Podcast appearances and mentions of John Yoo

1912 WILLIAM JENNINGS  RBYAN SPEECHAnatol Lieven examines Europe's missing voice in Kremlin negotiations, highlighting hurdles like sanctions relief and Russia's demand for Ukrainian withdrawal from the contested Donbass territory. 1.Anatol Lieven questions the lack of a clear strategy for US naval fleets near Iran, hoping for diplomatic compromise and economic opening rather than war. 2.Arthur Herman contrasts the Scottish Enlightenment's focus on liberty with the French "general will," arguing that collectivism historically descends into state violence and tyranny. 3.Arthur Herman argues that the American worldview rests on three Scottish pillars: unity of knowledge, common sense, and the harmonious integration of modern scientific discovery with ancient religious revelation. 4.John Yoo reports that in a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the IEEPA does not grant the president power to impose universal tariffs without explicit Congressional authorization. 5.John Yoo argues that the tariff ruling proves the Court is not a partisan tool, but an independent body upholding constitutional boundaries and judicial ideology. 6.Mary Anastasia O'Grady describes Cuba's regime reaching its limits, discussing the difficulty of replacing the leadership without causing total societal chaos, looting, or a power vacuum. 7.Doug Messier reports that persistent thruster failures and engineering incompetence have marred Boeing's Starlinerprogram, leaving astronauts marooned and NASA heavily dependent on SpaceX for crewed orbital missions. 8.Professor Evan Ellis reports that the death of kingpin Nemesio Cervantes triggered nationwide gunplay and roadblocks in Mexico, highlighting cartel dominance and the personal nature of the security forces' fight. 9.Professor Evan Ellis reports that a deadly clash between Cuban forces and an American speedboat underscores the island's dire economic crisis and massive blackouts caused by severe, ongoing petroleum shortages. 10.Professor Evan Ellis reports that the US allows Venezuelan oil resale to Cuba's private sector to empower citizens, while Nicolas Maduro faces criminal proceedings in a formal New York courtroom. 11.Professor Evan Ellis reports that constant leadership turnover in Peru complicates governance, raising fears that China's Chancay port could serve military logistics for the People's Liberation Army during wartime. 12.Josiah Hesse explores Mason City's religious history, linking the Music Man allegory to the Scopes trial and traveling preachers who exploited regional evangelical fervor. 13.Josiah Hesse describes his parents' journey through the apocalyptic 1970s Jesus movement into a prosperity gospel church that resulted in extreme poverty and financial disillusionment. 14.Josiah Hesse reports that Paul Weyrich used abortion as a wedge issue to mobilize evangelical voters, successfully aligning Iowa's religious community with the Republican Party during Reagan's campaign. 15.Josiah Hesse recounts the psychological fear of his religious upbringing while observing how Donald Trump's populism continues to resonate deeply with modern Iowa evangelical voters. 16.

John Yoo reports that in a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the IEEPA does not grant the president power to impose universal tariffs without explicit Congressional authorization. 5.1888 SCOTUS

John Yoo argues that the tariff ruling proves the Court is not a partisan tool, but an independent body upholding constitutional boundaries and judicial ideology. 6.1889 SCOTUS

Was the Supreme Court's tariff case Friday a no-lose case for conservatives, as Steve argues in this fast-paced episode, or a serious setback for President Trump? We were just surprised John Yoo had any voice left at all to break it down for us after being on call throughout the day for Fox News, but […]

Was the Supreme Court's tariff case Friday a no-lose case for conservatives, as Steve argues in this fast-paced episode, or a serious setback for President Trump? We were just surprised John Yoo had any voice left at all to break it down for us after being on call throughout the day for Fox News, but he saved his best for us. Hint: The fact that the three liberals on the Court wrote concurring opinions disagreeing with Chief Justice Roberts's reasoning behind the decision suggests some useful mischief at work in the decision. The second half of this episode turns briefly to whether the "vibe shift" against wokism is really taking place, with caveats about whether it will survive Trump's presidency, or be reversed by the next Democrat who lies their way into the White House. Not only is the Wokerati engaging in "massive resistance" to steps to end government-sponsored racism and human nature-denying trans-axels, but some Democrats are darkly threatening retribution for people and institutions that are abandoning DEI and other wokist totems right now.

Steve Moore and legal expert John Yoo discuss a landmark Supreme Court ruling that restricted the executive branch's ability to impose universal trade barriers. The conversation highlights the fundamental principle that the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to levy taxes and tariffs, a responsibility the court ruled cannot be bypassed using broad national emergency statutes. While the President may exercise delegated authority for specific security threats, the speakers explain that the court rejected the use of "emergency" labels to justify unilateral economic control without explicit legislative permission.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Justice Scalia and the Unitary Executive Theory. Reflecting on Justice Antonin Scalia's legacy, Professor John Yoodetails the concept of the unitary executive. Scalia powerfully argued that the Constitution vests all executive power directly in the president, warning that independent agencies fragment federal authority, diminish democratic accountability, and disrupt the essential separation of powers. #151910 BOOK OF MINES

The Supreme Court's Threat to Independent Agencies. Analyzing upcoming Supreme Court cases, John Yoopredicts the potential overturning of the historic Humphrey's Executor precedent. Such a ruling would fundamentally dismantle the protections shielding independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission from direct presidential control, sparking a massive structural revolution within the federal government's executive branch. #161930 ROYAL AGRICULTURAL WINTER FAIR

Preview for later today. Professor John Yoo of Berkeley Law explores Justice Scalia's legacy, emphasizing his defense of the unitary executive and belief that clear, predictable laws should govern independent federal agencies.1889 SCOTUS

Professor John Yoo cites Hamilton to argue the president is constitutionally designed to act decisively against hemispheric threats like Venezuela, while Congress retains control over funding military operations.1903

Professor John Yoo of Berkeley Law compares actions against Venezuela to Jefferson's Barbary pirate war, arguing the executive has broad authority to initiate conflict without prior congressional approval.1820 JEFFERSON AND FRANKLIN

The world's biggest tech companies are facing their greatest legal and political challenges since their inception. Opening statements are expected to start early next week in a Los Angeles courtroom for what is being called a landmark social media trial. Meta and Google are being sued by a 19-year-old plaintiff, known as K.G.M., who alleges that Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and others are intentionally designed to be addictive. She claims the use of these platforms caused her profound harm—including anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. TikTok and Snapchat were also sued but have since settled the claims against them. Google and Meta deny these allegations. They argue there is no connection between their technology and addiction. There is a lot at stake; this is just the first case that could eventually affect more than a thousand other claims. A class action involving approximately 1,600 plaintiffs with similar claims is pending. Meanwhile, in Washington, a bipartisan push is growing to reform Section 230 protections for Big Tech. The law currently shields social media companies from liability regarding user-generated content. John Yoo—former Deputy Assistant Attorney General and current law professor at UC Berkeley—joins FOX Business Network's Lydia Hu to discuss the high stakes for Big Tech as they are caught in the legal crosshairs and face increasing political pressure. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The world's biggest tech companies are facing their greatest legal and political challenges since their inception. Opening statements are expected to start early next week in a Los Angeles courtroom for what is being called a landmark social media trial. Meta and Google are being sued by a 19-year-old plaintiff, known as K.G.M., who alleges that Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and others are intentionally designed to be addictive. She claims the use of these platforms caused her profound harm—including anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. TikTok and Snapchat were also sued but have since settled the claims against them. Google and Meta deny these allegations. They argue there is no connection between their technology and addiction. There is a lot at stake; this is just the first case that could eventually affect more than a thousand other claims. A class action involving approximately 1,600 plaintiffs with similar claims is pending. Meanwhile, in Washington, a bipartisan push is growing to reform Section 230 protections for Big Tech. The law currently shields social media companies from liability regarding user-generated content. John Yoo—former Deputy Assistant Attorney General and current law professor at UC Berkeley—joins FOX Business Network's Lydia Hu to discuss the high stakes for Big Tech as they are caught in the legal crosshairs and face increasing political pressure. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The world's biggest tech companies are facing their greatest legal and political challenges since their inception. Opening statements are expected to start early next week in a Los Angeles courtroom for what is being called a landmark social media trial. Meta and Google are being sued by a 19-year-old plaintiff, known as K.G.M., who alleges that Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and others are intentionally designed to be addictive. She claims the use of these platforms caused her profound harm—including anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts. TikTok and Snapchat were also sued but have since settled the claims against them. Google and Meta deny these allegations. They argue there is no connection between their technology and addiction. There is a lot at stake; this is just the first case that could eventually affect more than a thousand other claims. A class action involving approximately 1,600 plaintiffs with similar claims is pending. Meanwhile, in Washington, a bipartisan push is growing to reform Section 230 protections for Big Tech. The law currently shields social media companies from liability regarding user-generated content. John Yoo—former Deputy Assistant Attorney General and current law professor at UC Berkeley—joins FOX Business Network's Lydia Hu to discuss the high stakes for Big Tech as they are caught in the legal crosshairs and face increasing political pressure. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A lot of interesting legal questions this week for rotating host John Yoo, and we don't even get through all of them (can you believe Lucretia actually passed up the chance to dunk on her “favorite” Justice KBJ for this week's embarrassment at the Court), because we move directly to the question of whether Gov. […]

A lot of interesting legal questions this week for rotating host John Yoo, and we don't even get through all of them (can you believe Lucretia actually passed up the chance to dunk on her "favorite" Justice KBJ for this week's embarrassment at the Court), because we move directly to the question of whether Gov. Spanberger and Virginia are a canary in a coal mine of a Progressive mine-shaft explosion. Holy-moly!And Steve thinks it isn't too soon to begin thinking about what "New Right 5.0" after Trump is going to look like.Exit music today from Cosigner, which we are thinking of making the official bumper music band for the 3WHH, since the lead singer and motive force of the band is a certified conservative and listener to this podcast. Let us know if you approve.

Can a U.S. president buy — or even invade — Greenland? Can he tear up treaties, fire a member of the Federal Reserve, and still stay within the Constitution? And who actually decides what “fairness” means in women's sports?In this wide-ranging Law Talk episode, Richard Epstein, John Yoo, and Charles C.W. Cooke debate Trump's Greenland gambit, the limits of presidential war powers, treaty termination, NATO, transgender athletes and Title IX, Hawaii's attempt to criminalize gun carry on private property, and whether the Supreme Court is about to blink when it comes to the independence of the Federal Reserve.Then, what starts out as a theoretical discussion quickly turns into a no-holds-barred debate about the unitary executive, impeachment, property rights, constitutional “prescription,” and whether modern government is compatible with the Constitution as written. Buckle up.

Can a U.S. president buy — or even invade — Greenland? Can he tear up treaties, fire a member of the Federal Reserve, and still stay within the Constitution? And who actually decides what “fairness” means in women's sports?In this wide-ranging Law Talk episode, Richard Epstein, John Yoo, and Charles C.W. Cooke debate Trump's Greenland gambit, the […]

Can a U.S. president buy — or even invade — Greenland? Can he tear up treaties, fire a member of the Federal Reserve, and still stay within the Constitution? And who actually decides what “fairness” means in women's sports?In this wide-ranging Law Talk episode, Richard Epstein, John Yoo, and Charles C.W. Cooke debate Trump's Greenland gambit, the limits of presidential war powers, treaty termination, NATO, transgender athletes and Title IX, Hawaii's attempt to criminalize gun carry on private property, and whether the Supreme Court is about to blink when it comes to the independence of the Federal Reserve.Then, what starts out as a theoretical discussion quickly turns into a no-holds-barred debate about the unitary executive, impeachment, property rights, constitutional “prescription,” and whether modern government is compatible with the Constitution as written. Buckle up.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 3: 5:00pm- John Yoo—The Emanuel Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his latest article for National Review, “The Trump Administration's Actions in Venezuela Are Constitutional.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nationalreview.com/2026/01/the-trump-administrations-actions-in-venezuela-are-constitutional/. 5:30pm- Rich's BIG announcement: Beginning next week, The Rich Zeoli Show will take on a new form! The show will become a one-hour, nationally focused podcast which can be heard locally on 1210 WPHT from 6pm to 7pm!

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We tried an experiment this week—livestreaming the taping of this week's episode on Steve's ‘Political Questions” Substack.  We think it was a success even though Steve's camera froze up several times along the way. John Yoo hosts this first episode of the year, which is devoted entirely to understanding and critiquing “post-liberalism,” currently one of […]

We tried an experiment this week—livestreaming the taping of this week's episode on Steve's 'Political Questions" Substack.  We think is was a success even though Steve's camera froze up several times along the way. John Yoo hosts this first episode of the year, which is devoted entirely to understanding and critiquing "post-liberalism," currently one of the hottest new things going on the right today. (John makes reference to one of our live clashes with a leading post-liberal, which Steve wrote up here.)Attacks on the classical liberalism of the American Founding are not new from the left—Marx hated John Locke perhaps above all others except perhaps Adam Smith—and there have always been conservative critics of Lockean liberalism, starting with Edmund Burke back in the 1790, but also like Leo Strauss whose famous short phrase was that materialism Lockeanism would devolve into "a joyless quest for joy." This is an urgent and relevant question as we move toward the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence mid-year, and while we expect the 1619 Project left will be out in force attacking the Declaration for the usual stupid reasons, we'll also have to content with some on the right attacking it for reasons that may have a more plausible basis, but which we think are confused—when they are not wrong.This is merely the first episode of the podcast this year that will be devoted to various aspects and controveries about the founding that will surely erupt over the next six months.  Strap in!

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

15. Trump's Security Strategy: Homeland Defense Lacks Global Clarity. John Yoo praises the strategy's focus on homeland defense and the Western Hemisphere, reviving a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. However, he criticizes the failure to explicitly name China as an adversary or define clear goals for defending allies in Asia and Europe against great power rivals. 1770 FIVE VIEWS OF NY ENTRANCEC

 16. Alienating Allies: The Strategic Cost of Attacking European Partners. John Yoo argues that imposing tariffs and attacking democratic European allies undermines the coalition needed to counter China and Russia. He asserts that democracies are the most reliable partners for protecting American security and values, making cooperation essential despite resource constraints and political disagreements. 1850 FRANKLIN

SHOW 12-22-25 THE SHOW BEGINS WITH DOUBTS ABOUT FUTURE NAVY. 1941 HICKAM FIELD 1. Restoring Naval Autonomy: Arguments for Separating the Navy from DoD. Tom Modly argues the Navy is an "underperforming asset" within the Defense Department's corporate structure, similar to how Fiat Chrysler successfully spun off Ferrari. He suggests the Navy needs independence to address critical shipbuilding deficits and better protect global commerce and vulnerable undersea cables from adversaries. 2. Future Fleets: Decentralizing Firepower to Counter Chinese Growth. Tom Modly warns that China's shipbuilding capacity vastly outpaces the US, requiring a shift toward distributed forces rather than expensive, concentrated platforms. He advocates for a reinvigorated, independent Department of the Navy to foster the creativity needed to address asymmetric threats like Houthi attacks on high-value assets. 3. British Weakness: The Failure to Challenge Beijing Over Jimmy Lai. Mark Simon predicts Prime Minister Starmer will fail to secure Jimmy Lai's release because the UK mistakenly views China as an economic savior. He notes the UK's diminished military and economic leverage leads to a submissive diplomatic stance, despite China'sdeclining ability to offer investment. 4. Enforcing Sanctions: Interdicting the Shadow Fleet to Squeeze China. Victoria Coates details the Trump administration's enforcement of a "Monroe Doctrine" corollary, using naval power to seize tankers carrying Venezuelan oil to China. This strategy exposes China's lack of maritime projection and energy vulnerability, as Beijingcannot legally contest the seizures of illicit shadow fleet vessels. 5. Symbolic Strikes: US and Jordan Target Resurgent ISIS in Syria. Following an attack on US personnel, the US and Jordan conducted airstrikes against ISIS strongholds, likely with Syrian regime consultation. Ahmed Sharawi questions the efficacy of striking desert warehouses when ISIS cells have moved into urban areas, suggesting the strikes were primarily symbolic domestic messaging. 6. Failure to Disarm: Hezbollah's Persistence and UNIFIL's Inefficacy. David Daoud reports that the Lebanesegovernment is failing to disarm Hezbollah south of the Litani River, merely evicting them from abandoned sites. He argues UNIFIL is an ineffective tripwire, as Hezbollah continues to rebuild infrastructure and receive funding right under international observers' noses. 7. Global Jihad: The Distinct Threats of the Brotherhood and ISIS. Edmund Fitton-Brown contrasts the Muslim Brotherhood's long-term infiltration of Western institutions with ISIS's violent, reckless approach. He warns that ISISremains viable, with recent facilitated attacks in Australia indicating a resurgence in capability beyond simple "inspired" violence. 8. The Forever War: Jihadist Patience vs. American Cycles. Bill Roggio argues the US has failed to defeat jihadist ideology or funding, allowing groups like Al-Qaeda to persist in Afghanistan and Africa. He warns that adversaries view American withdrawals as proof of untrustworthiness, exploiting the US tendency to fight short-term wars against enemies planning for decades. 9. The Professional: Von Steuben's Transformation of the Continental Army. Richard Bell introduces Baron von Steuben as a desperate, unemployed Prussian officer who professionalized the ragtag Continental Army at Valley Forge. Washington's hiring of foreign experts like Steuben demonstrated a strategic willingness to utilize global talent to ensure the revolution's survival. 10. Privateers and Prison Ships: The Unsung Cost of Maritime Independence. Richard Bell highlights the crucial role of privateers like William Russell, who raided British shipping when the Continental Navy was weak. Captured privateers faced horrific conditions in British "black hole" facilities like Mill Prison and the deadly prison ship Jersey in New York Harbor, where mortality rates reached 50%. 11. Caught in the Crossfire: Indigenous Struggles in the Revolutionary War. Molly Brant, a Mohawk leader, allied with the British to stop settler encroachment but became a refugee when the British failed to protect Indigenous lands. Post-war, white Americans constructed myths portraying themselves as blameless victims while ignoring their own Indigenous allies and British betrayals regarding land rights. 12. The Irish Dimension: Revolutionary Hopes and Brutal Repression. The Irish viewed the American Revolutionas a signal that the British Empire was vulnerable, sparking the failed 1798 Irish rebellion. While the British suppressed Irish independence brutally under Cornwallis, Irish immigrants and Scots-Irish settlers like Andrew Jackson fervently supported the Continental Army against the Crown. 13. Assessing Battlefield Realities: Russian Deceit and Ukrainian Counterattacks. John Hardie analyzes the "culture of deceit" within the Russian military, exemplified by false claims of capturing Kupyansk while Ukraine actually counterattacked. This systemic lying leads to overconfidence in Putin's strategy, though Ukraine also faces challenges with commanders hesitating to report lost positions to avoid forced counterattacks. 14. Shifts in Latin America: Brazilian Elections and Venezuelan Hope. Ernesto Araujo and Alejandro Peña Esclusapredict a 2026 battle between socialist accommodation and freedom-oriented transformation in Brazil, highlighted by Flavio Bolsonaro's candidacy against Lula. Meanwhile, Peña Esclusa anticipates Venezuela's liberation and a broader regional shift toward the right following leftist defeats in Ecuador, Argentina, and Chile. 15. Trump's Security Strategy: Homeland Defense Lacks Global Clarity. John Yoo praises the strategy's focus on homeland defense and the Western Hemisphere, reviving a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. However, he criticizes the failure to explicitly name China as an adversary or define clear goals for defending allies in Asia and Europe against great power rivals. 16. Alienating Allies: The Strategic Cost of Attacking European Partners. John Yoo argues that imposing tariffs and attacking democratic European allies undermines the coalition needed to counter China and Russia. He asserts that democracies are the most reliable partners for protecting American security and values, making cooperation essential despite resource constraints and political disagreements.

PREVIEW Guest: Professor John Yoo Summary: Professor Yoo supports a national security strategy that prioritizes the Western Hemisphere and homeland defense over conflicts in Europe or the Middle East. He argues that US leadership has overlooked vital economic ties with South America, Mexico, and Canada, and must return to these foundational security principles. 1876 BOLIVAR AT CARACAS

It's conspiracy theory week at the 3WHH, as host John Yoo guides us through the mysteries of the shootings at Brown University and MIT, the mystery of why an article about the corruption of the DEI world should suddenly go viral just now, what conspiracy theory could explain why White House chief of staff Susie Wiles […]

It's conspiracy theory week at the 3WHH, as host John Yoo guides us through the mysteries of the shootings at Brown University and MIT, the mystery of why an article about the corruption of the DEI world should suddenly go viral just now, what conspiracy theory could explain why White House chief of staff Susie Wiles would call VP Vance a "conspiracy theorist" (among other things), and last but not least, how Candace Owens stole Lucretia's tin foil hat right out from under her nose! After all this, we expect Santa will be delivering fancy new tin foil hats to us next week.

It's the usual brawl at the bar with the three barflies of the Three Whisky Happy Hour, where we take note of Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson sayiing the quiet (progressive) part out loud, likely flattered by the New York Review of Books recently saying of her: "Ketanji Brown Jackson is proving to be the sharpest justice on the Supreme Court." (No, seriously—they really printed that sentence.) But did she really just give away the whole anti-democratic impulse of progressives? It looks like she did.We actually agree that Humphrey's Executor is going to get executed because Slaughter (the party to the case against Trump) ha set it up for the slaughter.Speaking of slaughtering, we get around to celebrating the seasonal apperance of the McRib, but not before reviewing how his bears on John Yoo's favorite constitutional doctrine, the 'unitary executive,' and we take a brief tour to argue over some of the fine points of the Dred Scott case. Because whisky will do that to you.

1 - Can some of the liberal pundits on Fox News fight back? Would Dom have them on his show? Returning to the issue of destroying drug boats off of South American countries. Should we be able to do it? Your calls. 120 - Why are the same people vocal about Trump's drone strikes when they were silent for Obama's 540? Your calls. 135 - Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Civic Leadership at University of Texas at Austin, John Yoo joins us today. How bad are the Eagles looking right now? How bad of a look is it to throw snowballs at the offensive coordinator's house? Are these drone strikes against South American drug cartels legal? Does it compare to what the Bush administration was doing? Where is the line between protection and war? Is the latest incident going to cost people their jobs or prosecution? Does this compare with the Bush administration sending prisoners to Gitmo? Can the Eagles beat the Chargers? 150 - Pete Hegseth speaks to reporters as the hour comes to an end. Why does he call out the media for talking about something that they knew nothing about.

12 - We kick off Tuesday with everyone's favorite CNN pundit, Scott Jennings! Why has he drawn the ire of Catherine Zeta-Jones and her “old” husband? What was something Scott was thankful for? What was interviewing Elon Musk like? Is there trouble within the Republican Party? Why do we have to forcefully debate and push back on name calling on words like “nazi”? 1215 - Side - associated with Appalchia 1220 - Does the US have an assimilation problem? What should be done about groups exploiting our government? 1230 - Should we be allowed to torture? Why the sudden change? Your calls. 1240 - Why do some of our leaders hate our country so much? 1250 - Dom's thoughts to end the hour. 1 - Can some of the liberal pundits on Fox News fight back? Would Dom have them on his show? Returning to the issue of destroying drug boats off of South American countries. Should we be able to do it? Your calls. 120 - Why are the same people vocal about Trump's drone strikes when they were silent for Obama's 540? Your calls. 135 - Distinguished Visiting Professor, School of Civic Leadership at University of Texas at Austin, John Yoo joins us today. How bad are the Eagles looking right now? How bad of a look is it to throw snowballs at the offensive coordinator's house? Are these drone strikes against South American drug cartels legal? Does it compare to what the Bush administration was doing? Where is the line between protection and war? Is the latest incident going to cost people their jobs or prosecution? Does this compare with the Bush administration sending prisoners to Gitmo? Can the Eagles beat the Chargers? 150 - Pete Hegseth speaks to reporters as the hour comes to an end. Why does he call out the media for talking about something that they knew nothing about. 2 - We continue with the discussion on drone strikes on drug boats off of South America. 205 - Why do interviewers never press their guests on their shows? 210 - What is Mark Kelly telling our soldiers exactly? Your calls. 235 - What the hell was the point of Real ID if you can just bypass it now for a fee? 240 - We re-listen to Dom's interview with Scott Jennings. Your calls. 250 - The Lightning Round!

Between the pardoned turkeys and those running loose on Capitol Hill, controversy over insubordination and sedition seem to be on the menu this holiday. The six Democrats who posted a video addressed to service members sowed chaos and confusion about the proper chain of command and lawful military orders. It is crucial to understand the constitutional framework that distinguish lawful military action, legislative and executive powers, crime, and war. In today's politics, rhetoric can make it difficult to discern the line between war and crime. John Yoo reminds us that not everything that harms society constitutes a war or justifies the use of military tools. That being said, where is the line drawn, and who draws it? And what is the proper role for members of Congress?John Yoo is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. Professor Yoo has served in all three branches of government. He was an official in the U.S. Department of Justice, where he worked on national security and terrorism issues after the 9/11 attacks. He served as general counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. He has been a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and federal appeals Judge Laurence Silberman. Professor Yoo has published almost 100 scholarly articles on subjects including national security, constitutional law, international law, and the Supreme Court. Professor Yoo's latest book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Supreme Court. Read the transcript here.Subscribe to our Substack here.

The long-awaited originalism debate is finally here! Charles C.W. Cooke, Richard Epstein and John Yoo argue the meaning and limits of originalism, how constitutional text should be interpreted, whether long-standing practices can override original meaning, and where modern doctrines—from Article I courts to immigration policy—fit within the founding framework. It's a spirited, clear, and tightly argued conversation about how the Constitution should function today.

The long-awaited originalism debate is finally here! Charles C.W. Cooke, Richard Epstein and John Yoo argue the meaning and limits of originalism, how constitutional text should be interpreted, whether long-standing practices can override original meaning, and where modern doctrines—from Article I courts to immigration policy—fit within the founding framework. It's a spirited, clear, and tightly argued conversation about how the Constitution should function today.

Rob Long and John Yoo are reunited with James to serve up some laughs as they sift through some unpleasant truths that many of us would prefer to ignore. The trio yawns at the conclusion of the record-long government shutdown but sees plenty to worry about in its resuming business as usual; considers some elementary underpinnings of the affordability problem; John Yoo takes a barrage of questions on the SCOTUS term and presidential war powers; and Brother Rob takes us out with some thoughts on walking one's path even in tough times.Sound from this week's opening: The House adopts the Senate's plan to reopen the government and Sen. rand Paul talks the deficit on NewsMax2

Rob Long and John Yoo are reunited with their pal James Lileks to serve up some laughs as they sift through some unpleasant truths that many of us would prefer to ignore. The trio yawns at the conclusion of the record-long government shutdown but sees plenty to worry about in its resuming business as usual; […]

Today on the show, Fareed speaks with constitutional scholars Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School, and John Yoo, a former Justice Department Official in the George W. Bush administration, about the challenge against President Trump's sweeping tariffs in the Supreme Court this week, and what may happen if the Court rules the tariffs unlawful.Then, New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin, author of the new book “1929", sits down with Fareed to discuss what preceded the Great Depression—and if we are headed for a similar stock market crash.Finally, CNN anchor Bianna Golodryga and Israeli journalist Yonit Levi join the show for a conversation about their new novel for young readers, “Don't Feed the Lion” and how to address the rise of antisemitism in the US and around the world.GUESTS: Noah Feldman (@NoahRFeldman); John Yoo; Andrew Ross Sorkin (@andrewrsorkin); Bianna Golodryga (@biannagolodryga); Yonit Levi (@LeviYonit) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, Samuel Estreicher of the NYU School of Law and John Yoo of the UC Berkeley School of Law join to recap the oral arguments from the pair of challenges to President Trump's tariffs and discuss whether International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the president to impose extensive tariffs on nearly all goods imported into the United States. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.     Resources  Samuel Estreicher et al., “Brief of Professors of Administrative Law, Separation of Powers, Foreign Relations Law, Legislation and the Regulatory State, and Trade Law” (10/24/2025)  Sam Estreicher and Andrew Babbit, “The Case Against Unbounded Delegation in Trump v. VOS Selections,” Lawfare (10/30/2025) John Yoo, “What Could the Supreme Court Rule About Trump's Tariffs,” Civitas Institute (9/8/2025)  Biden v. Nebraska (2023)  Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc. (2001)  Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981) Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1953)  United States v. Yoshida International, Inc. (CCPA, 1975) United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936) Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935)    In our new podcast, Pursuit: The Founders' to Guide to Happiness Jeffrey Rosen explores the founders' lives with the historians who know them best. Plus, filmmaker Ken Burns shares his daily practice of self-reflection.    Listen to episodes of Pursuit on Apple Podcast and Spotify.  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Explore the⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠America at 250 Civic Toolkit⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠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

The Constitutional Authority to Deploy National Guard to Protect Federal Facilities Guest: Professor John Yoo Professor John Yoo discusses the President's inherent constitutional authority to use the National Guard to protect federal property and personnel during city disorder. Drawing on the In re Neagle case from 1890, Yoo confirms the federal government's right to use force to execute its functions on American soil. He argues that governors opposing deployment are resisting federal law enforcement, akin to segregationists resisting integration. Yoo clarifies that states can adopt "sanctuary" policies by choosing not to cooperate with federal law, but they cannot constitutionally impede federal agents from carrying out their duties.

The Constitutional Authority to Deploy National Guard to Protect Federal Facilities Guest: Professor John Yoo Professor John Yoo discusses the President's inherent constitutional authority to use the National Guard to protect federal property and personnel during city disorder. Drawing on the In re Neagle case from 1890, Yoo confirms the federal government's right to use force to execute its functions on American soil. He argues that governors opposing deployment are resisting federal law enforcement, akin to segregationists resisting integration. Yoo clarifies that states can adopt "sanctuary" policies by choosing not to cooperate with federal law, but they cannot constitutionally impede federal agents from carrying out their duties.

Presidential Authority: Using the National Guard vs. Invoking the Insurrection Act for Domestic Order Professor John Yoo John Batchelor and Professor John Yoo discuss the President's domestic powers to handle disorder. The Trump administration has utilized the state-organized National Guard, respecting states' rights. Yoo notes that a more serious step—using regular armed forces, such as the 101st Airborne Division, under the Insurrection Act to restore general law and order—has not yet been invoked. 1936

Helen Andrews' Compact article on "The Great Feminization" is causing a stir, provoking responses from left, right, and in-between. And I just know that everyone wants to hear David French's take on it, because how can we form a judgment about anything without hearing from the Conscience of the World. (Actually, just go with the normally mild-mannered Charles Murray's take: "I'm still waiting to read something by David French that doesn't irritate me. Even when I agree with the substance, the sanctimony drives me nuts. In this case, I wholly disagree with his take on Helen Andrews.")John Yoo files a dissent of his own that Steve and Lucretia find worthy of certain members of the Supreme Court just now, but keep your eyes out on this one; Steve, naturally, has an analogy on offer.The gang also wonders if some Chinese lab has come up with a new, more potent strain of Trump Derangement Syndrome, because how else can you explain how insane Trump-haters are over . . . a White House ballroom? (You can guess the exit music this week. Yup, it's that 1970s standard, "Ballroom Blitz" by Sweet.)We end with a few sober thoughts about health care, and then it's back to arguing about . . . neckties. 

 Professor John Yoo examines US missile attacks on alleged Venezuelan drug boats, differentiating military force (war) from law enforcement (crime). He suggests that if the Maduro regime is using drug cartels like Tren de Aragua as instruments of attack against the US, it constitutes a state of war, justifying military action. Yoo argues that the president can use force defensively without seeking a declaration of war if the US is attacked first, even unconventionally.

 Professor John Yoo examines US missile attacks on alleged Venezuelan drug boats, differentiating military force (war) from law enforcement (crime). He suggests that if the Maduro regime is using drug cartels like Tren de Aragua as instruments of attack against the US, it constitutes a state of war, justifying military action. Yoo argues that the president can use force defensively without seeking a declaration of war if the US is attacked first, even unconventionally 1902 CARACAS.

Preview: Professor John Yoo discusses the powerful Trump administration response to Venezuela, including military assets and suggestions of war. The administration justifies using force by claiming that a drug cartel (Tren de Aragua) is so intertwined with the Maduro regime that it constitutes hostile acts by Venezuela, putting the two nations in a state of war. 1959