Trump Built a System That Pays People to Break the Law (w/ Ben Wittes)

Summary

The Bulwark Podcast

Episode: "Trump Built a System That Pays People to Break the Law" (w/ Ben Wittes)

Date: May 17, 2026
Host: Sarah Longwell
Guest: Ben Wittes (Lawfare)

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Sarah Longwell is joined by Ben Wittes to break down significant legal developments related to abortion pill access, Donald Trump’s use of government power for self-dealing and rewarding allies, and broader Department of Justice (DOJ) undercurrents. With both host and guest identifying as non-lawyers addressing a lay audience, the conversation cuts through legal complexities to illuminate the broader political and democratic implications of recent events.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Supreme Court & Mifepristone Access

• Context: The Supreme Court issued a stay on a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision restricting expanded access (mail/telehealth) to mifepristone, a medication used in most abortions nationwide post-Dobbs.
• Legal Timeline:
  • Originated with right-leaning legal groups’ efforts to revoke FDA approval (~20 years).
  • Texas court sided with plaintiffs; Fifth Circuit limited FDA’s relaxing of access.
  • Supreme Court temporarily paused the Fifth Circuit’s restrictions while considering the case ([04:06], [07:05]).
• Implications:
  • If Fifth Circuit’s ruling stands, mifepristone access could collapse in states where abortion is banned ([08:57]).
  • The majority of U.S. abortions are now medication-induced; limiting this would have “a very significant access to care issue” ([09:45], [10:55]).
• Political Resonance:
  • The first 10 weeks gestation window for mifepristone makes a national ban highly unpopular. “That would be an extremely politically unpopular position then to ban that.” (Sarah Longwell, [15:34])
  • The politics are different from late-term abortion bans; consensus is broad for first-trimester access ([16:50]).
• Federal vs. State Jurisdiction:
  • Wittes underscores the complexity: “It seems to me very hard to see how a state law banning abortion could trump the federal government’s ability…to deliver mail of a federally approved product” ([16:50]).

Notable Quotes:

• “Medically induced [abortions]—meaning they are taken a day or two after you have an appointment. Some people do them at clinics, some people do them at home...it’s a very significant access to care issue.”
  — Ben Wittes ([09:45])
• “The idea of like a morning after pill, something within the first 10 weeks feels like it would be very non controversial to the vast majority of the public. And to ban it…it strikes me as an enormous decision.”
  — Sarah Longwell ([16:50])

Timestamps:

• Mifepristone case explained: [04:06], [06:33]
• Supreme Court's temporary stay: [07:05]
• Political implications: [13:31], [15:34]
• Statutory nuance (Comstock Act): [16:50]

---

2. Trump’s DOJ and Systematic Corruption

• Trump’s Maneuvers:
  • Trump sued the IRS for ~$10 billion over a leak and reportedly sought DOJ settlement to pay himself ([18:33]-[20:10]).
  • Faced with legal blockages, Trump instead proposes $1.7 billion for "victims of weaponization"—interpreted as rewarding allies (e.g., January 6th insurrectionists), not opponents ([20:10], [20:30]).
• Pattern of Self-Dealing:
  • Pardons for felons and political loyalists, dropping sedition charges, and creating impunity: “This is infinite self-dealing” (Ben Wittes, [20:30]).
  • Recent settlements went to early Trump allies like Mike Flynn and Carter Page, including for activities they themselves admitted guilt on ([22:50]).
  • The fund’s design aims to disguise the transactional nature of Trump’s payouts to supporters, reducing case-by-case headlines ([24:18]).
• Political Weaponization:
  • While friends are rewarded, adversaries face targeted prosecution.

Notable Quotes:

• “There is nothing normal or okay or non-corrupt about any of this. This is a infinite self dealing.”
  — Ben Wittes ([20:30])
• “I'm just going to take, you know, have a large pool of government money to dish out to—to friends...and I'm only gonna take the political hit for doing it once.”
  — Ben Wittes ([24:18])

Timestamps:

• Trump’s self-dealing and settlements: [18:33]
• Analysis of pattern: [20:30]
• Specific cases (Flynn, Page): [22:50], [24:18]

---

3. Culture & Community

• French Village Podcast:
  • Sarah and Ben reminisce about their earlier project, framing themselves as “the French Resistance” against Trump’s proto-authoritarian politics ([03:05]-[03:46]).
  • Old fans are “the hardest core of the hardest core” (Ben Wittes, [03:33]).

---

4. Broader DOJ Issues (Preview)

• Jeffrey Clark & Ongoing DOJ Issues:
  • Briefly highlighted; in-depth discussion deferred to later in the episode.
  • Focus remains on systemic trends rather than isolated individuals.

---

Memorable Moments

• On Being Non-Lawyers:

  • “I am not a lawyer, I'm a total fraud. And people think I'm being modest or joking. And the truth is I'm not a lawyer. I just fake it.”
    — Ben Wittes ([00:29])
  • “Yeah, well, I don't even fake it...I am the stand-in for all the the novices who want to understand what is happening…”
    — Sarah Longwell ([00:46])

• Podcast Nostalgia:

  • “The listeners to that were, you know…they are the hardest core of the hardest core.”
    — [03:33]
  • “We fancy ourselves the French Resistance. And so this is just an extension of that.”
    — Sarah Longwell ([03:46])

---

Key Takeaways

• Supreme Court’s next move on mifepristone will be a “blockbuster case” with huge legal and political stakes for abortion access, especially as the 2028 election looms.
• Trump’s DOJ tactics reveal a system of impunity and rewards for allies, especially those involved in January 6th, shrouded in mechanisms intended to mask direct self-enrichment and payoffs.
• Both guests underscore their lay approach to legal analysis, striving to decode complex developments for an engaged, democracy-focused audience.

---

For more analysis and updates, visit www.thebulwark.com

Transcript

[Ben Wittes]

Jim Comey never gave me a branded bottle of bourbon. And now I'm feeling like maybe we weren't as good friends as I thought.

[Sarah Longwell]

Hello, everyone, and welcome to the illegal news. I'm Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bulwark and today I am joined by another non lawyer who pretends he is one just like me. Actually, I'm very upfront Ben Wittes about

[Ben Wittes]

I'm pretty upfront about it too. Always say I am not a lawyer, I'm a total fraud. And people think I'm being modest or joking. And the truth is I'm not a lawyer. I just fake it.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah, well, I don't even fake it. I do this show and I, I am the standin for all the the novices who want to understand what is happening in our very active news cycle around what is legal and illegal and we need people to explain it to us. But you're still good for that. I've known you time. You're still my go to on a lot of this stuff.

[Ben Wittes]

It's almost like being a lawyer isn't that hard.

[Sarah Longwell]

Oh, that's Ben Wittes, everyone telling you your law degree is meaningless.

[Ben Wittes]

It's really more like telling you that if you can read and you can do the whole reading comprehension thing, you can learn about the law just like you can learn about molecular biology.

[Sarah Longwell]

Okay, well, neither of these things are things I think I can learn about, but. All right, listen, before we jump into the show, we got a lot to talk about today. I want to talk about the Mephistone ruling. I want to talk about this $1.7 billion slush fund on weaponization that Trump is floating and that seems like maybe it's going to happen. And I want to talk about Cash Patel. So we've got and there's other. Some other assorted DOJ things I want to throw at you. But before we do that, guys, last chance is coming. The Bulwark is going to San Diego and LA next week. We will be in San Diego on the 20th, in Los Angeles on the 21st. Me, Tim Miller, Sam Stein will Summer and then Mayor Todd, Gloria are going to be joining us in San Diego. And then we're doing a podcasting palooza in LA with Jane Coaston Van Lathan, John Favreau, Aaron Ryan and Brian Tyler Cohen go to the bullwork.com events. Get your tickets. Last chance to come hang out with us, guys. We want to see you. All right, let's get to the show. Ben Wittes. I would be remiss if I didn't tell people what good friends we are and that in fact, Ben Wittes and I, in the days post Donald Trump's defeat, we were like, democracy's saved. Everything's cool. Now let's just do a fun podcast. And we did a whole podcast where we watched this show, the French Village, which is an excellent show. If you're looking for something to binge. I'm pretty sure it's still on prime. But if you watch it, you can go find the companion podcast to that that Ben Wittes and I did for like a year.

[Ben Wittes]

And there are people who still come up to me and say, I learned about you and Lawfare from the French Village podcast.

[Sarah Longwell]

It's crazy.

[Ben Wittes]

It is crazy how devoted the French Village podcast, like eight of them. The listeners to that were, you know,

[Sarah Longwell]

I think it reached ultimately like 10,000 or something like that. But I will say people who tell me that they listen French Village podcast, I treat that like my deep cut tracks.

[Ben Wittes]

They are the hardest core of the hardest core.

[Sarah Longwell]

That's true. But it's a great podcast. It was a lot of fun to make less fun now that we're, you know, back in Trump 2.0.

[Ben Wittes]

Back in the French Village.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah, that's right. Now in the active. Ben and I, we fancy ourselves the French Resistance. And so this is just an extension of that. All right, so yesterday the Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding the availability of mifepristone, commonly called the abortion p. I don't know, can you maybe just give me an overview of the case? This is a big deal. Everyone's talking about it.

[Ben Wittes]

Yeah. So it's a, it's got a complicated procedural history, but the, and we can go into it if you want, but the basic story is there is a been a long term effort by certain right wing legal groups to get mifepristone, the abortion pill, banned. And this started in a court in Texas which actually issued a decision rescinding the FDA's 20 plus year old approval of mifepristone, which is a safe and legal product. Safe and efficacious product. Product. And that decision was overturned mostly. But the, but a panel of the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the country's most conservative appeals court, did let stand A the 2021, I believe, decision to relax availability of mifepristone. It used to be available only in person and only, you know, on, only, you know, under special circumstances at pharmacies. And now this allowed it to be distributed by mail and through telehealth and the and of course that has implications for a post Dobbs world because in some states it is illegal to get abortions. And in those states you can still under this ruling, get mifepristone by mail and through a telehealth appointment with somebody in a different state. So the fifth Circuit overturned that and the Supreme Court yesterday stayed that ruling on a temporary basis while until it's done considering the case. And that decision provoked dissents from both Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.

[Sarah Longwell]

And basically when you say it was a stay just because again, this is for non lawyers, it means we're waiting to find out if the Supreme Court is going to take this case up and make a decision about it. Although Thomas and Alito, they've written dissents on this in the past. Right.

[Ben Wittes]

I believe the Supreme Court's previous decision on this, which was a standing question, was unanimous, actually.

[Sarah Longwell]

Okay.

[Ben Wittes]

And so, yeah, so the, the stay means that the Fifth Circuit's decision that rescinds the FDA's more permissive mail and telehealth rulings on mifepristone does not go into effect. So you can still get mifepristone in Texas and Louisiana, Louisiana being the state that's challenged this for now. But presumably the Supreme Court will hear the question of whether the fifth Circuit is right on the merits of this. It's certainly going to be asked to by the companies that make mifepristone. At that point, you could imagine four or five votes for the idea that Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are correct and that the fifth Circuit is right. And so I would say as a short term matter, this is a, it preserves the status quo of the law. And as a long term matter, it is not clear to me at all where the majority of the Supreme Court is likely to be on this question.

[Sarah Longwell]

Okay. Because I was trying to figure out, because yesterday we're taping this on Friday, May 15th. And so when the decision came down, everybody was talking about it and I was a little confused because I didn't think it changed anything in the. It's also like a, it's like a paragraph ruling. So can you just. Maybe I'm missing it or being obtuse but like, explain why everyone is freaking out when it seems like I couldn't tell why it was such a big deal.

[Ben Wittes]

Right. So the fifth Circuit opinion is a big deal because it suspends access to mifepristone in all the states where abortion is illegal. Right. And it limits access to mifepristone everywhere else because you can't get it by mail or by telehealth under if that ruling is. Is. Is right. And so, you know, mifepristone access skyrocketed in response to that, to the point that even after Dobbs actually the number of abortions nationally has gone up. And the large. I believe the main reason for that is that mifepristone access is much greater than it used to be.

[Sarah Longwell]

Wait, I'm sorry, do they count a mifepristone use as an. As an abortion? Yes, they do.

[Ben Wittes]

The majority of abortions in the United States are medically induced, not surgical anymore.

[Sarah Longwell]

And medically induced, meaning they are taken

[Ben Wittes]

a day or two after you have an appointment. Some people do them at clinics, some people do them at home. Obviously, in states where it's illegal, there are no clinics anymore. But you have a telehealth appointment, you acquire the relevant drugs by mail, and you do it at your own convenience. And so, you know, it's, it's a very significant access to care issue if, if that is allowed to stand. You know, whether you think it's a, that's a terrible thing or like Alito or Justice Thomas, you think, hey, the FDA sought to undermine the Dobbs decision and make abortion legal in every state that wants to criminalize it, which, you know, and therefore it's a terrible thing. Right. It's a big thing. So the Supreme Court stay on the 5th Circuit ruling, which was initially just an administrative stay while the court thought about it, you know, preserves the status quo, I.e. access to mifepristone for millions and millions of people. You know, it's obviously a much bigger deal if it's portends that the Supreme Court will disagree with the fifth Circuit than if it portends that they're going to, in a leisurely way, affirm what the fifth Circuit has done here.

[Sarah Longwell]

Got it. Okay. So that's, that's why it's such a big deal.

[Ben Wittes]

The stay is a big deal because the consequences of the fifth Circuit ruling are a very big deal.

[Sarah Longwell]

Okay, so there's nothing to do now but wait and see what the Supreme Court's going to do or is there any other action that can be taken here?

[Ben Wittes]

Well, I think there's. There's three possibilities. One much less likely than the other one is that the Supreme Court grants cert in this. And here's this. And this will be the blockbuster term, you know, case for next term. That's, I think, the most likely possibility.

[Sarah Longwell]

Okay.

[Ben Wittes]

You could imagine a more summary disposition, like if the Supreme Court were just to say this is just wrong. I don't think that's likely at all. A third possibility, which is usually they don't do this with major federal policy questions. But you know, one possibility is just to deny cert and say, okay, this, the fifth Circuit rules this way and that affects Texas and Louisiana and some other states down there and in other parts of the country, you know, other rules prevail. And I that's not the way the court usually behaves with respect to national policy matters because we kind of like the idea that there's one federal law everywhere. So I think you're likely to see the Supreme Court grant cert in this and this is going to be a major, major case. And candidly, I don't know the law, the administrative food and drug law well enough to without spending a lot of quality time with the underlying briefs, have a strong opinion about what direction the Supreme Court is likely to go in this area. That's research that I will do at some point, but I haven't done it

[Sarah Longwell]

yet as I'm really getting my head around this. It seems like if that case is in front of the Supreme Court next year, that will be an enormous like that will have enormous political implications too.

[Ben Wittes]

Yes.

[Sarah Longwell]

Like people will going into 2028. That will become a big issue because it will go from okay, they outlawed abortion in terms of clinics, but there was this other way that people were able to have abortions. And can I just ask, do you know if is mifepristone, is it like can you get it anytime during a pregnancy or are you only giving it up to a certain point?

[Ben Wittes]

I want to say so I am, I am obviously not an expert on the medicine of this. I want to say it's a, it, it is most effective. Like you don't use it after a certain point. I want to say it's a first trimester thing.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah.

[Ben Wittes]

But I don't know the answer to that for sure. And I don't want to. I don't want to propagate medical misinformation.

[Sarah Longwell]

That's okay. I'm going to make a note and we're going to get back to people on this. I'm going to effort that mainly because I'm thinking about how it would be argued publicly. Thinking about it. Right. Is basically if it is a first trimester drug that you can take that feels like the political implications of that are very different than if it's something that you can take throughout the whole term.

[Ben Wittes]

It's definitely not the whole term. Yeah, it's, the question is how far into a pregnancy is it a viable form of abortion?

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah. Okay, well thank you for breaking that down because that was one that I know is a big deal and that I had not been tracking. All right, anything else on that before we move on.

[Ben Wittes]

So I just looked up on the, actually now I do have more. So this is the FDA's website and it says it's used to end intrauterine pregnancy through 10 weeks of gestation, 70 days or less.

[Sarah Longwell]

That's, that would be an extremely politically unpopular position then to ban that. I mean, okay, because I mean I, I, as, I, as I listen to voters all the time, they have a very clear, there's a very clear almost consensus around abortion unless people are super, super hardcore pro life. But there's a lot of people who say in the focus groups I'm pro life, but I believe in a woman's right to choose. Like you hear Trump voters say that all the time and, and, and maybe like very religious Democrats. And so we're not very religious but, but more religious Democrats. And the first time I heard, I remember being struck by it, but now I hear it so often it's almost like the dominant position and really what they mean are, or people are sort of against late term abortions, abortions after the point of viability. But the idea of like a morning after pill, something within the first 10 weeks feels like it would be very non controversial to the vast majority of the public. And to ban it and to eliminate a woman's ability to have any access then I don't know. That strikes me as an enormous decision.

[Ben Wittes]

So I don't, I defer to you on the politics of it. I, I do think that it is hard to understand to me how a drug that is regulated federally and the males which operate federally and telehealth, which is done federally. Well, interstate, interstate communications is a federal thing. It seems to me very hard to see how a state law banning abortion could trump the federal government's ability to deliver mail of a federally approved product. There are some complications like the Comstock act, which is a federal law that prohibits the distribution of abortion agents by mail. That has always been interpreted as something of a dead letter, but. So there are a bunch of complications here. But at the end of the day, I'm not sure I understand how the FDA does not have the authority to control and regulate the distribution of mifepristone. But that said, I have not spent quality time with the underlying fifth circuit opinion.

[Sarah Longwell]

Well, there'll Be plenty of time to really dig into that and dissect that as this if it moves to the Supreme Court. But for now, I think that was a good overview of why this matters so much and sort of what's happening.

[Ben Wittes]

Particularly for a non lawyer.

[Sarah Longwell]

Yeah, particularly for a non lawyer, which is what we are right here. Okay. There's two issues I want to cover with the doj. One is Jeffrey Clark, but before we get to Jeffrey Clark, because that's a more, I don't know, minor. Not minor, but it just doesn't have as big of implications to me as the news that broke last night that Andrew Weissman and I have been talking pretty regularly about Trump's all the corrupt things he does. But one of the most significant pieces of corruption was Trump getting the IRS to give him a. He was suing them for $10 billion for an agent that leaked his tax returns a few years back. And this was an incredible thing because it meant that taxpayers would be on the hook for $10 billion. That would be. That the DOJ would be deciding on. And it would basically be like Trump is both sides of the equation. Right. He's putting pressure on the DOJ and Trump is the person making the claim. Insane. Insane. Now, I think perhaps there was a ruling coming saying that Trump could not be on both sides of the issue. And so as a way to skirt that, yesterday ABC broke the news that instead Trump was going to offer a settlement for $1.7 billion to pay out claims to people who. Or who, who were what, victims of weaponization of the government. Now, I joked on Twitter, does this mean that James comey is getting $1.7 billion? Because I'm watching the United States government weaponize itself against a whole slew of people. But no, it turns out that they mean the Biden administration and they mean people like the January 6th insurrectionists. Just insane stuff. What do you, what do you make of what's happening?

[Ben Wittes]

So I actually don't have that much to add to what you just said. The, the important thing to keep in mind is that there is nothing normal or okay or non corrupt about any of this. This is a infinite self dealing. And you know, it's worth winding the clock a little back to the beginning of the administration. The first thing he did was he pardoned 1500 felons. Yes, some of them were misdemeanors, but you know, he pardoned a bunch of people who had committed violent crimes and then he exempted from that people who had done the worst. Right. The, the seditious conspiracy people. So then recently, of course, he dropped the cases against them as well. So, you know, step two is the people who you exempted because they were convicted of seditious conspiracy, you then drop the cases against. Then you then also drop the appeals of a whole bunch of people like Steve Bannon, people like, you know, people who have committed crimes, been convicted of them, gone through their whole jury process. You drop the cases against them as well. Then you also drop cases against political cronies, for example, started with Eric Adams in New York, but it has continued against all kinds of, you know, crypto scammers, all types of. And some of them you drop cases against, and some of them you just pardon. And so there is this very wide swath of impunity that you've created for people who are on your side, either people who are financially on your side and enriching your friends or doing business with you or giving large amounts of money to political committees or whatever. So some of them are financial friends, and then some of them are people who will do violence for you and, you know, have done violence for you. And then in the last several weeks, there has been an additional layer which is starting to pay people off. And this, I think, started with Mike Flynn and Carter Page. Right. Both of whom got very big settlements for. In Flynn's case is quite amazing. It's a case that he pled guilty to. Right. And. But then was, of course, pardoned out of and sues the government and now gets a, you know, million dollar payment. And so I think you have to see this in the context of that larger pattern of creating impunity for your friends up to and including the shock troops who will, you know, do riots for you.

[Sarah Longwell]

Can I just add on those shock troops, many of them have now gone on to commit additional crimes, many of them sex crimes or sexual assault crimes.

[Ben Wittes]

Yeah, stay tuned on that. Lawfare is going to have a significant new report on this subject that is quite shocking, actually. And the. Let's just say the number of those people is much greater than has been reported.

[Sarah Longwell]

It makes perfect sense that people who would use violence to try and overturn an election are also violent in many other ways.

[Ben Wittes]

Exactly. And so I see this as, okay, it looks bad for me to be demanding a $10 billion payout to myself. So what I'm going to do instead is create a pool with which to give money to the shock troops. And I, you know, rather than have a $1 million settlement for Mike Flynn and a $1 million settlement for Carter Page, at a time. I'm just gonna. Because each one of those produces news stories. That's ugly. I'm just going to take, you know, have a large pool of government money to dish out to, you know, to friends and what. Even while I prosecute political enemies, be they Jim Comey or Kilmara Brago Garcia or, you know, Letitia James, I'm gonna have a pot of money to reward friends. And I'm only gonna take the political hit for doing it once because the amounts of money will be smaller because these are not big names. Right. They're just January 6th perps. And so you give a couple hundred thousand dollars to the 10th time you do it, no one's even going to.