Asha Rangappa (8:08)

Which one is deported? The man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.

Ezra Klein (8:11)

Well, let me ask Pam, would you ask.

Asha Rangappa (8:13)

Answer that question.

Ezra Klein (8:14)

Sure. President. First, the Trump administration has no argument that they did not deport Abrego Garcia unlawfully. What they deny is that they have the authority to bring him back right now. It was a paperwork.

Asha Rangappa (8:28)

It was additional paperwork had needed to be done.

Ezra Klein (8:32)

That's up to El Salvador.

Asha Rangappa (8:34)

If they want to return him, that.

Ezra Klein (8:36)

Is the president of El Salvador. Your questions about it, per the court, can only be directed to him. That authority, they say, lies with President Bukele. Can President Bukele weigh in on this? Do you plan to return him? Well, I can. And standing next to Donald Trump, President Bukele says he can also not send him back. Of course I'm not going to do it. It's like, I mean, the question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I don't have the power to return him to the United States. Again, I want to quote the National Review. You don't have to take it from me. Which writes, this is a ridiculous pretense because the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, will clearly do anything we ask. If the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America requested that he ride a unicycle wrapped in an American flag in San Salvador's central square, Bukele would probably ask whether it should be a Betsy Ross flag or the traditional Stars and Stripes. If nothing else. If nothing else, Trump could slap those tariffs he is so fond of on El Salvador. But we are not angry at Bukele here. We, the government of America, are paying Bukele to imprison Abrego Garcia and others. Bukele is not doing this against Donald Trump's wishes. He is Donald Trump's subcontractor. That Oval Office meeting between Trump and Bukele was a moment when the mask fully slipped off. I thought Jon Stewart pinpointed part of its horror. Well, can I honestly tell you, like, this isn't even the thing that's like, they're enjoying this. It came through so clearly how much they were loving it. Each of them declaring that there was nothing they could do for Abrego Garcia. No way to allow him his day in court. No way to allow the American legal system to do its job and assess whether he's a danger. No way to follow the clear order of the Supreme Court. And from their perspective, maybe they're right. Because here's a scary thing that I think sits at least partially beneath their calculus politically. They cannot let Abrego Garcia out, nor any of the other people they sent to Seekot without due process. Because what if he was released? What if he returned to the United States? What if he could tell his own story? What if s seems quite likely he's been brutalized and tortured by Trump's Salvadoran henchmen. Well, he can't be allowed to tell the American people that to the Trump administration, Abrego Garcia is not a mistake. He's a liability. And he's a test. A test of their power to do this to anyone. A test of whether the loophole they believe they have found. A loophole where if they could just get you on a plane, then they can hustle you beyond our laws and leave you in the grips of the kind of gulags they wish that they had here. They're not ashamed of this. They're not denying their desire to do it to more people. This is how dictatorships work. Trump has always been clear about who he is and the kind of power he wants, and now he's using that power. And everyone around him is defending his right to wield that power. Marco Rubio. I can tell you this, Mr. President. The foreign policy of the United States is conducted by the President of the United States, not by a court. And no court in the United States has a right to conduct the foreign policy of the United States. It's that simple. End of story. Attorney General Pam Bondi. This is international matters, foreign affairs.

Asha Rangappa (12:14)

If they wanted to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.

Ezra Klein (12:19)

Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. But President Trump, his policy is foreign terrorists that are here illegally get expelled from the country, which, by the way, is a 9010 issue. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Mr. President, you wanted people to know.

Asha Rangappa (12:34)

That there was consequences if you break our laws and harm our people and endanger families, and this is a clear consequence for the worst of the worst that we have somewhere to put them.

Ezra Klein (12:44)

Thank you very much. If President Donald Trump decides that you are to rot in a foreign prison, then that is his right. And you, you have no rights. We are not even a hundred days into this administration, and we are already faced with this level of horror. And I can feel the desire to look away from it even in me. What all this demands is too inconvenient, too disruptive. But Trump has said it all plainly and publicly. He intends to send those he hates to foreign prisons beyond the reach of US Law. He does not care. He will not even seek to discover if those he is sending into these foreign hells are guilty of what he claims, because this is not about their guilt. It is about his power. And if he is capable of that, if he wants that, then what else is he capable of? What else does he want? And if the people who serve him are willing to give him that, to defend his right to do that, what else will they give him? What else will they defend? This is the emergency, like it or not. It's here. This podcast is supported by NetSuite.

Asha Rangappa (14:12)

Okay, business leaders, are you here to play or are you playing to win?

Ezra Klein (14:16)

If you're in it to win, meet your next MVP.

Asha Rangappa (14:19)

NetSuite by Oracle.

Ezra Klein (14:20)

NetSuite is your full business management system.

Asha Rangappa (14:22)

In one convenience suite.

Ezra Klein (14:24)

With NetSuite, you're running your accounting, your finance, your HR, your E commerce, and more, all from your online dashboard.

Asha Rangappa (14:30)

Upgrade your playbook and make the switch.

Ezra Klein (14:32)

To NetSuite, the number one cloud ERP.

Asha Rangappa (14:35)

Get the CFO's guide to AI and machine learning at netsuite.com NYT netsuite.com NYT.

Ezra Klein (14:42)

You just realized your business needed to hire someone yesterday. How can you find amazing candidates fast?

Asha Rangappa (14:47)

Easy.

Ezra Klein (14:48)

Just use Indeed. Join the 3.5 million employers worldwide that use Indeed to hire great talent fast.

Asha Rangappa (14:54)

There's no need to wait any longer.

Ezra Klein (14:56)

Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed and listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit. To get your jobs more visibility@ Indeed.com just go to Indeed.com NYT right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com NYT terms and conditions apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need. My guest today is Asha Rangappa. Rangappa is a former FBI special agent and now the assistant dean at the Yale University's Jackson School of Global Affairs. She's also the author of the substack the Freedom Academy. Asha Rangappa, welcome to the show.

Asha Rangappa (15:48)

Thanks for having me, Ezra.

Ezra Klein (15:50)

So I want to begin in the somewhat dark place that we're in. It looks to me that the administration is pretty directly disobeying Supreme Court orders in at least the Kilmara Abrego Garcia case. What recourse is available to the courts or to the system?

Asha Rangappa (16:08)

Well, I think this is why a lot of analysts are now saying we're officially in a constitutional crisis. So the normal recourse here would be to hold the administration in contempt. They can fine specific officials. If it were you and me and we were held in contempt, I mean, the ultimate penalty might be that we could be jailed. But I doubt that that's something that would ultimately happen to anyone in the administration. But that would be within the power of the court as well.

Ezra Klein (16:40)

But Trump could just pardon you.

Asha Rangappa (16:42)

And ultimately the executive branch has the enforcement power. Trump maintains control over all of the enforcement agencies, including the Marshals Service. And so even if this goes all the way back up to the Supreme Court and you then have this face off between the judiciary and the executive branch it's not clear to me exactly what can be done to enforce an order ultimately, which kind of leaves the Trump administration with a trump card, no pun intended.

Ezra Klein (17:14)

Well, the Trump administration's, I don't know if the right word for it is interpretation of the order. Certainly their spin of the order, if you're listening to Stephen Miller, is this was a huge victory for us because what the Supreme Court said is nobody can make us that we maybe have to facilitate but don't have to effectuate. There's a lot of hair splitting in that language going on. But their view is that the Supreme Court has created or has validated a fairly large zone of authority, which is foreign policy for the executive, for Donald Trump, and that if you read that order correctly, what the Supreme Court really said is that what they will do about it is nothing.

Asha Rangappa (17:55)

Well, first, Stephen Miller's interpretation of what the Supreme Court said is not entirely accurate. The Supreme Court did mention the deferences given to the executive branch in foreign affairs, but it did uphold the lower court's order that the administration facilitate the return. They can't tell him what to do in terms of the negotiations and the dealings with the foreign power, but they need to do everything in their power to make it easier for this person to return. But I think to zoom out, this is by design in all of these contexts, whether it's in these deportations, whether it's in the visa revocations, whether it's even in the tariff context, you hear these buzzwords. Foreign affairs, terrorism, national security, national emergency, all of these are arenas that are core executive branch authorities that are given great deference by the courts. And so when they frame all of these issues in those terms, they're already carving out a huge swath of authority that they can essentially exercise without much oversight. And when you layer the Court's absolute immunity ruling from last year on top of that, which, again, protects these core functions from any kind of liability, there is a large arena in which they can act with impunity if they can move fast enough, as they are in this case.

Ezra Klein (19:28)

So when the President says it is about national security, that means it's not illegal. To twist the old Nixon line, I.

Asha Rangappa (19:37)

Wouldn'T say that it's not illegal. It means that he's going to be given a lot of deference. He'll be given a lot of deference in terms of factual determinations, for example, factual determinations that we're in a national emergency, perhaps his factual determinations that we're being invaded or that somebody's actions are intruding on his foreign policy prerogatives. All of these things are given great latitude. And this is discretion that's been afforded to the executive branch in all of these contexts so far with delegated authority from Congress. So these are actually Congress's authorities that it has given to the executive branch with the understanding that there might be actual quick decision making needed by the executive branch in certain circumstances to exercise this kind of authority. It presumes that somebody is going to be acting in the nation's interests and in good faith.

Ezra Klein (20:34)

So before we move to Congress, I want to just make sure I understand what you were saying and that the level of alarm rising in me, as you say it, is merited, which is what I hear you saying, is that there is no check from the courts on this. They have told the administration to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia and to allow him the due process as if the original administrative error, quote, unquote, had not been made. The Trump administration has been perfectly clear that they will not do that. You do not seem to me to expect that there is going to be some secondary round here from the Supreme Court that in some way forces them to do a thing that I don't think they want to do.

Asha Rangappa (21:17)

I don't know that in this specific case, they can force him to do anything. If he says, look, I talked to President Bukele and he said he can't return them or he won't return them, and shrugs his shoulders, which he basically did in this press conference, then there's not much that the court can do in that situation. What's interesting to me, Ezra, is that this doesn't really help him in the big picture in terms of the policy. It's in his legal interest to bring Abrego Garcia back and say, look, this is not a big deal. We can correct errors so we can move fast. We can round up all these people and do these summary deportations, because if we make mistakes, we can bring them back. I actually think that would be a stronger legal argument. What's happening here is that this is about a power play and it's about defiance. So in some ways, the legal interests are working against, I guess, the ego that the administration has. So they might be able to, for example, prohibit further deportations if it becomes clear that this is an irrevocable move and errors can't be corrected.

Ezra Klein (22:31)

But even if it would be in their legal interest to do that in some other world, in the world we actually live in, where it's very Likely this guy has been brutalized or tortured, where him coming back to the United States where his story could be heard would be politically devastating for the administration that in practice, it's not in their interest for him to come back and for any of the people sent out on this authority to come back. Because every one of those people, if they come back and it becomes clear the administration made not just a terrible mistake, but deported somebody into a hell for no reason at all, that it's actually a political imperative for them, that that story cannot be told, that Bukele keeps them in CE cot functionally forever.

Asha Rangappa (23:18)

I think that's true. My only point is, yes, I think there would be a downside to bringing someone back, but I think if they were operating in a paradigm where they want to be in compliance with the court, they would do that.

Ezra Klein (23:34)

So during the George W. Bush administration, there was famously the removal, the shipping of people who were deemed threats to black sites, to prisons in other places that were not bound by our loss. How similar is the theory and the powers of what we're seeing to what was being invoked and used there?

Asha Rangappa (23:58)

It's similar. I think that it's more similar to the Bush administration sending people to Guantanamo. So the black sites were instrumental. It was for extracting information that they believed that these detainees had, using methods that would be illegal under our law. I'm not excusing it, but I'm saying that there was a. You know, I think they thought there was going to be some output that they were going to get that would be useful intelligence. But in terms of evading actual court authority, what the Bush administration did is that they looked at some World War II precedents that said that enemy combatants who were imprisoned in a location over which the US had no control, that those people did not have the right to petition for habeas corpus. And the Bush administration thought, hey, that's great, we can put people in Guantanamo Bay because that's, you know, under the sovereign control of Cuba, and we can basically have this convenient location where we can house all these people, but it will be out of reach of the courts. And this led to a pretty robust jurisprudence after 9 11, where the courts didn't really like getting cut out of the equation. And so they began to had these decisions where they said, no, we actually do have the right to look at what you're doing there. And all of this results, by the way, Ezra, in this irony that Guantanamo detainees who were captured abroad, who never stepped foot on American soil, had the ability to petition for a Writ of habeas corpus, due process rights, the ability to contest their enemy combatant status, and were protected by the Geneva Conventions. So what you're seeing now is that people who have literally been here for a decade aren't being afforded those same privileges and rights.

Ezra Klein (26:03)

I mean, that's horrifying.

Asha Rangappa (26:04)

It's horrifying. And I think the administration, what I think is horrifying here is they've been very legally savvy, right? Like, they understand whatever lawyers have studied this, understand the trajectory of what happened with the Bush administration, and they know, okay, for this to be a constitutional black hole, it has to be completely in another country. And not just to extract information, but they just need to be sent there and we throw away the key.

Ezra Klein (26:36)

They've been very legally savvy. I think something that is very important and telling about the individual cases here, which has been true across a lot of what the Trump administration has done in different domains, is that if they wanted to protect this power and expand it maximally, they would choose the people, the cases, the laws of the authorities, very, very, very carefully. And what you see with the Abrego Garcia case, although not only him, is they're not doing that. They are choosing people. Whether they intend to be doing this or not. It's very hard to know what is incompetence and what is intentional malice, but they're choosing people whom it looks terrible for them to be doing this, too. I mean, there's a reason people know his name. There's a reason this particular case has broken through. And certainly the decision they have made on the other side of that, whether or not they intended to be here or not, is that if they can win on that, then that truly does expand the power. If they don't have to choose who they are sending to Bukele's hellhole carefully, if it does not have to be the absolute worst, most bulletproof confirmation of this person is a horror. Who you do not want in the United States, if it can just be Donald Trump said so, then what you have is a disappearance power, not just a national security power, the capability to remove almost any kind of person at any kind of time. And when he begins to, then on top of the criticism he is getting, have Bukele there in the Oval Office yucking it up with him, tell him he's going to need to build more prisons, saying maybe the homegrowns are next. What do you think? American citizens are a special kind of people. Wasn't that what he said then? It feels to me like we've tipped into another world. Rather than being legally savvy. This is not the narrowly tailored test cases they're sticking to. These are, I mean, the kinds of cases that the Supreme Court is already telling them, you can't do this. And functionally, the response is, yes, we can.

Asha Rangappa (28:47)

Right. I was going to say, I think the only change I would make to what you said is it's not if we can win on this, then we can do everything else. It's if we can defy this, then we're home free.

Ezra Klein (29:01)

Yeah. I mean, win not legally, but just in power.

Asha Rangappa (29:03)

Exactly. In power. And this is the difference, I think, between what the Trump administration is doing and what the Bush administration was doing. The Bush administration didn't want the Supreme Court to end up ruling on something that wasn't gonna go its way. So when they thought that maybe they did not have the best legal case, they would move the detainee out or they would put them into criminal proceedings to avoid having the question actually answered, because it's sort of. Then they're still sort of acting in some gray zone. The Trump administration is willing to take, as you mentioned, these bad cases. Bad cases make bad law for. Especially for the executive branch, but they seem to not care. And I think that is the scary part, because it does evince a predisposition to disregarding, as we're seeing it happen right now.

Ezra Klein (29:59)

If you were to give me your big picture, we're Somehow not even 100 days into this, but your big picture for the way the Trump administration wants to use the security and judicial apparatus of the state to accomplish its objectives, whatever those are. What is the framework that you're using now to make sense of it?

Asha Rangappa (30:23)

I think this is just a consolidation of power. This is arrogating authorities from Congress, which, as I mentioned before, it's already kind of ceding on its own and now arrogating powers from the judiciary. I mean, effectively, what the Trump administration is doing is actually acting as a quasi judiciary. Right. They're rounding up people and effectively being judge, jury, and executioner. And they're just saying, look, trust us. We've decided that this person is guilty, that this person is a terrorist, that this person violated the law. So it's a consolidation of power. It's an authoritarian move. And I think the challenge is who's gonna stop us? And if they do it fast enough and they can get people into this constitutional black hole, then they win.

Ezra Klein (31:15)

So, in theory, the power to stop them would be in Congress. If Congress wanted to I think the.

Asha Rangappa (31:23)

Power to stop this in any systemic way is with Congress. So the Alien enemies Act of 1798, I mean, this is, you know, this is a. This is a delegation of Congress's war powers. They can.

Ezra Klein (31:40)

What is that act? Why don't we talk about that act for a minute?

Asha Rangappa (31:43)

Yeah. The Alien Enemies act was passed in 1798 during the Quasi war with France. And it allows the president, during a declared war or an invasion by a foreign government, to remove alien enemies of the nation that is the enemy that are 14 years or older, and basically remove them. And the idea being that in that kind of situation that people hold their allegiance to their country, and so there could be people who are spies and saboteurs. And in order to protect national security, the executive branch needs to have the ability to very quickly remove people. It has only been invoked three times before this year in the War of 1812, in World War I and World War II. In those contexts, in World War II, for example, people got individualized hearings, at least to determine whether they were in fact, nationals of the country. That was the enemy. But it's now being applied in this immigration context. Trump is claiming that illegal immigration constitutes an invasion, and specifically an invasion by trend. Aragua, and therefore men 14 years or older who are members of that group fall under the purview of the Alien Enemies act and can be removed.

Ezra Klein (33:11)

And when you say it's an arrogation of power by the administration, which I agree it is, is this an arrogation of power because Donald Trump is truly so convinced that South American gangs are a threat to the US or is this an irrigation of power in a more broad based and fundamentally dictatorial fashion where there's a range of enemies to the state, to the leader, and they are pulling in any set of powers that they can to exert control?

Asha Rangappa (33:44)

Well, I think the latter, though. I think right now they're testing it on this one group because it's something that most people wouldn't object to. Right. There's gangs coming in. They're dangerous gangs. I mean, trend Aragua is an actual gang. It's a dangerous gang. So is MS.13. Let's apply this war framing here. And I think the idea is, let's see how much we can get away with, and then we can push the envelope and keep expanding this group into broader and broader categories. And we've already heard Trump discussing with President Bukele yesterday that, hey, why not include homegrown criminals in this whole thing? So I think that this is kind of testing the waters to see how they can do it. But this is about summary removal. This is how can we get people out of here in as great a numbers as possible, as quickly as possible. I think that's the goal. And then they'll start including other people into the whatever category they deem as the enemy.

Ezra Klein (34:48)

So we should say that when Trump was musing that he would like to send homegrown criminals to El Salvador, he does say, well, we'll have to look into the laws on that. What are the laws on that?

Asha Rangappa (35:02)

So I think sending US citizens abroad to rot in a gulag would be blatantly unconstitutional. There is something called the non Detention act and it says that no citizen can be imprisoned or otherwise detained except pursuant to an act of Congress.

Ezra Klein (35:21)

But if you could just send people away on what even you admit is an administrative error.

Asha Rangappa (35:26)

So this is the thing. I think the thing is, if it'swe just whisk people off, then at that point it's over, it's game over. And yes, listen, if they can cut the judicial branch out of this, which is what the Bush administration tried to do, if you can't even get your foot in the door to have the executive branch justify the reason that they've designated you as a terrorist, as an enemy before they ship you out, then absolutely we're in 1973 Chile. That's from there to black vans showing up in the middle of the night and rounding you up and you get disappeared.

Ezra Klein (36:07)

Is that where you think we are?

Asha Rangappa (36:09)

I don't think we're there yet.

Ezra Klein (36:12)

Not the black vans. But 1970, I mean to be chill. I mean, isn't what is between us and there in your presentation here, I have found nothing to hold onto. And I'm not asking for something to hold onto because I think it's really important that. Look, the thing I say in the intro to this conversation is it seems to me the emergency is here.

Asha Rangappa (36:33)

Yes.

Ezra Klein (36:33)

The test is here.

Asha Rangappa (36:35)

Yes.

Ezra Klein (36:35)

The question of whether or not they can defy the courts and do this is here. I think it is very inconvenient to face up to that. So if you think it isn't true, that's great. I would prefer to think it isn't true as well. But if you think it is true, then what does that imply? What are you supposed to do if you're standing on the abyss of 1973 era Chile?

Asha Rangappa (36:59)

Listen, our constitution has one remedy for this, which is impeachment. I mean, this requires political will. It requires a certain consensus that this is unacceptable, that we are beyond the pale that this is extra constitutional, that this person is abusing their power, that they are violating their oath, they're violating all kinds of laws. But, I mean, I think to me, the constitutional crisis is not. It is the defiance of the judicial branch, but it is as much Congress's failure to act in this situation, whether it's to step up and claw back some of these delegated authorities to stop the national emergency that he's using for other things, or to take that final step and say this is a step too far. I mean, I think we are in impeachment territory right now. These are impeachable offenses. This is a deprivation of rights. In my opinion, what you saw between Trump and Bukele yesterday was a criminal conspiracy to deprive people of their rights. It's an agreement to commit a crime. It is a crime to deprive people of their rights under the Constitution or the laws of the United States under color of law. That's exactly what he was saying that he was going to do. We know that he can't be held criminally liable for that because he is doing these as official acts. And the Supreme Court has said that those are beyond the purview of Congress to criminalize what's left, the promise.

Ezra Klein (38:29)

Impeachment in an era of nationalized, polarized political parties is a broken power.

Asha Rangappa (38:37)

It's a broken power if we no longer have shared values that transcend our partisan affiliation, which is to say, it's a broken power. Yeah. I mean, but that's the remedy, Ezra. If Trump defies the court, the court has no independent enforcement mechanism.

Ezra Klein (38:58)

I don't wanna drive people completely to despair. So let me.

Asha Rangappa (39:00)

We're in, like, let's wear sweatpants and stare at the ceiling territory now.

Ezra Klein (39:04)

I mean, you can imagine a world, yeah. Where we sort of muddle along in these horrors for a year and change. Democrats have a significant midterm victory. And I keep saying, and it's half a joke, but it's not a joke that what might save American democracy is Donald Trump has the dumbest possible views on the global economy and in absolutely wrecking 401s and prices and the ability of small businesses to import, he is handing his opponents an incredible midterm opportunity. And then Democrats take the House. Senate is unlikely for them, but it's not completely impossible in a wave. And they're not going to have the power to impeach him. They would not have the numbers in the Senate to attain conviction, but they would all of a sudden have A lot of power. They could take money from all kinds of areas of the government. They could hold all kinds of members of the government in contempt. There is all of a sudden then not power to end this, but a huge amount of leverage. And that's, I think, the actual pathway that is open.

Asha Rangappa (40:20)

And I think I'm glad that you mentioned the Appropriations Authority, because one thing that remains very unclear in this is where the money is coming from to transport these prisoners. What was that money originally appropriated for? What are the terms of this agreement, by the way, under the law, there's something called the Case Zablocki act, which requires the Executive Branch, the Secretary of State, to actually notify Congress of executive agreements that it reaches with foreign nations. So this is something that technically they need to disclose. They're supposed to actually publish it on the Department of State website. But to your point about withholding funds, you know, to go back again to 9 11, Congress actually prohibited the use of funds to transfer detainees from Guantanamo to the United States to be tried in criminal courts. So they were just stuck there. So it seems very clear to me that if Congress wanted to, they could prohibit the use of funds to send people to El Salvador.

Ezra Klein (41:23)

They could also take a lot of things the Trump administration wants to keep away from them. So, again, imagining the admittedly unlikely scenario of unified Democratic control of the House and the Senate, Democrats could simply decide, we're going to carve out more exemptions on the filibuster. And they could take the tariff power away from Donald Trump, they could take the tariff power back for Congress, which is originally where it sits. And all of a sudden, Donald Trump doesn't have his favorite tool of international economics. So everything then becomes a negotiation, right? There are a huge number of powers Trump is using right now that are working off of old pieces of legislation that were not built for today. Now, Congress does not like going back and revisiting old pieces of legislation ill built for today because they have trouble legislating on anything. You don't get a lot of political victories for going back and closing old loopholes and authorities, but they could. And in a world that becomes a showdown between the branches, it's not impeachment or nothing. It is leverage over functionally everything. I mean, the president of the United States does not have a magic wand that puts tariffs on other countries. It has to be enforced and done through US Law. That is power given to him by Congress. The things that Doge has been doing, the efforts they're making over spending, that is all power that Congress is functionally granting them, they could take it all back.

Asha Rangappa (42:58)

Yes, absolutely. And I think in a bigger sense, it's reimagining the kind of person we imagine to be in the Oval Office. So you think about, like, after Watergate, there were all these reforms that were done because all of a sudden we had to reimagine. What do you do if you have a president who's going to push all these boundaries? And so we get the Ethics in Government act of 1978, we get the Independent Counsel statute, we get restrictions on how tax information can be used by the President, because all of a sudden we had all these examples. I think, frankly, we've known this for a while. These things should have been done. That pendulum should have swung already. But that's, I think, the kind of reckoning that is going to have to happen in terms of you can't grant this much authority to the executive branch and it's tough because you also don't want to tie the President's hands. The reason that all of these authorities are delegated, the International Emergency Economic Powers act that Trump is using to impose the tariffs is really there as a surgical leverage tool if the President needs it. Right. We want the President to have something like that if he needs to negotiate something with a specific foreign power that we're facing a specific emergency. But I think we're no longer in that world. As you said, we're in a different world now. And I think Congress has to reckon with that.

Ezra Klein (44:23)

I remember a political scientist I really respect said to me during Trump's first term, there is no design of a political system that works well for electing terrible people, that to design a political system under the theory that you elect terrible people is to make the system unmanageable because you are by nature tying their hands because they're terrible. But then if you elect leaders who have tyrannical impulses into a system that assumes a fundamental level of good faith on the part of the executive, then you've given an ill motivated person a terrible amount of power.

Asha Rangappa (45:06)

And I would add to that, Ezra, that the landscape has changed. Right. If you're also looking at two big assumptions that maybe existed back in Nixon and before, which is A, that the President is not above the law, and B, that Congress would be willing to use its ultimate weapon if it has to, which is impeachment. If both of those are off the table, then we're in a whole new landscape and we have to accommodate that reality. Auto insurance can all seem the same until it comes time to use it. So don't get stuck paying more for less coverage. Switch to USA Auto insurance and you could start saving money in no time.

Ezra Klein (46:12)

Get a quote.

Asha Rangappa (46:13)

Today, restrictions apply. Usaa this is Somini Sengupta. I'm a reporter for the New York Times. I've covered nine conflicts, written about earthquakes, terror attacks, droughts, floods, many humanitarian crises. My job is to bear witness. Right now I'm writing about climate change and I'm trying to answer some really big and urgent questions about about life on a hotter planet, like who is most vulnerable to climate change? Should we redesign our cities? Should we be eating differently? What happens to the millions of people who live by the coast as the oceans rise? To make sense of this, I talk to climate scientists, inventors, activists. Mostly I document the impact of global warming, and that impact is highly, highly unequal. My colleagues and I are doing our best to answer complicated questions like these, but we can't do that without our subscribers. If you'd like to subscribe, go to nytimes.com subscribe and thank you.

Ezra Klein (47:25)

We've been talking here about things that we know the administration is doing. One of the reasons I wanted to talk to you, something that has worried me from the beginning here, is things that we don't know the administration is doing. When we go back to the early days and nominations, the nominations of Kash Patel and then Dan Bungino to the FBI, a place you used to work, were astonishing to me. That even Senate Republicans agreed to this was frightening. And when I see the way this administration is working out in daylight. The FBI is a powerful organization that by its nature works in shadow. It is being run by people who would never run it, aside from their loyalty to Donald Trump. What is your sense of both what might be happening here and what is possible here?

Asha Rangappa (48:26)

I'm glad that you mentioned that the FBI operates in the shadows. I mean, it does have this national security piece, which is literally in the shadows. But also the nature of investigation is that a lot of it happens before it ever gets to a court. And I think what most people don't realize is the FBI does not operate under a legislative charter. It doesn't have laws, I mean, apart from the Constitution that govern how that investigative power can be used. It is governed by something called attorney general guidelines, which are issued by the attorney general. And these create the standards that you need to meet before you can initiate an investigation. What kinds of investigative techniques you can use for different kinds of investigations, what kind of approvals you need, et cetera, et cetera. Those can be changed, rescinded, not adhered to, all internally, and we would not know. One thing that we can do is look at what is actually happening or not happening. So, for example, after Signalgate, that is the kind of thing that the FBI would normally have done an investigation, or the Department of Justice would have. The Attorney General would have appointed a special counsel, at least to look into it. We saw Merrick Garland do this with Joe Biden's possession of classified information or mishandling of it. Right. That didn't happen. We have recently seen an executive order targeting Chris Krebs, who was the head of CISA and demanding that.

Ezra Klein (49:57)

Can you say what CISA is?

Asha Rangappa (49:58)

CISA is the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. It's under DHS. It was created in 2018, and it oversees election security. And Chris Krebs, who was the first director, was one of the people who was very vocal in the 2020 election that the election was secure, you know, reassuring people that our elections were proceeding properly, which obviously undercut the claims that they were rigged. But Trump has ordered DOJ to do an investigation. Again, this kind of tells me, unless there's evidence that I just don't know that the Attorney General guidelines are in the dustbin. I mean, they can't possibly be following those to create an unsubstantiated investigation. An analyst who is working on the Russia investigation has been placed on lead, was somebody who was mentioned in Kash Patel's book on his enemies list. So it is telling me that this is not an agency that is working the way that it did when I was there, just based on some of these outward things. And that can be very dangerous because there is a lot the FBI can do.

Ezra Klein (51:02)

Let's go into the what it can do. Here's my picture of the FBI. And you can tell me how much of this feels right to you. There is a highly professionalized bureaucracy there. That bureaucracy is a bureaucracy the Trump administration understands to be hostile, has treated as hostile. But of course, not everybody in it is hostile. Right. There are going to be people who are there who Kash Patel believes are loyal, believes are on board, believes want to advance through Kash Patel's FBI. They're going to be people they hire into the FBI. And so while the entirety of the FBI would not be safe to turn into your private go after my enemies agency, there are certainly going to be dozens, hundreds of people who you could have on special teams who you were using in ways like this in the past under Hoover. The FBI has Done a lot of digging up information on people and then using it to compromise them, to blackmail them, very famously with people like Martin Luther King Jr. And so if you imagine something that does not seem to me to be far fetched historically or in the present, which is you've named Patel and Bongino, who are intense loyalists to Donald Trump, to this position. They understand their work is serving Donald Trump's will, and they understand their tools being the FBI and loyal agents within the FBI or loyal people they can bring to the FBI or what could a group like that do?

Asha Rangappa (52:40)

They can do a lot. There is a long Runway from when an investigation is started to when it might get a judicial check of some kind. So just as an example, they can surveil you physically. I mean, just as an intimidation tactic. We'll talk about black vans, right? They can park in front of your house and just watch you all the time. They can go interview people that you're working with and not make it clear what they're investigating. And that creates a lot of suspicion around you. They can go through your trash, they can find out all the numbers that you're calling. They can get your financial transactional data and find out how and where you're spending your money. All of those things they can do without having to show probable cause to a court. And that in and of itself, I think the danger is not so much you'll be charged with a crime, and you know that is specious, is that you actually will never be charged. It will be a Hoover type of operation where it's either done surreptitiously, as you said, to gather information and then to weaponize that, or as simply a way to harass you, to intimidate you, to make it expensive for you, that you have to hire a lawyer and you have to figure out what is going on. All of those things can happen. And it's why the Attorney General guidelines are there. You know, if you listen to Cash Patel and Pam Bondi very carefully in their confirmation hearings, they said, we're going to follow the law.

Ezra Klein (54:12)

Let's imagine that once again, President Elect Trump issues a director for order to you or to the FBI director that is outside the boundaries of ethics or law. What will you do, Senator?

Asha Rangappa (54:27)

I will never speak on a hypothetical.

Ezra Klein (54:31)

Especially one saying that the President would do something illegal. What I can tell you is my duty, if confirmed as the Attorney General.

Asha Rangappa (54:40)

Will be to the Constitution and the.

Ezra Klein (54:43)

United States of America. Director Wray, quoting former Attorney General Bell, said, you should be willing to resign if Necessary over conduct. If you pressed to engage in it, that's unethical, illegal, or unconstitutional. If pressed by the President, would you resign? Senator, my answer is simply, I would.

Asha Rangappa (55:02)

Never do anything unconstitutional or unlawful, and.

Ezra Klein (55:04)

I never have in my 16 years of government service. Would you be willing to resign the post of FBI director if pressed and given no choice but to obey the order or resign? Senator, I will always obey the law.

Asha Rangappa (55:17)

Well, the law to them is article 2. It's the unitary executive theory. It's this idea that if the President does it, it's legal in terms of law enforcement, in terms of taking care that the law be faithfully executed so there aren't guardrails. I mean, in their interpretation of the law, the President's will is essentially their command.

Ezra Klein (55:42)

In their interpretation of the law, it was lawful to go to the SDNY and tell the career prosecutors there to lay off of Eric Adams because he had come to some kind of deal. I mean, accounts differ, but it's pretty clear, I would say, my opinion, what happened, that he had come to a deal with the Trump administration to basically do what it said in return for their protection. That happened under Pam Bondi, this Attorney General. That was, to me, the big signal in all this. Again, that happened relatively in the daylight. They sustained the effort even after all these prosecutors resigned publicly, creating quite a lot of bad press and publicity for them. And they did it because, I mean, I think the through line of Donald Trump's view of the world and how to operate in it is leverage. What he wants on countries, what he wants on people, what he wants on business partners is leverage. He'll get it in kind of all different domains. Tariffs are leverage. Power in primaries is leverage.

Asha Rangappa (56:56)

Funding for universities.

Ezra Klein (56:57)

Funding for universities is leverage. The fact that they can deport you on a green card is leverage. The fact that you are being investigated by the SDNY for political corruption is leverage. But then you think of the FBI and its capacity to find leverage on people, and if you hold the view of them that I just described, then the FBI specifically becomes a very frightening organization.

Asha Rangappa (57:23)

It becomes a weapon. It's important to understand that this idea of using power for leverage actually dovetails very nicely with the unitary executive theory, which doesn't see any independence between law enforcement and the President.

Ezra Klein (57:39)

Can you say what the unitary executive theory is?

Asha Rangappa (57:42)

So it's this idea that the President, in his singular person, embodies all of the executive power. Everyone under him, all the inferior officers under him, are essentially expressions of that power. This is really about being able to hire and fire everyone in the executive branch. But it's been extended to this idea that the President can control investigations because he is the chief law enforcement officer. You know, there's Nothing in Article 2 of the Constitution that actually says that there has to be any independence. I mean, the attorney General and FBI is not mentioned there either. These are all evolved from norms.

Ezra Klein (58:22)

So then when you say there's a connection between unitary executive theory and using the FBI in this way, draw that out.

Asha Rangappa (58:29)

Basically. The unitary executive theory would support President Nixon's maxim that if the President does it, it's legal.

Ezra Klein (58:41)

When we talk through this, what you're left with is at least for the next period, until the midterms and the swearing in of another Congress. The boundaries on what they can do are what they decide to do. And. Well, first, is there anything wrong with that statement?

Asha Rangappa (59:04)

No. And you're more of a political analyst than I am. But my sense is there may be one other potential restraint is that even if this administration doesn't care about the court of law, they do seem to care about the court of public opinion.

Ezra Klein (59:17)

See, I don't think they do.

Asha Rangappa (59:18)

You don't think they do? Because I think mass protest, unpopularity, bad polls, I could potentially. And also the framing of things, for example, the idea that Trump can't bring back a person from an El Salvador ngulag from this country suggests a lot of weakness. And so I think there are ways to frame things in ways that put the administration on the defensive in terms of the popular narrative.

Ezra Klein (59:53)

Let me think about how my own thinking on this has changed, because I would have said the same thing you're saying. And I'm not going to tell you that I think there is no level of mass protest, no level of public opinion loss that would move or unnerve them. And the thing about public opinion is he doesn't have to win reelection. And he's definitely not running the country in a way where he seems to care if House Republicans win reelection. Donald Trump has systematically traded away popularity to do things that anybody anywhere in the world could have told him would be unpopular, like crash the global stock market, raise prices for everyday Americans. And it has been. Their relative immunity is too strong. But willingness to absorb that unpopularity and that backlash, it has made me rethink how sensitive they are to it. The only thing I have actually seen stop them is the beginnings of unravelings in the treasury bond market. I don't think they want to cause a genuine financial crisis beyond that either, because they think this stuff will Be popular over time. I mean, Bukele is a very popular president in El Salvador or because they think their terrorists will work over time, they are not vulnerable or sensitive to short term whims of popular opinion. Mass protests I actually find a quite unnerving prospect right now because I think a lot about the moment in the first term when you had the George Floyd protests and Trump said that he wanted to see the National Guard or someone deployed to shoot the protesters, at least in the knees. And that order, if you want to call it an order, that suggestion was ignored. And Trump was surrounded by people in that term who saw part of their job as restraining his worst impulses. There are no breaks around him. There is no one left to say no. Watching his cabinet arrange itself to give him this dear leader like encomiums. Watching Doug Burgum prostrate himself before Donald Trump, watching Donald Trump's FCC nominee walk around with a golden pin of Trump's head, watching members of Congress put forward bills to make it possible for Trump to have a third term or beyond Mount Rushmore, watching Marco Rubio defend what is happening with Bukele is, aside from being horrific, very telling. Rubio is completely, at this point clearly compromised or has chosen to be. The address to the joint session of Congress where Trump singled out Rubio for this public mocking, this public humiliation, where it was clear that Rubio was on thin ice in a way that other members of the administration weren't, was a very adroit play, a very adroit signal to everybody that Rubio was either going to get on board fast or he was going to get off boarded fast. So I think they have chosen to ride this as hard as they can under the assumption it'll work out for them. I don't think they have a lot of points of vulnerability until someone else holds actual power.

Asha Rangappa (63:33)

I trust your assessment. I do think that it is an.

Ezra Klein (63:36)

Assumption I would like to be wrong.

Asha Rangappa (63:37)

Yeah. And I think what you're pointing out is it's always a loyalty test, the ritual humiliation, the wanting people to bend the knee. But I do think for that reason it's that much more important to have the acts of resistance right. Like what Harvard is doing now is absolutely even changing their website. You know, the law firms that are stepping up. I do think the protests, and if it gets to the point of we need to have our Tiananmen Square moment, then maybe that's what it needs to happen. I mean, we're kind of, you know, sometimes the egregious things are what Wake people up.

Ezra Klein (64:18)

Yes. This I agree with. The thing I was saying that I don't think they're that vulnerable to now is public opinion. What I think they are vulnerable to is power. And there are lots of parts of society that hold power. Donald Trump does not have absolute power. It was essential that Harvard did what it did. And now the other universities behind them are going to start doing that, too, because you don't want to go down in history as a university that didn't do what Harvard did. This is starting to become true for the law firms. The first set of them fell, and now I think you're seeing a number behind them realize what this moment is and stop and say no. Business leaders, I think, have power.

Asha Rangappa (65:00)

Yes.

Ezra Klein (65:01)

I think there's a lot of power that the Trump administration understands is held elsewhere. And at the moment, that's why I was saying that I think it's very important the Democrats win power in the midterms because I think what the Trump administration respects ultimately is power. You can already see with the tariff exceptions and carve outs that there are companies he does not want to be on the wrong side of. I do believe protests are important. I just think it's. I expect we will actually get there. I just think that when we get there, it's going to be a very dangerous moment, for sure.

Asha Rangappa (65:35)

I expect him to invoke the Insurrection Act.

Ezra Klein (65:38)

Do you want to say a bit about what that would permit?

Asha Rangappa (65:41)

The Insurrection act allows the president to use the military for domestic law enforcement. So essentially we would see military personnel in the street potentially arresting people or doing other law enforcement type activities, which I think normally the military has tried to not operate in that way domestically.

Ezra Klein (66:09)

I'm also worried he'll invoke the Insurrection Act. And I think, again, going back to people he's appointed, the message of appointing Hagseth Patel, right. He put loyalists in charge of and.

Asha Rangappa (66:21)

Firing the JAG officers, firing the JAG.

Ezra Klein (66:23)

Officers, firing generals who he thought were disloyal or trying to fire some of them. At least he has tried to take control of the security agencies. And I don't think that's for no reason.

Asha Rangappa (66:35)

I think that's right. I just think that as you mentioned, exercising all of those pockets of power regularly and systematically from now until the midterms. I mean, waiting until the midterms. To me, yes. Like, I don't.

Ezra Klein (66:49)

I agree with you.

Asha Rangappa (66:50)

I mean, if we're here 100 days in, like, I don't know where we're going to be.

Ezra Klein (66:55)

Look, that's the point for me, the last thing I want to come off on in this show as a nihilist. The point for me, this whole conversation is say that if it is not stopped now, it is going to get much worse if people don't take where we are now. It feels so cliche to invoke the poem we are all taught. First they came for the communists and I said nothing because I was not a communist. And they came for the trade unionists. And I said nothing because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I said nothing for I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to say anything. It's not that there'd be no one left, it's that by then people decide it is too dangerous to say anything. Right. That you climb up the ladder of power every time you are able to exercise power against a weaker set of enemies in society and nobody stops you. And that's why to me, the Abrego Garcia case is not a small thing.

Asha Rangappa (68:00)

No.

Ezra Klein (68:00)

If he can do this to some random Maryland father, three kids, nobody actually leaves this guy as any threat to anybody. And then sit in the Oval Office with Bukele and say, I would like to do this to US citizens too. And people just shrug their shoulders and move on. I mean, then what he has learned is he can do it, right?

Asha Rangappa (68:25)

Yeah, listen, power is freely good. I mean, all of these authoritarians, this is what Timothy Snyder says, right? That power is usually given to them and people obey in advance. And I think that it is important. It seems to me that we're definitely there in the red zone, but I think we're still early enough that there's still a lot that we can do. And just to go back to the Chilean example, just because I was a Latin American studies person, this is a country that 17 years in, extricated itself. You can always come out. It just gets harder and harder. I think, as you mentioned with this poem. And so the time to do it is now. And I think there is a complacency that the courts are going to save us. Yes, and the courts have a role and they are, I think, mostly holding their institutional role here. But they're not going to save us. The other institutions, and I mean, not just the co. Equal branches, but yes, Congress, as you mentioned, businesses, the legal profession, universities, all the press, all the institutions have to be robust. And the people at this stage, look.

Ezra Klein (69:47)

I talk to Democrats in Congress all the time and the biggest problem they face is that they Actually just don't have a lot of good options. I'm not sympathetic in every respect to the decisions they have made, but unless they want to use the debt ceiling to crash the economy, there isn't a huge number of points of leverage. They can hold things up in the Senate, but the fact of the matter is the Trump administration doesn't have a huge legislative agenda at the moment, and Democrats are not in the majority in the Senate, and they have very, very little power in the House. I think people want them to have power they don't really have. But look, there's going to be another government shutdown question in less than a year, and depending on where we are, I think it's going to be much harder for Democrats if this continues in the way it has been to say on that one, well, we're just going to keep letting this ride. But that's where the rest of society is actually really important. And that's why I really am glad Harvard did what it did. I really was disgusted by these universities with massive endowments, bending the knee that easily, by these law firms, by these business leaders who were so outspoken in Trump's first term and have just decided to buckle under in his second. Mark Zuckerberg is out there with Joe Rogan a couple months ago saying it's so time for Facebook to return to its roots around free expression. Is all this not a threat to free expression, this thing where the kinds of people who work at Facebook can come back into the country on a green card, be pulled into a room and sent back out because somebody found something that was critical of Donald Trump on their phones? What is the free expression content of that policy? At what point is it imperative on these people who do have not just economic but cultural capital in this country to speak about what's going on? I mean, that stuff matters. Those signals are sent, and then they're heeded by other people? Everybody is a node for social contagion.

Asha Rangappa (72:02)

Well, I mean, I'm not holding my breath for Mark Zuckerberg to take a stand on anything, but to go back to the Democrats and the people wanting them to do things that they don't have the power to do. Fair enough. But this is also an information war. And to bring this back to Abrego Garcia, there are certain stories that can cut through the noise, and that can be the only story. I mean, Republicans are actually really good at this. They get a message, they're very good at distilling it into something very simple. They repeat it, and they repeat it, and they repeat it. Trump is a master information warrior, in my opinion. Learn from that. And this should be the story, I think, because it's something that people get for exactly the reason that you mentioned. I think people do understand, like, if the government can stop this guy who's been here for 10 years, get him out of a car, put him on a plane to El Salvador and wash their hands of him, that's us.

Ezra Klein (73:01)

They have put a face on their own lawlessness.

Asha Rangappa (73:03)

They have put a face on their lawlessness. And that is an opportunity to get people to wake up. And I think there are people who, I mean, I think even Jon Stewart said, yeah, you got me. I was not taking this seriously. And now I am. And I think there are people who will at this point.

Ezra Klein (73:23)

I think that's a place to end. Also, a final question. What are three books you'd recommend to the audience?

Asha Rangappa (73:28)

Three books I'd recommend. I was in Tulsa, Oklahoma last fall and I got a book called the Burning by Tim Madigan about the Tulsa race massacre, which was very eye opening and astonishing that I did not learn that in history. I recently read Ben Mezrich's Breaking Twitter, which is basically how Musk broke Twitter. But it is an interesting playbook that you are seeing replicated now. So it was a good insight into his mind. And then Jason Stanley's Erasing History. How fascists rewrite the past to control the future, which is very prescient in terms of what the Trump administration is trying to do to universities right now.

Ezra Klein (74:15)

Asha Rangapa, thank you very much.

Asha Rangappa (74:18)

Thank you.

Ezra Klein (74:38)

This episode of the Ezra Clancho is produced by Elias Isquiff. Fact checking by Berlin Hu, Jack McCordick, Kristin Lynn, Kate Sinclair and Mary Marge Locker. Mixing by Isaac Jones with Aman Sahota and Afim Shapiro. Our executive producer is Claire Gordon. The show's production team also includes Marie Cassillon, Annie Galvin, Marina King and Jan Cobal. We have original Music by Pat McCusker, Audience Strategy by Christina Samulewski and Shannon Busta. The director of New York Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser, and special thanks to Aaron Reichland Melnick. The last thing you want to hear.

Asha Rangappa (75:18)

When you need your auto insurance most is a robot with countless irrelevant menu options. Which is why with USAA auto insurance, you'll get great service that is easy.

Ezra Klein (75:26)

And reliable, all at the touch of a button. Get a quote today restrictions app.