Talking Feds – "CECOT Slingshot" (April 21, 2025)

Host: Harry Litman
Guests: Jonathan Alter, Susan Glasser, Katie Phang

Episode Overview

This episode of Talking Feds focuses on the escalating legal and constitutional confrontations between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary, particularly around the controversial use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged transnational criminals to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison. The panelists dissect the implications of recent court opinions pushing back against executive overreach, the broader threat to the rule of law and civil society, and the mounting resistance among major institutions—most notably Harvard University—against heavy-handed federal demands. The conversation is marked by reflections on hope, the perils of authoritarian drift, and the critical role of an independent judiciary.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Judicial Showdown: The Alien Enemies Act and Deportations

• Case Highlight: The deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, despite a court order, exemplifies the administration’s willingness to override judicial authority.
• Fourth Circuit Decision: Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson’s opinion (05:21) is cited as a pivotal, fast-issued rebuke of the Trump administration’s actions.
  • Jonathan Alter lauds Wilkinson, a conservative icon, for “defending our republic and making common cause with people who they agree with on no other issues to protect us, because they understand that if they don't, this way lies tyranny” (06:36).
  • Katie Phang emphasizes the rarity and importance of such judicial “bench slaps,” protecting not just legal norms but public understanding of the rule of law: “We are so starved for integrity these days… that’s rule of law, folks, right? That is not something that should be an outlier, but it’s become an outlier” (08:17).
  • Susan Glasser is less hopeful, warning that the administration’s defiance and the optics of “Trump trolling” dominate, with the public seeing little chance that the wrongfully deported will be returned (10:20).

2. Rule of Law and Public Perception

• Political Impact: There is debate over whether these legal decisions resonate with wider America, or are subsumed by concerns like the economy and immigration.
  • Alter: “Everybody deserves their day in court. No matter how heinous a criminal they might be—they deserve their day in court. And that I think… is comprehensible politically” (13:20).
  • Phang: Points to polling showing Trump’s net positives on border issues versus negatives on others. Still, the Abrego Garcia case may make democracy tangible for the public: “My only concern is...the GOP [couching] it in the ‘MS 13’ gang construct, that it gives a permission structure” (18:13).
  • Glasser: Calls attention to the risk that these issues are framed as electoral rather than existential: “We are obliged to dissent…regardless of how the damn Democrats who lost the election fare” (20:22).

3. Judicial Independence and Hope Amid Crisis

• Supreme Court’s Place: Recent unanimous (9–0) decisions and statements by conservative judges strengthen faith in judicial resistance to authoritarian trends (24:19, 24:40).

  • Alter: “If people are gonna defy court orders without being held in contempt, why be a judge? ... [Judges] are not messing around when they issue contempt citations” (25:58).
  • Phang: Stresses the importance of “teeth” and actual enforcement in these newfound judicial stands: “We haven’t actually had the true test yet because we actually haven’t seen the enforcement” (39:17).
  • Glasser: While hopeful about judicial independence, feels the Supreme Court’s prior immunity decision gave Trump “almost a coat of Superman armor” (37:22).

• Systemic Warnings: Glasser compares recent governmental tactics to the War on Terror, warning that the “enemy within” framing now extends to U.S. citizens and institutions (45:06).

4. Civil Society Strikes Back: Harvard’s Resistance

• Harvard University’s Refusal: In response to unprecedented federal demands for control over hiring, curriculum, and anti-plagiarism measures, Harvard issued a firm rebuke despite grave financial threats.

  • Alter: “It signals that American elites…are moving past the appeasement stage. Because appeasement didn’t work…It didn’t work any better than it worked for Neville Chamberlain at Munich” (48:52).
  • Phang: Praises the symbolic effect: “When we find a lifesaver like we’re getting in these decisions…we’re now appreciating them as being outliers, which is just a shame” (41:37).
  • Glasser: Notes Harvard’s action galvanized support (millions in fundraising flowed back, other universities joined): “People need to hold hands against a bully” (53:08).

• Broader Institutional Impact: The resistance is spreading to law firms, academic NGOs, and beyond, often at significant risk to those institutions (56:43).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Jonathan Alter [06:36]:
  “This is a challenge to the constitutional order of the most urgent and profound kind…what’s really encouraging is to see these pillars of conservatism rising to the challenge, defending our republic…because they understand that if they don't, this way lies tyranny.”
• Katie Phang [08:17]:
  “We are so starved for integrity these days that we are so grateful…and yet we need to check ourselves a little bit and remind ourselves that…that’s rule of law, folks.”
• Susan Glasser [10:20]:
  “It is basically the ultimate Trump trolling…using the machinery of government and saying, essentially, ‘we’re never going to bring this man home ever, period, full stop.’”
• Jonathan Alter [24:19]:
  “I don't want to be Pollyannish in any way…but I think there’s some data points that are encouraging…not optimism, but hope.”
• Susan Glasser [37:22]:
  “I do think that what’s saving us from Russia is the fact that we have an independent judiciary.”
• Jonathan Alter [48:52]:
  “Appeasement didn't work any better than it worked for Neville Chamberlain at Munich…people are finally waking up and recognizing it doesn't work.”

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:00–05:21: Intro, panelist introductions, overview of the legal crisis.
• 05:21–10:20: Fourth Circuit "bench slap" opinion and its significance.
• 10:20–20:22: Public perception, admin defiance, power of judicial opinions.
• 20:22–24:19: Discussion on existential threat vs. electoral politics.
• 24:19–29:41: Hope versus realism, judiciary’s vital role, comparison to Russia.
• 29:41–33:49: [Sidebar Feature: Post-conviction process, guest Sandra Bernhard]
• 36:10–41:37: Nightmare scenario: what happens if contempt is enforced? Discussion on loss of normalcy and desperate search for “crumbs of decency.”
• 41:50–45:06: Distraction versus core issues; the war on terror as a framework.
• 47:18–56:30: Harvard’s institutional resistance and its ripple effects.
• 56:30–58:39: Lockstep opposition, law firms, generational impacts, shifting professional incentives.
• 59:08–59:58: Lighthearted close: “Five words or fewer” challenge regarding Trump’s next demand on Harvard.

Tone and Language

The episode is urgent but grounded, blending legal analysis with unapologetically blunt political commentary. The participants assert hope without naivety, frequently returning to the weight of precedent and the roles of elites, institutions, and civil society. There are moments of gallows humor, especially when reflecting on the surreal demands directed at Harvard and the laments about the state of rule of law (“crumbs of decency”).

Concluding Remarks

The participants see the current confrontations as not merely political or legal skirmishes, but as existential for the constitutional order and American democracy. They caution the audience not to equate hope with optimism, but to recognize the judiciary’s stand and elite institutions’ resistance as possible turning points. The wider theme is clear: the defense of democracy requires broad, sustained resistance—by judges, universities, firms, and ordinary citizens alike.

For more, visit the Talking Feds Substack or listen to the podcast for the full, spirited roundtable.