Podcasts about executive power

It's August 13th, 2025, and once again, the spotlight is trained on former President Donald Trump—this time not for a campaign rally or a press conference, but for a series of high-stakes courtroom dramas that have played out across the country over the last several days. The legal turbulence circling Trump feels relentless, but the energy in and around courthouses from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. is unmistakable—these aren't just headline-grabbing disputes, they're shaping the future boundaries of presidential power, military deployment, and civil liberties.Right now, all eyes are on San Francisco where a landmark civil trial is underway, scrutinizing Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles during massive protests earlier this summer. The State of California, led by Deputy Attorney General Meghan Strong, is making its case that Trump's administration illegally used the military for domestic law enforcement—essentially, arguing that the lines between troop and police vanished somewhere on the streets of LA. Yesterday's courtroom scene was tense, with a senior military officer—testifying just after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted about plans to “flood” D.C. with National Guard—insisting that every move was above board. But Judge Charles R. Breyer suggested to all present that Hegseth's words may very well sway the decision, especially as the state warns this was only “the beginning,” with cities like Baltimore and Oakland on Trump's own shortlist for future troop deployments, and California demanding immediate, enforceable boundaries on the use of federal force in civilian cities.Meanwhile, these California proceedings are just the latest in an avalanche of legal challenges enveloping Trump. In fact, the Lawfare Litigation Tracker reports nearly 300 active cases challenging Trump administration executive actions—many dealing with national security or broad assertions of federal authority. Several judges over the summer ruled both for and against the federal government, and 14 Supreme Court orders have granted stays or vacated lower court decisions, underscoring that the legal battles are playing out at every judicial level.Speaking of the Supreme Court, just days ago, in Trump v. CASA, Inc., the justices weighed in on Trump's controversial executive order ending birthright citizenship. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, granted a partial stay on nationwide injunctions, sharply limiting lower courts' reach and only preventing enforcement in cases where plaintiffs had standing. While the government won an important tactical victory, three justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan—vocally dissented, warning that narrowing such injunctions left many at risk.Through it all, Trump and his officials mostly shrug off the court orders, pressing ahead with their agenda across the country. For the next two weeks, with more hearings set—like the August 26th showdown in the Thakur et al v. Trump case—Americans remain riveted, waiting to see not just how the courts will judge Trump's actions, but how those judgments might redefine the balance between executive authority and states' rights.Thanks for tuning in. Come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease.AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

It's been a wild week on the legal front for former President Donald Trump and his administration, bringing a cascade of courtroom drama that's anything but routine. Right now, no case seems more pivotal than the hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where all eleven judges—an extraordinary en banc session—are sizing up whether Trump actually had the authority to impose tariffs on foreign imports without Congress signing off. This stems from the consolidated lawsuits led by V.O.S. Selections and a coalition of twelve states, who claim the tariffs drowned their businesses in costs and snuffed out competition. Lawyers for both sides have traded blows, and judges appear skeptical of the administration's broad assertion of executive power. A permanent injunction has already blocked future tariffs, but Trump's team is fighting hard to overturn it, hoping the appeals court will side with the White House. The stakes here are sky-high, not just for trade policy but potentially for the limits of presidential power.Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, a lawsuit filed last Friday by a battalion of states accuses President Trump of unlawfully targeting gender-affirming care for minors, citing executive actions that closed clinics across California, New York, and Illinois. Hospitals are reportedly halting services in response to Trump's executive order. The coalition is challenging both the lawfulness and constitutionality of these actions, and the case has swept up top federal officials, including Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi.The legal frenzy doesn't stop there. The National Association of the Deaf is suing Trump for axing American Sign Language services during federal briefings. Their case in Washington, D.C. is making waves, demanding interpreters be restored and arguing that removing them violates disability rights and foundational First Amendment protections.Immigration has also burst onto center stage in California, with the Trump administration urgently petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn a federal judge's ban on immigration stops. The judge's order, handed down in Los Angeles, said agents can't detain people solely based on their race or the language they speak. At the core of the dispute is a massive sweep of undocumented immigrants from June, now dubbed the “largest Mass Deportation Operation” in history. Pro-immigrant groups rushed to court, arguing the raids trampled on Fourth Amendment protections. The government, for its part, insists these restrictions threaten immigration enforcement and is hoping the Supreme Court lifts the ban on these operations soon.And for those tracking every legal twist, the Trump Administration Litigation Tracker is following nearly 300 active cases across the nation, from executive orders on birthright citizenship to bans on DEIA initiatives. As rulings drop and appeals climb toward the highest courts, the next few weeks will be decisive.Thanks for tuning in. Join us again next week for more updates—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.ai

0:00 - DOGE staffer known as ‘Big Balls’ attacked in DC 6:28 - Ex-CNN correspondent Jim Acosta interviews AI avatar of deceased Parkland shooting victim 27:03 - Texas governor asks court to remove House Democratic leader from office over walkout 52:19 - FAFO parenting: is 'F*** Around and Find Out' the antidote to gentle parenting? 01:06:17 - Thomas Weitzel is the retired Chief of Police of Riverside. He joined Dan Proft with reaction to recent acts of violence against police officers. 01:26:40 - Stephen Moore is a Noted Economist and author of The Trump Economic Miracle: And the Plan to Unleash Prosperity Again – co authored with Art Laffer 01:45:56 - Richard Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Law, Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago. He joined Dan Proft to talk about Tariffs and Executive Power. 02:05:30 - Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics’ national political correspondent and co-author of Fool’s Gold: The Radicals, Con Artists, and Traitors Who Killed the California Dream and Now Threaten Us AllSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In just the past week, the legal battles swirling around Donald Trump have reached a new level of intensity, drawing the nation's attention back to a courthouse drama that seems never-ending. On July 23, the Supreme Court stepped in yet again—this time granting the Trump administration's emergency request for a stay in Trump v. Boyle. The decision, delivered without a full briefing or oral argument, reflected a split on the bench, with Justice Kagan writing in dissent. The outcome means the administration can press ahead with removing federal officials—part of a broader campaign by Trump's White House to reshape the executive branch and its agencies. This is happening as the judiciary weighs a surge of legal challenges, not just to Trump personally, but to the policies he's enacted since returning to office.Just before that, the Supreme Court handed down a blockbuster decision on July 9, clearing the way for President Trump to push forward with plans for dramatic reductions in the federal workforce. According to SCOTUSblog, this order lets agencies initiate what Trump described as “large-scale reductions in force”—RIFs—across government. The move came even as lower courts had temporarily blocked it, citing the risk of irreversible damage. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stood alone in her dissent, warning of “an apparently unprecedented and congressionally unsanctioned dismantling of the Federal Government.” Labor unions and advocacy groups vow to keep fighting the order in court, but for now, the Trump administration has the green light.Meanwhile, in New York, the repercussions of Trump's criminal conviction are still rippling outward. The New York Unified Court System's January 2025 audio and filings document the intensity of those final courtroom moments. There's an active appeals process challenging both the verdict and orders in the high-profile Manhattan case overseen by Judge Juan Merchan, as well as appeals stemming from the related Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg prosecution. Despite Trump's attempts to move proceedings to federal court and to dismiss charges on procedural grounds, those efforts have been repeatedly denied. The appeals now move forward on a consolidated docket, setting up a pivotal next chapter.On multiple fronts, Trump's team is locked in appellate battles not only over the handling of state cases but also the fallout from the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. After Justice Engoron's major summary judgment and subsequent damages order, both sides are set for a protracted fight in the Appellate Division, which could bring new revelations and risks for Trump's business empire.Layered atop all this is the stream of litigation documented by the Lawfare Litigation Tracker, which notes nearly 300 cases still winding their way through the courts—many challenging executive actions and personnel moves made in Trump's second term. Judges across the country are being asked to rule on the bounds of presidential discretion, the reach of federal courts, and the meaning of separation of powers, as the nation watches with no clear sense of when it all will settle.Thank you for tuning in and staying informed on these unprecedented court battles. Come back next week for more updates—this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease dot AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

On episode two of the new The Libertarian podcast, Richard Epstein talks to Charles C. W. Cooke about executive power. What does the Constitution say about it? How has it evolved? What space is there for executive discretion? Can the president fire everyone in his branch for whatever reason? Has Congress abdicated its responsibility?

On episode two of the new The Libertarian podcast, Richard Epstein talks to Charles C. W. Cooke about executive power. What does the Constitution say about it? How has it evolved? What space is there for executive discretion? Can the president fire everyone in his branch for whatever reason? Has Congress abdicated its responsibility?

The Federalist Papers, The Constitution and Supreme Court Wrap-Up 2024-2025 w/ Dorollo Nixon, Esq & Jesan Sorrells---00:00 Supreme Court's Role as Congressional Check09:44 "Executive Power and Accountability Debate"14:12 "U.S. Military Engagements: Then vs. Now"18:14 "Expanding Presidential Power Debate"24:47 Power Shifts in Digital Politics32:37 Judiciary's Role and Challenges34:01 Court Review: Judges Halting Exec Orders41:12 Hamilton's Dictator: Federalist 70 Insights49:52 Limits of Executive Action51:26 Judicial Rulings' Geographic Limits56:27 Originalism vs. Digital Future01:02:48 Youth Vote Shift Towards Socialism01:11:37 Supreme Court Law Limitations01:12:59 Constitutional Interpretation & 14th Amendment01:22:52 Critique of Unaccountable Governance01:23:50 "Dorollo Nixon Live Broadcast"---Opening and closing themes composed by Brian Sanyshyn of Brian Sanyshyn Music.---Pick up your copy of 12 Rules for Leaders: The Foundation of Intentional Leadership NOW on AMAZON!Check out the 2022 Leadership Lessons From the Great Books podcast reading list!--- ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ Subscribe to the Leadership Lessons From The Great Books Podcast: https://bit.ly/LLFTGBSubscribeCheck out HSCT Publishing at: https://www.hsctpublishing.com/.Check out LeadingKeys at: https://www.leadingkeys.com/Check out Leadership ToolBox at: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/Contact HSCT for more information at 1-833-216-8296 to schedule a full DEMO of LeadingKeys with one of our team members.---Leadership ToolBox website: https://leadershiptoolbox.us/.Leadership ToolBox LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ldrshptlbx/.Leadership ToolBox YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@leadershiptoolbox/videosLeadership ToolBox Twitter: https://twitter.com/ldrshptlbx.Leadership ToolBox IG: https://www.instagram.com/leadershiptoolboxus/.Leadership ToolBox FB: https://www.facebook.com/LdrshpTl

In this episode of Management Matters, host James-Christian Blockwood explores the evolving dynamics between the executive branch, Congress, and the judiciary with guests Yuval Levin of American Enterprise Institute and Academy Fellow Robert Shea of GovNavigators. The discussion delves into the (self-imposed) weakening role of Congress, the impact of expanding populism on public administration and the federal workforce, and the current and future roles of the judiciary in maintaining constitutional balance. 01:22 The Role of Congress in the Balance of Power06:16 Judicial Oversight and the Courts10:25 Federal Workforce and Accountability14:51 Populism and Government Criticism17:35 Opportunities for Government Reform21:25 Final Thoughts on Democratic Institutions

In this episode, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer discusses ongoing Republican-led investigations into Joe Biden’s mental fitness and the legitimacy of executive actions taken during his administration. Comer criticizes the partisan atmosphere in Congress, accuses Democrats of prioritizing opposition to Trump over substantive policy, and raises concerns about the use of autopen signatures on executive orders and pardons. He also highlights media bias in protecting Biden and expresses skepticism about Democratic cooperation in oversight efforts. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shannon Bream joins the Marc Cox Morning Show to discuss the ongoing House Oversight investigation into President Joe Biden and his inner circle, including Anthony Bernal's repeated Fifth Amendment refusals amid questions about Hunter Biden pardons and the controversial “auto pen.” Despite limited cooperation, the probe continues to dig for proof of unauthorized presidential actions. Bream also weighs in on the recent Supreme Court ruling affirming the president's broad authority to restructure federal jobs, emphasizing the legal nuance behind the decision. The conversation touches on the Epstein fallout and calls from GOP senators for greater transparency, as well as ongoing political battles over sanctuary cities. The segment captures the growing frustration over stalled investigations and questions about presidential fitness.

The National Constitution Center and the Center on the Structural Constitution at Texas A&M University School of Law present a U.S. Supreme Court review symposium featuring leading constitutional law scholars and commentators analyzing the Court's most significant rulings of the term. Panel 2: The Roberts Court and Executive PowerStephen Vladeck, Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Federal Courts, Georgetown University Law CenterDaniel Walters, associate professor of law, Texas A&M University School of LawKeith Whittington, David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolModerator: Neil Siegel, David W. Ichel Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science, Duke Law School 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

Roger welcomes Lord Daniel Hannan, a British writer, historian and member of the UK House of Lords, for a wide-ranging conversation on executive overreach, constitutional principles and the ideas that preserve liberty.They explore how power has steadily concentrated in the hands of presidents and prime ministers, weakening the roles of legislatures and citizens alike. They also reflect on what America borrowed and improved on from British political traditions through its written Constitution, and consider how both nations risk forgetting the foundations of their freedom. Other topics include the aftermath of Brexit, the future of free trade and why humility and historical awareness are essential for effective governance in the 21st century.Lord Daniel Hannan serves as international secretary of the Conservative Party, is the founding president of the Institute for Free Trade, a New York Times bestselling author and a former Conservative member of the European Parliament. He was also the keynote speaker this year at TFAS's annual Neal B. Freeman Lecture, which discusses the principles of a free society, free markets, personal responsibility and virtue.The Liberty + Leadership Podcast is hosted by TFAS president Roger Ream and produced by Podville Media. If you have a comment or question for the show, please email us at podcast@TFAS.org. To support TFAS and its mission, please visit TFAS.org/support.Support the show

In this episode, Dr. Nicole Bryan challenges the narrative that Black female introverts staying out of power is noble and emphasizes the importance of redefining success, embracing responsibility, and using power strategically to create meaningful change within corporate environments. The conversation highlights the psychological barriers that prevent women from stepping into leadership roles and encourages listeners to recognize their potential to transform the establishment from within._______LET'S CONNECT!*Reserve your seat today for the free session July 26th: “From Invisible to Invincible: Strategies for Black Introvert Women to Get Executive Promotions in Five Months or Less.” 

Project 2025 is reshaping the landscape of American governance in ways unseen for generations. Conceived by The Heritage Foundation and over a hundred allied conservative groups, with a sprawling document called “Mandate for Leadership” running over 900 pages, the project sets an ambitious course: consolidate executive power, overhaul federal agencies, and imprint a distinctly right-leaning ideology across the machinery of the state.The latest developments reveal sweeping changes since President Donald Trump's inauguration for his second term. With Elon Musk at the helm of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, implementation has not only started but moved at unanticipated speed and scale. Agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and USAID have been eliminated virtually overnight, mirroring the project's stated goal to "save $1 trillion" and rid the government of what its proponents call unaccountable bureaucracy. Tens of thousands of federal workers, including around 280,000 across 27 agencies, have been or are slated to be laid off, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. Agency leaders, especially in foreign policy, have been systematically replaced by ideologically vetted loyalists who, as one Project 2025 advisor put it, will "answer to the president" alone.One key feature of Project 2025 is the expansion of presidential powers. As Kevin Roberts of The Heritage Foundation declared, "all federal employees should answer to the president." The plan's architects rely on the controversial doctrine of “unitary executive theory,” giving the Oval Office greater leverage to direct previously independent agencies like the DOJ, FBI, FCC, and FTC. In practice, Biden- or Obama-era leaders have been removed, often bypassing Senate confirmation in favor of acting appointments drawn from the project's talent pool—a who's who of conservative legal scholars and former administration officials.Policy objectives are equally far-reaching. The executive order signed this February, for example, severely restricts federal hiring—agencies can now add just one new employee for every four who depart, with exceptions only for national security or law enforcement. By identifying redundant or statutorily nonessential agency components, DOGE is empowered to recommend consolidation or outright elimination, provoking intense legal and political battles. According to statements from union leaders such as NTEU's Tony Reardon, challenges are already underway: “We have taken the necessary action to file a lawsuit to uphold the law and stop this attack.” Simultaneously, the administration has pushed for return-to-office mandates, making remote work much less tenable for government employees.Project 2025's authors are explicit about their social agenda. The American Civil Liberties Union outlines how the blueprint would reverse decades of advancements on abortion rights, LGBTQ protections, and racial equity. The Mandate for Leadership contains provisions for undermining agency independence, tightening restrictions on civil service protections, and dismantling social safety net programs, all justified as aligning federal practice with conservative values.Concrete procedural reforms are visible in the State Department, where plans called for dismissing almost all leadership before January 2025 and installing those vetted for their ideological alignment with administration priorities. Kiron Skinner, who co-authored that chapter, rationalizes the overhaul as necessary because too many senior officials are “too left-wing” and insufficiently loyal to a conservative president. This, she believes, is essential to ensure agency cooperation with White House policy.Critics and analysts, from the ACLU to the Center for Progressive Reform, warn of “devastating consequences”—threats to workers, public health, civil rights, and the democratic process itself. Legal experts voice deep concern over the undermining of checks and balances and the risk of institutionalizing a more authoritarian model of executive power. Yet, for supporters, the project promises to make government leaner, more responsive, and ideologically coherent, echoing the Reagan-era ambitions of a smaller administrative state.In the weeks ahead, all eyes are on a series of forthcoming Supreme Court decisions that could determine the limits of this new presidential authority—and Congress's next moves as legislation is introduced to codify, or counteract, these transformative changes. As these milestones approach, the stakes for the federal workforce, the balance of power, and the country's democratic norms could not be higher.Thank you for tuning in, and be sure to join us next week for more insights on the forces shaping our nation's future.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

From April 12, 2019: Julian Mortenson, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, is the author of a remarkable new article entitled "Article II Vests Executive Power, Not the Royal Prerogative," forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review and available on SSRN.Recently, Benjamin Wittes spoke with the professor about the article, which Mortenson has been working on for years—as long as the two have known each other. The article explores the history of exactly three words of the U.S. Constitution—the first three words of Article II, to be precise: "the executive power."Huge claims about presidential power have rested on a conventional understanding of these three words. Julian argues that this conventional understanding is not just partially wrong, or mostly wrong, but completely wrong, as a matter of history. And, he tries to supplant it with a new understanding that he argues is actually a very old understanding of what those words mean.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.

Project 2025 represents a seismic attempt to reshape the machinery of American governance, guided by a philosophy that seeks to place virtually all executive power directly under presidential control. Initiated by the Heritage Foundation and an alliance of over a hundred conservative organizations, its centerpiece is the “Mandate for Leadership,” a massive policy playbook published in 2023 designed to act as the transition manual for a potential new administration following the 2024 election.At its core, Project 2025 seeks to “destroy the Administrative State,” meaning it aims to strip federal agencies of much of their independence and dismantle what its authors claim are layers of unaccountable and biased bureaucracy. Proponents, such as Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, argue that “all federal employees should answer to the president,” encapsulating the project's vision of a centralized, powerful executive branch. To achieve this, Project 2025 recommends the widespread dismissal of current senior officials across agencies like the Department of State—and their immediate replacement with individuals selected for their loyalty and ideological alignment, bypassing traditional Senate confirmation hurdles.One of the most controversial levers in the playbook is the resurrection of Schedule F, a proposed employment classification that would allow the president to convert career civil servants into at-will employees, stripping them of long-standing job protections. This maneuver would, according to its critics, allow the White House to purge thousands of nonpartisan officials and replace them with political loyalists—an approach described in detail by advocacy outlets and union leaders as a recipe for “political overreach or abuse of power."The document's scope spans 30 federal departments, each with a dedicated chapter and specific 180-day action plans—right down to pre-drafted executive orders waiting for a president's signature on inauguration day. Concrete proposals include eliminating entire agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and USAID, mass layoffs affecting hundreds of thousands of federal workers, and strict mandates requiring employees to return to office buildings, often ignoring remote work policies established during the pandemic. Since January 2025, the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has acted on this blueprint with remarkable speed, eliminating agencies and laying off more than 280,000 federal employees and contractors across 27 agencies in just a few months.In terms of social policy, Project 2025 is unmistakably ambitious. The playbook calls for aggressive curbs on abortion rights, restrictions on LGBTQ protections, and a reversal of progress regarding racial and immigrant rights. Critics such as the American Civil Liberties Union warn that these measures, if implemented, could erode civil liberties and tip the balance of American governance toward an “imperial presidency.” Legal scholars, as referenced by Wikipedia, raise alarms that this model risks undermining the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the independence of key regulatory and law enforcement bodies.Supporters, however, frame these moves as an overdue correction. Kiron Skinner, author of the State Department chapter, claims the agency is overrun by left-leaning officials and needs a leadership overhaul favoring those loyal to a conservative president, though she famously could not cite specific examples of deliberate obstruction during her tenure when pressed in a 2024 interview.The latest developments underscore both the swiftness and controversy with which Project 2025 is moving forward. President Trump's administration is already well underway in executing its most dramatic provisions, facing a slew of lawsuits from federal employee unions and advocacy groups. The legal and partisan battles that loom will determine whether this vision of governance—marked by centralization, sweeping personnel changes, and redefined federal agency missions—becomes a new American reality or stalls amid constitutional challenges and public resistance.Listeners, thank you for tuning in to this deep dive into Project 2025. Stay with us next week for more analysis and updates on the future of American governance.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 is setting the stage for a sweeping transformation of American governance, promising changes that could reshape the federal landscape for years to come. Backed by the Heritage Foundation and a coalition of conservative advocacy groups, this policy blueprint is designed to consolidate executive power and implement a far-reaching conservative agenda from the first day of a new presidential administration.Central to Project 2025 is its intent to dramatically expand presidential authority over the executive branch. According to project advocates, the goal is to “place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control,” which would eliminate the traditional independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, FBI, Federal Communications Commission, and Federal Trade Commission. “All federal employees should answer to the president,” declared Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, reflecting the project's belief in a unitary executive theory where the president wields unprecedented control over federal administration. This vision calls for mass dismissal of top federal employees and replacing them with ideologically aligned appointees, a process that circumvents the usual need for Senate confirmation and could reshape federal agencies overnight.A concrete example of this agenda has already unfolded in the first months of the current administration. The Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has been instrumental in executing proposals that have stunned even Project 2025's own architects. In rapid succession, agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board and USAID have been dismantled. Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. report that over 280,000 federal workers and contractors across 27 agencies have been laid off or are planned to be laid off, reflecting an unprecedented overhaul of the civil service. Return-to-office mandates have been paired with reductions in federal office space, complicating the lives and careers of hundreds of thousands of workers who had adapted to remote work during the pandemic.Project 2025's scope also extends to emergency management and disaster response. The plan calls for shifting FEMA's emergency preparedness and response costs overwhelmingly onto states and localities, with the federal government restricting its contribution to catastrophic events only. “FEMA is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt,” warns the Project 2025 blueprint. It also urges Congress to end federal preparedness grants, signaling a major reversal in longstanding disaster response policy.The plan proposes similar upheavals in the realm of public broadcasting, with investigations launched into National Public Radio and PBS and calls to reduce or eliminate federal funding for these institutions. In immigration and border security, Project 2025 recommends direct use of military personnel for arrest operations at the southern border—something not previously seen in U.S. policy—and a sharp reduction in refugee admissions.Criminal justice is another key battleground. The blueprint advises the Department of Justice to charge or remove elected local prosecutors who decline to pursue certain offenses, such as low-level marijuana or shoplifting cases. This unprecedented federal intervention would curtail local prosecutorial discretion and centralize decision-making in Washington. As the Brennan Center for Justice notes, this approach “would deter local prosecutors from using their discretion in making case-specific decisions, regardless of what policies they may have campaigned on.”Critics, from the American Civil Liberties Union to labor unions and public sector advocates, argue that these changes threaten civil liberties, the separation of powers, and the independence of federal employees. The ACLU contends that Project 2025 “is a federal policy agenda and blueprint for a radical restructuring of the executive branch,” warning that its implementation could erode longstanding civil rights and democratic norms.With executive actions rolling out across more than 20 federal agencies, as tracked by the Center for Progressive Reform, the debate over Project 2025's full impact is only just beginning. As milestones approach—the next round of agency reorganizations, legal challenges to mass layoffs, and pivotal congressional showdowns—the nation will be watching to see whether this vision for American government will ultimately endure or be checked by traditional safeguards.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 is more than a government reform blueprint; it's a sweeping bid to reshape the core of American governance. Developed by conservative think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 lays out hundreds of pages detailing how a future administration—under President Trump, as recent events have confirmed—could consolidate executive power, overhaul federal agencies, and redefine the federal-state relationship.According to project documents, a foundational goal is to place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. The plan would strip independence from agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, and regulatory bodies such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation stated that all federal employees should answer to the president, echoing the controversial unitary executive theory. This vision, bolstered by recent Supreme Court decisions, would make the White House the undisputed command center of federal authority.Concrete examples of this approach are already being seen. Project 2025 proposes that all senior State Department employees should be dismissed before January 2025, replaced with ideologically vetted appointees who could bypass Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, a former Trump administration official involved in the project, argues that most current State Department staff are too left-leaning for this new vision, though she couldn't cite a specific case of obstruction. This move signals a dramatic preference for loyalty over traditional expertise.Agency reforms and cutbacks are a central theme. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the U.S. Agency for International Development have been eliminated in the early months of Trump's second term, according to reporting from GovExec. Similarly, plans are underway to lay off over a quarter million federal workers and contractors across 27 agencies—part of a claimed $1 trillion in savings.Disaster response policy would see radical change as well. Project 2025 calls for a wholesale overhaul of FEMA's funding structure. The federal government would step back, covering only 25% of costs for smaller disasters and up to 75% for the most catastrophic events, compared to the current baseline of 75% minimum coverage. The project's authors argue FEMA is “overtasked” and advocate for ending all preparedness grants to states and localities. “DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated,” state the project's recommendations.Other cultural and political flashpoints are also targeted. Brendan Carr, the FCC's head, announced investigations into NPR and PBS, questioning the content aired on their more than 1,500 member stations. According to The New York Times, this reflects Project 2025's skepticism toward publicly funded media.Criminal justice is slated for a dramatic pivot, too. The Brennan Center for Justice notes that Project 2025 proposes allowing the Department of Justice to charge or even remove local prosecutors who decline to pursue certain offenses, such as low-level marijuana possession or shoplifting. The authors argue this would address so-called “rule of law deficiencies,” but critics warn it could stifle local discretion and turn every district attorney into a policy subordinate of the federal government. For example, progressive prosecutors who favor treatment over incarceration for minor offenders would be at risk of losing their jobs under this policy approach.These proposed shifts, both sweeping and granular, have sparked fierce debate. Supporters argue Project 2025 will bring efficiency, accountability, and ideological consistency to Washington. Detractors warn of executive overreach, lost expertise, and risks to the fabric of American federalism. As one Heritage Foundation executive called it, the project is about using the machinery of government “to drive conservative change at every level.”The next key milestones are imminent. With the administration rapidly implementing pieces of the Project 2025 playbook, forthcoming legal challenges and agency restructurings will test both the feasibility and the resiliency of the current checks and balances. Observers across the political spectrum are watching closely: the fate of Project 2025's ambitions will shape not just policy, but the very structure of American democracy.Thank you for tuning in, and be sure to come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Scott Jagow talks with political analyst John Hancock about the potential policy landscape of a second Trump term. The conversation focuses on a predicted "mega bill" that could include deep cuts to federal Medicaid funding, threatening healthcare coverage for up to 18 million Americans. They also explore the debate over birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment, including possible legal challenges and how the Supreme Court might respond. Finally, the segment addresses the growing concerns over presidential authority and the role of the courts as the primary check on executive power.

Indira Gandhi did not need to introduce new laws to give the Emergency teeth; such provisions already existed.  

UNLOCKED episode: Glenn answers questions from our Locals community on war with Iran, executive power, the Trump administration, and more.  Join our Locals community to submit questions to this weekly segment here! ------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook  

In this thought-provoking episode of The Andrew Parker Show, Andrew sits down with Justice Barry Anderson, a recently retired Minnesota Supreme Court justice with over 20 years of service on the bench. Justice Anderson, a distinguished legal mind, reflects on the rule of law, its evolution, and the role it plays in shaping American society.They dive deep into the American legal tradition, contrasting it with ancient legal systems, and explore how the rule of law in the U.S. is rooted in a bottom-up approach rather than top-down governance. Justice Anderson shares insights from his time on the Minnesota Supreme Court, offering listeners a rare glimpse behind the scenes of the highest court in the state.From discussions on the First Amendment and religious liberty to the intersection of executive and judicial powers, this episode is packed with valuable lessons on constitutional principles and their real-world implications. Tune in as Andrew and Justice Anderson discuss the importance of historical context in understanding today's legal battles, including issues surrounding immigration, government overreach, and the evolving role of the administrative state.This conversation is a must-listen for those passionate about understanding the rule of law, its challenges, and its significance in our democracy.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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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