Podcasts about executive power

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks the legal battle between California and the Trump administration over the federalization of the National Guard in Los Angeles. She explains the statutes at play, including the limits of the Posse Comitatus Act and the potential use of the Insurrection Act. Jessica details Judge Breyer's ruling in favor of California, outlines the key legal questions for the upcoming Ninth Circuit hearing, and gives insight into the judges involved in this high-profile case.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss: Presidential Power to Federalize the National Guard: Jessica Levinson opens by explaining the legal mechanisms the president attempted to use to federalize the National Guard and send them, along with Marines, into Los Angeles. She breaks down the relevant federal statute (Title 10, Section 12406), which gives the president limited power to federalize the National Guard under specific conditions, such as responding to rebellion or when federal law can't be enforced with regular forces.The Scope and Limits of Military Involvement – The Posse Comitatus Act: Jessica addresses the significance of the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. Even if the National Guard is federalized, their direct involvement in law enforcement (like making arrests) is limited unless a separate statute (the Insurrection Act) is invoked.The Insurrection Act as an Exception: She describes how the Insurrection Act is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, allowing the military to more directly handle law enforcement under certain conditions (such as widespread unlawful conduct or when state authorities can't protect federal rights). She provides historical examples, such as federal intervention during desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s, and the Rodney King riots in 1992.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we examine the legal showdown in Los Angeles as President Trump sends the National Guard against California's wishes. Host Jessica Levinson analyzes the president's broad—though not unlimited—authority under Title 10 and California's legal case challenging the move on grounds of state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment. Jessica explains how federal law and the Posse Comitatus Act restrict the National Guard's role, and why courts are usually hesitant to overrule presidential decisions on national security. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Presidential Authority to Federalize the National Guard Jessica Levinson breaks down the Trump administration's decision to send the National Guard into Los Angeles, despite objections from California officials. She explains that under federal law (Title 10), presidents have broad—though not unlimited—powers to federalize state National Guard troops. This authority can be exercised when there is a “rebellion or danger of rebellion” against federal authority, even if the state's governor disagrees.State Sovereignty vs. Federal Power California, led by Governor Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, challenges Trump's move, arguing it infringes on state sovereignty. Levinson examines the legal conflict between state autonomy (protected by the Tenth Amendment) and federal authority as outlined in Title 10. However, she concludes that the statute grants the president clear authority in these situations, making California's legal challenge an uphill battle.The Limitations of National Guard Powers (Posse Comitatus Act) Another key theme is what the National Guard can—and cannot—do once federalized. The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits the military from acting as domestic law enforcement. Levinson clarifies that under Title 10, the National Guard cannot directly enforce domestic law (like making arrests or searches), unless additional powers are invoked (e.g., via the Insurrection Act).Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show, celebrating nearly 14 years broadcasting on the internet. On Wednesday's show, we discuss President Trump, executive powers, and the Constitution with Cato Institute Chairman Emeritus Bob Levy. Professor and author Andrew Joppa and I discuss a variety of topics including the insurrection in Los Angeles, the Democrat party, and the profile of young women in the United States. Please join us on Thursday's show. We'll visit with Keith Flaugh Co-Founder and CEO of the Florida Citizens Alliance, Cato Institute's Michael Cannon, Ambassador Francis Rooney, and former Mayor of Naples Bill Barnett. Access this or past shows at your convenience on my web site, social media platforms or podcast platforms.

On this week's episode of Unclear and Present Danger, Jamelle and John watched Executive Power, an obscure made-for-TV movie directed by David Corley and starring Craig Sheffer as Nick Seger, a Secret Service agent who gets entangled in a web of political intrigue and moral compromise after he assists the president in a deadly cover-up.There is not much more to the movie, but Jamelle and John try very hard to extract something like political insight from the proceedings! You can watch Executive Power for free on YouTube (although I would not recommend it).Our next episode is on The Assignment, a 1997 thriller directed by Christian Duguay and starring Aidan Quinn, Donald Sutherland, Ben Kinglsey and Claudia Ferri. Here is a brief plot synopsis:Jack Shaw has experienced the terror first-hand. He's a top CIA agent who's tracked international killer-for-hire Carlos “The Jackal” Sanchez for over twenty years and barely survived Carlos' devastating bombing of a Parisian cafe. Now, he finally gets a break when he discovers Carlos' dead ringer: American naval officer and dedicated family man Annibal Ramirez.And sign up for our Patreon, where we cover the films of the Cold War. Our next episode will be on Arthur Penn's Night Moves. You can sign up at patreon.com/unclearpod.Our producer is Connor Lynch and our artwork is by Rachel Eck. You can reach out to us over email at unclearandpresentfeedback@fastmail.com

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, not just because of the far-reaching implications it holds for American governance, but also due to the sheer ambition and controversial nature of its proposals. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations, aims to reshape the federal government in a way that centralizes executive power to an unprecedented degree.At the heart of Project 2025 lies the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to consolidate control over the entire executive branch under the direct authority of the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this vision: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan to dismantle the independence of various federal agencies. Agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which were designed to operate without political interference, are now targeted for overhaul. These agencies, established by Congress to ensure impartial oversight, are dismissed by Project 2025 as "so-called independent agencies," reflecting a disdain for the checks and balances they provide[5].For instance, the FTC, a quasi-judicial body, has long been shielded from presidential removal by the Supreme Court's ruling in *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*. However, Project 2025 seeks to overrule this precedent, allowing the president to remove commissioners at will if they do not align with the president's agenda. This move would fundamentally alter the operational independence of these agencies, subjecting them to direct presidential control[5].The Department of State is another focal point of Project 2025's reforms. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of the project, advocates for the dismissal of all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025. These positions would then be filled by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles, bypassing the need for Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is telling: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president[4].The implications of such changes are profound. By placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, Project 2025 would effectively create an "imperial presidency," where the president has almost unlimited power to implement policies without the traditional checks and balances. This would not only undermine the independence of critical agencies but also erode the democratic guardrails that have long protected American governance[5].Experts and critics alike warn of the devastating consequences of these proposals. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking Project 2025's executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, highlighting the potential for "devastating consequences for workers, the environment, and public health"[3].The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) has also sounded the alarm, noting that Project 2025 could lead to the termination of up to 1 million federal workers. This would not only disrupt essential government services but also have a crippling impact on the lives of those employees and their families[2].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a seismic shift in how the federal government could operate. The project's proponents argue that it is necessary to streamline government and ensure loyalty to the president's agenda. However, critics see it as a dangerous erosion of democratic principles and the rule of law.Looking ahead, the next few months will be crucial. As the 2025 deadline approaches, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be decided through a combination of legislative actions, judicial challenges, and public discourse. Whether this initiative succeeds in reshaping American governance or is thwarted by opposition, one thing is certain: the future of the U.S. government hangs in the balance.In the words of the American Civil Liberties Union, "the re-election of Donald Trump as president will have immense implications" for the success of Project 2025. As the nation navigates this critical juncture, it is imperative that we remain vigilant and engaged, ensuring that the principles of democracy and the system of checks and balances are protected for generations to come[1].

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and controversy envelops me. This initiative, backed by influential conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, is nothing short of a revolutionary blueprint aimed at reshaping the federal government of the United States. At its core, Project 2025 seeks to consolidate executive power in the White House, fundamentally altering the balance of American governance.The project's architects, including figures like Kiron Skinner, who briefly led the State Department's office of policy planning during the Trump administration, envision a government where the entire executive branch is under direct presidential control. This vision is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that has been gaining traction since the Reagan era. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this ambition: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle the independence of critical federal agencies. The Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission are all targeted for greater presidential oversight. This centralization of power is not merely a bureaucratic reshuffle; it represents a seismic shift in how the U.S. government operates. For instance, the project advocates for the dismissal of all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025, to be replaced by ideologically vetted appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. Skinner's perspective on this is telling: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president[4].The 900-page policy proposal is replete with specific reforms and policy objectives that paint a picture of a significantly streamlined and ideologically aligned federal workforce. The elimination of entire agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board and USAID, is a stark example of the project's scope. These actions are part of a broader effort to cut back on civil servants' powers and reduce what the project's backers see as inefficiencies across the federal government. As reported, the Trump administration, aided by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has already begun implementing these plans, albeit in a manner described as chaotic and legally questionable[5].The numbers are staggering: the Trump administration has either laid off or plans to lay off 280,253 federal workers and contractors, impacting 27 agencies. This purge is not just about reducing the federal workforce; it is about reshaping the government's ideological landscape. The project's proponents argue that this will lead to greater efficiency and alignment with conservative values, but critics see it as a dangerous erosion of institutional independence and a threat to public services.Experts and analysts are wary of the potential implications. The Center for Progressive Reform, for example, is tracking Project 2025's executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, warning that these actions will have "devastating consequences for workers, the environment, and public health"[3]. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also expresses deep concern, noting that the re-election of a president aligned with Project 2025's goals would have immense and far-reaching consequences for civil liberties and the rule of law[1].As I reflect on the latest developments, it becomes clear that Project 2025 is not just a policy initiative but a philosophical battle over the role of the executive branch in American democracy. The project's backers see it as a necessary correction to what they perceive as a bloated and inefficient bureaucracy, while critics view it as an authoritarian power grab.Looking ahead, the next few months will be crucial. As the project continues to unfold, key milestones will include the implementation of further agency eliminations and the replacement of federal employees with ideologically aligned appointees. The legal challenges to these actions will also come to a head, testing the limits of executive power and the resilience of the U.S. system of checks and balances.In the end, Project 2025 represents a crossroads in American governance, a moment where the very fabric of the federal government is being reimagined. Whether this transformation will lead to greater efficiency and alignment with conservative ideals or result in a dangerous concentration of power remains to be seen. One thing is certain, however: the future of American democracy hangs in the balance, and the decisions made now will have lasting implications for generations to come.

Kristi Noem sets the internet ablaze with two words—“Suck It”—and the left loses its mind. Pags and Sam bring the laughs, but the truth is serious: the left will twist anything to attack the America First movement. PLUS—Alabama Rep. Dale Strong joins Pags to explain how Congress can codify Trump's executive orders, what's really inside the One Big Beautiful Bill, and how the left's disaster narrative is falling apart. Smart, bold, and fully loaded with facts you won't get anywhere else. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Constitutional scholars Ilya Shapiro, Stephen Vladeck, and Adam White join NCC President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to debate whether the Trump administration has overreached on executive power, analyze the relationship between the federal courts and the president, and put the present moment in historical context. This conversation was originally recorded on May 21, 2025, at George Washington's Mount Vernon.  Resources J. Michael Luttig, “The End of Rule of Law in America,” The Atlantic (May 14, 2025)  Stephen Vladeck, “What the Courts Can Still Do to Constrain Trump,” The Atlantic (April 15, 2025)  Ilya Shapiro, “Don't Throw My Executive Power in That Briar Patch!,” Shapiro's Gavel Substack (April 24, 2025)  Adam White, “WTH Is Going On with Birthright Citizenship? Adam White Explains” WTH Is Going On podcast (Jan. 30, 2025)  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. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠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

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore […]

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore balance to our system of government. From war powers to administrative overreach, the conversation tackles the urgent question: How did we get here, and what can be done? Michael McConnell is a renowned constitutional scholar, Stanford Law professor, and former federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A leading voice on originalism and separation of powers, his work bridges historical intent and modern legal debates, making him the perfect guide for this critical discussion. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore balance to our system of government. From war powers to administrative overreach, the conversation tackles the urgent question: How did we get here, and what can be done? Michael McConnell is a renowned constitutional scholar, Stanford Law professor, and former federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A leading voice on originalism and separation of powers, his work bridges historical intent and modern legal debates, making him the perfect guide for this critical discussion. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore balance to our system of government. From war powers to administrative overreach, the conversation tackles the urgent question: How did we get here, and what can be done? Michael McConnell is a renowned constitutional scholar, Stanford Law professor, and former federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A leading voice on originalism and separation of powers, his work bridges historical intent and modern legal debates, making him the perfect guide for this critical discussion. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore balance to our system of government. From war powers to administrative overreach, the conversation tackles the urgent question: How did we get here, and what can be done? Michael McConnell is a renowned constitutional scholar, Stanford Law professor, and former federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A leading voice on originalism and separation of powers, his work bridges historical intent and modern legal debates, making him the perfect guide for this critical discussion. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented.

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore balance to our system of government. From war powers to administrative overreach, the conversation tackles the urgent question: How did we get here, and what can be done? Michael McConnell is a renowned constitutional scholar, Stanford Law professor, and former federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A leading voice on originalism and separation of powers, his work bridges historical intent and modern legal debates, making him the perfect guide for this critical discussion. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore balance to our system of government. From war powers to administrative overreach, the conversation tackles the urgent question: How did we get here, and what can be done? Michael McConnell is a renowned constitutional scholar, Stanford Law professor, and former federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A leading voice on originalism and separation of powers, his work bridges historical intent and modern legal debates, making him the perfect guide for this critical discussion. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

In this episode of Madison's Notes, Michael McConnell examines the gap between the Founders' vision of a limited presidency and today's expansive executive power. Drawing on his book The President Who Would Not Be King (Princeton University Press, 2022), we discuss how the Constitution's safeguards against monarchical authority have eroded over the past century—and what steps might restore balance to our system of government. From war powers to administrative overreach, the conversation tackles the urgent question: How did we get here, and what can be done? Michael McConnell is a renowned constitutional scholar, Stanford Law professor, and former federal judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. A leading voice on originalism and separation of powers, his work bridges historical intent and modern legal debates, making him the perfect guide for this critical discussion. Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any speaker does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers or views presented. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Qatar wants to gift Trump a $400 million jet, and the debate is already on fire—some say it's unethical, others question if it's even constitutional. But what's really going on here? In this episode, I unpack the bigger picture. I believe this move is Trump sending a message to Israel and Netanyahu: America—not Israel—is in control. And frankly, that message is long overdue. Israel has caused more harm than necessary in recent months, and it's time for the U.S. to reassert its authority on the world stage. This isn't just about a jet. It's about power, alliances, and who's really in charge.--https://noblegoldinvestments.com/

Constitutionally, North Carolina's governor has little power compared to other states. Recently, the Republican-controlled General Assembly has made moves to take away even more power. While legal questions about these moves remain, we look at what these attempts mean for the future of how our state government operates.

In this week's episode of then & now, we are joined by John Mikhail, Carroll Professor of Jurisprudence at Georgetown University Law Center, for a deep dive into the controversial theory of the unitary executive. Rooted in the Constitution's Vesting Clause, this theory asserts that the president holds centralized control over the executive branch. While the theory has longstanding roots in constitutional debates, the Trump administration has embraced and expanded this interpretation in unprecedented ways. John Mikhail traces the theory's historical origins, its legal evolution, and its increasingly assertive use under Trump 2.0. He examines how this broad view of executive power threatens the traditional balance among the three branches of government and raises pressing concerns about the future of checks and balances in the American constitutional system.John Mikhail is the Carroll Professor of Jurisprudence at Georgetown University Law Center, where he has taught since 2004.  He teaches and writes on a variety of topics, including constitutional law, moral psychology, moral and legal theory, cognitive science, legal history, criminal law, torts, international law, and human rights. Professor Mikhail is the author of Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2011) and over fifty articles, chapters, essays, and reviews in peer-edited journals, law reviews, and anthologies.Further ReadingThe Vesting ClauseThe Unitary Executive Theory (UET), Cornell Law School

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, not just because of the far-reaching implications it holds for American governance, but also due to the sheer breadth of its ambitions. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations, is nothing short of a blueprint for a radical transformation of the federal government, one that could reshape the very fabric of U.S. democracy.At its core, Project 2025 is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this vision: "All federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle several critical federal agencies. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for instance, would be eliminated, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be privatized. This move is particularly alarming given the pivotal role these agencies have played in national security since their inception following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The idea of reverting to a pre-9/11 era of security measures is, as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) puts it, "not only irresponsible but also puts all of us at risk."[2]The Department of Education is another casualty of this plan, with oversight of education and federal funding being handed over to the states. This shift not only undermines federal standards but also jeopardizes protections against sex-based discrimination, gender identity, and sexual orientation in schools. The erosion of these safeguards could have devastating consequences for marginalized communities, leaving them vulnerable to discrimination and inequality[2].The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is also on the chopping block, with its responsibilities potentially being absorbed by the Department of Interior or the Department of Transportation. This change would shift the costs of disaster preparedness and response to states and local governments, a move that could exacerbate the already strained resources of these entities[2].The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) faces significant cuts as well, with the elimination of regional labs, offices of enforcement and compliance, and scientific integrity. This would essentially give corporations a free pass to pollute, endangering public health by compromising the air, water, and food Americans rely on[2].Beyond these agency-specific changes, Project 2025 aims to dismantle the independence of various regulatory bodies. Agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are targeted for their quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial roles, which are designed to operate free from political interference. The project seeks to overrule the landmark Supreme Court case *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, which protected the independence of these agencies by allowing commissioners to be removed only "for cause." This would grant the president unprecedented power to remove commissioners at will, aligning these agencies more closely with the president's agenda[5].Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, exemplifies this ideological purge. She advocates for dismissing current State Department employees in leadership roles and replacing them with ideologically vetted appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. When questioned about instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not name a single example, highlighting the subjective nature of these proposed changes[4].The broader theme here is the erosion of checks and balances, a cornerstone of American democracy. By centralizing power in the White House and stripping independent agencies of their autonomy, Project 2025 threatens to create an "imperial presidency" where the president's authority is virtually unchecked. As the Center for American Progress notes, this would "destroy the U.S. system of checks and balances," allowing presidents to implement policies with little to no oversight[5].As we approach the critical year of 2025, the implications of this project become increasingly urgent. The next few months will be pivotal, with key decisions and milestones that could either halt or accelerate these radical reforms. The question on everyone's mind is: What will the future of American governance look like if Project 2025 comes to fruition?The answer, much like the project itself, is complex and multifaceted. However, one thing is clear: the stakes are high, and the consequences of inaction could be profound. As we navigate this uncertain landscape, it is imperative that we remain vigilant, ensuring that the democratic principles and institutional safeguards that have defined America for centuries are not sacrificed on the altar of ideological ambition.

In this conversation, the guys discuss the evolving landscape of journalism, emphasizing the critical role of copy editors and the decline of factual reporting. They delve into the implications of misinformation in political discourse, particularly in the context of recent statements made by political figures. The discussion also covers legal challenges against executive orders, the future of executive power, and the necessity of civic education to foster informed citizenship. Additionally, they address the importance of media accountability in the face of government propaganda.Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JATQPodcastFollow us on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/jatqpodcast.bsky.socialIntragram: https://www.instagram.com/jatqpodcastYoutube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCET7k2_Y9P9Fz0MZRARGqVwThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon supporters here:https://www.patreon.com/justaskthequestionpodcastPurchase Brian's book "Free The Press" 

In this Best Of The A.M. Update, Aaron McIntire discusses JD Vance's impactful speech at the Munich Security Conference, addressing the decline of free speech in Europe, the importance of understanding executive power, and the unapologetic approach of the Trump administration. He reflects on Trump's recent address to Congress, highlighting the themes of American values and the political landscape.  

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson goes solo to break down the latest in legal and political news. She starts by analyzing fresh polling data on President Trump's approval ratings at the 100-day mark of his second term, noting significant public disapproval and discussing what drives this administration's bold use of executive power. Jessica then turns to the Supreme Court's current docket, spotlighting two major education-related cases: one about the legal standard for disability discrimination in schools, and another questioning whether a religious school can be established as a taxpayer-funded charter school. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Presidential Approval Down, But Base Remains Loyal: Despite approval ratings hovering around 39–43%, President Trump's core supporters (about 33–35%) aren't likely to abandon him, illustrating a growing divide between the general public and a steadfast political base.Economic Policies & Tariffs Fuel Discontent: Many respondents reported feeling worse off economically since Trump's reelection and a majority expressing disapproval of new tariffs and federal agency cuts.Supreme Court Watch—Education and Religious Freedom on the Line: Two major cases could redefine legal standards for disability discrimination in schools and determine whether religious institutions can operate publicly funded charter schools.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

On this week's episode of Unclear and Present Danger, Jamelle and John watched The Peacemaker, a 1997 political action thriller directed by Mimi Leder and staring George Clooney and Nicole Kidman.When a train carrying nuclear warheads crashes in rural Russia, nuclear specialist Dr. Julia Kelly is brought in by the U.S. government to investigate. She quickly discovers the incident was no accident, but part of a larger conspiracy to steal the warheads. Assigned to work with her is Lt. Col. Thomas Devoe, a brash U.S. Army intelligence officer who specializes in field operations.Together, Kelly and Devoe uncover a plot involving a rogue Russian general and a vengeful Yugoslav diplomat named Dusan Gavrić. Gavrić plans to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York City as a twisted act of personal vengeance and a misguided attempt at political "peace."As they chase the warheads across Europe, facing betrayals and dangerous obstacles, Kelly's strategic thinking and Devoe's action-driven instincts clash but ultimately complement each other. Their pursuit culminates in a high-stakes showdown in Manhattan, where they must stop Gavrić before he detonates the bomb in a crowded area. Risking everything, they race against the clock to prevent a catastrophic attack and avert a global crisis.The tagline for The Peacemaker was "Every nuclear device in the world has been accounted for...accept for one."You can find The Peacemaker to rent or purchase on Apple TV or Amazon Prime.Our next episode will be on Executive Power, a little-known political thriller directed by David L. Corley. Here is a brief plot synopsis.While protecting the U.S. President, Secret Service agent Nick Sager helps him to dispose of the body of a young girl, who accidentally died during an adulterous encounter. Some time later, a few weeks before the elections, the disillusioned ex-agent is approached by his former partner. The President's former aide, and one of few people who knew about the cover-up, is found dead in mysterious circumstances.You can find Executive Power to rent on Amazon Prime.Our producer is Connor Lynch and our artwork is by Rachel Eck. You can reach out to us over email at unclearandpresentfeedback@fastmail.com

Pags breaks down the political games being played by rogue judges trying to undermine the executive branch—and how the left is weaponizing the courts to block Trump's agenda. PLUS—Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, joins Pags to expose the quiet, dangerous tax agenda some politicians are trying to push behind closed doors. From backdoor hikes to stealth spending plans, Norquist reveals what's really at stake—and how it could hit your wallet fast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Defending Free Speech, Judicial Overreach, and Constitutional Integrity — with Alan DershowitzIn this compelling episode of The Andrew Parker Show, constitutional law scholar and author Alan Dershowitz returns for an unflinching discussion on today's most volatile legal and political debates — from the weaponization of the legal system to the future of free speech in America.Professor Dershowitz and Andrew Parker explore the erosion of First Amendment protections on college campuses, the dangers of selective speech enforcement, and the hypocrisy embedded in today's cries of "judicial activism." Dershowitz doesn't shy away from controversial ground — including Roe v. Wade, immigration enforcement, the administrative state, and the modern-day assault on lawyers for the clients they represent.Together, they dissect:Why both sides of the political aisle embrace judicial activism when convenientHow Roe v. Wade may have been a strategic misstep for the pro-choice movementThe constitutional boundaries of executive authority in immigration and deportationHistorical precedents that shape today's decisions in times of national crisisThe alarming rise of “lawfare” and efforts to silence dissent through bar complaints and legal threatsHow the legal profession and elite law schools are failing the next generation of lawyersFrom the founding fathers to modern-day lawfare, this conversation is a sweeping, insightful journey through the heart of American legal and political tensions. Whether you're left, right, or somewhere in between, this episode is a must-listen.Smart Plain Talk and a dose of principle, history, and unflinching legal clarity.Support the showThe Andrew Parker Show - Politics, Israel & The Law. Follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and X. Subscribe to our email list at www.theandrewparkershow.com Copyright © 2025 The Andrew Parker Show - All Rights Reserved.

When running for office, Donald Trump suggested that he "alone could fix" the ills befalling the United States. In his administration's first 100 days, he and his allies have moved quickly to expand the powers of the presidency accordingly.This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, political correspondent Sarah McCammon, and senior political editor & correspondent Domenico Montanaro.The podcast is produced by Bria Suggs & Kelli Wessinger and edited by Casey Morell. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica talks with USA Today reporter Erin Mansfield about the Trump administration's efforts to overhaul and reduce the federal workforce. They discuss the administration's push for greater executive power, the agencies hit hardest by job cuts, and the impact on public services like education and food safety. Erin also explains the legal battles unfolding over these changes, including the significance of the landmark Supreme Court case Humphrey's Executor and the future independence of federal agencies. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:The Federal Workforce Under the Trump Administration: Trump's administration is undertaking dramatic efforts to reshape--and notably reduce--the federal workforce, prompting widespread job insecurity, potential displacements, and structural overhauls throughout the government.Who is Affected by Federal Workforce Reductions: Erin outlines which agencies are most impacted. Socially-oriented agencies—like the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, USDA, and the Environmental Protection Agency—face the brunt of the cutbacks, while national security, law enforcement, and immigration agencies are largely exempt. She clarifies that massive cuts are not equally distributed across all departments. Real-Life Impacts of Workforce Reduction: Jessica and Erin discuss how these changes might touch everyday Americans. Reductions in the workforce could affect everything from food safety inspections and educational grant administration to public health services and climate research—potentially making certain public services less effective or slower.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica@_erinmansfield

In this fiery breakdown, the hosts sound the alarm on what they call a "judicial takeover" of the executive branch. With judges issuing controversial injunctions and threatening contempt charges against Trump officials for enforcing legal deportation orders, they argue the courts are overstepping and undermining constitutional balance. From the alleged prosecution plans targeting officials like Kristi Noem to broader implications for presidential pardons, this episode paints a picture of escalating political warfare in America's legal system—and the potential fallout if it continues unchecked.

This Nightcap roundtable discusses the pressure campaign and attacks President Trump is waging from universities, to the courts to news organizations. Plus, the White House continues its defiance against making any effort to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a prison in El Salvador. And, Trump is meeting with world leaders as he continues to promise trade deals. Then, see who made this week's MVP list. Judy Gold, Tom Rogers, Sean Patrick Maloney, and Marc Dunkelman join The 11th Hour this Friday.

In the second hour of today's edition of The Dan Caplis Show, Jeff Hurd, a Republican representative from Colorado's third congressional district, to discuss why he was one of the few politicians in the GOP to oppose Donald Trump's use of executive power to enforce his tariffs.

Glenn takes questions from our Locals subscribers on lawfare in the democratic world against popular candidates, Trump's tariffs, the changing role of independent media, Douglas Murray's debate against Dave Smith, and more. ---------------------------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook LinkedIn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Led by the Trump administration and Elon Musk's DOGE, Americans are debating once again how our government should hire civil servants, but are we asking the right questions? In this episode, we dive into a compelling new study on the Pendleton Act, one of the most significant bureaucratic reforms in U.S. history, which introduced merit-based civil service exams to combat corruption and incompetence. But did it work?We speak with economist Santiago Perez about his paper “Civil Service Exams and Organizational Performance: Evidence From The Pendleton Act” and his surprising findings that while the reform did help hire more qualified and stable employees, it didn't clearly improve government efficiency. Also, what unintended consequences may have emerged, such as manipulation of salary thresholds and persistent power dynamics among political appointees.So, what can the Pendleton Act teach us about modern bureaucracy, accountability, and fairness? And could reintroducing merit-based exams actually fix today's polarized and politicized civil service—or make it even worse?

President Trump has an expansive view of presidential authority and is claiming sweeping powers over the executive branch, including independent federal agencies. Amna Nawaz spoke with Joel Alicea, a professor of law and director of the Center for The Constitution and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at the Catholic University, for his take. It's part of our series, On Democracy. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

This week on the podcast, A'ndre is joined by renowned national security attorney Mark Zaid to unpack the rapidly unfolding scandal now known as Signalgate — a controversy sparked when a The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg was accidentally added to a Signal group chat among senior Trump officials. The chat revealed detailed U.S. military strike plans against Houthi targets in Yemen just hours before the operation, raising alarm bells across Washington about operational security, the handling of sensitive information, and basic judgment at the highest levels of government.In this conversation, A'ndre asks:What laws were likely broken — and do they apply to former Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and others in the chat?Is the Trump administration's defense that the info was “unclassified” legally sound — or dangerously misleading?Could a journalist face legal exposure for publishing the leaked Signal thread?What would've happened to a junior officer who made the same mistake?Are we in uncharted territory, legally and institutionally, as executive power is increasingly stretched?Plus, A'ndre and Mark dig into the broader crackdown on law firms and legal professionals seen as critical of the Trump administration, and what it means for checks and balances in the years ahead.Mark brings his decades of experience — representing whistleblowers, intelligence officers, and journalists — to help us break down the legal implications, national security risks, and systemic dangers of a White House seemingly operating outside the lines.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Claudia Grisales, NPR's congressional correspondent, joins Jessica to explore the evolving relationship between Congress and the Trump administration. Claudia provides an insider's view on the unprecedented unity within the Republican party under Trump and its impact on congressional oversight. The conversation also covers the recent signal chat controversy involving potential classified information breaches by high-level officials. Additionally, they discuss the Democrats' legal strategy and ponder the implications of these political shifts for the future of American governance. Listen in for a comprehensive look at the current political dynamics and what's next for Congress.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Congress as a Check on the Executive: Claudia and Lisa explore the idea that Congress is not acting as an effective check on the executive branch as was intended by the founders. They discuss the unity within the Republican Party under President Trump and the resulting lack of checks and balances.Signal Chat Controversy: The discussion addresses a situation involving a breach related to government officials using Signal chat to discuss potentially classified information. Claudia describes the internal dissent within the Republican Party about this issue and the investigation being demanded by Congress.Democratic Strategy: The conversation shifts to reflect on the Democratic Party's struggle to find a unified strategy. Claudia talks about moments when Democrats have come together, such as in stances against government shutdowns, but overall highlights challenges in forming a cohesive legal and political strategy.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica@cgrisales

Send us a textJoin us today for a fun conversation about all things government, UK and US, with Lord Daniel Hannan of Kingsclere! Lord Hannan is a member of the House of Lords. Today, we talk about how the U.K.'s legislative is structured, what is up with executive power, the importance of the West and cohesion on the freedom front, and the idiocy of tariffs. Want to explore more?Yuval Levin on Burke, Paine, and the Great Debate, an EconTalk podcast.Phillip Klein on Fight Club Conservatives versus Disney, a Great Antidote podcast.Robert Higgs, Government Growth, in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.Troy Senik on Grover Cleveland, a Great Antidote podcast.Is There a Role for Monarchy in a Free Society? A Liberty Matters forum at the Online Library of Liberty.Support the showNever miss another AdamSmithWorks update.Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Can executive power shrink the state instead of growing it? In this thought-provoking lecture, Patrick Newman offers a Jacksonian playbook for dismantling the deep state in our time.The Murray N. Rothbard Memorial Lecture, sponsored by Steve and Cassandra Torello.The Austrian Economics Research Conference is the international, interdisciplinary meeting of the Austrian school, bringing together leading scholars doing research in this vibrant and influential intellectual tradition. For more information, visit https://Mises.org.

Jon Herold kicks off the week with a fiery breakdown of Trump's latest executive moves to strip security clearances, slap down activist law firms, and slap tariffs on Venezuela. He dives into the deepening judicial rebellion, a collapsing 23andMe, and the latest evidence of CCP birth tourism schemes. Plus, Jon unpacks the JFK files like no one else...revealing how they serve as a mirror to today's corrupt establishment rather than a smoking gun. Throw in Tesla rebounds, media spin meltdowns, Wyoming's bold election integrity law, and some high-level trolling out of Trump's Oval Office, and you've got a can't-miss Monday.

The Trump administration flew planes with Venezuelan detainees to a prison in El Salvador, despite a court order blocking the flights. A judge is demanding the DOJ explain why it ignored the ruling. Support NPR and hear every episode sponsor-free with NPR+. Sign up at plus.npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Friday, March 14th, 2025Today, Judge Alsup has reinstated all probationary employees fired across the government on February 13th and 14th and demands testimony from an Office of Personnel Management official; Trump has ordered the Pentagon to draw up options for troop deployment to Panama; Texas pastor Robert Morris has finally been indicted for sex crimes; a new CNN poll shows Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy; Tim Walz is launching a tour of town hall rallies in Republican districts; new voter ID requirements send voters home to get their birth certificates only to turn them down for not having their married name on them; Trump is expected to invoke wartime emergency powers to speed up mass deportation; Judge Chutkin demands DOGE and Musk hand over documents and answer written questions about exactly who is in charge; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Guest: John FugelsangTell Me Everything — John FugelsangThe John Fugelsang PodcastSiriusXM ProgressThe Sexy Liberal Save The World Comedy TourSexy LiberalThank You, HomeChefGet 18 Free Meals, plus Free Shipping on your first box, and Free Dessert for Life, at HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS.  Must be an active subscriber to receive free dessert.Thank You, PiqueLifeGet 20% off on the Radiant Skin Duo, plus a FREE starter kit at Piquelife.com/dailybeans.Stories:Trump White House has asked U.S. military to develop options for the Panama Canal, officials say | NBC NewsJudge orders DOGE and Elon Musk to turn over documents, answer written questions - JOSH GERSTEIN and KYLE CHENEY | POLITICORobert Morris, former Texas megachurch pastor and Trump adviser, indicted for child sex crimes | Texas TribuneNew CNN poll: Americans are negative on Trump's handling of economy | CNN PoliticsJudge orders thousands of federal workers reinstated; slams 'sham' government declaration | ABC NewsNH's new ID requirements send some would-be voters home to grab passports, birth certificates | New Hampshire Public RadioTrump expected to invoke wartime authority to speed up mass deportation effort in coming days | CNN PoliticsTim Walz to launch national tour of town halls in Republican House districts | CNN PoliticsPeter Sagal - Wikipedia | Jason Segel - WikipediaGood Trouble:Sunday, March 23 - Darrell Issa Empty Chair Town Hall Presented by Indivisible - eventbrite.com/e/darrell-issa-empty-chair-town-hall-presented-by-indivisible-ticketsFrom The Good NewsIf there's any leguminati out in PA10th district that's fed up with Scott Perry and everything else going on, please email. We need you!! Pa10thdistrictnetwork@gmail.comJerseyJadesCleaning.comerikosberg4congress.com - Minnesota's 7th DistrictSupportive Housing and Services | HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

The Trump administration continues to fire, shut down or defund independent elements of the federal government that traditionally work as a check on presidential power.Supporters of President Trump say: That's exactly the point. 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

The balance of power in American democracy is being tested like never before. In this episode Rick is joined by legal expert and author Tristan Snell to discuss the latest legal battles surrounding Trump, the Supreme Court's role in shaping executive power, and the broader implications for American democracy. They break down key cases, including the limits of presidential immunity, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the growing constitutional crisis if Trump defies court rulings. Visit Tristan's Substack at tristansnell.com. Timestamps: (00:01:26) Watching the legal battles unfold (00:10:59) What happens when Trump denies a court order? (00:20:24) The protection of executive action Follow Resolute Square: Instagram Twitter TikTok Find out more at Resolute Square Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Passing Judgment, host Jessica Levinson is joined by Joey Garrison, USA Today's White House correspondent, to navigate the latest developments of the Trump administration. They discuss key topics such as executive orders, federal workforce cuts, tariffs, and the influence of Elon Musk's Doge efforts. Additionally, they explore the Democrats' strategic responses and the congressional dynamics surrounding President Trump's economic and foreign policies. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:White House Changes and Cuts: The discussion begins with Joey Garrison outlining the sweeping changes made by the Trump administration, particularly through executive orders aimed at fulfilling promises to the MAGA base. A significant emphasis was on the creation of Doge, led by Elon Musk, which has been actively involved in restructuring federal departments and proposing workforce reductions.Impact of Tariffs on the Economy: The tariffs imposed on neighboring Mexico and Canada, as well as increased tariffs on Chinese imports, formed another major topic. The discussion touched on the political and economic ramifications of these tariffs, including rising consumer prices, diminished consumer confidence, and negative polling for President Trump on economic management.Foreign Policy – Ukraine and Russia: A significant portion of the episode covers the meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, primarily concerning US-Ukraine relations and mineral agreements. The dispute and its implications for US support to Ukraine were discussed, with Trump administration's stance on withholding aid until diplomatic talks are pursued by Ukraine.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica@joeygarrison

Leah, Melissa, and Kate once again wade through the latest malevolence from the Trump White House in a segment they're now calling “Pod Save the Separation of Powers.” Then, they turn to what's going on at One First Street, covering some new opinions, as well as this week's arguments, including a case about “reverse discrimination.” Pre-order your copy of Leah's forthcoming book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes (out May 13th)Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

This conversation explores key themes surrounding executive power, leadership styles in the Trump administration, the intersection of faith and evidence, concerns about innovation at Apple, and a cultural critique of Hooters. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding civics, the unapologetic approach of current leadership, and the implications of corporate decisions on society.

The conversation covers various topics including Donald Trump's leadership style, the health of Pope Francis, military leadership changes, border security issues, international relations particularly with Ukraine, corporate accountability regarding Target's marketing strategies, a civics lesson on executive power, and one word that describes the second Trump administration.

Jack Goldsmith, the Learned Hand Professor at Harvard Law School and co-founder of Lawfare, joins Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, to talk about his recent Lawfare article discussing last year's Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States and its implications for executive power. They discuss how the ruling extends beyond presidential immunity, the broader shift toward a maximalist theory of executive authority, and what this means for the future of American democracy.We value your feedback! Help us improve by sharing your thoughts at lawfaremedia.org/survey. Your input ensures that we deliver what matters most to you. Thank you for your support—and, as always, for listening!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.

Day 17 of the Trump administration and the President signs more executive orders as fierce ally Pam Bondi takes charge of DOJ. Plus, as USAID is stripped of funding and staff, many fear what the moves will mean for the US. And Elon Musk's DOGE continues to gain access inside more federal agencies. Tom Rogers, Sami Sage, Philip Bump, Brian Barrett. and Ben Rhodes join The 11th Hour this Wednesday.