual abuse, as well as criminal convictions for falsifying business records in New York and the federal election‑interference and documents cases, have moved through appeals. A federal appeals court has already upheld one major civil jury verdict against Trump and declined to revisit it, locking in both damages and factual findings about his conduct. That appellate resistance puts real weight behind the idea that some of Trump's legal problems are no longer just allegations; they are affirmed findings of liability.And yet, while Trump personally appeals past losses, his administration simultaneously racks up wins and losses in real time. The Brennan Center and Lawfare both note that, since his return to the White House, the Supreme Court has often sided with the Trump administration on emergency applications involving immigration enforcement, federal workforce cuts, and control over independent agencies. Those shadow‑docket victories have let the administration move fast, even while lower courts probe legality. But the immigration judges' case and the Boston bond‑hearing ruling show that trial courts and, occasionally, the justices themselves are willing to draw constitutional and statutory lines.So when you hear about “Trump's trials” this week, it is not just one courtroom, one jury, or even one former president. It is Donald Trump the criminal defendant and civil litigant, and Donald Trump the sitting president whose policies are on trial in federal courts from Massachusetts to Washington.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I'm standing outside a federal courthouse, talking to you as the many legal threads around Donald Trump tighten and twist in real time.Over just the past few days, one of the big storylines has shifted from criminal exposure to raw presidential power. In Washington, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit handed President Donald Trump a major win by upholding his removal of National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris without cause. According to analysis from Ogletree Deakins, the court went further than just blessing those firings: it held that the statutory “for cause” protections for top officials at powerful independent agencies are unconstitutional when those officials wield substantial executive power. In plain English, the D.C. Circuit said President Donald Trump can sweep out key regulators at will, reshaping agencies that for decades had a measure of insulation from the Oval Office.At almost the same time, the Supreme Court has been functioning as an emergency referee over a growing list of Trump fights. SCOTUSblog reports that on its interim or “shadow” docket the justices have been fielding high‑stakes disputes over President Donald Trump's use of the National Guard in Illinois, his clashes with immigration judges, and efforts by groups like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to get internal administration documents through the Freedom of Information Act. The Brennan Center for Justice has been tracking these emergency cases and notes that, since early 2025, the Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with the Trump administration on issues like immigration crackdowns, reductions in the civil service, and the removal of members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.All of this sits on top of the longer‑running legal sagas that you as listeners have been following for years: the civil verdicts in New York, the federal and state criminal indictments, and the defamation and assault findings in the E. Jean Carroll cases. Public radio outlets like WABE have been keeping a running tally of where those stand since Donald Trump's return to the White House, tracking appeals of jury verdicts, ongoing sentencing fights for his former aides, and the way new Justice Department decisions under his own administration intersect with prosecutions that began before he reclaimed power.So when we talk about “the Trump trials” right now, we are not just talking about Donald Trump as a criminal defendant. We are talking about Donald Trump as president, testing and expanding the boundaries of executive authority in courtroom after courtroom, from the D.C. Circuit to the Supreme Court, while older cases about his past business dealings and political conduct grind through appeals.For you listening, the takeaway this week is simple: judges are increasingly being asked whether Donald Trump is merely subject to the law, or also able to rewrite the balance of power inside the law itself. Those answers are coming fast, and they are reshaping the presidency in ways that will outlast any single trial.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I stepped into this past week of Donald Trump's court battles the way you might walk into a courthouse lobby at noon: no time for pleasantries, because everything is already in motion.At the center of it all is the New York criminal case, People v. Donald J. Trump, in the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan, the first criminal prosecution ever brought against a former American president. The New York State Unified Court System's public docket shows how that case has remained very much alive, even after the historic conviction earlier in 2025 on charges tied to falsifying business records during the 2016 election. The docket lists the verdict sheet from May 30, the jury instructions from May 29, and then a steady drumbeat of post‑trial motions, orders, and letters through the summer and fall. Judge Juan Merchan's decisions in August and November on Trump's efforts to recuse the judge and to loosen restrictions on Trump's public statements make clear that the court has continued to push the case forward despite intense political pressure. The presence‑of‑counsel orders, discovery‑sanctions rulings, and contempt decisions all paint the same picture: the New York court treating Donald Trump less like a former president and more like any criminal defendant pressing the limits of what a trial judge will tolerate.But the courtroom drama has now moved to an even higher stage: the Supreme Court of the United States. According to the Supreme Court's own docket and the Oyez case summary, the justices heard oral argument on December 8 in a case captioned Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, et al. That case, known as Trump v. Slaughter, places Trump as the sitting president again, squaring off against Federal Trade Commission officials including Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. While the full opinion has not yet been released, the oral argument focused on how far presidential power reaches over independent agencies, and what limits, if any, courts can impose when a president seeks to reshape or overrule regulatory watchdogs.The Brennan Center for Justice's Supreme Court shadow‑docket tracker adds another layer. It reports that since early 2025 the Supreme Court has repeatedly been asked to intervene on an emergency basis in cases captioned Trump v. Boyle, Trump v. Wilcox, Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey, among others. These disputes center on whether President Trump can fire members of independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Labor Relations Board without showing any cause, and whether he can rapidly change immigration programs and civil‑service protections. In case after case, the tracker notes that the Court has at least partially sided with the Trump administration, sometimes with only brief orders and sharp dissents from Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Lawfare's ongoing Trump Administration Litigation Tracker echoes this trend, cataloging a sprawling landscape of lawsuits in federal district courts and courts of appeals challenging Trump's deployment of the National Guard, his immigration orders, and his efforts to rein in inspectors general and other internal watchdogs.Taken together, the New York criminal docket, the Supreme Court arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, and the shadow‑docket rulings described by the Brennan Center and Lawfare show you a single continuous story: Donald Trump not just as a criminal defendant in Manhattan, but as a sitting president testing, case by case, how much control he can exert over the machinery of American government, and how willing judges are to push back.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dotSome great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

For a generation, presidential races were blowouts. Every winner between 1980 and 1996 won by at least 37 Electoral College votes. These landslides relegated conspiracy theories about contested elections to the political fringes.Then came 2000. The last polls showed a dead heat. On election night, the networks called it for Al Gore, then retracted their calls, then called it for George W. Bush, and retracted again.Ultimately, five Supreme Court justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, put an end to the recount underway in Florida and effectively declared Bush the winner. The fractured opinions were a maze of disagreements, with the majority warning that the opinion should not be cited as precedent. Their reasoning flummoxed legal scholars — even those who agreed with the outcome. Listen as experts involved in the case discuss how it changed the relationship between Americans and elections and between elections and the courts.Speakers:David Boies, Founding Partner, Boies Schiller FlexnerBenjamin Ginsberg, Volker Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution; National Counsel, Bush-Cheney Presidential CampaignBarbara Pariente, Justice (retired), Florida Supreme CourtWendy Weiser, Vice President, Democracy, Brennan Center for JusticeModerator: Michael Waldman, President and CEO, Brennan CenterRecorded on December 9, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

Over the past several months, the Trump administration has undertaken a congressionally unauthorized military campaign against supposed “narco-terrorists” in international waters. One of the administration's attacks in particular has roiled Washington — according to recent reporting, military officials ordered a follow-up strike that killed survivors of an attack on an alleged drug boat. Since the revelation, Trump officials have scrambled to explain the legal justification and who was ultimately responsible.  Listen as Brennan Center expert Katherine Yon Ebright and Michael Waldman break down why these strikes are unlawful and discuss how Congress should respond.   If you enjoy this program, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a five-star rating.  Recorded on December 5, 2025.  Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.  The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office. 

U.S. politics today can be defined by extreme dysfunction and polarization. But the founders accounted for a fractured society, and designed our government specifically to handle moments like these. Listen as conservative scholar Yuval Levin discusses his book, American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation―and Could Again, which argues that the U.S. constitutional system is designed to compel us to find common ground and act together — and that the key is for Congress to play its leading role. Speakers: Yuval Levin, Director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise InstituteHost: Michael Waldman, President, Brennan CenterIf you enjoy this program, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a five-star rating. Recorded on November 21, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

From November 6, 2024: For today's special episode, Lawfare General Counsel and Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson held a series of conversations with contributors to a special series of articles on “The Dangers of Deploying the Military on U.S. Soil” that Lawfare recently published on its website, in coordination with our friends at Protect Democracy.Participants include: Alex Tausanovitch, Policy Advocate at Protect Democracy; Laura Dickinson, a Professor at George Washington University Law School; Joseph Nunn, Counsel in the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center; Chris Mirasola, an Assistant Professor at the University of Houston Law Center; Mark Nevitt, a Professor at Emory University School of Law; Elaine McCusker, a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; and Lindsay P. Cohn, a Professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. Together, they discussed how and why domestic deployments are being used, the complex set of legal authorities allowing presidents and governors to do so, and what the consequences might be, both for U.S. national security and for U.S. civil-military relations more generally.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For the past four months, President Donald Trump has been sending the National Guard into cities that protest his policies. First, it was Los Angeles. Then, it was Washington D.C. And now, it's Portland, Oregon and Chicago. An Oregon federal judge blocked Trump's deployment of the state's National Guard on Saturday — and then also stopped the Trump administration from sending California's National Guard troops to Portland on Sunday night. But not all of these cities are getting help from the courts. On Monday, a federal judge declined to stop the Trump administration from deploying members of the Texas National Guard to Chicago – over the express objections of Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker, who called the move an “unconstitutional invasion.”So to talk more about the legality and context for sending U.S. military into our own cities, we spoke to Elizabeth Goitein. She's the senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law.And in headlines, the shutdown continues with no end in sight, President Trump says he's going to “take a look” at a pardon for convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, and the Social Security Administration Commissioner will also take on the brand new role of CEO of the IRS.Show Notes:Check out Elizabeth's piece – https://tinyurl.com/ypf2w6v8Call Congress – 202-224-3121Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

From September 20, 2024: Bob Bauer, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at New York University School of Law, and Liza Goitein, Senior Director of Liberty & National Security at the Brennan Center, join Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to review the emergency powers afforded to the president under the National Emergency Act, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the Insurrection Act. The trio also inspect ongoing bipartisan efforts to reform emergency powers.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.