Loading summary
Transcript17 lines
- [00:05]
Shemitah Basu
Good morning. It's Friday, March 21st. I'm Shemitah Basu. This is Apple News Today. On today's show, growing concerns that our democratic norms are eroding what Trump's order to close the Department of Education actually means, and a big privacy breach in the JFK assassination papers. We begin with growing concerns that the checks and balances that define American democracy are breaking down. At least that's the warning coming from the Varieties of Democracy Project, which measures the health of democracies around the world. The head of that program warns that, quote, if it continues like this, democracy will not last another six months. His warnings come as President Trump's administration is taking actions that historically and constitutionally have been outside of the executive branch's power, like significantly shrinking or trying to eliminate agencies established by laws passed by Congress. The legality of some of those moves are being challenged in multiple lawsuits. But while normally the courts would adjudicate disagreements over what the Constitution allows, the Trump administration has flirted with ignoring court orders and last weekend seemed to outright defy an order from a federal judge to turn around a plane deporting migrants. That judge gave the administration a Thursday deadline to hand over flight data, and yesterday described the administration's response as, quote, woefully insufficient. At the same time, Trump and some Republicans have called for impeaching judges who slow or stop the administration's proposed policies, a threat that was met with a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. To help us take stock of this moment and where it goes from here, I, I called up Ankush Kadori. He's an attorney, a former federal prosecutor, and senior writer with Politico. And I started by asking him how close he thinks we are to a crisis point.
- [02:07]
Ankush Kadori
I think we're right on the cusp of it. Sort of teetering, actually. I mean, first of all, he's absolutely right. Justice Roberts gives a state of the judiciary speech, issues a report. But a comment like this, sort of right in the middle of a news cycle. The only real precedent I can recall is during the first term when Roberts issued a statement sort of chastising Trump for describing judges of Obama judges. And Roberts issued a statement saying, well, we're just all judges. We're not Obama judges, we're not Bush judges, we're not Trump judges. And this is very comparable. But I'm sure it wasn't made lightly. So it really, I don't think it could be emphasized enough how kind of extraordinary Robert's intervention is.
- [02:45]
Shemitah Basu
So at this point, Trump has Really toed the line. You know, the administration hasn't outrightly said, we are not going to listen to the courts. They've instead argued that the courts are wrong in many of these cases. But I guess my question to you is, is it even worth distinguishing these, like, how different is it to say the courts don't have jurisdiction to weigh in on the president's decisions versus I am rejecting the court's authority?
- [03:10]
Ankush Kadori
Yeah, I mean, it's a very narrow distinction. And actually, I think the notion or the concept of a constitutional crisis, I think is not a great fit for this moment because it sort of suggests an on off switch. Right. Whether there'll be a dramatic turn. And I think instead what we're going to see is this sort of creep, this sort of effort to kind of push the line a little bit further and further. And, you know, we're seeing a bit of a disjunction, by the way, I should say, because Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, the lawyers in the Justice Department have been very strident, as you say, not, not even just saying the judge is wrong, but that he shouldn't even be able to weigh in on this issue at all. At the same time, President Trump has been saying, including this week, that he will not defy a court order, that that is a red line that they won't cross. So we're kind of hearing mixed messages, but I think Trump at least understands the significance of this issue. The polling is very bad for them on this. Multiple polls Show Something like 80 plus percent of Americans would disapprove if the government defied a court order. So it's very, very worrisome for there to be any kind of question, and it does escalate an already tense situation in a very, very unproductive way.
- [04:17]
Shemitah Basu
Well, another part of the deportation story that's maybe getting a little bit less attention is how these deportations and detentions are happening largely without due process. Right. That was the case for the plane of Venezuelan migrants, but also in cases that we're now seeing for green card holders, for visa holders, people who are in this country legally, who have been detained and in some cases deported even. Meanwhile, we're also seeing reports about free speech really being under threat. I mean, the administration is going after Palestinian protesters. What happens if these kinds of fundamental rights are eroded?
- [04:54]
Ankush Kadori
It would be hard to understate the gravity of this situation because the First Amendment is central to American identity. It's the First Amendment for a reason, and it is sort of elemental to the way our democracy functions. And if people feel like they cannot express opinions about politics, about their government, about their government's dealings with other nations, which is firmly every American's right to do that is really awful. It will curb dissent, it will curb speech. It will be very unhealthy for our democracy. It will harken back to really some of the worst chapters in American history. I mean, this is not entirely without precedent. About a hundred years ago, government executed something called the Palmer Raids, where they rounded up thousands of foreign nationals, deported hundreds of them, on the theory that they were potential communists and sympathizers. And who were those people? They were largely Italians and Jewish immigrants from Europe. And the other thing, I would just add to your description of all of these cases. Not only are they not getting due process, they're really not getting any process before the administration attempts to deport them. Right. The Venezuelans they've claimed are criminals, but they've just sent them on their way, right? Sent them to El Salvador without presenting any evidence. The grad student at Columbia, Mahmoud Khalil, who they're trying to deport, is this guy going to get a day in court to contest these allegations? For us to understand why what the government is actually claiming and whether or not we agree that there should be a basis for someone to be deported. But if it's true, as the administration claims, that these are all criminals, it should be extremely easy for them to produce that evidence. So we should be very skeptical of these claims.
- [06:27]
Shemitah Basu
You know, it's interesting that you, you brought up public opinion earlier. Public opinion is a little hard to gauge in something like this because you, you ask people in America, are you for democratic processes, right? Are you against the taking away of due process, for example? And that will pull unpop. But then again, when you have something like this, a concrete example of people being deported, how is that kind of idea polling? Because I think these things can exist at the same time in America.
- [06:54]
Ankush Kadori
That's a very good observation because Trump does very well in his polling on the immigration issues. But at the same time, you know, it is also central to our democracy that we adhere to principles and certain sort of constitutional legal rules of the road, even if those things are unpopular. And the other thing I would say is Trump has a way of shifting public opinion on these issues and particularly when the whole Republican Party gets behind him on something. You will often see polls like this flip. And we saw this, for instance, in the January 6th polling, right? There was mass disapproval immediately after January 6th. In the months following that turned. So it is something to keep an eye on, because there has been such a full court press from the Republicans in Congress about not just impeaching these judges, which I think most of them probably privately realize is a bad idea, cuz it will never happen since they will not be able to get a 2/3 majority in the Senate at a trial to impeach anyone. But also just all of the commentary about how judges are usurping executive power, it's a judicial coup. They shouldn't be weighing in on these things at all. All of these things are very, very harmful and wrong, and I worry could even perhaps erode public opinion over time. Which is why I'm hoping that we will see some sort of resolution to this in the near term.
- [08:11]
Shemitah Basu
Hmm. Let's talk about recourse in Congress a bit. I mean, we talked a few weeks ago about how Trump's expansion of executive powers is really cutting into and taking away a lot of power from Congress. What does it mean if Congress continues to allow Trump to exercise this kind of power, really taking it away from them?
- [08:33]
Ankush Kadori
It is a fundamental reordering of our constitutional system. It would be very, very, again, difficult to understate how broad the implications would be because we're seeing a very, very significant shift of power from our elected branch, who are more democratically responsive to Americans than the presidency per se, shift from them to the executive branch, which is less responsive, more powerful, and the power is more centralized. And I think we would have a less Democratic, responsive government. And we would be going through very, very turbulent times anytime the administration turned over. Because if you concede that the president has all of this power, the taxing and spending powers, the decision to pass laws, how we want to organize our government, all of these things are usually within the congressional wheelhouse. And we would be seeing wild swings between administrations. Once you create a set of tools, pull them out of the toolbox, you leave them there for your successor as well. And I think the consequences would be very, very bad. We would have a very unstable government, a very unrepresentative government, and a government that is very, very vulnerable, and I think already is very, very vulnerable to.
- [09:42]
Shemitah Basu
Well, actually, I was gonna say. I know that you're saying this would happen, it would be like this, but in a sense, it is like this, Right? We're not talking about a hypothetical here. This is what we are seeing actually play out.
- [09:52]
Ankush Kadori
That is correct. It is actually happening because Congress has not put up a fight. At least the Republicans in Congress who comprise the majority, both in the House and the Senate, they're not putting up a fight on any of this stuff, the closures of the agencies, the spending issues. And so it is remarkable to see one of our three branches of government, which are supposed to be co equal branches of government, cede this much power. It is very, very historically rare. And yes, you're exactly right, it is kind of happening in real time. The question is going to be whether at some point some breaks are put on, and we're seeing some breaks in the form of judiciary halting some of these plans. It's a very, very positive sign of the health of our democracy that they are holding the line there. But it is extremely troubling and very unwise for the administration to be antagonizing the judiciary, undermining confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. And there will be further options for Americans to express their disapproval up to and including not just the town halls we're seeing, but the midterms next year. And so my hope is that we will see these checks remain robust and head off the worst case scenario with the administration outright defying orders and claiming that they have the power to do so. It is harmful to our democracy even to be doing what they are doing.
- [11:10]
Shemitah Basu
Ankush, thank you so much for speaking with me again.
- [11:13]
Ankush Kadori
Thanks for having me.
- [11:23]
Shemitah Basu
Before we let you go, a few other stories we're following, starting with President Trump's move to close a federal agency. Today we take a very historic action that was 45 years in the making. In a few moments, I will sign an executive order to begin eliminating the federal Department of Education once and for all. Yesterday's executive order called for moving education policy to the states, even though state governments are already primarily in charge of things like curricula. Trump's order doesn't completely eliminate the Department of Education. Since it was created by Congress, only Congress has the authority to eliminate it. Instead, the order directs education secretary Linda McMahon to take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the department. And it leaves in place what the administration calls critical functions like student loan management and funding for special education. Trump's order is expected to run into legal challenges. The response from the president of the American Federation of Teachers, a major teachers union, was, quote, see you in court. In other news, earlier this week, when the Trump administration released tens of thousands of unredacted files about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, it also released the Social Security numbers and other private sensitive information belonging to several hundred former congressional staffers and others. The Washington Post made this discovery while analyzing the contents of the files. Some of the people whose information was leaked include high ranking officials in Washington, such as a former assistant secretary of state and a former US Ambassador. A former lawyer for the Trump campaign interviewed by the Post, whose private information was released in the JFK files, described the oversight as outrageous, sloppy and unprofessional. The Department of Justice and National Archives did not immediately respond to the Post's request for comment. According to the New York Times, the White House directed the Social Security Administration to issue new numbers to the affected people and offered them free credit monitoring and finally, Zimbabwean swimmer Kirsty Coventry was elected the first ever woman president of the International Olympic Committee, the Guardian reports. The voting was expected to last a few rounds with some stiff competition, but Coventry won a majority on the first ballot, making her the 10th president in the IOC's 131 year history. Coventry is also the first African to lead the organization and as the Guardian notes, she is now the most powerful woman in global Sport. Coventry won seven medals in her Olympic career, including two gold medals in the 200 meter backstroke in Athens in 2004 and Beijing in 2008. You can find all these stories and more in the Apple news app. And if you're already listening in the news app, stick around for our interview show. In conversation this week I spoke to Brian Kelly. You may know him as the points guy. He's made a career out of helping people travel the world more affordably and he gave me some of his best tips.
- [14:26]
Ankush Kadori
If you're complaining about the ever shrinking coach seat which is happening, then you need to go on the offense and say, well how do I get premium economy for the same price which is possible with certain credit cards, elite status upgrade perks. And that's that is why we are in an unprecedented, incredible era of travel.
- [14:44]
Shemitah Basu
That episode is queued up to play for you next. Enjoy the weekend and I'll be back with the news on Monday.