← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“The pressure on states to change election procedures”
00:41:17
July 8, 2026; 5pm: Nicolle Wallace and guests talk about new reporting from The New York Times which says that the Trump administration is demanding that states change their voting rules in exchange for tens of millions of federal terrorism prevention funds.
Loading summary
Transcript48 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening? A special crossover episode with the hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast.
- [00:08]
B
I think the Supreme Court massively misplayed this end of term. My solution would be more trying to address the underlying structural issues that allow us to get to a point where a minority faction that is not committed to and antagonistic to the rule of law can get power. The bigger fundamental problem is that we have never done the work in this country of actually wrestling with our deep seated antipathy for a multiracial, multi faith, pluralistic democracy.
- [00:40]
A
That's this week on why Is this Happening? Search for why is this Happening? Wherever you're listening right now and follow. I'm very concerned of what's gonna happen in the next election. Absolutely. Well, I've been thinking about it more in terms of what needs to be done. Based on what we saw happen last time, I think a thing that all of us can do is support election workers and election officials. The last time around we saw that those people stood firm and they were in many cases the difference. It's clear to me anyways, that what I've seen publicly, that those people are going to be put under great pressure.
- [01:21]
C
Hi again, Everybody. It's now 5 o' clock in the East. A sounding of the alarm from the man who investigated Donald Trump's last attempt to overturn an election in 2020. Things, he warns, next time could get worse. And we need to all be extra diligent in trying to protect those who administer our elections because when it comes to Donald Trump, it seems like no affront to American democracy is off limits. Take the latest stunning new body of reporting in the New York Times that the Trump administration is putting not just the lives of election workers at risk, but the lives of all Americans at risk. Because now, if states don't comply with their demands, they will take action on this latest effort by Trump that essentially amounts to extortion. Quote, the Trump administration is requiring states to change the way they conduct elections or risk losing tens of millions of federal terrorism prevention funds in its latest move that would make voting harder and undermine trust in results that don't go President Trump's way. That effort would force states to transition to paper ballots, verify citizenship of voters and make other changes to election procedures. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency documents, fema, part of Homeland Security, has told states that it would withhold 20% of some terrorism preparedness grants unless they provide, quote, proof of compliance with the election security measures. The documents show the grants, which total $1 billion each year help pay for physical barriers and other security measures, as well as planning and drill exercises and cybersecurity protections. As for those states that will likely feel this the most, the New York Times reports this quote, the grants go largely to populous states with large urban areas, including New York, California and Texas. New York is set to receive about $204 million in fiscal year 2026, according to the office of Governor Kathy Hochul. Considering the law says that states are the ones who run and regulate elections, not the executive branch, this effort is likely to face a lot of legal pushback. But it does illustrate how openly brazen Donald Trump's anti Democratic efforts to rig the midterms go. This administration putting the lives of US Citizens at risk as it tries to undermine the midterm elections is where we begin the hour with New York Times journalists covering elections and voting for years now. Nick Corsani, his byline is on that reporting we've read from. Also joining us, former top DOJ official and general counsel for the FBI. Our legal analyst Andrew Weissman's here. Plus the founder of the Public Integrity Project and former special counsel in the Justice Department, Brendan Ballou is back. Nick, take us through what you're reporting.
- [04:08]
D
So my colleagues and I were looking at these documents known as federal proposals for funding and found some pretty fascinating requirements that were being proposed that dealt with elections. And almost every single one of them is pretty obviously going to run into legal challenges. Some have been decided by courts recently and others are just clearly against what the Constitution lays out. And we can go through a few of them. Two of the provisions required these states to use the same system. That's the system within the Department of Homeland Security that was initially built to check immigration status. That has since been retooled. And the administration is trying to pressure states to upload their voter rolls there to look for non citizens. Now, a federal judge recently said states can't do that. Another judge kind of disagreed. And it's in legal question right now. But using the SAVE system to single handedly look for non citizens on the voter rolls has been proven to be faulty and knocked down by judges at the same time. They're also looking to require states to use handmarked paper ballots. Now, there are a host of jurisdictions that used handmarked paper ballots, but certainly not all of them. And there are ADA regulations for people with disabilities who need to use election machines to, you know, look at bigger fonts or things like that. And at the same time, these handmarked paper Ballots are still run through tabulators. So they use election machines, even though, you know, the election conspiracy theorists on the right who might be pushing for this would not want any machines to be used. And one more thing that clearly showed that these provisions are likely to face legal challenges is that they required this 5% manual audit that was going to be described by the secretary. Now, the Constitution says that states set the time, place and manner of elections. Congress can pass federal laws. There's nothing in there about the executive branch that includes the President, and that includes the Department of Homeland Security and the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. So that alone would, you know, run against the Constitution. But also, a 5% blanket audit isn't necessarily best practices for elections. It would be in a state like California, in a presidential election, completely unnecessary and a waste of money. That's a blue state. You don't really need a 5% audit. But in a tightly contested congressional election, a 5% audit probably isn't enough. You need a risk limiting audit. And states are good at that. So there was a lot in there that showed both a lack of understanding about elections and a lack of understanding about some of the legal consequences of these changes.
- [06:46]
C
Who wrote the memo?
- [06:49]
D
That is still something that we're kind of looking at, but it's coming from the Department of Homeland Security, and it references, you know, things and desires and plans laid out by the secretary. So my colleagues and I are still looking into, I think, a little bit more there, but it's clearly coming from the Department of Homeland Security.
- [07:07]
C
I mean, is to have it thrown out by a judge, would a state have to oppose it? I mean, I'm just wondering what red states will do in critical battlegrounds like Texas and Ohio. Could a governor or a secretary of state amenable to conspiracy theories, adopt the measures, take the trade on terrorism dollars and put in place illegal practices? Or will lawsuits be brought against any state that employs these proposals?
- [07:34]
D
Well, as we've seen with other proposed changes to elections from the executive branch, be that, you know, executive order policies at the dhs, policies at the doj. There have been groups of Democratic states, Democratic attorneys general, outside groups like lulac, you know, voting rights groups, they bring these lawsuits and federal judges sometimes bar them, you know, Countrywide. And so you could see how a lawsuit from, say, the coalition that has been suing some of these DOJ practices of Democratic state attorneys general could bring a lawsuit here. But states are run. You know, states run their own elections. So there is a state that could adopt or may already do most of these provisions laid out. And whether that impacts their counterterrorism dollars or not is kind of unclear whether they want to have these state policies. But I think the requirements and the way that it's laid out is likely to face a legal challenge that could impact the program nationwide.
- [08:36]
C
Andrew Weissman I guess if you're sort of doing this long enough, you'll see everything. And I think tying counterterrorism grants to stealing an election was a story that was never on my bingo card, even as someone who's covered Donald Trump every day for nine years. Let me read this post from friend of the show Miles Taylor. He posted this quote, if you live in a blue state, Donald Trump just put a gun to your head. He's withholding cash to stop terrorist attacks, cyber attacks and mass shootings from states that say no to his voting rolls. If the fight to protect democracy wasn't personal for you, it is now. And as we said, the grants, which total a billion dollars a year, help pay for physical barriers and other security measures as well as planning and drill exercises and cybersecurity protections.
- [09:28]
E
Well, one thing that I am old enough to remember and actually with you Nicole, is that this sounds an awful lot like the first Trump impeachment where there was the so called perfect call. And it was in my view an extortion scheme of withholding crit. We are now realize how critical funds to Ukraine to defend itself. And here we're talking about the same thing and Ukraine's case it was to announce, just to announce an investigation of what he thought was going to be his incorrectly his political rival Joe Biden and his son. And here it's to coerce states to do something that legally, directly they have not been required to do under the law. I will say that I'm enough of a cynic to think that this is kind of a win win from the administration because they either will have the states concede and do this and that may be very well with red states and in blue states that don't do this. I think it is clear we're going to see this again when the administration when they lose in those states says there was fraud and you didn't do the things that we were saying that you needed to do. And they're going to use that as part of the their sort of unilateral claims of fraud in the midterms and elections going forward because we can see now that they're perfectly willing to make any and all claims regardless of law and regardless of facts so in many ways, I think this is just a very cynical move on the part of the administration.
- [11:18]
C
The threats are personal and they really are landing with a thud in most places. Brendan, let me read you this from Nick's reporting. Justice Department threatens top election officials over noncitizen voting. Quote, Lieutenant Governor Deirdre Henderson, the top election official in Utah and a Republican, expressed frustration with the Justice Department's tenor and tactics. Quote, got another love letter this morning from the DOJ, sprinkled throughout with threats of criminal prosecution. Ms. Henderson wrote on social media. I'm sure I'm not the only chief election officer of a state who's being targeted for following state and federal law by resisting DOJ's demands for private voter data that have thus far been ruled illegal by at least a dozen courts. This is truly bizarre behavior by the federal agency that is supposed to be protecting civil rights. What, what does this fight look like when you've lost the Republican election chief of Utah?
- [12:17]
F
Well, it's encouraging, you know, that this sort of federal incursion is, you know, something that's greeted with skepticism even in a, you know, ruby red state like Idaho. But to Andrew's point, you know, I completely agree. I think this, unfortunately, is something of a win win for the administration. Either they accomplish their legal objectives and it's going to be harder for people to vote and easier for the federal government to interfere, or they don't, and they're going to have a cudgel to wield against blue states that have tried to resist this and use this for accusations of fraud, which I think raises two points. One is, you know, in a, in a world where elections need to be not just secure, but perceived to be secure, I think this is a role where just every American, including your viewers, can play a role here, which is talking about the basic facts of election fraud, the fact that election fraud is almost infinitesimally rare and really trying to prebut a lot of these arguments that we now know are going to be used on election day and beyond. So I think there's a role for every American to play here. To Nick's point about, you know, litigation, I also think it's important to show that there's a role for, you know, nonprofits, state AGs and states to be playing here, you know, not just to try to, you know, sue, to stop this, to get the preliminary injunction, but to go further. And, you know, what we've seen is the administration is absolutely unconcerned about losing in court here because, you know, know, There's a perception benefit to just filing the case, which is why litigants need to be continuing on here and really trying to get damages in these cases. Because if all the administration does is lose, that's not an incentive enough for them to stop.
- [13:57]
C
It's so interesting, Nick. The Department of Homeland Security actually looked at non citizen voting and found like 0.00001% in its own look. I think Kristi Noem was still the Secretary of Homeland Security. What is, what is their spin to themselves about what this is about?
- [14:21]
D
Well, I mean, they've been looking for noncitizen voting across the government, right? There's been different agencies that have tried to prove this, and there is just simply no proof. My colleague Ali Burzon and I wrote that story about their first initial review. They looked at about 50 million voter records, and of those 50 million, they found about 0.02% that they referred for further investigation. Now, that does not mean that there were.02%, an already extremely small percentage of noncitizens that they found on the rolls. It was just people that they needed to look into. And when they kept investigating, they found that a lot of those voters were either erroneously on the rolls due to, like a motor voter error and they had never voted, or they'd recently naturalized and it was perfectly legal for them to vote. And beyond those voter rolls, so there's been errors in the data, there's been these long investigations across the executive branch to try and find non citizens on the voter rolls. And there's been state attorneys general and state secretaries of state, both Republican and Democrat, who are looking for this because that's part of their job and they haven't found it. So to make this so kind of core to, you know, a policy coming out of the dhs, while they're also looking to threaten and possibly penalize states for supposedly having these non citizens, just shows how much this is coming from a political point of view. You know, there is no evidence. There's election officials on both sides who work tirelessly and make sure their voter rolls are clean and accurate. And so when the threats are coming against them for not finding any, you realize that it's more of a political moment to have the fight to create the doubt than to actually find any of these. To begin,
- [16:08]
C
this is also happening at the highest levels of the Justice Department. You have reporting on who's pulling the levers. I want to ask you about that, Nick. No one goes anywhere. Also ahead when we come back, the Trump administration's obsession with relitigating the 2020 presidential election in Georgia is running into all sorts of legal roadblocks. Tell you about the latest legal rebuke after a short break. Also ahead, Donald Trump has been ordered by a federal judge to pay up the $5 million he owes E. Jean Carroll, plus interest. That's despite trying to weasel out of it again and again and again and again. What the ruling means for Carol and when she might see her money. And new signs of resistance to Trump's autocracy. Why the leaders of Yale Law School are trying to stop Yale University from capitulating and cutting a deal with Donald Trump and warning that the Trump administration cannot be trusted. We'll bring you that reporting later in the hour. Then. White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere today.
- [17:09]
A
Hey, everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening? A special crossover episode with the hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast.
- [17:17]
B
I think the Supreme Court massively misplayed this end of term. My solution would be more trying to address the underlying structural issues that allow us to get to a point where a minority faction that is not committed to and antagonistic to the rule of law can get power. The bigger fundamental problem is that we have never done the work in this country of actually wrestling with our deep seated antipathy for a multiracial, multi faith pluralistic democracy.
- [17:50]
A
That's this week on why Is this Happening? Search for why is this Happening wherever you're listening right now. And follow
- [17:58]
C
yet another legal roadblock to tell you about in Donald Trump's attempts to investigate his defeat in the 2020 election in Georgia, this one in Fulton County. This is coming from a Trump appointed judge. Judge William Ray issued an order saying that the statute of limitations for any possible crimes has, quote, long expired while shooting down a grand jury subpoena sought by Trump's Justice Department. Judge Wray said this, quote, the DOJ is engaged in an arbitrary fishing expedition such that the subpoena is unreasonable and must be quashed. We're back with Nick Andrew and Brendan Andrew. I'm not a judge and I don't speak judge. But that sounds like a big giant smackdown in judge speak.
- [18:44]
E
It is. And I want to make sure people understand how big it is. I was a Prosecutor for over 20 years. I was a defense lawyer for 10 years. I will do that math, which is for 30 years. The number of times that I experienced and saw a grand jury subpoena being quashed by a judge because it was improper would be Zero. That has happened now in the case that you just reported on Nicole. It happened with Judge Boasberg in the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell case. It happened in the Minnesota case involving the sitting governor and mayor. All of those cases are an indictment of Donald Trump. They're an indictment of Todd Blanche, who I keep on sort of mentioning every chance I get because his confirmation hearing is coming up. And these judges, who are not, as you noted, rogue sort of lefties, they include judges appointed by Donald Trump, are saying this is completely improper. And just a quick quote from this judge. The DOJ essentially asks the court to turn a blind eye to the DOJ's investigation of nonspecific allegations and. Or crimes which have no possibility of a conviction. And he says, I'm not doing it, I'm quashing it. And so it really tells you about the sort of vindictive nature of what this administration is doing and that judges are not having any of it.
- [20:28]
C
I mean, it begs the question, Andrew, how do they find people to participate in things that will bring them shame for the rest of their careers? Like, why would anyone be a part of a DOJ endeavor that is getting attempted prosecutions quashed by judges before they even start?
- [20:46]
E
So that's a great question. I don't think there's one answer for everyone. I think that there are people who like power. I think there are people who like money. I think they're people who are actually just vindictive. The New York Times had a fascinating piece a few weeks ago about people who essentially felt sort of overlooked and. And that by the joining with Trump, they can suddenly say to themselves, oh, look, see, I am really good. And the system that was against me, and it was sort of a very psychological look at who are the people who join up for this. But whatever the reason is, I mean, this reminds me if I once was in front of a judge who said, you know what? I'm not a social worker or a psychologist, meaning whatever the reason is, they're doing something that judges that are appointed by Republicans and Democrats, including Donald Trump, are saying is wrong and improper in a legal standard that is so deferential to the government, as Brendan knows, this is one the hurdle is so easy to meet if you're the government, because all you need to do is show that you're acting in good faith. And just remember, you're at the Department of Justice because you are trying to do justice. You're trying to see if there's bad conduct out there that you will prosecute it. So it's so easy to meet that standard. So the fact that we're seeing it in Georgia, in Minnesota, in Washington, D.C. and that's just in connection with grand juries, but we're seeing it in all sorts of cases. You mentioned in another segment, Abrego Garcia, where a judge threw that out saying it was vindictive. So in just so many different ways, judges are saying that they're not going to stomach what's going on.
- [22:44]
C
I mean, Brendan, weigh in on this. You were in the department most recently of all of us. What is your sense of how they stomach not just the unethical practices being deployed by Donald Trump and Todd Blanche and that people are being asked to do, but just being losers. I mean, they keep losing. I don't think they've won in court. So judges either throw them out because they are plainly vindictive, or in the case of Abrego Garcia, brazenly reverse engineered by Todd Blanche is what that judge said, or they just lose. They just are crappy cases. How do they stomach and take on all that?
- [23:27]
F
Yeah, you know, it's interesting. I think there's, as Andrew said, there's a range of psychologies in the Department of Justice right now from, you know, I think the very principled people that are staying in the Department of Justice because they believe that they can keep the institution alive for these four years. And I think some of them are willing to sign on to losing cases because they think that they can make them less bad, less political, less vindictive and so forth. To folks that, you know, this is their moment to shine, you know, they probably wouldn't have, you know, been in the leadership of the Department of Justice. They probably would have never been hired in the first place. But suddenly they're the ones that are getting to be up here in front of federal grand juries, you know, seek indictments and so forth. So for a certain percentage of them, it doesn't really matter if they win or lose. They're in the door. And that's, that's pretty exciting, I will say. You know, this particular decision, again, as Andrew noted, is incredibly unusual given DOJ's track record. It's also incredibly useful. So, you know, you're aware there is this quote, unquote, grand conspiracy investigation happening in the Southern District of Florida right now that's trying to tie together any number of election conspiracies from 2020 to false, you know, alleged false statements made to members of Congress and so forth. You know, it's awfully hard to quash a subpoena or a third party subpoena in any sort of criminal investigation. What's useful in this decision is the judge was very explicit that one of the primary reasons why he's quashing this is that the statute of limitations is expired on any alleged crimes related to 2020. Now, you know, Georgia is a different state than Florida, so it's only persuasive authority. But if you're the recipient of a subpoena or called to testify in this grand jury in this grand conspiracy investigation, you can point to this decision and say, look, my subpoena needs to be suppressed because there's nothing that they could investigate that's still a crime that could be prosecuted. So I think that this has positive impacts beyond just this specific case.
- [25:26]
C
Nick. ProPublica has some reporting about Ken Paxton, who's sort of a walking hypocrisy mural of terrible stories that in any normal moment, we wouldn't even be talking about him as a viable candidate. But here we are. Let me read you that reporting an announcement linked to guidance from Paxson's office about election laws in Texas, which included a warning that, quote, it is illegal to misrepresent your residence on election records or to establish a residence for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election. You must register to vote using the address where you reside, the attorney general's guidance stated. Despite his own warnings, ProPublica reports Paxton appears to have used an address where he did not live while voting in six elections in the last two years, including in May's runoff, that made him the Republican nominee. Any sense that what's good for goose is good for the gander?
- [26:22]
D
Well, I mean, we've seen some, you know, elected officials when it comes to voting, cast a ballot in a way that they've said, you know, shouldn't be president. Trump has voted by mail on numerous occasions throughout his throughout his life. And, you know, he says on social media that he wants to ban all mail ballots except for the military, and he's written executive orders and pressured states to restrict mail voting or to try and really eliminate it. So there's certainly a divide between, say, what the policies are and the politics behind a method of voting that might be embraced by a party and then the actions taken by that elected official. I haven't necessarily confirmed the Paxton reporting, but it would fit with a pattern that we've seen elsewhere. But there's also, to get back to the earlier discussion about, you know, the Justice Department taking on these losses and even Paxton, a lot of what all this is about is the fight and creating doubt and sowing chaos in that uncertainty by continuing to put forward these claims. So even every loss, it's still a victory because you've entered this doubt, this debate into the public arena. I was talking to Chairman Pitts after the decision yesterday. He's the chair of elections in Fulton county, and he said people are coming up to him and saying, I'm afraid to vote, like, what if I get swept up in this? Or what if there's troops in the street? Or all the things that we've talked about that have been knocked down by courts repeatedly are still reaching voters and still having a potentially chilling effect. So I think sometimes the fight, whether that's losing in court, whether that's losing in bringing your policy to a different agency or something that an individual elected official might have done, casting their own ballot, that's sometimes the point.
- [28:04]
C
I think that's so important. I know that's part of the story you've been covering. I think there was a big magazine piece you did with your colleague Jim Rutenberg ahead of the was it the 2020 election or 2024 election? I mean, that has always been the point, right? Where in a country where the margins are so minuscule, just make enough people afraid to exercise their right to vote, it's a part of the voter suppression story that doesn't get enough attention except from journalists like you. So thank you for raising that, Nick. Brendan, thank you for this conversation. We will stay on top of this with your help. Andrew sticks around a little bit longer. When we come back, Donald Trump's latest weasel move, his attempt to get out of paying E. Jean Carroll the more than $5 million he owes her was shot down today by a federal judge. What happens next? Explain. After a short break,
- [28:54]
G
Ms. Now presents the chart topping original podcast, the Best People with Nicole Wallace. This week, Senator and pastor Raphael Warnock.
- [29:03]
H
Our country goes through these moments, these fits and starts, and I take my cue from the likes of John Lewis. When you don't know what else to do, keep walking. Keep walking across that bridge.
- [29:14]
G
The best people with Nicole Wallace Listen now. For early access ad free listening and bonus content, subscribe to Ms. Now premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [29:26]
C
And speaking of federal judges holding the line, a different federal judge in New York ordered that Donald Trump has to pay E. Jean Carroll the $5 million plus interest that he owes her from a 2023 verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming her. The order came hours after Donald Trump's Lawyers made a desperate last ditch effort to avoid making the payment to E. Jean Carol, arguing that the money can't be released to E. Jean Carroll until the Supreme Court rejects Trump's long shot bid to have them reconsider his petition to appeal the verdict. The Supreme Court justices already weighed in denying Donald Trump's initial petition to appeal last week. In response, Donald Trump continued his defamatory attacks against Eugene Carroll, the spokesperson for his legal team, calling the cases brought by her, quote, democrat funded hoaxes, end quote. Donald Trump's lawyers have also already filed an appeal of today's order. I want to bring in legal analyst and former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance. She's a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law and is a close personal friend with E. Jean Carroll. Andrew is still here as well. Joyce Vance, it's wonderful to see you. Tell me what you think legally, first and then as someone who knows what this journey has been like for e. Jean Carroll 2nd well, legally, I think
- [30:49]
I
this is actually the end of the road. Nicole. You know, Donald Trump has already tried to file an appeal, but I've actually got the judge's order printed out. I wanted to read from it because there's nothing left for Donald Trump to do. The money is sitting in the court's registry system. And so in the order, the judge writes that the clerk, the clerk of the court is directed to disperse the money, both the principal of $5 million and then the post judgment interest. And I think the most interesting part of this is at the very bottom, Judge Kaplan says the clerk is further respectfully directed to terminate docket number 232. That means that the case is over. And at best, Donald Trump could hope to get the court of Appeals to stay this order, but he's filed a notice of appeal and there's not a request for a stay yet. The clerk of the court could well distribute this money before the end of the day. And to the part of your question about Eugene's reaction, look, I think she's been a tremendous hero for people across the country who wanted to figure out a way to stand up to a bully but didn't seem able to. My favorite part of all of this is she has no interest in keeping the money for herself. She intends to donate it to a charity that, in her words, Donald Trump won't like very much.
- [32:13]
C
Andrew. The aging Carroll case and the way she's handled it with such grace is an example, as is the Kennedy center case. I think of, you know, I think something Carrie Bradshaw and Sex in the City coined. Like, it's so over. We need a new word for over. Like, legally, these cases are so over. We need new ways to explain to our audience how over they are. Like, he went to the Supreme Court. That is the end of the road in our system, in our country, and it is over. He owes the money with the name on the building. It is over. Pull the tarp down, suffer your humiliation, and move on. How do we, on the other side of this, I don't like to talk about the other side too often, but on the other side, how do we protect the system from these abuses where when it's over, it's over for everybody.
- [33:08]
E
So one thing that's notable about those two cases is they both took courageous, tenacious women to really have enormous backbone to go up against the President of the United States. I think one of the things that you mentioned when you talked about this, you said that this was a verdict in 2023. And I think that in many ways is a way to answer your question, which is the justice system has to be faster. The civil justice system and the criminal justice system, it's a truism that Joyce knows, which is justice delayed, is justice denied. But it just should not be that. You can run out the clock. Now, the Kennedy center case was unusual in how fast it went because there was an injunction sought and not damages. And the court ruled on that very quickly. But there needs to be a tightening up so that you don't have Eugene Carroll have filed her first case in, I believe, 2019. That's seven years ago. Then her second case in 2022. And so we're seeing, I think the nation is seeing, just how long these things take. Now, of course, in the criminal side, due process requires length, but it doesn't require this amount. And other nations look at our system, and they don't. This, you know, usually people emulate us. This is not one of those areas.
- [34:49]
C
Joyce, I'll give you the last word on just the extraordinary strain that is put on judges. Just about every story we cover, Trump, including through his Justice Department abuses, the system does something either flagrantly illegal or unconstitutional, and it falls to judges to be the guardrail. That obviously strains that system. It's not designed to exist in a democracy, absent Congress, absent politics, absent other measures for accountability.
- [35:21]
I
If there are institutional heroes in this era, it's federal district judges across the country who are doing their jobs. And so many of these judges, Nicole, are judges who were appointed by Donald Trump, which I think is very telling. You know, in this moment where what we need in this country is more bravery and more courage. Judges are doing it by acting unremarkably, by simply looking at the facts and the law and making decisions on cases. And that's something that we need more, more of.
- [35:51]
C
Joyce Vance, great to see you. Andrew Weissman, thank you for spending so much time with us today. When we come back, how the leaders at Yale Law School are trying to block that university from cutting a deal and capitulating to Donald Trump. We'll bring you that reporting next. There is an extraordinary new account of resistance to Donald Trump's autocratic assault on higher education to tell you about it is happening within one university. It's happening at the law school at Yale University, a target of a politically charged Justice Department investigation that has so far produced zero evidence of anything. New York Times is reporting that according to two people familiar with deliberations, Yale Law School's dean and some faculty members are lobbying top Yale leaders to not capitulate to the Trump administration, warning that an agreement could jeopardize Yale's independence, quote, arguing that the Trump administration cannot be trusted and arguing that settling would threaten the rule of law and the university's reputation. The New York Times adds this quote, some at the school are recoiling over the prospect of settling before the government has accused Yale of wrongdoing and before Yale has had a chance to contest any findings, end quote. I want to bring in the reporter on that story, New York Times investigative reporter Mike Schmidt. It does seem notable that in this instance, the fight is within a university itself that's bubbling into full view, that at Yale, this investigation, without any evidence of wrongdoing that may lead to settlement, is being opposed by the Yale University Law School. Just explain that in all of the
- [37:40]
J
deals that we have seen between the Trump administration and schools, we haven't seen one part of the school, a college or, you know, in this instance, you know, a law school or business school, try to cleave itself off from a deal. But that's essentially what the law school is trying to do. The law school is trying to stop a deal and to not be part of it. And I think that at the center of it is the dean of the law school who finds herself in a highly unusual position, or actually a fairly common one in today's higher education, where the faculty and students at the law school believe that it is a terrible idea to reach a deal with the Trump administration because they believe that that is giving in and that's capitulation. At the same time, the leaders of Yale want to make a deal. They are concerned about federal funding and they're concerned about receiving the Harvard treatment, the cuts to federal funding and the full on assault from the federal government. And they think that if in making a deal, they can stave that off and they won't have to give up too much independence. So that is exactly where the law school finds itself today.
- [38:53]
C
I mean, Mike, it's like a lot of the stories about law firms where I think for people that aren't lawyers or law students, they wonder how lawyers or law students would do something illegal. I mean, what is the legal sort of argument for settling with the administration when there's been no specific allegation of wrongdoing or certainly no proof at the end of an investigation of wrongdoing. How is that not just a bribe?
- [39:18]
J
Well, look, I think that the feeling inside the law school is that they have not even seen the completion of there's an investigation into its admissions practices. They have not seen the results of that investigation. They haven't had a chance to contest them. So why are they going to agree to a deal and agree to do something when they haven't seen the results of it and they don't know what the accusations are that they did wrong? Why would you settle that? It comes back to something very simple. I had not written about higher education before the Trump administration started doing deals with schools and started going after Harvard. I still don't totally understand higher education. It's an opaque world. But the thing that is most important to these institutions is the money they receive from the federal government for research. It time and time again has shown itself to be more important than how the students feel, the alumni feel, and even how donors feel. The schools care about the millions, if not billions of dollars that they receive from the federal government. To do research is the most important thing to them and they want to do everything they can to protect that. And if that means, you know, pissing off students and faculty and donors, they don't care. The most important thing, it seems to me, in higher education is federal funding. And the thing that I didn't appreciate until I started covering this is that these private institutions, the Ivy League, which we think of as a very private place, receives a ton of federal money.
- [40:51]
C
Mike Schmidt, thank you for bringing us a reporting. We'll stay on top of this. Quick break for us. We'll be right back. We always seek to highlight and lift up those fighting back against the Trump administration and call out those who enable it. Republicans in Congress are among the worst offenders. Take a listen to what Georgia Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock told me about his colleagues during our Conversation for the Best People podcast.
- [41:21]
H
I think what is killing us is that we have a bunch of enablers in Congress who are lining up, acting as if this stuff is normal, who sort of shirk and find reasons. Everybody's got a different reason for why they're going along with this. And then all of a sudden, sometimes when they're in a pinch, when they're on their way out the door or have been kicked out of the door by Donald Trump, they all of a sudden grow a spine and start saying things that we needed them to say a long time ago. I've got colleagues. I'm trying to be nice here, but I've got colleagues in the Senate who, even after bending the knee or just trying to go along, have found themselves kicked by Donald Trump and now on their way out the door. I just. I just wish we could have seen more of that courage when they were confirming Robert F. Kennedy to be the secretary of hhs. And we could have seen some of that courage when they were confirming Hegseth, who shouldn't be anywhere near the Department of Defense, which they now call the Department of War. What's been striking is his enablers, and so what we've got to do is hold him accountable. We've got to put some guardrails on this president.
- [42:47]
C
I stop and listen to Senator Warnock anywhere I am when I hear him speaking, and it was a treat to talk to him. For the podcast, you can listen to the entire conversation by scanning the QR code on your screen or downloading the Best People Wherever you get your podcast. As always, please let me know what you you think on Blue sky or Instagram. One more break. We'll be right back. Thank you so much for letting us into your homes tonight. We are grateful.
- [43:18]
G
Listen to your favorite Ms. Now shows anytime as a podcast. Enjoy new episodes of Morning Joe, Deadline, White House and the Rachel Maddow Show.
- [43:27]
C
Every small D Democratic muscle that we
- [43:30]
I
have is to flexing.
- [43:32]
G
Plus the Last Word with Lawrence o', Donnell, the Beat with Ari Melber, the Weeknight and more on the go wherever you get your podcasts for ad free listening to all of your favorite shows. Subscribe to Ms. Now Premium on Apple Podcast.