Podcast Summary: The David Frum Show

Episode: The Courts Won’t Save Democracy From Trump
Date: July 9, 2025
Host: David Frum (The Atlantic)
Guest: George Conway

Brief Overview

In this compelling episode, David Frum is joined by attorney and conservative activist George Conway for an urgent and deeply informed conversation about the fragility of American democracy under the Trump administration—focusing on the limits of the courts, the erosion of legal and social norms, and the broader implications of policy and leadership failures. The episode is a wide-ranging exploration of how every facet of American governance, from economic policy to the rule of law, is under strain, and why defending democracy requires more than faith in the judiciary.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Trump Budget’s Societal Impact

(David Frum, 00:56–15:15)

• Frum opens with a critical analysis of the Trump budget and tax bill, highlighting its long-term impacts on the U.S. economy and social structure.

  • Cuts to healthcare and social benefits, increased tariffs, and large tax cuts for the wealthy are seen as a path to greater debt, deficits, and interest obligations.
  • “Despite all this, all the cuts in spending, all the new tariffs… the tax cuts are so big that this bill will leave the United States more in debt than ever before.” (Frum, 01:47)

• Blueprint for Stagnation:

  • Frum outlines what an economic-growth society should focus on: rights and liberties, honest governance, currency stability, predictable taxes, education, investment in science/technology, efficient government, global commerce, and openness to immigration.
  • He then argues the Trump administration is undermining each pillar, moving the U.S. toward “a blueprint for a society that is poorer, more backward, more fearful, more isolated, and less the leader of the 21st century than it was in the 20th century.” (Frum, 14:54)

• Memorable Critique:

  • “Our future is one of more plagues and more ignorance, not fewer plagues and less ignorance.” (Frum, 13:42)
  • “Flunk, flunk, flunk, flunk, flunk.” (Frum, 14:46)

2. George Conway’s Background and Moral Perspective

(16:06–22:48)

• Introduction to George Conway:

  • Former litigator, prominent conservative, and Trump critic; personal and professional context is shared, including his hockey-player upbringing and legal philosophy.
  • “One theme of George Conway’s life… has been his abhorrence of sexual abuse of power…” (Frum, 17:13)

• Conway’s Legal Background:

  • Corporate law focus; involvement in high-level takeover defense and securities litigation; not naturally a “political” or constitutional lawyer.
  • Emphasizes the concept of public office as a fiduciary duty: serving the public, not oneself.
  • “Would you trust [Donald Trump] with any piece of property of yours? … Those people can’t serve as fiduciaries because they can’t follow rules and they only think of themselves.” (Conway, 24:08)

3. Morality, Legality, and the Limits of the Law

(25:06–32:15)

• Technical Law vs. Morality:

  • Frum points out that technical legalism can be an escape from moral responsibility.
  • He critiques lawyers and law firms who rationalize compliance with Trump policies as simply “following rules.”
  • Conway responds that the true issue isn’t legal technicality but the fear of losing lucrative government business prompting some to capitulate, though recent backlash has changed this attitude.
  • “If a law firm can’t defend itself, it’s hard to see how it’s going to defend you.” (Conway, 28:24)

• Legal Guilt and Presidential Conduct:

  • Both agree that many of Trump’s worst actions are not necessarily illegal, leading to dangerous moral complacency.
  • “We should expect more of our presidents than they simply not be indictable or criminal.” (Conway, 31:13)

4. The Role—and Limitations—of the Courts

(32:15–38:26)

• Frum’s Frustration:

  • Courts seem to alternate between decisions that check presidential excess and others that defer to executive power, sometimes appearing overly cautious or political.
  • “There does seem to be this pattern… every time they deliver a strong anti Trump decision, they are looking collectively for a way either to escape having to do the next question.” (Frum, 33:10)

• Conway’s Defense:

  • Courts overall have shown resilience but are cautious about exhausting their “political capital.”
  • Quotes Alexander Bickel’s concept: courts are the “least dangerous branch,” able to enforce orders only with executive branch cooperation.
  • “The courts cannot save us precisely because… they don’t have armies, they don’t have police… At the end of the day, the courts… only really enforce their orders through either moral suasion or through the… Department of Justice.” (Conway, 36:26)

5. Trump, Compliance, and Systemic Accountability

(38:26–42:24)

• Obedience to the Law Isn’t a Medal:

  • Frum notes that Trump’s supporters praise him for eventually obeying court orders, a low bar for presidential conduct.
  • Conway points out the administration often circumvents orders through misinformation and bureaucratic evasion.

• Corruption and the Weakening of Guardrails:

  • Discusses how courts and prosecutors have raised the evidentiary bar for proving corruption, complicating efforts to hold Trump accountable for gifts and benefits received in office.
  • “The problem is, is that there’s nobody to prosecute these, you know, the wrongs that are being committed… because Donald Trump is President of the United States, he controls the prosecutorial agenda.” (Conway, 44:08)

6. The Structural Political Problem

(45:22–47:44)

• Prosecution and Political Influence:
  • Frum observes that in most democracies, prosecution is insulated from politics, but not so in the U.S.
  • Conway argues that ultimately the issue is not the Constitution’s structure but the abandonment of norms and responsibility by Congress and party leaders:
    • “The solution for a president who fails to adhere to his duties… isn’t judicial litigation… it’s impeachment [and] removal. And the problem… is that too many people in our governmental system are failing to comply with their duties… and putting their loyalty in one man instead of the law.” (Conway, 47:16)

7. Legal Realism vs. the Demands of Democracy

(47:44–49:19)

• What is Law?
  • Frum recalls debates around legal realism: is the law just “what courts do,” or does it have independent moral and institutional meaning?
  • Both Frum and Conway locate their resistance to Trump’s abuses in the conviction that the law is more than cynical pragmatism.
  • “What I say now comes from what I said 40 years ago.” (Frum, 48:50)

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• David Frum:

  • “Flunk, flunk, flunk, flunk, flunk.” (14:46)
  • “That is not the America I think most of us believe in. That is not the America we’d like to live in. That's not the America we’d like to live our children.” (15:09)
  • “We should expect more of our presidents than they simply not be indictable or criminal.” (31:13)

• George Conway:

  • “Would you trust him to put. Would you make him the trustee for your children? Of course not.” (24:08)
  • “If a law firm can’t defend itself, it’s hard to see how it’s going to defend you.” (28:24)
  • “[Trump’s] contempt for what his job actually is… goes so far beyond the legal at this point that it’s just a disgrace... one rule ought to be: A president shouldn’t be a disgrace.” (31:54)
  • “The courts cannot save us… they only really enforce their orders through moral suasion or through the… Department of Justice.” (36:26)
  • “The solution for a president who fails… isn’t judicial litigation… it’s impeachment [and] removal.” (47:16)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Frum’s Budget Analysis & Blueprint for Decline: 00:56–15:15
• George Conway Background & Defining Fiduciary Duty: 16:06–22:48
• Morality vs. Legalism in Law and Politics: 25:06–32:15
• Courts’ Role and Limitations: 32:15–38:26
• Corruption, Compliance, and Accountability: 38:26–42:24
• Political Structure & the Fate of Prosecution: 45:22–47:44
• Legal Realism and Meaning of Law: 47:44–49:19

Conclusion

The episode closes with a forceful reminder that defending American democracy is not the exclusive job of the courts, but requires vigilance, courage, and moral clarity from every citizen and officeholder. The courts have their limits—especially when social and political norms decay. If democracy is to survive and thrive, it depends on a collective commitment to values, laws, and norms that transcend partisan or procedural convenience.