Podcasts about Republican Party

As ICE raids continue to surge across the country, new reporting details the infighting inside the department, with one former official describing the morale as “in the crapper.” Another longtime official attributes the lack of detained convicted criminals to Stephen Miller's fixation on arrest numbers. Coincidentally, a new poll shows President Trump's immigration policy is unfavorable among Independents and Democrats. Then, Representative Debbie Dingell joins The Weekend to discuss Trump's health care cuts and how they could impact the midterms. 

The Department of Justice's recent Jeffrey Epstein report has left some in the MAGA crowd with more questions than answers. FBI deputy director Dan Bongino is considering leaving his job following a heated confrontation with Attorney General Pam Bondi over how the Justice Department handled files on the convicted sex offender. Mary McCord and Joe Walsh join The Weekend to discuss the fight roiling the MAGA faithful.

Fresh off its award-winning run in Europe, Democracy Noir arrives in the United States as a very timely documentary film about how Viktor Orbán politically reshaped Hungary. It paints an incisive portrait of how Orbán used a free and democratic election to install authoritarian rule, enjoying widespread approval from Hungarian nationalists as well as from conservatives around the world inclined to his illiberal views. He changed the constitution, took over the courts and the media, and dismantled the rule of law. Admired by Donald Trump and the Heritage Foundation, Orban's influence helped shape Project 2025 and the current policies of the Republican Party. Democracy Noir tells this story through the activism of its three subjects: opposition politician Timea Szabo, journalist Babett Oroszi, and nurse Nikoletta (Niko) Antal. It details how unchecked power can quickly remove rights that once were taken for granted, and it shows how three women come to terms with their country's unravelling social and cultural landscape. Studying the recent history of another country whose political trajectory mirrors your own can bring clarity to your situation. Join us to view, and then to discuss, this example of an increasingly emboldened far right political party and the rise of autocratic politicians around the world. A Humanities Member-led Forum program. Forums at the Club are organized and run by volunteer programmers who are members of The Commonwealth Club, and they cover a diverse range of topics. Learn more about our Forums. Documentary image and post courtesy Clarity Films; Field photo courtesy the speaker. OrganizerGeorge HammondNotes Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, lower federal courts are ignoring Supreme Court rulings, with judges defying the Constitution and law on immigration. In LA, a judge rules that ICE roundups are racist, alleging indiscriminate arrests of brown-skinned people at Home Depots, car washes, farms, etc., due to ethnicity and a 3,000-daily quota. In addition, in New Hampshire, a judge upholds birthright citizenship via national injunction, citing long-standing practice over constitutional analysis. The media ignore this, while actions persist. The judges have changed, not the Constitution. Also, President Trump has made enormous progress domestically and internationally, but institutions are being turned against Americans. Democrats will inevitably win elections and use the permanent government, courts, and administrative state to try to permanently embed their ideology, making it irreversible. Zohran Mamdani's Stalinist Islamist fusion of ideologies has overtaken parts of Europe and is now infiltrating the U.S., funded by entities like Qatar, Hamas, Iran, and Communist China. Later, socialism is an economic ideology from Marxism, which is a broader life ideology encompassing socialism but extending to cultural, social, and political transformation. The modern activists and professors are unoriginal Karl Marx wannabes who regurgitate ideas from Marx, Hegel, and Rousseau. Thery reject individual liberty and free will as divisive and weak, favoring instead class unity and collective power. There is a comprehensive war on civil society, culture, and America's foundations—targeting family, economy, and liberty—rooted in deadly, anti-human Marxist principles that promote genocide and centralized power.  Afterward, there is a vile and destructive element within the Republican Party. Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene is undermining Trump and introducing amendments removing $500 million in military aid to Israel from the National Defense Authorization Act.  Finally, Mahmoud Khalil filed a $20 million claim against the Trump administration. Only in America does a pro Hamas protestor like this turnaround and bring a lawsuit when he should never have been here in the first place. David Schoen calls in to explain that Khalil is 100% deportable under U.S. Code sections 1227 and 1182 for endorsing and supporting Hamas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As the 2026 election cycle takes shape, three stories signal how the political terrain is shifting: the return of Iowa to early-state relevance, the emergence of an independent challenge in Nebraska, and the Republican Party's willingness to get aggressive — fast.Iowa Democrats are pushing to reclaim their first-in-the-nation status — and they're doing it with or without national party approval. Senator Ruben Gallego is already promoting visits, and the message is clear: Iowa is back. For Democrats, this matters. The state has long served as a proving ground for insurgent campaigns, offering low costs, civic-minded voters, and a tight-knit media ecosystem. Barack Obama's 2008 breakthrough began in Iowa for a reason. It rewards organization, retail politics, and real ground games.The party's 2024 decision to downgrade Iowa was framed as a gesture to Black voters in states like South Carolina and Georgia. In reality, it was a strategic retreat by Joe Biden to avoid a poor showing. That backfired when Dean Phillips forced an awkward New Hampshire campaign and Biden had to rely on a write-in effort. Now, Iowa's utility is being rediscovered — not because it changed, but because the party's strategy failed. For candidates who want to win on message and mechanics, Iowa remains unmatched.In Nebraska, Dan Osborne is trying to chart a different kind of path — not as a Democrat, but as an independent with populist instincts. Running against Senator Pete Ricketts, Osborne is leaning into a class-focused campaign. His ads channel a blue-collar ethos: punching walls, working with his hands, and taking on the rich. He doesn't have to answer for Biden. He doesn't have to pick sides in old partisan fights. He just has to be relatable and viable.That independence could be Osborne's biggest asset — or his biggest liability. His support for Bernie Sanders invites the question: is he a true outsider, or a Democrat in disguise? Sanders has always caucused with Democrats and run on their ticket. Osborne will have to prove he can remain politically distinct while tapping into a coalition broad enough to win in a deeply red state. Nebraska voters might give him a chance, but they'll need a reason to believe he's not just another version of what they already know.And then there's the tone of the campaign itself. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is already running attack ads that border on X-rated. A recent spot reads aloud hashtags from a sexually explicit tweet in a bid to link opponents with cultural extremes. The strategy is clear: bypass policy, bypass biography — go straight for discomfort. Make voters associate the opposition with something taboo. Make the election feel like a moral emergency.These tactics aren't about persuasion. They're about turnout. They aim to harden the base, suppress moderates, and flood the discourse with outrage. The fact that it's happening this early suggests Republicans see 2026 as a high-stakes cycle where no race can be taken for granted. And if this is how they're starting, the tone by next summer could be even more toxic.All of this — Iowa's return, Osborne's challenge, the NRSC's messaging — points to a midterm cycle already in motion. The personalities are distinct. The tactics are evolving. But the stakes, as ever, are the same: power, perception, and the battle to define the political future before anyone casts a vote.Chapters00:00:00 - Intro00:01:56 - Midterm Ads00:15:18 - Interview with Dave Levinthal00:37:31 - Update00:38:11 - Ken Paxton and the Texas Senate Race00:43:02 - Congressional Districts00:47:31 - Fed Chair00:52:42 - Interview with Dave Levinthal (con't)01:11:22 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Jacob welcomes economic policy expert Mike Konczal for a wide-ranging conversation on American capitalism, industrial policy, and the evolving role of the state. They explore how the Biden administration's economic agenda challenges decades of neoliberal orthodoxy, discuss the implications of increased public investment, and examine what it means to have a “pro-worker” economy. Konczal brings deep insight into the politics and pragmatics of economic reform, offering a nuanced look at the shifting landscape of U.S. economic policymaking.--Timestamps:(00:00) - Introduction and Guest Introduction(00:17) - Disclaimer and Encouragement to Listen(01:13) - Starting the Conversation: Economy and Tariffs(01:34) - Discussing Richard Rorty and Substack(04:31) - The 2025 Tax Act: Key Points and Implications(07:45) - Healthcare Market Rework and Medicaid Cuts(10:57) - Energy Market Changes and Green Energy(13:38) - Immigration Policies and ICE Funding(18:11) - Balancing Criticism with Positive Aspects(27:15) - Economic Shockwaves and the Republican Party(27:39) - Market Reactions and Fiscal Policies(28:30) - Deficit and US Debt Perspectives(30:14) - Healthcare Cuts and Fiscal Impact(34:04) - Tariffs and Market Uncertainty(39:53) - Inflation and Interest Rates(45:54) - Future Economic Strategies and Affordability(52:41) - Concluding Thoughts and Future Outlook--Referenced in the Show:Mike's Website + Book: https://www.mikekonczal.com/--Jacob Shapiro Site: jacobshapiro.comJacob Shapiro LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/jacob-l-s-a9337416Jacob Twitter: x.com/JacobShapJacob Shapiro Substack: jashap.substack.com/subscribe --The Jacob Shapiro Show is produced and edited by Audiographies LLC. More information at audiographies.com --Jacob Shapiro is a speaker, consultant, author, and researcher covering global politics and affairs, economics, markets, technology, history, and culture. He speaks to audiences of all sizes around the world, helps global multinationals make strategic decisions about political risks and opportunities, and works directly with investors to grow and protect their assets in today's volatile global environment. His insights help audiences across industries like finance, agriculture, and energy make sense of the world.--This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Podtrac - https://analytics.podtrac.com/privacy-policy-gdrp

Florida Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna joins Mike to discuss the youth movement in the Republican Party. Plus, she gives her thoughts on the first few months of Trump's second term. Plus, Charlie Kirk's Executive Producer, Andrew Kolvet, joins Mike to discuss working with Charlie and the future of the GOP. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna goes after the billionaire who's been reportedly bankrolling the LA Riots and threatens to seize his assets if he refuses a congressional order to appear and testify. Louisiana Sen John Kennedy calls on the GOP to pass Trump's recission bill to claw back billions in wasteful spending approved by prior administrations. Big Pharma wants to nuke RFK Jr because Kennedy knows the surgical precision needed to take down mRNA vaccines and get them permanently off the shelves.

In this episode of ThePrint WorldView, Consulting Editor and foreign policy expert Dr. Swasti Rao sits down with George "David" Banks, one of the rare American policy insiders to have served under three U.S. Presidents—George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump. A seasoned advisor with experience across the CIA, the State Department, and the National Economic and National Security Councils, Banks brings unmatched insight into the tectonic shifts underway in America's political economy. As Trump's former Special Assistant for International Energy and Environment, and Republican Deputy Staff Director at the Senate Environment Committee, he was at the heart of key policy transformations during Trump 1.0. In this candid conversation, Banks unpacks the driving forces behind Trump 2.0's economic populism, the much-debated “Big Beautiful Bill,” and the rationale behind the 10% tariff baseline that signals a permanent shift in U.S. trade policy. He explains why Elon Musk has publicly broken ranks with Trump, how the climate agenda is being sidelined, and why the Republican Party is undergoing a deep identity crisis between isolationism and global cooperation. He also weighs in on India's place in Trump's geopolitical calculus, what has changed, what hasn't, and what New Delhi must prepare for if Trump returns to the White House. #trump #tarrifs #india #us #elonmusk #musk

Ryan Wrecker is once again filling in for Mark Reardon. The show starts with the question if President Trump has changed the Republican party. Ira Mehlman, Spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform joins the show to talk about the recent violent attacks on ICE and border patrol agents and legislation to force ICE agents to take off their masks. Paul Mauro, Fox News Contributor joins the show to talk about the one year anniversary of the attempted assassination of then Candidate Trump and Biden's former doctor Kevin O'Connor pleading the 5th when summoned to appear before a House subcommittee to answer questions about the mental acuity and health of then President Biden.

The death toll rises in Texas as local officials face intensifying questions about their response to the floods. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) speaks with NBC News following his vote to pass President Trump's tax and spending plan despite opposing its cuts to Medicaid. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) shares his thoughts on the state of the Republican Party and his decision to not to seek re-election in the House. 

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Yesterday we learned that Sen Julia Coleman (R) would not be seeking the Senate seat but potentially throw her name in the hat as Republican candidate for Minnesota governor? We talked to her about this, what the future of the Republican Party both in Minnesota and the country looks like, her own safety as a lawmaker following the horrific events of June 14th - that and much more with her!

In today's episode of the Center for Baptist Leadership podcast, William Wolfe sits down with Ambassador Designee for International Religious Freedom at the State Department, former Congressman and Pastor, Mark Walker, to discuss the global fight for religious freedom, working with President Trump, and his service as a pastor and congressman.   Mark Walker is an American politician and former pastor who served as a U.S. Representative for North Carolina's 6th congressional district from 2015 to 2021. A member of the Republican Party, Walker was elected to lead the Republican Study Committee in 2017 and served as vice chair of the House Republican Conference in 2019. In 2024, Walker joined Donald Trump's presidential campaign as director of faith and minority outreach. On April 10, 2025, President Trump announced his intention to nominate Walker as the U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, a position within the State Department.   Learn more about Mark Walker's work: https://x.com/repmarkwalker   ––––––   Follow Center for Baptist Leadership across Social Media: X / Twitter – https://twitter.com/BaptistLeaders Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/people/Center-For-Baptist-Leadership/61556762144277/ Rumble – https://rumble.com/c/c-6157089 YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@CenterforBaptistLeadership Website – https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/   To book William for media appearances or speaking engagements, please contact him at media@centerfor­baptistleadership.org.   Follow Us on Twitter: William Wolfe - https://twitter.com/William_E_Wolfe Richard Henry - https://twitter.com/RThenry83   Renew the SBC from within and defend the SBC from those who seek its destruction, donate today: https://centerforbaptistleadership.org/donate/   The Center for Baptist Leadership Podcast is powered by American Reformer, recorded remotely in the United States by William Wolfe, and edited by Jared Cummings.   Subscribe to the Center for Baptist Leadership Podcast: Distribute our RSS Feed – https://centerforbaptistleadership.podbean.com/ Apple Podcasts – https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/center-for-baptist-leadership/id1743074575 Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/show/0npXohTYKWYmWLsHkalF9t Amazon Music // Audible – https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9ababbdd-6c6b-4ab9-b21a-eed951e1e67b BoomPlay – https://www.boomplaymusic.com/podcasts/96624 TuneIn – Coming Soon iHeartRadio – https://iheart.com/podcast/170321203 Listen Notes – https://lnns.co/2Br0hw7p5R4 Pandora – Coming Soon PlayerFM – https://player.fm/series/3570081 Podchaser – https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-center-for-baptist-leaders-5696654 YouTube Podcasts – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFMvfuzJKMICA7wi3CXvQxdNtA_lqDFV

What would an Elon Musk-backed third party do for American politics? The fellas look at which party benefits and if the formation of an "America" party would pave a clear path for Democratic victories. They also cover if Musk misunderstands US politics, or if he promised more with DOGE than he (or any one man) could deliver.   Smug wants an influencer-based Epstein inquisition impaneled with some broad powers.   Great coverage of the “kill the gringo” protests and if Smug would escape them in Mexico City, plus Hakeem Jeffries humiliating photoshop fail. PLUS Josh Dawsey On His New Book: https://www.amazon.com/2024-Trump-Retook-Democrats-America/dp/0593832531    Our Sponsors: ➢Beverage America believes in the promise that makes this nation great. Learn more at http://wedeliverforamerica.org/ ➢Put America first by ending lawsuit abuse. Go to https://moreaffordableusa.com/ to learn more.

In this episode of the Bill Press Pod, Bill reconnects with Carl Hulse, Chief Washington Correspondent for the New York Times, to discuss The Big Beautiful Bill recently forced through Congress. They compare it to the fights around the passage of The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and highlight the legislative muscle required, including Vice President's critical tie-breaking votes. The bill, encompassing Medicaid cuts to border security, faced criticism for bypassing traditional processes. They delve into the political ramifications, with Republicans like Josh Hawley and Tom Tillis grappling with the bill's implications while nearly all Republicans caved to political pressure from Trump. The pod also addresses the bill's potential impact on the national deficit and how Democrats could leverage this in future elections. Additionally, the influence of figures like Elon Musk on the legislative process and Trump's ongoing impact on the Republican Party are examined.Today Bill highlights the work of Jose Andres and the World Central Kitchen now providing food to the people in the Texas Hill Country recovering from the flash flood disaster. More information at WCK.orgSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode, Scott Becker examines the use of the term “RINO” within the Republican Party.

I sat down with long time Democratic activist Mike Nellis about why I became a Democrat, what problems the Democratic Party has, and what the party needs to do to prevail and help democracy prevail. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Councilman Frank Morano calls in to discuss Mayor Eric Adams and his re-election prospects come the general election for Mayor of NYC in November. Frank criticizes Adams for his perceived incompetence and corruption throughout his term, discussing the misguided endorsements of other politicians, mentioning Peter King's and others' mistaken endorsements of Adams over Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate for mayor, highlighting Sliwa's integrity compared to other political figures. Morano suggests that the Republican Party should rally behind Sliwa to exploit the divided Democratic vote. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After the 2024 election, the Republican Party claimed that Latino voters had shifted dramatically to the right. We'll hear from one GOP consultant who says the reality is more complicated. Plus, the lasting legacy of a controversial orphan train.

In this episode, Scott Becker examines the use of the term “RINO” within the Republican Party.

While the spending bill aims to cut healthcare and food aid services, ICE is set to receive a historic boost in funding. Representative Robert Garcia joins The Weekend to warn how this increase can turn ICE into President Trump's “federal police force.” Plus, after weeks of condemning the bill, Elon Musk defies MAGA and announces a third political party.

Congress passed President Trump's budget bill despite weeks of concern raised by Republicans over the debt limit. A closer look suggests the megabill will add $3.3 trillion to the debt while cutting key services. "The Weekend" takes a deeper look at how that will impact low-income Americans. Then, Jodi Grant discusses the Trump administration's decision to withhold nearly $7 billion in school grants.

Today for the Fourth of July, we learn about the life of Frederick Douglass, the abolitionist born into slavery who famously asked, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?"We present our Full Bio conversation with Yale historian David Blight, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning biography, Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom.Frederick Douglass, Part 1: Douglass's early life as an enslaved person and how he learned to readFrederick Douglass, Part 2: How Douglass escaped slavery and fled to the NorthFrederick Douglass, Part 3: How Douglass's views on slavery evolved in the 1830's and 1840'sFrederick Douglass, Part 4: Douglass's first wife, Anna, their five children (four of whom lived to adulthood), and his long and turbulent friendship with German feminist and abolitionist Otillie AssingFrederick Douglass, Part 5: His allegiance to the Republican Party, including his working relationship with Abraham Lincoln, and why Andrew Johnson was so dismissive of DouglassFrederick Douglass, Part 6: The reaction to Frederick Douglass's death in February of 1895 as well as why Douglass's second marriage to a woman named Helen Pitts became one of the biggest scandals in 19th century America

Trump has sold the GOP on his One Massive Spending Bill. And just like that, the GOP and MAGA are cheering for Big Government spending and Central Planning from DC. Some even want ONE MAN to run the whole show with no checks or balances. This is the new Republican Party.

Dorsey Hager, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Columbus Central Ohio Building and Construction Trades Council, joined the America's Work Force Union Podcast to discuss the expansion of the Building Futures program, Prevailing Wage legislation and challenges with the Columbus airport project. Fred Redmond, Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, joined the America's Work Force Union Podcast to discuss the upcoming nationwide bus tour to “reclaim Labor Day,” criticized the Republican Party's recent policy decisions and emphasized the need to protect democracy.

Happy Independence Day! We'll be back next week with a new episode, but today we're sharing the episode that started us on the path to “Interesting Times.” Ross Douthat talks to Reihan Salam, the president of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Together they wrote the book “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream.”They review their George W. Bush-era prescriptions for the Republican Party to reclaim the working-class vote and the ways they were right (and wrong) about building a new Republican majority.03:47 George W. Bush era12:06 Rise and fall of the Tea Party18:19 Trump's 2016 “blood and guts” message28:11 Trump's effect on the right and left35:48 Trump's first term economic agenda39:30 Elon Musk vs JD Vance46:50 Imagining an activist, conservative government(A full transcript of this episode is available on the Times website.)Thoughts? Email us at interestingtimes@nytimes.com. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

President Trump put essentially his entire domestic agenda in one bill.It would significantly cut clean energy incentives, Medicaid and food assistance programs — and double down on tax cuts, immigration enforcement and national defense.Despite opposition from Democrats, and divides within the Republican Party, it passed through Congress.How did that happen? And what does it mean for American taxpayers? NPR correspondents explain.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.nprth.org.Email us at considerthis@npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

President Donald Trump is poised to sign the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law, after the House and Senate passed the bill in two all-night sessions this week. Trump and his allies consider its passage to be a big victory, but the bill, which extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts, will also result in millions losing their health insurance — a cost that could leave fissures in the Republican Party. Today on “Post Reports,” Colby Itkowitz sits down with congressional reporter Theodoric Meyer and the Post's “Early Brief” newsletter author Dan Merica to discuss the consequences of the bill and how it could influence the 2026 midterm elections. Today's show was produced by Arjun Singh, and edited by Laura Benshoff with help from Emily Rauhala. It was mixed by Sam Bair.Subscribe to The Washington Post here.

Notwithstanding regular headlines and firm conventional wisdom, the MAGA Movement is not and never has been an isolationist faction of the Republican Party. Neither the American people nor self-identified MAGA Republicans are fundamentally isolationist, and in fact score higher than non-MAGA Republicans on support for U.S. intervention abroad. The numbers don't lie: this year's Reagan […]

Former Deputy National Security Advisor, K.T. McFarland, joins the conversation ahead of July 4th to celebrate President Trump's patriotism and how he has highlighted American achievements, akin to President Reagan. McFarland also covers the challenges with Iran's nuclear facilities, the liberal media's response, before she dives into the implications of a potential Zohran Mamdani win in New York for the Republican Party.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Notwithstanding regular headlines and firm conventional wisdom, the MAGA Movement is not and never has been an isolationist faction of the Republican Party. Neither the American people nor self-identified MAGA Republicans are fundamentally isolationist, and in fact score higher than non-MAGA Republicans on support for U.S. intervention abroad. The numbers don't lie: this year's Reagan Foundation Summer Poll found the MAGA coalition strongly support Trump's decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. Why are these results counterintuitive? And how has a tiny isolationist faction of self-appointed MAGA spokespeople drummed up so much noise? Roger Zakheim serves as the Washington Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute. Before joining, he was General Counsel and Deputy Staff Director of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee. In this role, Mr. Zakheim managed the passage of the annual National Defense Authorization Act, the defense policy bill which authorizes the Defense Department's budget. Mr. Zakheim's government experience also includes serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense where he supported the department's policies and programs related to Iraq and Afghanistan coalition affairs.Read the transcript here

#podcast #progressives #Democrats #Michigan #MAGAMurderBudget #BigBeautifulBill #Trump #MAGA #Republicans #Medicaid #WorkingClass #SNAP #CleanEnergy #Jobs #CorporateGreed #CorporateCorruption #GovernmentCorruption #Oligarchy #CorporateAuthoritariansim #JohnMoolenaar #RashidaTlaib #ElissaSlotkin #Populism #LeftOfLansing Here's the Episode 140 of Michigan's Premier Progressive Podcast for July 3, 2025! 00:00-17:23: MAGA Murder Budget Destroys Clean Energy Pat Johnston highlights how the MAGA Murder Budget will decimate investments into our growing clean energy industry in Michigan, and across the nation. At the same time, MAGA Republicans in Congress are providing major subsidies for the coal & oil industry. This won't just harm Americans on a public health and environmental front, this will destroy jobs and our nation's economy. Even more, thanks in part to my MAGA Republican Congressman John Moolenaar, Republicans are handing China a big economic victory while hurting America. 17:24-36:21: MAGA Murder Budget Is Pro-Oligarchy Pat shows how Michigan MAGA Republicans in the State House failed to pass a budget by the July 1 deadline. Like Congressional Republicans, Michigan Republicans are trying to steal from the working class safety net, and funnel money up towards their rich & elite donor base. Pat highlights how the MAGA Murder Budget attacks Medicaid, and how Republican arguments for work requirements is another way to humiliate the working class. 36:22-46:01: Last Call-Sen.Slotkin's "Economic War Plan" Review In the "Last Call," Pat gives a review of Michigan Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin's "Economic War Plan." He points-out where he agrees with her, and where and why some of her incremental plans fail the moment we're in as a country. 46:02-47:54: Ending Please, subscribe to the podcast, download each episode, and give it a good review if you can! leftoflansing@gmail.com Left of Lansing is now on YouTube as well! leftoflansing.com NOTES: "Senate passes ‘big, beautiful bill:' What it means for Michigan." By Lauren Gibbons of Bridge Michigan "Climate change triggers earlier mold allergy season, say Michigan scientists." By Emilio Perez Ibarguen "Michigan is energized: Report ranks state 6th in nation for clean energy jobs." By Michigan Department of Energy, Great Lakes, and Energy "More Than 100,000 Michigan Residents Nearly Lost Medicaid Coverage Under Work Requirements." By Robert Gordon of The Commonwealth Fund "Michigan Dems excoriate passage of ‘big, beautiful' tax and spending bill as GOP applauds action." By Ben Solis of Michigan Advance "Is the Republican Party a Chinese Communist Conspiracy?" By Ryan Cooper of The American Prospect "Anti-Gotion activists speak out at Michigan House subcommittee as project remains on hold." By Kyle Davidson of Michigan Advance Political Contributions to Michigan Republican Congressman John Moolenaar via Open Secrets

Tonight on The Last Word: The Senate passes Donald Trump's budget bill with Medicaid and food assistance cuts. And Stanford University Professor Jack Rakove says the Trump era is a “constitutional failure.” Rep. Brendan Boyle and Jack Rakove join Lawrence O'Donnell.

Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress set a July 4th deadline to pass a spending package the President and others gave the moniker the “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” Getting the measure to the president's desk hasn't been plain sailing - the Senate version passed this week only with a tie-breaking vote by Vice President JD Vance. Now fiscal conservatives in the House are battling over some of the details, but it seems likely to become law soon enough.  On this episode of Free Expression, Gerry Baker speaks with economist and former director of the Congressional Budget Office Douglas Holtz-Eakin about the bill's likely positive impact on the economy as well as the nation's dire fiscal situation, how the nation's budget challenges still require reform of entitlements that seems politically elusive, and what this signature piece of domestic policy says about the direction of Trump's Republican Party.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elon Musk vows legal retaliation over the controversial "Big Beautiful Bill.". Logan and Will take a closer look at how Musk's actions may be part of a broader effort to fracture the Republican Party. Then, bombshell evidence reveals a smear campaign by the abortion lobby colluding with Massachusetts to target Christian Pregnancy Resource Centers. The ACLJ team exposes the implications of this collusion. Plus, Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell joins to discuss California's latest tax scheme and its potential nationwide ripple effects. All this and more on today's broadcast.

In this fiery monologue, the host exposes how Senate Republican leader John Thune and the entrenched Bush-era establishment are sabotaging efforts to remove over a million illegal immigrants from taxpayer-funded Medicaid. Despite clear federal law barring non-citizens from these benefits, Thune, backed by the same open-borders donors who funded George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Karl Rove's decades-long globalist agenda, is accused of hiding behind parliamentary maneuvers to keep the system alive. The segment argues this is the last gasp of a corrupt political machine desperate to preserve illegal immigration as a tool to reshape America—and warns that unless the Bush-aligned “cancer” inside the Republican Party is defeated, the nation faces permanent transformation.

Alicia Menendez – in for Nicolle Wallace – on the division in the Republican Party as Trump's megabill reaches the Senate floor, continued ICE raids in Los Angeles stoking fear, and the Trump administration's plan to build a national citizenship data system.Joined by: Vaughn Hillyard, Charlie Sykes, Cornell Belcher, Angelo Carusone, Jacob Soboroff, Andrea Flores, Sen. Cory Booker, Eddie Glaude, Kim Atkins Stohr, Marc Elias, John Hudson, and Justin Wolfers.

SEASON 3 EPISODE 143: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (1:45) SPECIAL REPORT: Which is worse? That Trump is running a “Protection Racket Presidency” and bribed one Senator to vote for his Big Beautiful Soak The Poor Budget Bill while metaphorically bumping off one Senator who wouldn’t? Or that Trump threatened Israel, threatened the government of Israel, if Israel's courts don’t do what HE wants on behalf of Netanyahu – and nobody noticed. Which is worse? Well it’s a trick question because these are actually just two different aspects of the same story. It’s a protection racket. These are a) the domestic operations of the protection racket, and b) the international operations of the protection racket. Thom Tillis, the vaguely responsible Republican senator from North Carolina, refused to let Trump politically rape him Saturday night and would not vote to advance the budget bill. Trump had been threatening him for weeks, months, accelerated it, finally began to ask for volunteers to primary him, Tillis announced yesterday he will retire from the senate at the end of his term next year. So much for Mr. Tillis. So much for somebody, anybody, in the Republican party saying “I owe this country something.” So much for the thought that when the country is up against it and the breaks are beating the boys, tell ‘em to go out there with all they got and win just one for the Tiller. I don’t know where I’ll be then, but I’ll know about it and I’ll be happy.” Well I know where Thom Tillis will be: he’ll be back home in Cornelius, North Carolina. Presumably drinking heavily. Reflecting on how he represents the utter moral and ethical decline of the already near-bankrupt and nearly-totally-declined Republican Party. Meanwhile Senator Lisa Murkowski turns out to be Susan Collins with less Kibuki make-up. She sold her soul to get herself a carveout for Alaska, only to find out the Senate Parliamentarian says it violates the Senate's Byrd Rule and the carveout must be carved out. Lol. AND TRUMP THREATENED TO DEFUND ISRAEL - what would be the end of the political career of any other American figure - and nobody noticed. And it seems to have worked. ALSO: WHY KRISTEN GILLIBRAND MUST RESIGN (and get treatment), Stephen Miller has a financial interest in the ICE raids, the plot to make Eric Adams the Republican nominee for mayor of New York, and you missed the new SCOTUS rulings on porn! Pay attention, Mike Johnson! B-Block (37:32) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Jeopardy aficionados worried about a conflict of interest because the contestant was related to the person who was the answer to the question? I was on two episodes of Jeopardy in which a contestant had the same name as the answer to the question, and where a contestant wrote four of the five sketches that were all the answers in an entire category! Plus the Fox host who doesn't know when World War 2 was or which American party caused breadlines; Chris Cuomo thinks AOC destroyed the Democratic Party not, say, he and his brother; and idiot Senator Bernie Moreno discusses "anals" with Laura Ingraham. C-Block (56:00) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: It's that time again. July 10 is the 46th anniversary of my first broadcast on my first full-time broadcasting job, which means you have a choice: you have to listen to it, or skip it.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jim is back though Greg is gone for today's 3 Martini Lunch. In his stead is radio personality Craig Collins. Join Craig and Jim as Independence Day week kicks off with a good, a bad, and a crazy bit of news. The week begins with Canada rescinding their digital service tax in response to Mr. Trump's Truth Social post, North Caroline Senator Thom Tillis and Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon will not be seeking reelection, and a Gallup poll finds that pride in America is significantly down from last year. First, Craig and Jim are pleased that just two days after Trump declared on Truth Social that he was suspending trade talks with Canada over their digital services tax, Canada announces they're rescinding the tax. Jim argues this tax to be particularly unfair and discriminatory toward U.S. businesses. Craig notes how Trump has been following through on his threats, and Canada seems unwilling to test him on this. Next, they mourn the bad news that North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis AND Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon will not be seeking reelection. Because the Republican Party won by narrow margins in those states, Jim worries this may swing states blue making it a good week for the DSCC and DCCC.Last, they are aghast at the recent Gallup poll which shows pride in America to be down significantly from last year particularly among Democrats. Jim is amused that Democrats felt more pride in the country when President Biden was in office. Ultimately, Jim and Craig argue that pride in one's country should not be contingent upon who is in office. Please visit our great sponsors:No missed calls, no missed customers with OpenPhone. Get 20% off your first 6 months athttps://Openphone.com/3mlIt's free, online, and easy to start with no strings attached. Enroll in the American Foreign Policycourse FREE with Hillsdale College. Visit https://Hillsdale.edu/Martini

Political Pollster John McLaughlin calls into the program to touch on various upcoming elections and political scenarios. He touches on the prospects of prominent Republican figures, the importance of polling data, and the impact of President Trump's policies on future elections. McLaughlin covers various races, including New York's mayoral and gubernatorial campaigns, and potential candidates for the 2028 presidential race. His dialogue underscores the strategic moves and political dynamics within the Republican Party as they gear up for midterms and future elections. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In today's episode, hosts Nate Thurston and Charles 'Meka' Thompson bring you another engaging installment of Good Morning Liberty. As we celebrate the 4th of July, the duo reflects on the significance of the founding fathers and the enduring principles they established. The discussion takes a turn towards current events with an in-depth look at the progress made under Argentina's Libertarian President Javier Mele, including reduced poverty and inflation rates. Nate and Charles also delve into the looming insolvency of U.S. Social Security, Bernie Sanders' critique of the Republican Party, and the implications of the Big Beautiful Bill making its way through the Senate. Join them for a blend of insightful analysis, humor, and passionate discourse on the pressing issues of our time. (00:00) Introduction and 4th of July Banter (01:11) Fireworks and Podcast Milestones (02:28) Senate Bill Debate (05:08) Argentina's Economic Reforms (11:24) Social Security's Looming Crisis (18:55) Critique of the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB) (22:12) Trump's Senate Victory and Bernie's Irony (22:35) Bernie Sanders' Critique of the Republican Party (24:55) Energy Subsidies and Elon Musk's Concerns (25:51) Debate on Wind and Solar Taxes (28:01) Socialism for the Rich: A Critique (38:03) The Wealth Gap and Market Dynamics   Links:   https://gml.bio.link/   YOUTUBE:   https://bit.ly/3UwsRiv   RUMBLE:   https://rumble.com/c/GML   Check out Martens Minute!   https://martensminute.podbean.com/   Follow Josh Martens on X:   https://twitter.com/joshmartens13   CB Distillery 25% off with promo code GML   cbdistillery.com   Join the Fed Haters Club!   joingml.com   secure.thomasmassie.com/donate  

U.S. Military Strike on Iran: The episode centers around a recent U.S. military strike that reportedly devastated Iran’s nuclear capabilities, setting the program back by years. The hosts argue that this action was necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and praise President Trump’s leadership in authorizing the strike. Criticism of the Left and Media: The conversation includes strong criticism of Democrats, liberal ideology, and mainstream media outlets (e.g., CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times), accusing them of downplaying the success of the strike and sympathizing with Iran. The hosts argue that liberal logic is inconsistent, especially when it comes to foreign policy and national security. Iran’s Role in Global Terrorism: Iran is portrayed as the primary state sponsor of terrorism, funding groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. The episode discusses Iran’s alleged attempts to assassinate Donald Trump and its broader hostility toward the U.S. and Israel. UN and International Response: The United Nations and its Secretary-General are heavily criticized for condemning the U.S. strike, with the hosts mocking the UN’s stance and questioning its legitimacy. Internal GOP Debate: Cruz and Ferguson highlight a divide within the Republican Party, between those advocating for a strong global stance and those favoring isolationism. They criticize figures like Tucker Carlson for opposing the strike and accuse them of spreading misinformation. Peace Through Strength Doctrine: The hosts emphasize the idea that military strength leads to peace, contrasting Trump’s decisive action with what they describe as the appeasement strategies of Obama and Biden. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening #seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmericaYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: 4:05pm- While appearing on NewsNation with Chris Cuomo, Rosie O'Donnell revealed that she suffered from depression following Donald Trump's election win—causing her to overeat and overdrink. PLUS: a morbidly obese man dressed in an orange Garfield shirt was dragged off a plane after he incessantly complained about not having enough room in his assigned seat. AND former Congressman Jamaal Bowman blames heart disease and diabetes on racism! 4:30pm- On Thursday, President Donald Trump delivered remarks from the White House—promoting the Republican Party's tax and spending legislation.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (06/26/2025): 3:05pm- On Tuesday night, far-left candidate Zohran Mamdani earned 43% of the Democratic primary vote, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo to win the party's New York City mayoral nomination. Incumbent NYC Mayor Eric Adams will challenge Mamdani as an Independent in November. Cuomo has also hinted that he is considering a general election campaign as an Independent. 3:30pm- On Thursday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Dan Caine held a press conference to address intelligence leaks—ultimately disputing the accuracy of a CNN report suggesting that Iranian nuclear development was only slowed by several months. According to the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the centrifuges at Fordo are “no longer operational.” Following a Senate intelligence committee hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he has seen enough information to determine that Iran's nuclear “operational capability was obliterated.” 4:05pm- While appearing on NewsNation with Chris Cuomo, Rosie O'Donnell revealed that she suffered from depression following Donald Trump's election win—causing her to overeat and overdrink. PLUS: a morbidly obese man dressed in an orange Garfield shirt was dragged off a plane after he incessantly complained about not having enough room in his assigned seat. AND former Congressman Jamaal Bowman blames heart disease and diabetes on racism! 4:30pm- On Thursday, President Donald Trump delivered remarks from the White House—promoting the Republican Party's tax and spending legislation. 5:05pm- On Thursday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Dan Caine held a press conference to address intelligence leaks—ultimately disputing the accuracy of a CNN report suggesting that Iranian nuclear development was only slowed by several months. According to the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the centrifuges at Fordo are “no longer operational.” Following a Senate intelligence committee hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he has seen enough information to determine that Iran's nuclear “operational capability was obliterated.” 5:20pm- While appearing on Joe Rogan's podcast, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was asked whether or not he intends to run for president in 2028—he didn't say “no,” though he did seem to suggest it was unlikely given his age. 5:30pm- Bill D'Agostino—Senior Research Analyst at Media Research Center—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to breakdown some of the best (and worst) clips from corporate media: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt calls out CNN reporter Natasha Bertrand for her false reports about U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Nicolle Wallace feels “gutted” over the deportation of Tren de Aragua gang members, and the media blames everything on the “far-right.” 6:05pm- Dr. Wilfred Reilly—Professor of Political Science at Kentucky State University & Author of “Lies My Liberal Teacher Told Me”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss socialist Zohran Mamdani winning the New York City mayoral Democratic primary. On Thursday, rapper 50-Cent hilariously offered Mamdani $258,000 to drop out of the race and leave the city! Plus, what is “Alligator Alcatraz”? 6:40pm- According to a report from The New York Post, New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) is open to running for re-election as a Republican if Curtis Sliwa is willing to withdraw from the race.

Listen to the rest of this premium episode by subscribing at patreon.com/knowyourenemy.Donald Trump's rise in U.S. politics over the past decade has been inextricable from his "America First" foreign policy and withering criticisms of the Iraq War, nation building, and both the neoconservatism that led the Republican Party to disaster during George W. Bush's presidency and the Washington establishment that still thought America could police the world. Trump's message of a restrained foreign policy and pledge to avoid getting dragged into forever wars especially seemed to resonate as he ran to take back the presidency in 2024—there was no end in sight to the war between Ukraine and Russia, and Israel was committing genocide in Gaza as Bibi Netanyahu walked all over an exhausted, only occasionally lucid Biden.But less than half a year into President Trump's second term and the failure negotiations with Iran, Israel bombed that country's nuclear facilities and assassinated their negotiators and nuclear scientists—and just over a week later, so did Trump when he ordered the dropping of massive "bunker buster" bombs to try to destroy the nuclear facilities Israel could not.In this episode, we once again talk to executive editor of The American Conservative, Curt Mills, a leading voice of the restraint and realism wing on the right, to try to understand the war within MAGA set off by the "Twelve Day War" with Iran. Why did Trump bomb Iran? Who was he listening to, or not, as he made that decision? How did the various factions within the MAGA movement respond, and what is the state of play currently in Trump World? What was Israel's role in all this? And how much longer will Trump tolerate Netanyahu's constant efforts to get the American military to fight in Israel's wars? We take up these questions, and more.Sources:Ian Ward, "The MAGA Split Over Israel," Politico, June 13, 2025Joe Gould, et al, "MAGA Largely Falls in Line on Trump's Iran Strikes," Politico, June 21, 2025Katy Balls, "Trump is Taking Fire Over 'Forever Wars,' but MAGA's Real Battle Awaits," The Times of London, June 22, 2025Jude Russo, "What Next?" The American Conservative, June 24, 2025Sohrab Ahmari, "Did Iran win the 12-day war?" Unherd, June 25, 2025

Tonight's rundown: Hey BillOReilly.com Premium and Concierge Members, welcome to the No Spin News for Monday, June 23, 2025. Stand Up for Your Country.  Talking Points Memo: Bill explains what sparked the Iran strikes and breaks down how the events unfolded. As expected, the left is blaming Trump. Bill looks at what Sen. Jeff Merkley said about the Iran strike. The government of Pakistan announced it would nominate President Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. Bernie Goldberg, founder of BernardGoldberg.com, joins the No Spin News to discuss why he supports President Trump's decision to act on Iran and the Republican Party's shift toward isolationism. This Day in History: President Barack Obama fired General Stanley Allen McChrystal after his controversial comments appeared in a Rolling Stone article. Final Thought: Where Bill was when the news broke about the bombing. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, the Hacks are pulling double duty—two big stories, two top-notch guests. First, Senator Elissa Slotkin—former CIA analyst and Pentagon official—joins to break down U.S. involvement in Iran, Trump's handling of the strikes, and the rift this is opening inside the Republican Party. Then, the Hacks turn to the city that never sleeps with former U.S. Ambassador to South Africa and longtime New York political heavyweight Patrick Gaspard. They dig into the New York mayor's race, the ins and outs of ranked choice voting, and how generational divides, political comebacks, and a post-MeToo reckoning are reshaping the city's politics.

Iran-Israel Conflict and U.S. Involvement: The discussion highlights Israel’s military actions against Iran, particularly targeting nuclear facilities and military leadership. There is a focus on the Fordow nuclear facility, which is heavily fortified and allegedly beyond Israel’s current military capabilities to destroy without U.S. assistance. The speakers advocate for the U.S. to provide or deploy bunker-buster bombs to assist Israel in neutralizing this threat. U.S. Foreign Policy and Deterrence: Cruz argues for a strong deterrence-based foreign policy, contrasting it with what he describes as the weakness of the Biden administration. He supports Trump’s approach, emphasizing strength and the threat of retaliation to prevent attacks on American servicemembers. Criticism of Isolationism: The conversation critiques isolationist views, particularly those attributed to Tucker Carlson, suggesting that disengagement emboldens adversaries like Iran. Iranian Threats Against U.S. Leaders: Cruz claims Iran has actively plotted to assassinate Donald Trump and other former U.S. officials, citing DOJ indictments and intelligence reports. He criticizes Carlson for allegedly denying or downplaying these threats during a previous interview. Media and Political Dynamics: The podcast discusses perceived media bias and attempts to create division within the Republican Party over foreign policy. Trump is portrayed as a unifying figure for the GOP on national security issues, with Cruz expressing strong alignment with his policies. Military Strategy and Limitations: There is technical discussion about military hardware, such as the B-2 bomber and 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs, which only the U.S. possesses. The speakers stress that while they oppose ground troop deployment, they support targeted airstrikes to neutralize nuclear threats. Public Opinion and Political Messaging: A poll is cited showing strong public support for military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The conversation frames this support as evidence of the mainstream nature of their position. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening #seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmericaYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.