Trump 2.0: A Showdown With the Judiciary

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Journal – "Trump 2.0: A Showdown With the Judiciary"

Release Date: March 21, 2025
Hosted by: Ryan Knutsen and Molly Ball
Guest: Jess Bravin, Supreme Court Correspondent

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "Trump 2.0: A Showdown With the Judiciary," hosts Ryan Knutsen and Molly Ball delve into the escalating tensions between the Trump administration and the U.S. judicial system. Joined by Jess Bravin from The Wall Street Journal, the discussion centers on recent confrontations involving the Supreme Court, executive orders, and the broader implications for American governance and legal precedents.

---

Context of the Conflict

The episode opens with a conversation about a significant statement from Chief Justice John Roberts, who traditionally aligns with conservative views, diverging to publicly address actions taken by President Trump. This unprecedented move sets the stage for a deeper exploration of the friction between the executive branch and the judiciary.

Notable Quote:
"[00:40] Molly Ball: ...Chief Justice John Roberts...was calling out President Trump."
— Molly Ball

---

Chief Justice Roberts' Statement

Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement rebuking President Trump after the latter criticized District Court Judge James Boasberg on his social media platform, Truth Social. Trump labeled Boasberg a "left-wing lunatic" and called for his impeachment following a judicial ruling against the administration's stringent deportation policies.

Key Points:

• The administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations without standard legal procedures.
• Judge Boasberg's temporary halt on these deportations, prompting Trump's aggressive response.
• Roberts' emphasis on the established legal processes for addressing judicial disagreements, notably dismissing impeachment as an inappropriate response.

Notable Quote:
"[07:37] Molly Ball: ...impeachment is not the remedy... Chief Justice is saying there is a process for resolving these things."
— Molly Ball

---

Administration's Legal Strategies and Judicial Response

Jess Bravin provides an in-depth analysis of the Trump administration's approach to circumventing judicial decisions. The administration contends that Judge Boasberg's order was not yet finalized in writing and questions his authority to issue such directives. This stance raises concerns about the separation of powers and the potential undermining of judicial independence.

Notable Quote:
"[06:22] Jess Bravin: ...they are sending a message to the courts that stay out of our way..."
— Jess Bravin

---

Impeachment Considerations and Congressional Appetite

The discussion transitions to the political ramifications of impeachment threats against Judge Boasberg. Despite several House Republicans introducing impeachment measures, there is skepticism about their viability given the high threshold required for conviction in the Senate. Molly Ball highlights the lack of broad support within Congress, suggesting that impeachment efforts may be more symbolic than actionable.

Notable Quote:
"[09:14] Molly Ball: ...House has to pass it, and then two-thirds of the Senate has to approve it..."
— Molly Ball

---

Impact of Supreme Court's Presidential Immunity Ruling

A pivotal moment in the episode addresses the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity from last summer, which significantly influences the current administration's legal maneuvers. Jess Bravin explains how this decision bolsters the president's defense against legal liabilities, potentially encouraging more assertive executive actions without fear of judicial repercussions.

Notable Quote:
"[18:24] Jess Bravin: ...the president himself knows now that nothing he does while he is acting as president can ever lead to any kind of legal liability for him..."
— Jess Bravin

---

Targeting of Law Firms and Legal Professionalism

The Trump administration's controversial actions extend to targeting specific law firms like Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss, accusing them of being security threats due to their legal challenges against the administration. Jess Bravin notes that while these orders have faced judicial blocks, they signal a hostile environment for legal professionals opposing the presidency.

Notable Quote:
"[16:25] Jess Bravin: ...it is a very strong message that the administration views people who file lawsuits against it... as enemies..."
— Jess Bravin

---

Democratic Response and Internal Tensions

Molly Ball explores the Democratic Party's internal struggles, particularly in the wake of a narrowly avoided government shutdown. The Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, faced backlash from the party's grassroots, who felt betrayed by the leadership's decisions. This tension underscores the challenges Democrats face in balancing legislative priorities with mounting pressure from their base.

Notable Quote:
"[21:34] Molly Ball: ...John Kennedy, who scolded them... Democrats felt like they should get something from that."
— Molly Ball

---

Conclusion and Future Implications

As the episode wraps up, hosts reflect on the ongoing power struggle between the Trump administration and the judiciary. The discussion highlights the potential for future legal confrontations, the stability of democratic institutions, and the resilience of legal norms in the face of executive challenges.

Notable Quote:
"[19:35] Molly Ball: It’s as if they took Richard Nixon's statement... and made it into a legal theory."
— Molly Ball

---

Key Takeaways

• Judicial Independence Under Threat: The Trump administration's aggressive stance towards the judiciary, including threats of impeachment, poses serious questions about the separation of powers.

• Supreme Court's Role: Chief Justice Roberts' statement reinforces the importance of established legal processes and opposes the misuse of impeachment for political disagreements.

• Legal Immunity and Executive Power: The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity significantly empowers the executive branch, potentially leading to more confrontational interactions with the judiciary.

• Political Ramifications: Democratic leaders face internal challenges as grassroots members demand more assertive actions against the administration's legal strategies.

• Future of Legal Profession: Targeting law firms resistant to the administration's agenda may create a chilling effect within the legal community, undermining legal advocacy and independence.

---

Credits:
Produced by Enrique Perez de la Rosa
Edited by Katherine Whelan and Tatiana Zamis
Engineered by Peter Leonard
Fact-Checked by Kate Gallagher
Artwork by James Walton
Theme Music by So Wiley, Remixed by Peter Leonard

---

For more insights and future episodes, visit The Journal on Spotify.

Transcript

[Ryan Knudsen]

Hi, Molly.

[Molly Ball]

Hey, Ryan. Are you ready to talk about all the hot court action this week?

[Ryan Knudsen]

Yes. Have you. Have you picked your team?

[Molly Ball]

My team? You know I don't take sides.

[Ryan Knudsen]

No, I'm talking about March Madness. March Madness?

[Molly Ball]

Oh, Ryan, I'm way too much of a nerd for that. I was talking about the judicial branch.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Nerds love basketball, too, Molly.

[Molly Ball]

Not this nerd. Sorry.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Right, okay. The court. Yeah. The Supreme Court, the judicial branch. There is a lot going on there, too, right now.

[Molly Ball]

There is indeed. It's really heating up.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Did you see this statement from the Chief justice?

[Molly Ball]

I did see it. A pretty remarkable statement this week from the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts, who, you know was nominated by a conservative president, generally votes with the conservatives on the court. But this statement essentially was calling out President Trump.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Is there a showdown coming between the executive branch and the judiciary?

[Molly Ball]

I think it's already here. It's happening, and it feels. It's consequential, and it's intentional. This is something that the administration has put into motion on purpose in order to both advance their agenda and potentially change legal precedent.

[Ryan Knudsen]

From the Journal, this is Trump 2.0. I'm Ryan Knudsen.

[Molly Ball]

And I'm Molly Ball.

[Ryan Knudsen]

It's Friday, March 21st. Coming up, a breakdown of our March Madness brackets. Just kidding. We're going to talk about the Trump administration's friction with the courts. Go ducks, though.

[Jess Bravin]

This episode of the Journal is brought to you by HubSpot. It takes a lot, but to grow your business, you've got to attract audiences, score leads, manage all the channels. But with Breez HubSpot's new AI tools, it's never been easier to be a marketer and crush your goals fast. Which means pretty soon, your company will have a lot to celebrate. Like 110% more leads in just 12 months. Visit HubSpot.com marketers to learn more.

[Ryan Knudsen]

All right, so we're gonna talk about the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, and the rest of the judicial system. And to help us understand what's going on, we're joined by our colleague Jess Bravin, who covers the Supreme Court. Hey, Jess. Thanks for being here.

[Jess Bravin]

Great to be here.

[Molly Ball]

Hi, Jess.

[Jess Bravin]

By the way, speaking of March Madness, I do have to point out that there actually is a basketball court in the Supreme Court building.

[Ryan Knudsen]

You're kidding.

[Jess Bravin]

Yes, there is. Over the Supreme Courtroom, and they call that the highest court in the land.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Wait, over the Supreme Court chamber. There's a basketball court up there?

[Jess Bravin]

Yes, there is. Yes, there is.

[Molly Ball]

RBG famously frequented It. Right.

[Jess Bravin]

She was not really known for her shots, but she did do some workouts there. And Justice Sandra Day O'Connor used to have a yoga class up there. But my guess is that they built it just because they wanted to be able to say highest court in the land. I think that that may be part.

[Molly Ball]

Of the reason to really make it the highest in the land. Supreme Court decisions have to be appealable to the basketball court. Right. So if you don't like your decision from the Supreme Court, you can settle it in like, what do you call a basketball screen?

[Jess Bravin]

Get a free throw and sort of you can overrule.

[Ryan Knudsen]

I want to see Donald Trump play basketball one on one against John Roberts, the Chief justice, and then we'll see who gets to decide.

[Molly Ball]

I mean, these separation of powers questions have no easy answers, and that might be the way to settle them.

[Ryan Knudsen]

All right, Well, I could talk about basketball all day, but it's time to get serious. We started out by talking about this statement from Chief Justice John Roberts where he effectively rebuked President Trump after Trump on Truth Social called a judge a left wing lunatic and said that he should be impeached for ruling against the administration's latest deportation efforts. Jess, can you just bring us up to speed here? What is the series of events that led us to the chief justice putting out this statement?

[Jess Bravin]

Sure. Obviously, we know this administration has a very, very harsh view of illegal immigration and immigration rights in general. The ACLU got wind of the plan to invoke the Alien Enemies act as a way to essentially short circuit immigration procedures to use an emergency kind of wartime power to remove enemy aliens without going through immigration courts and the usual process. So they then filed an emergency motion in the federal district in Washington, D.C. asking for an order to stop the government from doing this. And the judge said, all right, well, slow down. I'm going to issue an order to pause this for 14 days so I can consider these legal arguments.

[Molly Ball]

And this is District Court Judge James Boasberg, who is an Obama appointee. Correct. He's the one who's been the main target of Trump and other conservatives anger here.

[Jess Bravin]

Yes, he is. That's right. He's an Obama appointee. He actually was a George W. Bush appointee to the local municipal court in Washington prior to that. But yes, Obama put him on the federal District Court in 2011.

[Ryan Knudsen]

So after the judge issued this order, what happened next?

[Jess Bravin]

There is some opacity about exactly what happened next. The administration went forward with its removal of these Venezuelan migrants to a prison in El Salvador and they say that they did not disobey the judge, although the judge verbally said, don't take off the plane, turn the plane around if it's in the air. The administration says they didn't disobey the judge, that his order was not final until it was reduced to writing, and the written version didn't say anything about turning around a plane. And so they complied with his order.

[Ryan Knudsen]

So there's two things about this case that are significant. One is the fact that it ultimately led to the statement from the chief justice, but then also that the Trump administration seems like they may have ignored potentially a court order here. How significant is that second aspect of it?

[Jess Bravin]

Well, it's very significant. If they did, in fact, ignore court order. Now they're going to say, I mean, they are saying that there was not a valid court order in effect when they did what they did, but they also say that this judge doesn't have the authority to do it. So they're sort of saying both things. One, he issued an illegal order, so therefore we wouldn't have to follow it anyway. But also, we didn't disobey his illegal order. I mean, that's essentially what they're saying. The judge has asked the government to clarify exactly what it did when. And the government is resisting saying that's national security information that they don't have to disclose to the judge. The judge says he was on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He has a security clearance. He's frustrated, and so we don't know where that's going to end up.

[Ryan Knudsen]

So after that little spat, Trump went on Truth Social and heavily criticized the judge. As we've been talking about, he said nobody voted for him. He said it was crooked. He said it was a troublemaker, and he said the judge should be impeached. And that's when Roberts issued this statement that said, and I will just read it out loud. For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.

[Molly Ball]

Jess, like reading between the lines here. What is Roberts thinking here? What is he trying to say with his statement?

[Jess Bravin]

Well, he's trying to say that this is going to DEFCON 1 over the kind of legal dispute that is really quite routine. Judges issue preliminary orders in cases all the time. Those often do not reflect the final disposition of a case. Often the very same judge, when he gets into further deliberation reviews, all the arguments will reach a different decision. So temporary orders at the outset of Lawsuits are quite common, and the entire legal system is premised on the idea that there will be appeals. Everyone is entitled to an automatic appeal of a district court to a circuit court, and then the Supreme Court exists above that. So the idea that the judge issues an order that you disagree with, even if you think it, is incredibly mistaken, impeachment is not the remedy. And we know that because there have only been 15 judges impeached since 1789, eight of which were ultimately convicted by the Senate and removed from office. And they were people who had also been convicted of crimes or other kinds of true misconduct, not simply making a decision that. That the President thinks is egregiously wrong. So that is what the Chief justice is saying, that there is a process for resolving these things. And immediately calling for the impeachment of a judge because you lost an early round in court strikes him as inappropriate.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Molly, do you have any sense of whether or not there's an appetite in Congress for impeaching Judge Boasberg or any other judges?

[Molly Ball]

So several House Republicans have now introduced impeachments against different judges. Actually, generally, it doesn't seem like something that the Republicans in Congress have much of an appetite for. It is a quite high bar for impeachment. The House has to pass it, and then two thirds of the Senate has to approve it, similar to a presidential impeachment. And I would say the Republican leadership in the House believes that the votes aren't there for this to get through the House in their narrow majority, and also that it's a distraction from the other things they're trying to do. They have their hands with their legislative agenda, and they don't view this as something they should be spending time on.

[Ryan Knudsen]

I'll put this question to either of you, but do you think that the Trump administration has a goal? Do you think there's something specific that the Trump administration wants to see, like, only the Supreme Court can rule or like, what's the thing that they want out of this question?

[Jess Bravin]

Well, they want courts to stay out of their way. I mean, you know, their messaging, you know, we don't know what kind of subliminal or psychological it affect, but this is a very, very combative administration. I mean, their rhetoric is not we respectfully disagree with the court and intend to appeal. Their rhetoric is this judge is a lunatic and should be impeached. So they are sending a message to the courts that stay out of our way, just as they've done to other opponents. They don't seem to have a concept of a loyal opposition Any opposition is by definition disloyal, I think, in their view. So, yeah, there's that. Now, that's the general, I think, atmosphere that they want to promote in terms of their legal objectives. They have a very, very strong view of executive power. They know that several members of the Supreme Court share that view, at least in theory, about how the separation of powers should be interpreted. And they are hoping that the cases that inevitably are arising from many of their very aggressive assertions will lead to new precedents that bless their approach to running the government. So, yes, I think that's their legal objective, and I think they're likely to win on some of their arguments. I can't say they're going to win on all of them, but some of them, I think they have a very good chance of prevailing as a legal matter.

[Ryan Knudsen]

There is a legitimate argument out there about national injunctions. Right. That maybe a federal judge in Texas or San Francisco or wherever shouldn't be able to tell the federal government to stop doing something.

[Jess Bravin]

There certainly is. And the Supreme Court itself has raised questions about the propriety of nationwide injunctions. It is a good question, and it is one that could be resolved in a couple of ways. One, the Supreme Court itself can set out new guidelines for when those kinds of injunctions are appropriate. And also Congress can. Congress can set the rules for federal courts. And I think there is some talk of doing that. There is a serious legal question about should a single judge often pick because the parties who are filing the lawsuit think that judge will be sympathetic, be able to stymie an entire initiative of the government.

[Molly Ball]

Well, and this is the sort of ultimate confrontation that everyone seems to be sort of girding for. Right. I mean, it's been really interesting to me that you've had people high up in the administration, including Vice President J.D. vance, quoting that apocryphal Andrew Jackson statement. The Chief justice has made his ruling, let him enforce it. But when Trump is asked this question, he's repeatedly backed down. He'd say, oh, no, that's something you can't do. You can't just disregard something the court has said. How serious a possibility is that? And would that constitute a constitutional crisis?

[Jess Bravin]

Well, I think the answer is, of course, it depends. I mean, is it a kind of soft non compliance, which actually is not that unusual? I mean, there are a lot of court orders that don't get fully carried out by the government all the time, and courts don't have a perfect way of assessing whether that goes on. Or is it just a flat out defiance of a Supreme Court directive. As you said, the president has not gone that far at this point. Some of his nominees, though, left open the possibility that there were circumstances when they wouldn't have to comply with a court order. This came up at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing when the nominee for Solicitor General and a nominee for Assistant Attorney General were asked flat out, are there circumstances when you don't have to obey a court order? And they hedged. They said, well, we don't want to talk about hypotheticals, or there's a big debate about that, or they kind of left it open.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Bottom line, should an elected official be allowed to defy a federal court order?

[Jess Bravin]

It would be too case specific for me to say to make a blanket statement about that. And interestingly, there was even a Republican Senator, John Kennedy of Louisiana, who scolded them.

[John Kennedy]

Don't ever, ever take the position that you're not going to follow the order of a federal court. Ever. Now, you can disagree with it within the bounds of legal ethics. You can criticize it, you can appeal it, or you can resign.

[Jess Bravin]

So even a Republican senator pushed back on that. So I don't know if they have a decision about what they're going to do or how important it is. If they believe that there is a core national security power of the President that is at issue and that the safety of the country is at stake, would they think that are grounds to defy a court order? I don't know.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Okay, we are going to take a quick timeout, and when we come back, we'll talk about how the Supreme Court's immunity ruling for the president last year is impacting things today. And we'll also do a pulse check on the Democrats.

[ServiceNow Ad]

Support comes from ServiceNow. We're for people doing the fulfilling work they actually want to do. That's why this ad was written and read by a real person and not AI. You know what? People don't want to do boring, busy work. Now, with AI agents built into the ServiceNow platform, you can automate millions of repetitive tasks in every corner of your business, it, HR and more. So your people can focus on the work that they want to do. That's putting AI agents to work for people. It's your turn. Visit servicenow.com.

[Ryan Knudsen]

The other thing that the Trump administration has been doing in the realm of the legal system is going after individual law firms. There was this order against Perkins Coie, another one against Paul Weiss that effectively made it impossible for those firms to interact with the federal government. What is the justification, Jess, for These actions and what impact is it having on the legal system?

[Jess Bravin]

That is definitely a novel policy of the Trump administration to target individual law firms in this way. The justification is that the president doesn't trust these law firms, and he has cited their activities against him personally. Like in an order that he issued against the law firm Paul Weiss, he named one of their lawyers and said, this person tried to, like, gin up a prosecution of me, and he is a untrustworthy, crooked lawyer. And so it is the president's determination that these law firms are security threats and can't be trusted. Perkins has gone into court to get that order lifted and won a temporary order lifting portions of the president's order. But it is, again, a very strong message that the administration views people who file lawsuits against it or people who have taken legal action against the president as enemies, and they are not pulling punches in using their powers.

[Ryan Knudsen]

These orders got blocked by a judge, at least for now. But is it having a chilling effect on the legal profession or other law firms?

[Jess Bravin]

Well, I mean, we don't know yet, but we're not seeing a very robust response from the bar. We're not seeing a kind of unified, defiant retort to the president saying how outrageous. You're seeing some individual statements, some bar associations and what have you. It's not gone unnoticed, but there's not the kind of outrage and tremendous resistance that one might have expected if this happened in Trump's first term. I mean, some of these law firms are not even fighting these orders in court.

[Ryan Knudsen]

All right, now, our favorite segment. We have a question from one of our listeners.

[Matthew]

Hi, guys. My name is Matthew, and I wanted to get your thoughts on how the Supreme Court's ruling last summer about presidential immunity is going to or is currently playing into the administration's decisions, if at all.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Thanks, Matthew. Jess, Thoughts?

[Jess Bravin]

Well, that decision is playing into it all the time. For one, the government is raising it in a lot of its legal briefs as evidence of the president's power to command subordinates to not have any kind of judicial review of what he does in his direction of the executive branch, how it's outside the realm of courts to examine. So they're definitely bringing it up in many cases as precedent that supports their view of executive authority. Also, of course, the president himself knows now that nothing he does while he is acting as president can ever lead to any kind of legal liability for him. So to the extent he wasn't fully emboldened before, he is now. So it's quite consequential. And of course, that decision may be the reason that Donald Trump is president again in the first place. I mean, had the court ruled the other way, he might have been put on trial or perhaps history would have gone a different direction. But that decision cleared the way for him to campaign through the end of 2024 and get elected and then now use employ this very, very broad view of executive power. So I'd say it's really central to everything that the president is doing.

[Molly Ball]

I was just going to observe. It's as if they took Richard Nixon's statement, if the president does it, it's not illegal, and made it into a legal theory.

[Jess Bravin]

Or another way is that President Trump has also done sort of the other way around, that if the president doesn't like it, it's illegal. Because if you listened to his speech at the Department of Justice last week, very long speech, and he described many activities that normally are protected by the First Amendment as illegal. He described news reports as illegal because they were not flattering to him. Now, I don't know that any action's gonna follow from that. That's something that's always an unknown with President Trump. Right. I mean, how much of the rhetoric then becomes policy this term? The rhetoric is becoming policy a lot more than it was in the first term. I mean, think back in his first term when universities did things he didn't like. He said all their federal funding should be cut off, but that didn't happen. This term, that is happening, and universities are toeing the line.

[Molly Ball]

So, last question. This is really important. Do you have a March Madness favorite?

[Jess Bravin]

Well, I cover the Supreme Court, so I've got to put them in my bracket.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Yes. John Roberts.

[Molly Ball]

He's gonna win it all.

[Ryan Knudsen]

He's gonna win. All right, great. Thanks so much for your time, Jess. Really appreciate it.

[Jess Bravin]

You bet.

[Ryan Knudsen]

All right, last question for you, Molly, before I let you go, we talked last week about the dilemma Democrats are in over a potential government shutdown. Ultimately, Chuck Schumer and a handful of other Senate Democrats decided to join Republicans and vote to keep the government open. There has been a ton of blowback from other Democrats who very, very strongly disagreed with that decision and felt like it was time to take off the gloves, fight hard, leave it all out on the court. To use another basketball metaphor, what's your take on what's happening here?

[Molly Ball]

So there's a couple of things happening here. First of all, because all but one House Democrat voted against this bill, they felt hung out to dry by the Senate. There was clearly a miscommunication between the House and Senate Democrats, where House Democrats felt like they took a political risk here, and then the Senate sold them out. So that's part of the anger, but the other part of the anger is really coming from the Democratic base. Rank and file Democrats are livid and terrified and feel a sense of existential rage at what they believe is an apocalyptically terrible administration and what it is doing to the things that they hold dear. And they want Democrats to do something, do anything to try to stop it. And this was a very rare moment because, remember, Democrats have very limited structural power in this moment. They're in the minority in the House and the Senate. This was a very, very rare moment where Republicans actually needed the Democrats votes. And so Democrats felt like they should get something from that. There should have been some kind of negotiation. And there was again, not good communication from Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats. They seemed to threaten to withhold their votes one day, and then the next day they supplied the votes. So just a debacle.

[Ryan Knudsen]

There are calls now for Chuck Schumer to lose his job over this. Do you think that might happen?

[Molly Ball]

I don't think that's going to happen. Chuck Schumer retains the nearly unanimous support of his members in the Senate Democratic Caucus. He himself is not up for election again for four more years, which is a lifetime in politics. Some House Democrats have called for Alexandria Ocasio Cortez to primary Chuck Schumer, but again, that would be way, way down the road if indeed it were to happen at all. And she notably had a chance to do that two years ago and decided not so. The political risks for Chuck Schumer are quite remote at this time. But he's still under a lot of pressure just because there's so much anger at him also from the grassroots. A lot of grassroots liberal groups vowing to put more pressure on Senate Democrats bring primaries against other Senate Democrats. So Chuck Schumer has really been in the hot seat.

[Ryan Knudsen]

So what's the next point of leverage that the Democrats have on the horizon, if any?

[Molly Ball]

It's hard to see where, you know, there are a few special elections coming up. The Trump administration having tapped several House Republicans for Cabinet posts, means that there's two vacancies in Florida. There'll be a special election in just a couple weeks for those. Once Elise Stefanik is confirmed as UN Ambassador, there will be another vacancy in upstate New York. But all of these are deep red districts. They voted for their Republican member by a big double digit margin in 2024. So it would be a really steep climb for Democrats to win any of these seats. And that would be a purely symbolic victory. It would not give. Even if they were to win these seats, Democrats would not have a majority in the House. So they would still be in this situation of being really sort of at a loss for what to do. You know, their base is up in arms and wants to see them do something, but structurally, there's just very, very, very little that they can do. And I've been doing some reporting on this and spending some time with grassroots Democrats, and there is a real feeling of powerlessness and of fear and of anger that they are so helpless in this moment.

[Ryan Knudsen]

All right, Molly, the buzzer has sounded. The game is over. We have won, and we're moving on to the next round.

[Molly Ball]

Wait, does that mean we won? We get to move up in the bracket? I hope everybody had us in their brackets because, dang it, we were the underdogs, but we did it.

[Ryan Knudsen]

We have to win more games. Yeah. There's still several more games.

[Molly Ball]

Bring it on, Ryan. I'm ready for the final Four. Let's go.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Yeah. There we go. That's where we're headed. All right, thanks so much, Molly.

[Molly Ball]

Shooting threes all day. Thanks, Ryan.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Thanks. Talk to you soon.

[Molly Ball]

Bye.

[Ryan Knudsen]

Before we go, do you have any questions about what the Trump administration is doing? Email us and let us know. Please send a voice Note to thejournalsj.com that's thejournalsj.com Trump 2.0 is part of the Journal, which is a co production of Spotify and the Wall Street Journal. This episode was produced by Enrique Perez de la Rosa and edited by Katherine Whelan with help from Tatiana Zamis. Molly Ball is the Wall Street Journal's senior political correspondent. I'm Ryan Knudsen. This episode was engineered by Peter Leonard. Our theme music is by so Wiley and remixed by Peter Leonard. Fact checking by Kate Gallagher. Artwork by James Walton. Trump 2.0 will be back with a new episode next Friday morning. Until then, good luck with your brackets and go Ducks.