Podcasts about presidential powers

Stay connected with us at americangroundradio.com, on Facebook, and Instagram. You're listening to American Ground Radio with Stephen Parr and Louis R. Avallone. This is the full show for February 20, 2026. 0:30 Today, we reflect on the life and legacy of Jesse Jackson — civil rights leader, founder of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, two-time presidential candidate, and a man who undeniably shaped America’s political and cultural conversation for decades. But the debate today isn’t about whether he mattered. It’s about whether he meets the historic threshold for one of the nation’s highest ceremonial honors: lying in honor in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. After Mike Johnson declined a request to grant that distinction, critics cried partisanship. We slow the conversation down and ask a deeper question: What is the standard? The Rotunda is reserved for figures deemed central to the constitutional story of the United States — a rare honor previously extended to individuals such as Rosa Parks, Billy Graham, and even Pierre Charles L'Enfant. So where is the line between influence and national consensus? Between impact and constitutional significance? We discuss Jackson’s contributions, his controversies, and the broader principle at stake: preserving the Rotunda as sacred civic space — not a stage for popularity or partisanship. 9:30 Plus, we cover the Top 3 Things You Need to Know. The US Supreme Court struck down President Trump's use of Tariffs without congressional authorization. The United States and Indonesia finalized a bilateral trade agreement today that will lower tariffs between the two countries to 19%. Jesse Jackson's body will not lie in state under the Capital Rotunda.Jackson's family had requested that his body be allowed to lie in state, but that request was denied by Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. 12:30 Get Prodovite Plus from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 13:00 The Supreme Court of the United States handed down a 6–3 decision striking down President Donald Trump’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court made clear: that particular statute can’t be used as the vehicle for those tariffs. But that didn’t end the story. Within hours, the administration pivoted — announcing a new 10% tariff under the Trade Act of 1974, a separate law that explicitly grants the president temporary tariff authority. In fact, even members of the Court noted there are other statutory paths available. So what are we witnessing — constitutional chaos or constitutional chess? 16:00 We got a question for the American Mamas: “I’m so glad I grew up in the ’80s. How can you keep up with all the trends today?” It sparks a lively (and hilarious) walk down memory lane as Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burleson join us to compare the universal “just knew it” culture of the 1980s with today’s lightning-fast, social-media-driven world. From slang that changes overnight to the pressure of documenting everything online, we explore how growing up before smartphones may have been a hidden blessing. The conversation turns to modern milestones — over-the-top weddings, pricey bachelorette trips, elaborate gender reveals — and how platforms like TikTok and Twitter have transformed private celebrations into public productions. What used to be punch, mints, and a phone call has become curated content and camera-ready moments. It’s a funny, relatable look at generational shifts, cultural pressure, and why some of us are grateful our most embarrassing moments weren’t captured in 4K. Got a question for the American Mamas? Visit americangroundradio.com/mamas and click “Ask the Mamas.” 23:00 President Donald Trump has directed the Secretary of Defense and other agencies to begin identifying and releasing government files related to UFOs, unidentified aerial phenomena, and any potential information connected to extraterrestrial life. Laugh if you want — but for years, trained Navy and Air Force pilots have reported aerial objects performing maneuvers that appear to defy conventional aerodynamics. These aren’t backyard videos or internet hoaxes. They’re encounters documented by military aviators asking a serious question: what exactly are we seeing? We explore the long shadow of Area 51, Cold War-era secrecy, and how government disinformation about experimental aircraft may have fueled decades of alien speculation. We also separate fact from fiction when it comes to so-called “chemtrails” versus ordinary condensation trails — and why conspiracy theories persist. 26:00 Florida Governor Ron DeSantis traveled to Kentucky this week with a bold message: Congress won’t fix itself — and it’s time for the states to step in. Testifying before Kentucky lawmakers, DeSantis urged them to support an Article V constitutional convention aimed at passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. With the national debt approaching $40 trillion, he argued that without permanent structural changes, Washington’s “muscle memory” of spending and compromise will continue — no matter which party is in power. We Dig Deep into break down how an Article V convention works, why 34 states are required to trigger it, and where the effort currently stands. Twenty states have already signed on — mostly Republican-led — but even if every remaining red state joined, supporters would still need buy-in from purple or Democrat-led legislatures. 32:00 Get Performlyte from Victory Nutrition International for 20% off. Go to vni.life/agr and use the promo code AGR20. 32:30 A social media post from Congressman Randy Fine has gone viral — and sparked a firestorm. Fine responded to comments tied to New York political circles suggesting restrictions on dogs in public housing, referencing concerns rooted in Islamic views that consider dogs unclean. Fine pushed back bluntly, arguing that if Americans were ever forced to choose between their pets and accommodating religious restrictions, it wouldn’t be a difficult decision. Critics immediately labeled the remarks Islamophobic. Supporters say the point wasn’t about religion — it was about culture, assimilation, and whether American traditions should bend to accommodate beliefs that conflict with everyday life in the U.S. In this segment, we unpack the controversy, the statistics behind America’s deep attachment to pets — including service and therapy dogs — and the broader debate over cultural expectations in a free society. We also discuss Fine’s proposed “Protecting Puppies from Sharia Act” and what it symbolizes in the larger conversation about immigration, religious freedom, and preserving American norms. 35:30 Plus, it's Fake News Friday! We're putting you to the test with our weekly game of headlines—are they real news, fake news, or really fake news? From cowboys and Gavin Newsom's dyslexia, to the airport being named after President Trump can you spot the fake news? Play along, keep score, and share your results with us on Facebook page: facebook.com/AmericanGroundRadio. 39:30 We talk about Supreme Court’s 6–3 ruling on presidential tariff authority and what it means for the balance of power in Washington. When former Vice President Mike Pence praised the decision as a win for the Constitution, was it a straightforward defense of separation of powers—or a subtle jab at Donald Trump? And we end today's show with the powerful Olympic story of Alysa Liu—an American gold medal victory with international intrigue and a reminder of the opportunities and freedoms that define the American dream. May your pursuit of happiness bring you joy. Articles US and Indonesia finalise deal to cut tariffs to 19% Major Defense Contractor Flees Spanberger’s Virginia Just Weeks After She Takes Office. Why was Ron DeSantis in Kentucky? What he wants from state lawmakers @ReOpenChris X Post: "Governor DeSantis pitches Federal Balanced Budget Amendment to Kentucky Legislature." See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court rules against tariffs under IEEPA — now what?Was this about executive overreach? Revenue strategy? Inflation risk? Or political narrative?Today we break down:• What IEEPA actually is• Why the Court ruled the way it did• How this impacts the $37 trillion deficit• Whether tariffs raise inflation• What this means for Treasury yields & mortgage rates• What happens nextNo hype. No partisan spin. Just facts, market mechanics, and how this affects homeowners and buyers.Every day, we pull real pricing from 30+ lenders and show you exactly what you qualify for — plus lock vs. float guidance tied to CPI, Jobs, MBS & the 10-Year Treasury.Transparent. Data-driven.

I never thought I'd be standing in the shadow of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on a crisp February morning in 2026, feeling the weight of a decision that just reshaped presidential power. But here we are, listeners, just two days ago on Friday, February 20, the nine justices handed down a bombshell in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the consolidated case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. By a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down the sweeping tariffs President Donald Trump imposed through executive orders, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president authority to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies like drug trafficking from Canada or massive trade deficits.Picture this: Trump had declared these threats "unusual and extraordinary," hitting Canadian goods with a 25% duty and broader tariffs on everything from electronics to steel, all under IEEPA's vague language about regulating importation. But Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said no way. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, arguing Congress never clearly delegated such huge economic power to the executive branch. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the Democratic appointees, signed on to parts rejecting the tariffs outright, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, insisting IEEPA's text, history, and precedents backed Trump all the way, calling it a "straightforward case" for presidential authority in foreign affairs.The ruling came fast—arguments were back in November 2025 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Federal Circuit—and it vacated lower court judgments, remanding one with instructions to dismiss. Importers like Learning Resources, Inc., who challenged the tariffs on toys and educational materials, celebrated outside the marble steps, while businesses nationwide breathed easier, spared from billions in extra costs.That same evening, President Trump took the stage in the White House Rose Garden, crowd roaring behind him, and unloaded. According to CNBC's live coverage, he called the decision "deeply disappointing," slamming certain justices as "ashamed," "unpatriotic," and "disloyal to our Constitution," hinting they were swayed by "foreign interests and a small political movement." He praised Justice Kavanaugh's "genius" dissent and his own appointee Justice Alito, but vowed to fight on. Trump announced he'd sign an executive order that day for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, effective in days, plus Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by countries like China. "We'll end up being in court for the next five years," he shrugged, but insisted America wouldn't lose.Across the country, reactions poured in. California Governor Gavin Newsom demanded immediate refund checks for Americans hit by the now-invalid tariffs, calling them "illegal" in a Sacramento presser. Legal experts at Holland & Knight law firm noted importers could now seek reimbursements, while SCOTUSblog broke it down: Roberts dissected IEEPA's two little words—"regulate... importation"—ruling they don't stretch to outright tariffs, a tool historically for Congress.As I wrap up this whirlwind from the past few days, it's clear this Supreme Court showdown isn't just about trade—it's a defining line on executive power, echoing Trump's past battles like Trump v. Vance in 2020, where the Court said no absolute immunity from state subpoenas. With Trump's three appointees—Gorsuch in 2017, Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett in 2020—shifting the bench to a 6-3 conservative tilt, yet ruling against him here, the tensions are electric.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Since the start of his second term, President Trump has relied heavily on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement a wide range of tariffs without Congressional approval. On Friday, however, the Supreme Court ruled those actions unconstitutional. FOX News Chief Legal Correspondent Shannon Bream joins the Rundown to unpack the implications of the ruling—from the potential economic chaos of mandated tariff refunds to the decision's impact on the President's high-stakes meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Later, FOX News Chief Congressional Correspondent Chad Pergram joins to discuss the political landscape on Capitol Hill ahead of President Trump's State of the Union address this coming Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Since the start of his second term, President Trump has relied heavily on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement a wide range of tariffs without Congressional approval. On Friday, however, the Supreme Court ruled those actions unconstitutional. FOX News Chief Legal Correspondent Shannon Bream joins the Rundown to unpack the implications of the ruling—from the potential economic chaos of mandated tariff refunds to the decision's impact on the President's high-stakes meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Later, FOX News Chief Congressional Correspondent Chad Pergram joins to discuss the political landscape on Capitol Hill ahead of President Trump's State of the Union address this coming Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Since the start of his second term, President Trump has relied heavily on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement a wide range of tariffs without Congressional approval. On Friday, however, the Supreme Court ruled those actions unconstitutional. FOX News Chief Legal Correspondent Shannon Bream joins the Rundown to unpack the implications of the ruling—from the potential economic chaos of mandated tariff refunds to the decision's impact on the President's high-stakes meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Later, FOX News Chief Congressional Correspondent Chad Pergram joins to discuss the political landscape on Capitol Hill ahead of President Trump's State of the Union address this coming Tuesday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Imagine a blueprint for remaking America's government from the ground up, drawn by conservative architects at the Heritage Foundation. That's Project 2025, launched in April 2023 with its 900-page Mandate for Leadership, aiming to consolidate power in the president's hands through the unitary executive theory. According to the Heritage Foundation's own document, it unites hundreds of volunteers to advance "positive change for America" by replacing civil servants with loyalists and dismantling agencies.Key proposals target federal agencies head-on. The plan calls for abolishing the Department of Education, shifting programs like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to Health and Human Services, and limiting federal civil rights enforcement in schools to courtroom battles only. "The federal government should be no more than a statistics-keeping organization when it comes to education," the Mandate states, prioritizing school choice over what it deems "woke propaganda." Similarly, it seeks to eliminate the Department of Homeland Security, folding immigration functions into a new agency, while shrinking the FBI and DOJ under direct White House oversight. The National Federation of Federal Employees warns this Schedule F scheme would reclassify tens of thousands of apolitical workers as at-will political appointees, stripping protections against abuse.Tax cuts for corporations, a flat income tax, Medicaid caps, and repealing Biden's Inflation Reduction Act round out economic reforms. Experts like the ACLU highlight risks: centralizing control could weaponize agencies against reproductive rights, immigrants, and racial equity.By February 2026, as the Center for Progressive Reform's tracker reports, the Trump administration has enacted 53 percent of these domestic policies, with over 213,000 civil servants exiting via buyouts and firings, per the Partnership for Public Service. This illustrates Project 2025's ambition—to reverse decades of bureaucracy for agile, conservative governance—yet critics fear eroded checks and balances.Looking ahead, upcoming milestones hinge on congressional battles over funding and court challenges to Schedule F. Will this reshape American democracy, or spark backlash?Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

On this episode of Power & Market, Ryan, Connor, and Tho celebrate Presidents' Day by talking about the best and worst presidents in American history.

False Front: The Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age The University of Chicago Press, 2024 Kenneth Lowande Political Scientist Kenneth Lowande (University of Michigan) has a new book, False Front: The Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age, examining the ways in which presidents seem to be using their extraordinary powers (of the office itself) but are often holding back so as to avoid the full implementation of policies and ideas. This is an interesting thesis, since it takes apart the ways in which presidents operate, getting at not only the presentation of presidential power and the rhetoric used by presidents to illuminate their powers, but also where the full capacity of the Executive branch may not be put into action around issues, policies, or ideas. Lowande is assessing what is essentially symbolic, especially for the president, but is not substantive, even if it may seem that way. This concept, this “false front”, comes out of the polarization within the American political system, and the difficulty that presidents also have in trying to accomplish policy shifts and changes. This is also in context of a Congress that has ceded significant power to the Executive and is generally less productive in terms of passing and implementing policy than it was in the past. This is then combined with the adjustments that presidents and presidential candidates have made in the way they approach the campaign and then their work while in office, since they are compelled to construct their own “brand” as a means to getting elected. Once in office, presidents then need to perform in some way that convinces the public that they are trying to execute what they promised while on the campaign trail. But the political climate makes those outcomes extraordinarily difficult. So, presidents have constructed this path where they publicly lean into policy areas, making public statements, having ceremonies and press releases, taking executive actions, or signing Executive Orders to illustrate their commitment and their activity, but when these policy areas are examined in some depth, it turns out that not much happened after all of this attention and apparent action. Lowande notes, in our conversation, how once he had zeroed in on this presidential mode of operating it is very difficult not to see it. This becomes a kind of model of presidential behavior and strategic approaches. False Front: The Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age essentially interrogates the founding basis for the American presidency, where Alexander Hamilton argued that the president is to be held accountable and responsible for the actions taken in the office itself. The media plays a role in this as well, since they report on the actions taken by the president—at least in terms of rhetoric, press releases, signing ceremonies, and executive actions—but there is no follow on analysis, for the most part, of the actual implementation of the policies and the plans. If there is no measurable outcome to distinguish how the policy solved the problem, or satisfied the demand for the policy, then the presidential action or rhetoric is disconnected from any particular policy or public good. This is also at odds with the reason for a democratic republic—where the demands of the voters are to be translated into real outcomes, not imaginary ones. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

False Front: The Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age The University of Chicago Press, 2024 Kenneth Lowande Political Scientist Kenneth Lowande (University of Michigan) has a new book, False Front: The Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age, examining the ways in which presidents seem to be using their extraordinary powers (of the office itself) but are often holding back so as to avoid the full implementation of policies and ideas. This is an interesting thesis, since it takes apart the ways in which presidents operate, getting at not only the presentation of presidential power and the rhetoric used by presidents to illuminate their powers, but also where the full capacity of the Executive branch may not be put into action around issues, policies, or ideas. Lowande is assessing what is essentially symbolic, especially for the president, but is not substantive, even if it may seem that way. This concept, this “false front”, comes out of the polarization within the American political system, and the difficulty that presidents also have in trying to accomplish policy shifts and changes. This is also in context of a Congress that has ceded significant power to the Executive and is generally less productive in terms of passing and implementing policy than it was in the past. This is then combined with the adjustments that presidents and presidential candidates have made in the way they approach the campaign and then their work while in office, since they are compelled to construct their own “brand” as a means to getting elected. Once in office, presidents then need to perform in some way that convinces the public that they are trying to execute what they promised while on the campaign trail. But the political climate makes those outcomes extraordinarily difficult. So, presidents have constructed this path where they publicly lean into policy areas, making public statements, having ceremonies and press releases, taking executive actions, or signing Executive Orders to illustrate their commitment and their activity, but when these policy areas are examined in some depth, it turns out that not much happened after all of this attention and apparent action. Lowande notes, in our conversation, how once he had zeroed in on this presidential mode of operating it is very difficult not to see it. This becomes a kind of model of presidential behavior and strategic approaches. False Front: The Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age essentially interrogates the founding basis for the American presidency, where Alexander Hamilton argued that the president is to be held accountable and responsible for the actions taken in the office itself. The media plays a role in this as well, since they report on the actions taken by the president—at least in terms of rhetoric, press releases, signing ceremonies, and executive actions—but there is no follow on analysis, for the most part, of the actual implementation of the policies and the plans. If there is no measurable outcome to distinguish how the policy solved the problem, or satisfied the demand for the policy, then the presidential action or rhetoric is disconnected from any particular policy or public good. This is also at odds with the reason for a democratic republic—where the demands of the voters are to be translated into real outcomes, not imaginary ones. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

False Front: The Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age The University of Chicago Press, 2024 Kenneth Lowande Political Scientist Kenneth Lowande (University of Michigan) has a new book, False Front: The Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age, examining the ways in which presidents seem to be using their extraordinary powers (of the office itself) but are often holding back so as to avoid the full implementation of policies and ideas. This is an interesting thesis, since it takes apart the ways in which presidents operate, getting at not only the presentation of presidential power and the rhetoric used by presidents to illuminate their powers, but also where the full capacity of the Executive branch may not be put into action around issues, policies, or ideas. Lowande is assessing what is essentially symbolic, especially for the president, but is not substantive, even if it may seem that way. This concept, this “false front”, comes out of the polarization within the American political system, and the difficulty that presidents also have in trying to accomplish policy shifts and changes. This is also in context of a Congress that has ceded significant power to the Executive and is generally less productive in terms of passing and implementing policy than it was in the past. This is then combined with the adjustments that presidents and presidential candidates have made in the way they approach the campaign and then their work while in office, since they are compelled to construct their own “brand” as a means to getting elected. Once in office, presidents then need to perform in some way that convinces the public that they are trying to execute what they promised while on the campaign trail. But the political climate makes those outcomes extraordinarily difficult. So, presidents have constructed this path where they publicly lean into policy areas, making public statements, having ceremonies and press releases, taking executive actions, or signing Executive Orders to illustrate their commitment and their activity, but when these policy areas are examined in some depth, it turns out that not much happened after all of this attention and apparent action. Lowande notes, in our conversation, how once he had zeroed in on this presidential mode of operating it is very difficult not to see it. This becomes a kind of model of presidential behavior and strategic approaches. False Front: The Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age essentially interrogates the founding basis for the American presidency, where Alexander Hamilton argued that the president is to be held accountable and responsible for the actions taken in the office itself. The media plays a role in this as well, since they report on the actions taken by the president—at least in terms of rhetoric, press releases, signing ceremonies, and executive actions—but there is no follow on analysis, for the most part, of the actual implementation of the policies and the plans. If there is no measurable outcome to distinguish how the policy solved the problem, or satisfied the demand for the policy, then the presidential action or rhetoric is disconnected from any particular policy or public good. This is also at odds with the reason for a democratic republic—where the demands of the voters are to be translated into real outcomes, not imaginary ones. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

False Front: The Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age The University of Chicago Press, 2024 Kenneth Lowande Political Scientist Kenneth Lowande (University of Michigan) has a new book, False Front: The Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age, examining the ways in which presidents seem to be using their extraordinary powers (of the office itself) but are often holding back so as to avoid the full implementation of policies and ideas. This is an interesting thesis, since it takes apart the ways in which presidents operate, getting at not only the presentation of presidential power and the rhetoric used by presidents to illuminate their powers, but also where the full capacity of the Executive branch may not be put into action around issues, policies, or ideas. Lowande is assessing what is essentially symbolic, especially for the president, but is not substantive, even if it may seem that way. This concept, this “false front”, comes out of the polarization within the American political system, and the difficulty that presidents also have in trying to accomplish policy shifts and changes. This is also in context of a Congress that has ceded significant power to the Executive and is generally less productive in terms of passing and implementing policy than it was in the past. This is then combined with the adjustments that presidents and presidential candidates have made in the way they approach the campaign and then their work while in office, since they are compelled to construct their own “brand” as a means to getting elected. Once in office, presidents then need to perform in some way that convinces the public that they are trying to execute what they promised while on the campaign trail. But the political climate makes those outcomes extraordinarily difficult. So, presidents have constructed this path where they publicly lean into policy areas, making public statements, having ceremonies and press releases, taking executive actions, or signing Executive Orders to illustrate their commitment and their activity, but when these policy areas are examined in some depth, it turns out that not much happened after all of this attention and apparent action. Lowande notes, in our conversation, how once he had zeroed in on this presidential mode of operating it is very difficult not to see it. This becomes a kind of model of presidential behavior and strategic approaches. False Front: The Failed Promise of Presidential Power in a Polarized Age essentially interrogates the founding basis for the American presidency, where Alexander Hamilton argued that the president is to be held accountable and responsible for the actions taken in the office itself. The media plays a role in this as well, since they report on the actions taken by the president—at least in terms of rhetoric, press releases, signing ceremonies, and executive actions—but there is no follow on analysis, for the most part, of the actual implementation of the policies and the plans. If there is no measurable outcome to distinguish how the policy solved the problem, or satisfied the demand for the policy, then the presidential action or rhetoric is disconnected from any particular policy or public good. This is also at odds with the reason for a democratic republic—where the demands of the voters are to be translated into real outcomes, not imaginary ones. Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

2.5.26 - Greg Willard - SLU Constitutional Law and Presidential Powers Professor – Bill and Hillary testify on Epstein, but will Donald…and Melania?; Executive Privilege offered to Trump, extend to Melania, or the kids?; Trump wants to Federalize election by

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

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court like it's the Super Bowl, but here we are in late January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal battles are heating up faster than a Florida summer. Just this week, on January 21, the justices heard arguments in Trump, President of the United States v. Cook, a case straight out of the Oval Office power playbook. According to the Supreme Court's own monthly argument calendar, it was one of the key sessions testing how far Trump can push executive authority. Picture this: Trump's team arguing he can fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud, no full hearing required. News4JAX reports the Court seemed skeptical during those arguments, with justices across the spectrum questioning whether the president can boot independent agency leaders on a whim like that.Rewind a bit to the shadow docket frenzy of 2025—that's the Supreme Court's fast-track emergency rulings without full debates or explanations. Scotusblog details how Trump's administration leaned on it heavily, winning over 80% of the time from the conservative majority. They greenlit canceling foreign aid and health funding, firing independent agency heads, even immigration questioning based on appearance or language, and requiring passports to match biological sex. But the Court drew a line at Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, blocking it in a December 23 decision, and handled Trump v. Illinois on September 8 over immigration detentions in Los Angeles. These shadow moves shaped policy quietly, but now, with Trump's approval dipping to 42% by late 2025 per News4JAX polls, the big full hearings are here.Coming down the pike: birthright citizenship challenges under the 14th Amendment—can Trump end automatic U.S. citizenship for anyone born here? Sweeping global tariffs without Congress's okay, testing presidential trade power. And that Fed firing case, potentially gutting the Federal Reserve's independence. Chief Justice John Roberts wrapped 2025 with a year-end report hammering home judicial independence, calling courts a counter-majoritarian check against popular whims. He sidestepped politics, focusing on history, but experts like Constitutional Law Professor Rod Sullivan on News4JAX's Politics & Power say the Court's timing is no accident—Trump's weaker politically, so justices might finally clip his wings.Meanwhile, down in Congress, the House Judiciary Committee grilled former Special Counsel Jack Smith on January 23 about Trump's alleged criminal actions, from conspiring to overturn the 2020 election to mishandling classified documents. Representative Steve Cohen's newsletter recounts Smith facing questions on Trump's witness intimidation tactics, with Cohen praising him as a great American standing firm. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker notes a dismissal on January 14 of a case over dismantling the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, mooted out. And don't sleep on criminal law sidelines: Scotusblog's mid-term update flags nine new cases, like Wolford v. Lopez argued January 20 on Second Amendment rights, or geofence warrants in United States v. Chatrie testing Fourth Amendment limits.As California's Republicans begged the Court on January 22 to block a new 2026 midterm election map, per Scotusblog, it feels like every corner of the judiciary is tangled in Trump's orbit. These rulings could redefine presidential power, from citizenship in cities like New York to trade hitting ports in Miami. Chief Justice Roberts' quiet defense of court independence is about to face its ultimate stress test—will the justices stand firm, or bend to the political gale?Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Legal Docket on the power to fire a Federal Reserve governor, Moneybeat on what Davos revealed about the global economy, and History Book on the past and present March for Life. Plus, the Monday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from Dordt University's online Master of Education program- equipping students with knowledge and skills in their specialization. dordt.edu

# Trump v. Cook: A Quiet Please Deep DiveWelcome back to Quiet Please. I'm your host, and today we're diving into one of the most consequential Supreme Court cases unfolding right now. Just hours ago, the justices began hearing oral arguments in Trump v. Cook, a case that will fundamentally reshape how much power any sitting president can wield over independent agencies.Let me set the scene. It's Wednesday morning at the Supreme Court building in Washington. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell walked through those marble halls to witness history. The case at hand involves President Donald Trump's attempt to remove Lisa Cook from her position as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Now, this might sound like an arcane administrative matter, but it cuts to the heart of American democracy. The question before the nine justices is brutally simple: Can a president fire the heads of independent agencies without cause, or does Congress have the authority to limit that power?This isn't Trump's first rodeo at the Supreme Court this term. Just days earlier, on Monday, January 20th, the Court was also set to hear arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, a case examining a Hawaii law that prevents gun owners from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public without explicit permission from the property owner. That same day, justices heard arguments in M&K Employee Solutions versus Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund, a technical but financially massive dispute over how much money a business owes when withdrawing from a multi-employer pension plan.But Trump v. Cook demands our attention in a different way. The stakes couldn't be higher. If the Supreme Court rules that Trump can unilaterally fire Lisa Cook, it strips away decades of congressional protections designed to insulate the Federal Reserve from political pressure. The Federal Reserve controls interest rates and monetary policy affecting every American's wallet. If a president can simply remove a dissenting board member with a phone call, the independence that economists credit with keeping inflation under control could evaporate.The case arrives amid a broader power struggle between Trump and the courts over executive authority. According to documents from the Supreme Court's January 2026 calendar, this oral argument session represents just one piece of a constellation of cases that will define Trump's second term. The Court is simultaneously grappling with his executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, his use of emergency powers to impose tariffs without congressional approval, and his efforts to deploy the National Guard to cities like Chicago.What makes Trump v. Cook particularly significant is that it operates under the shadow of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's recent concurrence in Trump v. Illinois. That December ruling blocked Trump from deploying the National Guard to Chicago without meeting strict statutory requirements. In a footnote that legal scholars are still parsing, Kavanaugh suggested that his opinion doesn't address presidential authority under the Insurrection Act itself, potentially leaving the door open for more expansive executive power.The Federal Reserve case will be decided within months. If the justices side with Trump, they hand him a powerful tool to reshape executive agencies across government. If they side with Cook and the congressional framework protecting her office, they reaffirm that some checks on presidential power remain intact.The oral arguments concluded this morning at the Supreme Court. Now the waiting begins as the justices deliberate what American presidential power should look like in the twenty-first century.Thanks so much for tuning in to Quiet Please. Come back next week for more on how this case unfolds and what it means for your rights and freedoms. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out quietplease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

This week marks one year since Donald Trump re-entered the White House, and we'll be delving into various aspects of his presidency. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins begins our coverage by looking at his expansion of presidential power and how it's testing Congress and the system of checks and balances rooted in the Constitution. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

This week marks one year since Donald Trump re-entered the White House, and we'll be delving into various aspects of his presidency. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins begins our coverage by looking at his expansion of presidential power and how it's testing Congress and the system of checks and balances rooted in the Constitution. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen tracking court battles like they're the Super Bowl, but here we are in mid-January 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal showdowns are dominating the dockets from Hawaii to the Supreme Court steps in Washington, D.C. Just this past week, as the Supreme Court wrapped up arguments in cases like Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish in Louisiana and Little v. Hecox, all eyes shifted to Trump's escalating clashes with federal agencies and old foes. On Friday, January 16, SCOTUSblog reported the justices huddled in private conference, voting on petitions that could add more Trump-related fireworks to their calendar.Take Trump v. Cook, heating up big time. President Trump tried firing Lisa Cook, a Democratic holdover on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, back in August 2025, calling her policies a mismatch for his America First agenda. U.S. District Judge Cobb in Washington blocked it, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her ruling 2-1. Now, the Trump administration, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is begging the Supreme Court to intervene. Oral arguments hit Wednesday, January 21, at 10 a.m. in the Supreme Court building, with Paul Clement—former Solicitor General under George W. Bush—defending Cook. Sauer blasted the lower courts as meddling in presidential removal power, echoing fights in Trump v. Slaughter, where the Court already chewed over firing FTC Chair Lina Khan's allies like Alvaro Bedoya last December. Dykema's Last Month at the Supreme Court newsletter calls it a direct shot at the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent, questioning if Congress can shield multi-member agency heads from the president's axe.It's not just agency drama. E. Jean Carroll, the former Elle writer who won $5 million defaming her after a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s, just urged the Supreme Court to swat down his latest petition. ABC News covered her filing this week, where she argues U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York got evidence rules spot-on—no reversal needed.And that's barely scratching the surface. The Court's January calendar, straight from supremecourt.gov, lists Trump v. Cook smack in the middle, following Wolford v. Lopez on Tuesday, January 20—a Second Amendment tussle over Hawaii's law banning guns on private property open to the public without the owner's okay. Axios predicts 2026 bombshells like Trump v. Barbara on his executive order gutting birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, potentially stripping citizenship from kids of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil. Then there's Learning Resources v. Trump, challenging his national emergency tariffs on foreign goods—Axios says a loss could force $100 billion in refunds and crimp his trade wars.Over in lower courts, Just Security's litigation tracker logs fresh salvos: challenges to Executive Order 14164 jamming January 6 convicts into ADX Florence supermax in Colorado, and suits against orders targeting law firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale for alleged anti-Trump bias. Lawfare's tracker flags national security spins on these executive actions. Even California Republicans appealed a Los Angeles panel's smackdown of their gerrymander claims against Governor Gavin Newsom's maps to the Supreme Court this week, per SCOTUStoday.These cases aren't just legal jargon—they're power plays reshaping the presidency, from Fed independence to gun rights and citizenship. As Trump posts fire on Truth Social about "evil, American-hating forces," the justices gear up for a term that could torch decades of precedent.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

One year into President Donald Trump's second term, he continues to break democratic norms. In our series, "If You Can Keep It," University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket provides context as the president intensifies his punishment of Colorado. Plus, Mary Jane turns 50! Also, a Denver man finds hope with a new program to help break the cycle of addiction. And a food bank café takes an innovative approach to hunger and nutrition in Grand Junction. 

Peter Schiff examines the soaring prices of gold and silver, critiques Trump's Fed policies, and discusses the implications for the dollar and global markets.This episode is sponsored by NetSuite. Download the free “demystifying ai” at https://netsuite.com/goldIn this episode of The Peter Schiff Show, host Peter Schiff delves into the escalating feud between former President Trump and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, examining the implications for gold and silver markets. Peter highlights the recent surge in precious metals, driven by Powell's legal troubles and Trump's controversial proposals, including a proposed cap on credit card interest rates. As Schiff critiques the mainstream media's dismissal of these significant market movements, he emphasizes the necessity for investors to reassess their positions amid a potential dollar crisis. With insights into the realities of monetary policy and the threats to financial stability, Peter Schiff offers a compelling analysis of the current economic landscape.Chapters:00:00 Introduction and Market Overview01:04 Precious Metals Surge04:19 Gold and Silver Mining Stocks06:08 Mainstream Media's Take on Gold11:05 Jerome Powell's Legal Troubles18:50 Trump vs. Powell: The Fed Feud24:06 Implications for the Dollar and Gold31:15 Bitcoin and Other Markets32:28 Trump's Proposed Credit Card Interest Cap32:55 Credit Card Interest Rates and Government Intervention33:58 Comparing Trump and Kamala Harris on Price Controls35:23 The Reality of Credit Card Market Competition39:58 Consequences of Capping Credit Card Interest Rates43:38 Trump's Views on Presidential Power and Foreign Policy49:25 Economic Implications and Investment Advice01:00:01 Final Thoughts and Call to ActionFollow @peterschiffX: https://twitter.com/peterschiffInstagram: https://instagram.com/peterschiffTikTok: https://tiktok.com/@peterschiffofficialFacebook: https://facebook.com/peterschiffSign up for Peter's most valuable insights at https://schiffsovereign.comSchiff Gold News: https://www.schiffgold.com/newsFree Reports & Market Updates: https://www.europac.comBook Store: https://schiffradio.com/books#TrumpFedFeud #GoldAndSilver #EconomicImplicationsOur Sponsors:* Check out TruDiagnostic and use my code GOLD20 for a great deal: https://www.trudiagnostic.comPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

On this episode: Supreme Court scholar Adam Feldman joins the show to preview the current Supreme Court term and break down the major cases still to be argued, along with decisions expected in the months ahead. Feldman discusses cases touching on voting rights, executive authority, redistricting, and civil liberties, as well as how presidential power is shaping the court's docket. Plus – internal court dynamics, the role of swing justices, the ‘shadow docket,' and why Feldman thinks some of the most consequential rulings this term could come in areas that directly affect voters and everyday governance.Learn more about this term: https://ballotpedia.org/Supreme_Court_cases,_October_term_2025-2026 Follow Dr. Feldman on X: https://x.com/AdamSFeldman Subscribe to his Substack: https://legalytics.substack.com/ Complete a brief 5 minute survey to review the show and share some feedback: https://forms.gle/zPxYSog5civyvEKX6 Sign up for our Newsletters: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Email_Updates Stream "On the Ballot" on Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you have questions, comments, or love for BP, feel free to reach out at ontheballot@ballotpedia.org or on X (formerly Twitter) @Ballotpedia.On The Ballot is a conversational podcast featuring interviews with guests across the political spectrum. The views and opinions expressed by them are solely their own and are not representative of the views of the host or Ballotpedia as a whole. 

Our speaker is William Howell who is the inaugural Dean of Johns Hopkins School of Government and Policy. This is a new academic division located at the Hopkins Bloomberg Center in DC that plans to develop innovative, evidenced based public policy solutions. William is the co-author with Terry Moe of a new book entitled Trajectory of Power: The Rise of the Strongman Presidency. I want to learn from William about why he opposes the will of a popularly elected president and why he thinks that congress is incapable of controlling expanding presidential power. Get full access to What Happens Next in 6 Minutes with Larry Bernstein at www.whathappensnextin6minutes.com/subscribe

Jack Goldsmith, who once ran the Justice Department office that advises presidents on what they can and can't legally do, takes on some of the hardest questions about the limits of the president's power — from changing the government to the use of military force abroad, including the invasion of Venezuela.Drawing on his experience inside the executive branch, he looks at why the limits on presidential power are more fragile than they appear, how precedent quietly expands executive authority, and what that means for the future of the presidency. 

I've talked before about the unitary executive. However, a recent case before the Supreme Court brings into question not only whether or not the President has the power to fire employees in the executive branch, but the very structure of the federal government.

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

NPR's Tamara Keith and Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter join Lisa Desjardins to discuss the latest political news, including President Trump expanding presidential power in unprecedented ways, the GOP's legislative victories and the political word of the year. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Next year, the Supreme Court is expected to issue consequential rulings on President Trump's most controversial policies, including his ability to issue tariffs without congressional approval and fire a member of the Federal Reserve. Law professor Barbara McQuade explains more.Then, the Trump administration is suing 21 states and Washington, D.C., to hand over detailed voter data, citing efforts to ensure election security. Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt details the implications.And, we catalogue NPR staff recommendations from their annual “Books We Love” list, which, this year, contains mainly fiction picks.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

NPR's Tamara Keith and Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter join Lisa Desjardins to discuss the latest political news, including President Trump expanding presidential power in unprecedented ways, the GOP's legislative victories and the political word of the year. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

NPR's Tamara Keith and Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter join Lisa Desjardins to discuss the latest political news, including President Trump expanding presidential power in unprecedented ways, the GOP's legislative victories and the political word of the year. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

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

Legal Docket on the presidential power over independent agencies, Moneybeat on the limits of economic policy, and History Book on reports from the past ten years. Plus, the Monday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from Commuter Bible, the audio Bible podcast series to match the work week. Available via podcast apps and commuterbible.org And from Missions Upside Down - a FREE, award-winning video series about Christian missions in the past, present, and into the future. You can find this free resource on RightNowMedia or at missionsupsidedown.com

Leah, Kate, and Melissa recap the oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that could nuke the administrative state as we know it by giving Trump broad leeway to fire heads of independent agencies. They also cover the other arguments in cases involving campaign finance and the death penalty, and various and sundry bits of legal news including the antics of Judge Emil Bove and Trump's ongoing game of U.S. attorney musical chairs.Favorite things:Leah: At will? Whose will? By Don Moynihan (Can We Still Govern?)Melissa: Trump's Very Weird Night at the Kennedy Center Honors, Alexandra Petri (The Atlantic); A Flower Traveled in My Blood, Haley Cohen GillilandKate: How a Manosphere Star Accused of Rape and Trafficking Was Freed, Megan Twohey and Isabella Kwai (NYT) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today on Mea Culpa, I'm joined by journalist and best-selling author Nina Burleigh to unpack the latest Epstein document dumps and what they reveal about power, money, and protection at the highest levels. Nina is a prolific writer, from her Substack American Freakshow to her many books, including The Trump Women: Part of the Deal, which examines the women closest to Trump. We dig into how Epstein gained extraordinary access, why so many powerful figures still fear transparency, and what the documents expose about Trump's inner circle. We also discuss the growing risk of war in Venezuela, Trump's latest corruption schemes, and the open white nationalism poisoning the country. Thanks to our sponsors: Found: Open your FREE Found account now at https://Found.com Aura Frames: Exclusive $35 off Carver Mat at https://on.auraframes.com/COHEN Promo Code COHEN Soul: Go to https://GetSoul.com, promo code COHEN for 40% off. Don't miss their best deal of the year! Superpower: This holiday, give your loved ones the only gift that keeps on giving — health. Go to https://superpower.com/gift to get a free $49 gift box with your gifted membership. Subscribe to Michael's Substack: https://therealmichaelcohen.substack.com/ Subscribe to Michael's YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheMichaelCohenShow Join us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PoliticalBeatdown Add the Mea Culpa podcast feed: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen Add the Political Beatdown podcast feed: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Supreme Court case Trump v. Slaughter cause could expand presidential powers and allow President Trump to dismiss members of independent agencies such as the FTC.  FOX Business Correspondent Lydia Hu joins to examine the debate over presidential authority within the executive branch,  and the FTC's regulatory role, including its review of major mergers such as the proposed Netflix–Warner Bros. deal, and the Supreme Court's forthcoming ruling on the president's tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.Plus, U.S. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins joins to outline the reforms he has implemented, the strengthened coordination between his department and the Department of War, and the new strategies being developed to confront veteran suicide and the broader mental-health struggles many former service members encounter after leaving the military. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – I examine several high-stakes cases now moving through the Supreme Court that test the limits of presidential power, from tariffs and executive authority to firing decisions and constitutional compliance. I also review a whistleblower case involving COVID-19 vaccine data and expose what I see as yet another troubling proposal from the Trump administration...

Presidential Power and Independent Agency Dismissals: Colleague Richard Epstein discusses current Supreme Court arguments regarding presidential power to fire independent board members, referencing actions by both Trump and Biden, critiquing the politicization of agencies like the FTC under Lina Khan and warning that unchecked executive authority to dismiss advisory boards undermines necessary checks and balances. 1868 JULES VERNE

SHOW 12-12-2025 THE SHOW BEGINS IN DOUBTS ABOUT 2026.2 Las Vegas Venues, California Rail, and Disney's AI Investment: Colleague Jeff Bliss reports that Las Vegas's Allegiant Stadium is now a top-grossing venue while many resorts are dropping unpopular fees, discussing California's new rail line to Anaheim, mismanagement of the Pacific Palisades fire, and high gas prices, additionally covering Disney's investment in OpenAI and its new luxury community, Cotino. Nvidia's Jensen Huang and the AI Revolution: Colleague Brandon Weichert praises Nvidia's Jensen Huang as a pivotal geopolitical figure driving the AI revolution, comparing AI's growth to the railroad boom and predicting long-term economic benefits and massive opportunities for construction and energy sectors as the US builds infrastructure to support data centers. Business Resilience and AI Tools in Construction: Colleague Gene Marks reports on business resilience in Austin despite tariff concerns and describes a safety conference in Fargo where AI tools were a focus, explaining that AI and robotics like Boston Dynamics' Spot are supplementing rather than replacing workers in construction, helping address severe labor shortages. Health Reimbursement Arrangements and AI's Economic Potential: Colleague Gene Marks advocates for Health Reimbursement Arrangements, noting they allow small businesses to control costs while employees buy their own insurance tax-free, also discussing AI's potential to double economic growth and advising businesses to ignore doomsday predictions and embrace tools that enhance productivity and daily life. Lancaster County's Economic Divide and Holiday Retail: Colleague Jim McTague reports from Lancaster County, highlighting the economic divide between flush Baby Boomers and struggling younger generations, observing strong holiday retail activity exemplified by crowded venues like Shady Maple and a proliferation of Amazon delivery trucks, suggesting the economy remains afloat despite challenges. La Scala's Season Opening and Milan's Christmas Atmosphere: Colleague Lorenzo Fiori describes attending the season opening at La Scala, featuring a dramatic Russian opera that audiences connected to current geopolitical tensions, also noting the festive Christmas atmosphere in Milan and Prime Minister Meloni's continued, albeit non-military, support for Ukraine. SpaceX IPO Rumors and EU Space Regulations: Colleague Bob Zimmerman discusses rumors of a SpaceX IPO and new scientific strategies for using Starship for Mars exploration, reporting on the Pentagon's certification requirements for Blue Origin's New Glenn and critiquing proposed EU space laws that could impose bureaucratic hurdles on international private space companies. Mapping the Sun's Corona and Rethinking Ice Giants: Colleague Bob Zimmerman details scientific advances including mapping the sun's corona and rethinking Uranus and Neptune as having rocky interiors rather than just ice, mentioning discoveries regarding supernova composition, the lack of supermassive black holes in small galaxies, and new images of Mars' polar ice layers. "The Incident" of 1641 and Charles I's Failed Plot: Colleague Jonathan Healey narrates "The Incident" of 1641, a failed plot by Charles I to arrest Scottish Covenanter leaders, explaining that the conspiracy's exposure and Charles's subsequent denial destroyed his political standing in Scotland, forcing him to concede power to the Scottish Parliament and weakening his position before the English Civil War. The Prelude to the English Civil War: Colleague Jonathan Healey discusses the prelude to the English Civil War, detailing the power struggles between Charles I and the Commons and Lords, explaining the execution of the King's advisor Strafford, noting Charles's regret and the rising influence of reformists who feared royal tyranny and supported impeachment. The Junto and Puritan Influence in Parliament: Colleague Jonathan Healey describes the political geography of London, introducing the "Junto," a reformist party coordinating between Parliament's houses, analyzing the influence of Puritans and key opposition figures like John Pym and Mandeville who strategically challenged Charles I's authority regarding church reform and arbitrary taxation. The Grand Remonstrance and Popular Politics: Colleague Jonathan Healey explains the "Grand Remonstrance," a document used by the Junto to rally public support against the King, highlighting how rising literacy and the printing press fueled popular politics in London, while also discussing Queen Henrietta Maria's political acumen and Catholic faith amidst the growing conflict. Critiquing Isolationism and the Risks of Disengagement: Colleague Henry Sokolski critiques isolationist arguments, comparing current sentiments to pre-WWII attitudes, warning against relying solely on missile defense bubbles and discussing the distinct threats posed by Russia and China, emphasizing that US disengagement could lead to global instability and unchecked nuclear proliferation. Saudi Uranium Enrichment and Proliferation Risks: Colleague Henry Sokolski discusses the risks of allowing Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium, fearing it creates a bomb-making option, warning that making exceptions for Saudi Arabia could trigger a proliferation cascade among neighbors like Turkey and Egypt, undermining global non-proliferation efforts amidst rising tensions involving Russia and NATO. The Historical Context of Humphrey's Executor: Colleague Richard Epstein analyzes the historical context of Humphrey's Executor, explaining how the administrative state grew from the 1930s, detailing FDR's attempt to politicize independent commissions and the Supreme Court's justification, arguing that while constitutionally questionable, long-standing prescription has solidified these agencies' legal status over time. Presidential Power and Independent Agency Dismissals: Colleague Richard Epstein discusses current Supreme Court arguments regarding presidential power to fire independent board members, referencing actions by both Trump and Biden, critiquing the politicization of agencies like the FTC under Lina Khan and warning that unchecked executive authority to dismiss advisory boards undermines necessary checks and balances.

President Trump heads to Pennsylvania to defend his record on affordability as polls show voters increasingly blame his policies for high prices.The Supreme Court appears poised to grant presidents far greater power over independent agencies, signaling a major shift in how the federal government operates.And Indiana lawmakers move toward a congressional map that could eliminate the state's last two Democratic seats, intensifying a nationwide battle over mid-cycle redistricting.Want more comprehensive analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Today's episode of Up First was edited by Rebekah Metzler, Krishnadev Calamur, Kelsey Snell, Mohamad ElBardicy and Alice Woelfle.It was produced by Kaity Kline, Nia Dumas and Christopher Thomas.We get engineering support from Stacey Abbott. And our technical director is Carleigh Strange.And our Senior Supervising Producer is Vince Pearson.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

The news to know for Monday, December 8, 2025! What to know about a case before the U.S. Supreme Court today that tests President Trump's power over the government. Also, America's new national security strategy that's being welcomed in Russia and condemned in Europe. Plus: a decades-long vaccine recommendation has changed, a major merger involving Netflix could reshape Hollywood, and the matchups are set for next week's College Football Playoff and next year's World Cup. Those stories and even more news to know in about 10 minutes!    Join us every Mon-Fri for more daily news roundups!  See sources: https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/shownotes Become an INSIDER to get AD-FREE episodes here: https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/insider Get The NewsWorthy MERCH here: https://thenewsworthy.dashery.com/ Sponsors: Shop my favorite pajamas at SKIMS.com! After you place your order, be sure to let them know we sent you! Get 15% off OneSkin with the code NEWSWORTHY at https://www.oneskin.co/NEWSWORTHY #oneskinpod To advertise on our podcast, please reach out to ad-sales@libsyn.com    

Paramount is launching a hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery to rival Netflix's. President Donald Trump is facing a major test of his presidential influence at the Supreme Court today. Trump plans to sign an executive order blocking AI regulations at the state level. Ukraine's President has met with the leaders of several major European countries. Plus, we have this year's Golden Globe nominations Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Supreme Court hears a case that could reshape the federal government ... Lawmakers want defense secretary Pete Hegseth to release footage of a second strike that killed survivors on an alleged drug boat ... And speaking out. In her first interview since announcing her resignation, Marjorie Taylor Green's reveals what Republicans say about the president behind closed doors ... Paramount makes a hostile takeover deal for Warner Brothers Discovery.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is It Going to Be A Dark Christmas? 25-163 Headline BBC: New US security strategy aligns with Russia's vision, Moscow says Headline ABC: Supreme Court to reconsider 90 year old precedent of limiting Presidential Powers to Fire Heads of Independent Agencies Headline Aaron Parnas: Trump Admin to instruct FBI to find extremist in the United States, including “radical gender ideology” , andi-ICE, pro-immigrant...including a way for people to turn people in. These are terrifying. Things are MUCH worse than we thought. But it's Christmas for goodness sake. People were out shopping, people were decorating, myself included. What else can we do? Panic? And while many are out shopping, most are charging it according to research. Credit Card debt is going to increase exponentially in December. Because life is expensive. So is this a last hurrah? The Karel Cast is supported by your donations at patreon.com/reallykarel Please watch, like and subscribe to the videos at youtube.com/reallykarel The Karel Cast is heard on all streaming services from Apple Music to iHeart Media, Spotify to Spreaker. The show is Monday through Thursday at 1030 am Live PST. It can also be seen on TikTok and Instagram. Karel is a history-making broadcaster and entertainer currently in Las Vegas with his little service girl Ember. #TheKarelCast, #DarkChristmas, #USPolitics2025, #DemocracyAtRisk, #SupremeCourtWatch, #AuthoritarianThreats, #EconomicRealityCheck, #HolidayStress2025, #NewsCommentaryPodcast, #LasVegasCreator https://youtube.com/live/s6qLFBsASgE

Will the Supreme Court expand presidential powers once again? In an excerpt from this week's Insider episode, Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance break down the oral arguments before the Court over President Trump's tariff policy — specifically, how much power a president has to levy tariffs under emergency-powers laws. In the full episode, Preet and Joyce discuss: – The wave of subpoenas issued to Trump's political opponents by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida that could result in criminal charges alleging a “grand conspiracy” against the president; and – The Justice Department's response to former FBI Director Jim Comey's motions to dismiss the criminal case against him. Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis. Not an Insider? Now more than ever, it's critical to stay tuned. To join a community of reasoned voices in unreasonable times, become an Insider today. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast and other exclusive content. Head to cafe.com/insider or staytuned.substack.com/subscribe.  Subscribe to our YouTube channel. Subscribe to The Long Game podcast. Watch the trailer. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network.  Executive Producer: Tamara Sepper; Supervising Producer: Jake Kaplan; Associate Producer: Claudia Hernández; Audio Producer: Matthew Billy; Deputy Editor: Celine Rohr; CAFE Team: David Tatasciore, Nat Weiner, Jennifer Indig, and Liana Greenway. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Legal Docket, the constitutional authority of President Trump's tariffs; on Moneybeat, New York's experiment with socialism and the détente with China; and on History Book, the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald. Plus, the Monday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donateAdditional support comes from Asbury University's honors program. Where rigorous academics meet deep thinking and spiritual growth. asbury.edu/honorsFrom His Words Abiding in You, a Podcast where listeners memorize Bible verses in each episode. His Words Abiding in You, on all podcast apps.And from Cedarville University—a Christ-centered, academically rigorous university located in southwest Ohio, equipping students for Gospel impact across every career and calling. Cedarville integrates a biblical worldview into every course in the more than 175 undergraduate and graduate programs students choose from. New online undergraduate degrees through Cedarville Online offer flexible and affordable education grounded in a strong Christian community that fosters both faith and learning. Learn more at cedarville.edu, and explore online programs at cedarville.edu/online.

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week about whether President Trump overstepped the limits of his power when he implemented widespread tariffs to address trade deficits. We discuss what both sides argue and the potential ramifications of the court striking down the president's tariff policy.This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, justice correspondent Carrie Johnson, and White House correspondent Danielle Kurtzleben.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell & Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.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

Next year, the Supreme Court will decide whether the President can use a five decade old emergency powers act to shape the U.S. economy.Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or AYEEPA, last spring when he imposed sweeping tariffs of at least 10 percent across all countries.Wednesday, the nine justices heard oral arguments in the case. And however they decide it — the ruling could affect economic policy and presidential power for years to come.California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a democrat, was at the Court and joined Consider This host Juana Summers to talk about the suit and the steps his state is taking to rein in the Trump administration.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.This episode was produced by Brianna Scott and Erika Ryan with engineering by David Greenburg.It was edited by Courtney Dorning.  Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hey BillOReilly.com Premium and Concierge Members, welcome to the No Spin News for Tuesday, October 21, 2025. Stand Up for Your Country.  A look at President Trump's request for Congress to pass Kate's Law, and his mention of Bill. Talking Points Memo: Bill presents the truth about the Constitution, emphasizing that the President has broad powers to combat insurrection. New York attorney Rebecca Rose Woodland joins the No Spin News to discuss the Insurrection Act and whether President Trump has the authority to define what constitutes an insurrection. It's Day 21 of the government shutdown, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D‑NY) has become the Democrats' spokesperson.  Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre continues to defend Joe Biden's mental state. Final Thought: Bill shares a personal letter he received from President Trump. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices