Terrified States of America

Summary

---

The Political Scene | The New Yorker

Episode Title: Terrified States of America
Date: February 10, 2017
Host: Dorothy Wickenden
Guest: Ryan Lizza (New Yorker Washington Correspondent)

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Dorothy Wickenden is joined by Ryan Lizza to discuss the enduring political legacy of September 11, the use of fear as a political tool, and how Donald Trump’s presidency reorients both America’s counterterrorism stance and traditional checks and balances. The conversation dissects the move from the Bush doctrine through the Obama years and into Trump’s controversial executive order on immigration, and explores the reaction from government institutions, the judiciary, Congress, and the broader constitutional framework.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Evolution of the U.S. "War on Terror" Doctrine

• Opening Context:

  • Wickenden frames the discussion with George W. Bush’s 2001 post-9/11 address, noting its impact on American policy and rhetoric around terrorism.
  • Audio excerpt of Bush:

    "These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life... With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends." ([01:44])

• Trump's Continuation & Intensification:

  • Trump’s rhetoric at MacDill Air Force Base is compared, with focus on the use of fear and claims about media underreporting attacks:

    "It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. And in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it." ([02:31])

2. From Bush to Obama to Trump: Policy Shifts

• Ryan Lizza’s Context:
  • Bush and, later, Obama recognized and acted against the excesses post-9/11; Obama sought to "roll back" many Bush-era programs.
  • Trump, conversely, is portrayed as impulsive, lacking legal nuance, and influenced by Islamophobic advisors:

    "If you think about what he said about Muslims, simply bigoted." ([04:07])

  • Role of Steve Bannon:

    "He has surrounded himself with a group of people who have just overthrown the... view that we'd have to do everything in our power not to turn a fight against terrorism into a religious war." ([05:20])

3. Psychology of Fear in U.S. Leadership

• Changing Political Playbook:
  • Lizza observes that while optimism used to be key to winning campaigns, Trump’s most central speeches were notably dark:

    "His convention speech and his inaugural address... were the darkest addresses of his campaign." ([06:09])

  • Analysis reveals actual numbers: post-9/11 terror attacks have been sparse, and most attackers were U.S. citizens or residents, not refugees.

    "That's why, you know, most counterterrorism people you talk to look at what Trump did, and it's like, this is banning people from these seven countries, stopping the refugee program. There's no problem that this is actually solving." ([07:39])

4. Expert and Institutional Warnings

• Inside the Security Community:
  • Even conservative legal experts and former Bush officials are alarmed.

    "The common thread in all of these accounts is... Trump’s remedy here with the executive order is not actually addressing something that is a significant threat." ([08:27])

  • Concern arises over what policies might emerge in the event of another attack:
    • Potential revival of CIA black sites, torture (“enhanced interrogations”), warrantless surveillance, or further legal extremes.

    "Maybe more scary is a domestic warrantless surveillance regime and maybe some loosening of the FISA regime..." ([09:24])

5. Clash with the Judiciary

• Legal Showdown:
  • The Ninth Circuit rejected the administration’s claims regarding executive authority over security and immigration:

    "They basically said that the administration didn't bring any legal arguments to the table..." ([10:09])

  • The administration’s broad claim—that courts have no right to review presidential actions in these spheres—was “laughed at” by judges.
  • Possible legal precedents could limit both current and future presidential powers, especially over immigration.

    "...if this case goes any further, it's going to set into place restrictions on Trump’s powers... that are far worse than anyone imagined." ([11:50])

6. Congressional Response and Republican Dynamics

• GOP Calculations & Deals:

  • Lizza describes how Republican leaders like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have made pragmatic deals to get their core priorities—Supreme Court justice, tax reform, deregulation—while tolerating Trump’s behavior:

    "There’s a very obvious deal that was struck. If Trump will sign those things, then all of the other things... will be worth it." ([14:17])

  • Contrast drawn between public dissenters (e.g., McCain and Graham on Russia) and silent critics.

• Oversight Examples:

  • Small but notable moves toward congressional oversight, e.g., bipartisan call for disciplinary action against Kellyanne Conway for ethics violations.

    "...a minor example of Congress stepping in and doing a little bit of oversight..." ([16:22])

7. The State of American Democracy and Institutional Resilience

• Constitutional Safeguards:
  • Wickenden asks Lizza to review what constitutional and institutional checks exist:

    "We do have a Constitution... what protections the Constitution offers to curb a president who appears to be intent on creating an autocracy." ([17:35])

  • Lizza references Masha Gessen’s advice not to be “fooled by small signs of normalcy,” yet acknowledges some signs that democracy still functions:

    "When the court issued this stay... the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, they abided by it. Now, that's a really low bar... but that is a sign that our democracy is not completely on the verge of collapse." ([18:33])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Trump’s use of fear:

  "The White House’s absolute obsession and mission to get the American public to focus on terrorism as an existential threat. I find mind-boggling."
  — Ryan Lizza ([06:22])

• On policy and actual risk:

  "Those 12 people who committed those 10 attacks since 9/11 were all either American citizens or permanent residents because, you know, it's very hard to get into the United States."
  — Ryan Lizza ([07:26])

• On the legal showdown:

  "...this is where we get into scary arguments and what happens after a terrorist attack. One of the arguments that the Trump administration made to the court was that the court did not have reviewability."
  — Ryan Lizza ([10:27])

• On constitutional stability:

  "...that is a sign that our democracy is not completely on the verge of collapse."
  — Ryan Lizza ([18:37])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:16] — Introduction and context of post-9/11 America
• [01:44] — Bush’s 2001 ‘War on Terror’ address (audio)
• [02:31] — Trump’s MacDill Air Force Base remarks (audio)
• [03:15] — Discussion starts: Bush, Obama, Trump counterterrorism shifts
• [05:14] — Trump's bigoted rhetoric and the role of Bannon
• [06:09] — The psychology of fear and political strategy in 2017
• [08:01] — Views of security officials, experts, and policy efficacy
• [10:09] — Trump administration versus the judiciary
• [12:24] — Neil Gorsuch’s disapproval of Trump’s attacks on judges
• [14:04] — Congressional alignment and leadership dynamics
• [15:05] — Outliers within the GOP (McCain, Graham)
• [17:05] — Threats to democracy and Masha Gessen’s guidance
• [17:35] — The Constitution’s role in checking presidential power
• [18:47] — Episode closes

---

Conclusion

This episode presents a sweeping, sober look at how fear has been used across administrations to justify shifts in security policy and presidential power—culminating in what Ryan Lizza and Dorothy Wickenden see as a critical moment of constitutional testing in the Trump era. Their discussion is both historically grounded and attuned to the legal, psychological, and institutional stakes of the moment, emphasizing the enduring tension between security and democracy in America.

---

Transcript

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com newyorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

This is the Political Scene, a weekly conversation with New Yorker writers and editors about Politics. It's Friday, February 10th. Dorothy I'm Dorothy Wickenden, executive editor of the New Yorker. On September 20, 2001, nine days after the attacks of September 11, President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress, declared a war on terror, which he said begins with Al Qaeda but does not end there.

[George W. Bush]

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa. These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity. They hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Sixteen years later, Donald Trump is sounding the same theme. Here's what he said on Monday at MacDill Air Force Base in Radical Islamic.

[Donald Trump]

Terrorists are determined to strike our homeland, as they did on 9 11, as they did from Boston to Orlando to San Bernardino and all across Europe. It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. And in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that. So today we deliver a message in one very unified voice to these forces of death and destruction. America and its allies will defeat you. We will defeat them.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza joins me from Washington to discuss the political uses of fear as a guiding principle of leadership. Hey, Ryan, welcome back.

[Ryan Lizza]

Thanks for having me.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

It occurred to me this morning that you are now covering your third president for the New Yorker. So I wanted to start by asking you to briefly explain how we got from the Bush doctrine to Trump's executive order on immigration.

[Ryan Lizza]

So much of the Obama administration was. And really the end of the Bush administration, there was basically a bipartisan consensus that Bush had gone too far with the anti terror structure that was put into place after 9 11. Right. And this is not exactly unique to that historical moment. Right. You know, when there's a lot of fear in the country and the country feels threatened. Those are the times in American history where, where we have curbed civil liberties and taken questionable constitutional steps to justify security. This has been well documented. By the end of the Bush administration, even Bush agreed with that. And a lot of the reporting of that last two years was that people like Dick Cheney and the real hardliners were sidelined. And President Bush tried to bring things like warrantless surveillance, unlawful detention abroad in the CIA black sites. He tried to bring all of those things under more solid legal grounding. Obama accelerated all that. And one of the core anti terror policies of the Obama era was to roll back the excesses of the Bush years. And then all of a sudden with Trump, who, let's be honest, doesn't have a well thought out view of these policies, especially the legalities, it's much more inst. And frankly, if you think about what he said about Muslims, simply bigoted.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Stoked, by the way, by his advisor Bannon, who writes a lot of his talking points.

[Ryan Lizza]

Absolutely. And if you want to give it a veneer of intellectual credibility, he has surrounded himself with a group of people who have just overthrown the Bush and Obama view that we'd have to do everything in our power not to turn a fight against terrorism into a religious war. Right. And he surrounded himself with people who believe it is a religious war, that the root of Islam as a religion is the problem.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

So the threads are different today. I understand that. But has the psychology of voters changed too? The Trump Bannon vision is not grounded in the philosophy of either party. In Trump's fear mongering, he seems to be trying to create the terrifying environment he claims to abhor. Has any other former president pursued this particular tactic?

[Ryan Lizza]

It's a great point, because the cliche in politics is the more optimistic candidate always wins. And you had to appeal to America's sense of optimism. And if you look at his two most high profile speeches, Donald Trump, the ones that where the most care and thought went into producing them, his convention speech and his inaugural address, they were of course, the darkest addresses of his campaign. The White House's absolute obsession and mission to get the American public to focus on terrorism as an existential threat. I find mind boggling. Since the awfulness of 9 11, we have had 10 terror attacks committed by 12 people where 94Americans have died. Now, 10 attacks is a lot. It's never a good thing when one person dies from terrorism. But, you know, Obama, by the end of his presidency, I think, had gotten the balance right. That said, we've done a great job. Our homeland is more secure and what we're doing abroad is trying to win the psychological battle. So the people who are on the bubble of becoming radicalized don't get radicalized. And in the United States, reaching out to Islamic communities to make sure that we're not alienating people who are self radicalizing, which of course is the real threat over the last few years. And then final point on that, those 12 people who committed those 10 attacks since 9, 11 were all either American citizens or permanent residents because, you know, it's very hard to get into the United States. So that's why, you know, most counterterrorism people you talk to look at what Trump did, and it's like, this is banning people from these seven countries, stopping the refugee program. It's not. There's no problem that this is actually solving.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

In that piece this week, you cite some really stark assessments by former counterterrorism officials and others about what's going on here, what's behind this policy insofar as it is a policy. You cite people like John Yoo, but he was not the only former Bush official who's alarmed by what Trump seems to be doing. Tell us a little bit about what they think is going on here.

[Ryan Lizza]

I think the common thread in all of these accounts is one, Trump's remedy here with the executive order is not actually addressing something that is a significant threat. And two, more of a political analysis that it is Frightening to most of these people in the piece that I talked to, that he is hyping, exaggerating, trying to get the media to focus on Islamic terrorism at a period, at least in the United States, where it's relatively calm. And, you know, the argument is, if you do that before, God forbid, there's an attack in the United States, what happens when there is an actual attack? I think there are two sets of policies that the legal experts point to as ones that Trump might reach for after an attack. One is the ones that we're familiar with that were instituted by Bush after 9 11, but most of which have been curbed CIA black sites, which the administration has already toyed with, reopening those enhanced inter, what he calls enhanced interrogations, also known as torture, which obviously Trump has repeatedly said he is interested in bringing back. And, you know, maybe more scary is a domestic warrantless surveillance regime and maybe some loosening of the Pfizer regime, which is the court you have to go through to do any domestic surveillance. So those were all the things from the Bush era that then you have to ask, what are the things that could go further? And that's when it gets even scarier.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Yeah, I want to get to that in a second. But first, just bring us up to date quickly on the battle between Trump and the judiciary, where it stands now.

[Ryan Lizza]

So yesterday, the Ninth Circuit completely rejected the administration's argument about whether the. The stay, that the judge in Seattle, whether that stay should stay in effect. They basically said that the administration didn't bring any legal arguments to the table that convinced them that they should lift the stay while this case makes its way through the legal system. You know, one of the things that. This is where we get into scary arguments and what happens after a terrorist attack. One of the arguments that the Trump administration made to the court was that the court did not have reviewability. In other words, the Trump administration said the president's powers over national security and immigration policy are so vast that the judicial branch of the government is not even allowed to review them. That is an argument that they laughed at. This is a paraphrase, but the court basically said that argument lacks a basic understanding of the constitutional structure, but that gives you a hint of what they might argue later on. So that was one big thing they looked at, but the second was that they were not convinced that the government had made a national security case for why they should lift the stay on the executive order. And I think where things stand now, people on the right believe that this is such an overwhelming rebuke of Trump that they are arguing that Trump should abandon the case and rewrite the executive order because if this case goes any further, it's going to set into place restrictions on Trump's powers and any future president's powers that are far worse than anyone imagined. A couple of commentators are saying that if you read the opinion closely, that the court wants to say that non Americans may have a right to judicial review if they get rejected for a visa. If they want to come to the United States in a scenario where this executive order is deemed unconstitutional, it might affect a future president's ability to. To have expansive authorities in the area of immigration.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

And then speaking of conservatives, we have Trump's very own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, expressing dismay over Trump's attack on judges.

[Ryan Lizza]

One of the reasons conservatives liked Gorsuch is he's not super deferential to the executive branch. And so, you know, it's anyone's guess where he would, if he were on the court, if he got confirmed quickly enough. And this case did come before the Supreme Court, it's a bit of a guessing game where he would come down. Now that we have Jeff Sessions, the very conservative senator from Alabama, in place as the attorney general, and now that Trump will have a fuller legal team in place at the Justice Department, I think what happens now is they will review this very carefully and decide whether they've sort of made a terrible mistake here and that this is not the war they actually want to fight. Katie?

[Katie Drummond]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's global Editorial director.

[Ryan Lizza]

I'm Michael Colory, Wired's Director of consumer Tech and Culture.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show, Uncanny Valley, is all about the people, power, and influence of Silicon Valley.

[Katie Drummond]

At Wired, we're constantly reporting on how technology is changing every aspect of our lives. So each week on the show, we get together to talk about one of the biggest stories in tech.

[Ryan Lizza]

Right? So whether we're talking about privacy, AI, social media, or a major tech figure, we will always explain the Silicon Valley forces behind these stories and how they affect you.

[Katie Drummond]

Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

How do you see the relationship shaping up between Trump and the other key branch of government? We see that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are more or less so far lining up behind Trump.

[Ryan Lizza]

I totally agree with that. You know, privately, most of these Republicans have the same obvious concerns about Trump that everyone does. There's A very obvious deal that was struck. They wanted a good Supreme Court justice. They want a good tax bill and less regulation. And if Trump will sign those things, then all of the other things that they. That concern them about Trump will be worth it.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Do you see John McCain and Lindsey Graham as outliers here for their very outspoken critiques of the administration on a number of fronts?

[Ryan Lizza]

I think on foreign policy, they're not quite outliers. You know, there are divisions up on the Hill on foreign policy. There are people who are closer to Trump who's less interventionist, and people who are closer to McCain who's obviously more interventionist. But I don't think McCain and Graham are outliers.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Well, except on the Putin Russia front, just insofar as they're willing to go out on a limb and attack the administration, administration on issues they disagree with.

[Ryan Lizza]

That's the difference. That is the main difference, is there. There are those who will say all this to you privately and will articulate all of the fears and concerns privately about Trump and the ones that'll do it publicly. There's not a lot of. There's not as much under the surface, there's not as much difference between Republicans on what they think about Trump. It's just a matter of politics and whether they think it's in their best interest to go after him. I mean, one thing, if just reviewing the week, I don't want to exaggerate this, but I do feel like this was a week. And look, what is this, the third week? It feels like the third year, but it's only the third week. I do feel like this is a week where some of the normal institutional restraints started to kick in a little bit on a White House that is a very, very aggressive. Another small example is Kellyanne Conway yesterday, who violated a federal regulation by endorsing Ivanka Trump's clothing line from the White House. And it was TV interview, I thought, okay, well, this will be another thing that no Republican will care about. Actually, Congressman Chaffetz, who runs the Government Oversight Committee in the House, joined with his Democratic colleague, sent a letter to the Office of Government Ethics, and said disciplinary action should be taken. So there's a minor example of Congress stepping in and doing a little bit of oversight, which we haven't seen in the previous three weeks. And then I do feel like the media, which has really struggled to cover Trump, has become much more aggressive and just plain spoken about this administration when it lies, when it's deceitful in a way that they. I don't think were as comfortable doing during the campaign.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

But it does sound as though you somewhat disagree at this point with those who are speculating, really, that the Trump administration could pose a greater threat to our democracy than any, any of his perceived enemies.

[Ryan Lizza]

No, I agree with that 100%. Look, you know, there's that famous Masha Gessen essay in the New York Review of Books about, you know, living and covering in an autocracy. And now I know there's a lot of debate about that essay whether she's exaggerated the threat from Trump or not. But I thought a lot of interesting insights. And, you know, one of the things that she says in there is be fooled by small signs of normalcy. So maybe I'm being a little bit fooled by a small sign of normalcy.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

But we do have a Constitutionand you alluded to this a little bit earlier on. Just review for us one more time what protections the Constitution offers to curb a president who appears to be intent on creating an autocracy.

[Ryan Lizza]

Think of the oversight that Republicans did when they were in power in Congress against Obama. Think of the Benghazi investigations. So that's why I thought, you know, this small sign of one Republican joining with one Democrat and saying what Kellyanne Conway did was clearly out of line. You know, I take your point. That small sign of normalcy may not amount to much. But I don't think Donald Trump is. He and his administration, when the court issued this stay on the executive order, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, they abided by it. Now, that's a really low bar. Oh, the president listened to the court and didn't act recklessly and illegally. But, you know, that is a sign that our democracy is not completely on the verge of collapse.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

We should probably end it right there before you take that back. Thanks so much, Ryan.

[Ryan Lizza]

Thanks, Dorothy.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Ryan Lizza is the magazine's Washington correspondent. This has been the Political Scene from the New Yorker. You can subscribe to this and other New Yorker podcasts by searching for the New Yorker in your podcast app. And find more political analysis and commentary on newyorker.com feel free to rate and review the political scene on itunes. This podcast is produced by Alex Barron for newyorker.com with help from Daniel Wenger. I'm Dorothy Wickenden.

[Katie Drummond]

What the hell is going on right now and why is it happening like this? At Wired, we're obsessed with getting to the bottom of those questions on a daily basis, and maybe you are, too. I'm Katie Drummond, the global editorial director of Wired, and I'm hosting our new podcast series, the Big Interview. Each week I'll sit down with some of the most interesting, provocative and influential people who are shaping our right now. Big Interview conversations are fun.

[Ryan Lizza]

I want a shark that that eats.

[Katie Drummond]

The Internet, that turns it all off, unfiltered and unafraid.

[Ryan Lizza]

So in a lot of ways, I try to be an antidote to the.

[Katie Drummond]

Unimaginable faucet of reactionary content that you see online. To the best of my ability, every week, we're going to offer you the ultimate luxury of our times, meaning and context. True or false? You, Brian Johnson, the man sitting across from me, one day, at some point, as of yet undefined in the future, you will die. False. Tell me more. Listen to the Big Interview right now in the same place you find WIRED's Uncanny Valley podcast. Subscribe or follow wherever you get your podcasts.

[Ryan Lizza]

From. PRX.