Even Republicans object as Trump DOJ nominees are disturbingly noncommittal on obeying courts

Fri Feb 28 2025

A bright red line before a country loses democracy entirely is when its government loses respect for the rule of law and feels free to ignore rulings by judges. So when some of Donald Trump's nominees to be senior DOJ officials gave soft answers on whether a president can ignore judges, alarms rang for many senators present, even Republicans. Senator Dick Durbin, leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow about the peril Trump poses to the essence of America's identity.

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Rachel Maddow Show Episode: "Even Republicans object as Trump DOJ nominees are disturbingly noncommittal on obeying courts" Release Date: February 28, 2025

1. Introduction

In this episode of The Rachel Maddow Show, host Rachel Maddow delves into the escalating conflict between the Trump administration and the judiciary, focusing on recent developments that signal a potential constitutional crisis. The discussion is enriched with expert analyses, eyewitness accounts, and insights from key political figures.

2. DOJ Nominees' Stance on Obeying Courts

Nominees' Ambiguous Positions

During confirmation hearings for senior Justice Department positions, multiple Republican nominees exhibited uncertainty about the obligation of presidents to adhere to court rulings. Notably, nominee John Sauer questioned the absolute necessity for a president to obey Supreme Court orders.

John Sauer (Solicitor General Nominee) (28:57): “I've represented President Trump for two years. I’ve never been put in any situation like that...”

Republican Response

Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana delivered a forceful rebuttal to the nominees' reluctance, underscoring the non-negotiable duty to follow court orders.

Senator John Kennedy (30:45 – 31:36): “I’m gonna give you some advice. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. Don’t ever, ever take the position that you're not going to follow the order of a federal court. Ever... You can resign.”

Democratic Concerns

Senator Dick Durbin expressed deep concern over the nominees' positions, labeling the situation as a threat to constitutional principles and democracy itself.

Senator Dick Durbin (32:18 – 36:13): “They tried to use an illustration... If you abandoned this, I'm afraid we've abandoned our democracy.”

3. Trump Administration's Defiance of Court Orders

USAID Funding Deadlock

A federal judge previously ordered the Trump administration to resume foreign aid funding, particularly crucial for programs combating diseases like the new hemorrhagic fever in Congo. The administration's non-compliance led to a motion to enforce the order with a midnight deadline.

Rachel Maddow (00:45 – 15:02): Detailed the judiciary's frustration with the administration's evasive responses and highlighted the Supreme Court's last-minute intervention to halt the enforcement of the deadline.

Supreme Court Intervention

At the eleventh hour, the Supreme Court intervened, temporarily halting the Trump administration’s efforts to defy the court’s order, setting the stage for further legal battles.

Rachel Maddow (14:50 – 15:02): “So they're less than three hours away from that deadline and the Supreme Court...”

4. Mass Firings and Agency Cuts

Probationary Employee Terminations

The Trump administration initiated mass firings of federal employees labeled as "probationary," a move deemed legally questionable. A California federal judge ruled these orders illegal, stating that the Office of Personnel Management lacks authority to direct other agencies in this manner.

Judge William Alsop (As reported at 20:xx): “The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever...”

Impact on Various Agencies

Significant cuts were imposed on agencies like NOAA, IRS, and VA, leading to the shutdown of crucial services and support systems for veterans, taxpayers, and other beneficiaries.

Leo Shane, Military Times (41:43 – 45:58): Provided firsthand accounts of the chaos within the VA and the uncertainty surrounding the mass firings following the judge’s ruling.

5. Public and Legislative Backlash

Protests and Public Outcry

The administration's actions spurred widespread protests across the nation, with citizens rallying to defend essential services and express dissent against perceived governmental overreach.

Rachel Maddow (15:02 – 23:44): Highlighted emotional testimonies from affected individuals and the resultant public demonstrations in states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

Legislative Reactions

Senators and lawmakers began to vocally oppose the administration's measures, emphasizing the detrimental effects on democracy and public welfare.

Senator Dick Durbin (31:52 – 36:13): Advocated for stringent scrutiny of DOJ nominees and urged for adherence to constitutional mandates to preserve democratic integrity.

6. Authoritarian Tendencies and Broader Implications

Targeting of Campaign Donors

The administration's aggressive stance extended to targeting campaign donors like Elon Musk, with protests arising against his influence and actions, notably in altering FAA contracts in favor of his companies.

Rachel Maddow (37:52 – 48:15): Discussed the increasing opposition towards Musk and the broader implications of his influence on government policies and contracts.

Judiciary Undermining

Elon Musk’s public criticism of the judiciary and allegations of attempting to influence or undermine court decisions reflect growing authoritarian tendencies within the administration.

Rachel Maddow (Early 40s minute [exact timestamp needed]): “One of the more unnerving things that Mr. Musk has developed an interest in...”

7. Democratic Strategies and Future Outlook

Strengthening Institutional Checks

Democrats, led by figures like Senator Durbin, are strategizing to reinforce institutional checks against executive overreach, ensuring that the judiciary remains an independent and respected branch of government.

Senator Dick Durbin (35:09 – 36:13): Emphasized the need for Democratic vigilance and preparedness to counteract any attempts to erode democratic safeguards.

Public Mobilization

The episode underscored the importance of public mobilization and advocacy in resisting unconstitutional actions, highlighting successful pushbacks like the VA contract reversals.

Leo Shane (41:54 – 45:58): Illustrated the tangible outcomes of public protests and legislative pressure in halting or reversing detrimental policies.

8. Conclusion

Rachel Maddow concluded the episode by reinforcing the gravity of the current political climate, stressing the pivotal role of both legislative action and public engagement in safeguarding democratic institutions against authoritarian impulses.

Notable Quotes

Senator John Kennedy (30:54): “Don't ever, ever take the position that you're not going to follow the order of a federal court. Ever.”
Senator Dick Durbin (32:18): “If you abandoned this, I'm afraid we've abandoned our democracy.”
Rachel Maddow (14:50): “This confrontation... raises like a whole Niagara Falls of issues and consequences.”
Leo Shane (41:54): “There's a lot of uncertainty...”

This episode of The Rachel Maddow Show serves as a critical examination of the Trump administration's recent actions that challenge the foundational principles of American democracy. Through incisive analysis and comprehensive reporting, Maddow highlights the urgent need for bipartisan cooperation and public advocacy to uphold the rule of law and preserve democratic integrity.

Transcript

Rachel Maddow (0:00)

The last thing you want to hear 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 and reliable, all at the touch of a button. Get a quote today. Restrictions apply.

MSNBC Ad Voice (0:13)

USAA subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows now ad free plus ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News and all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad free and with bonus content including why is this Happening? Felshi Banned Book Club, and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Various MSNBC Contributors (0:45)

At the end of last night's show, you might remember we were counting down to a midnight deadline that had been given to the Trump administration by a federal judge. A judge had ordered the Trump administration to restart funding on foreign aid. Now, this is a judge who had previously ordered the Trump administration to restart that funding, and they had not. He had then brought Trump administration lawyers back into his courtroom this week and said, it doesn't seem like you're complying with my earlier order. Can you tell me what steps are being taken to comply with my order? The Trump administration lawyer then responded by basically going, hamana, Hamana Howe mana. How mana Hamana. The judge at that point, we got, we got the transcript, actually. The judge at that point said, quote, hey, I guess I'm not sure why I can't get a straight answer from you on this. Hey, after that just humiliation of the Trump administration's lawyer unable to explain why the Trump administration was defying this lawful order. That judge issued what's called a motion to enforce, and he set this midnight deadline from midnight last night by which the Trump administration had to do what he said had to restart that aid funding. So that's what we were talking about last night at the top of the show. And then just as we were going off the air at the end of the show last night, the Trump administration ran to the U.S. supreme Court. And just before we went off the air, just before the end of last night's show, the Trump administration obtained an order from the Supreme Court saving them from that midnight deadline. Right? So they're less than three hours away from that deadline and the Supreme Court at the very last second steps in and says, no, no, no, Trump administration, you don't have to release that funding by midnight after all. And we want briefing on this by noon on Friday. So we'll see what happens by noon. On Friday by tomorrow noon at the U.S. supreme Court. But because of the Supreme Court's intervention, that USAID funding did not start flowing last night at midnight. And this confrontation in this series of events raises like a whole Niagara Falls of issues and consequences. I mean, first of all, and most importantly, it's the substance of it, right? I mean, what's that funding for? Well, among other things, it's for the magnificently successful world renowned US AIDS treatment programs that have been interrupted. That puts tens of millions of lives at risk. With that funding not flowing, those programs aren't restarting. The new work that is not being done because that funding hasn't restarted includes little things like, I don't know, work on the previously unknown brand new hemorrhagic fever that has just broken out in Congo. It killed three little kids in Congo over the course of three days. And then immediately within like 10 more days, the death toll was 53. And now it's in at least two different locations in Congo. And they don't know what it is or how it spreads. It is a disease they have never seen before. It does seem to have an alarmingly high death rate, something like a 12% death rate, which for a hemorrhagic fever and an infectious disease is a massive death rate. And even scarier than that, those it kills, it seems to kill within 48 hours. Right? This is bad. An outbreak spreading fast of a previously undiscovered unknown hemorrhagic fever that is already killing humans by the dozens. That's the kind of thing that United States global health programs would be all over, usually to identify this thing, to contain it, to treat people and keep them alive, to stop this thing from spreading, among other things, to make sure that it does not come here to the United States. But we're not doing the foreign aid funding anymore. Stopping USAID means stopping efforts to combat things like that. It also means, you know, stopping America's traditional and leading and totally irreplaceable work to help and contain the damage when not just hemorrhagic fevers break out, like Ebola in Uganda and Marburg and Tanzania, both of which are happening right now, but also to stop things like tuberculosis and malaria domestically here in this country. This confrontation, this drama with the Supreme Court getting involved means that we are about to have the US Supreme Court meaningfully weigh in on this sledgehammer that Trump and his top campaign donor have taken to the US Government thus far with no seeming regard for either the law or the Constitution. So we will see probably for the first time how the Supreme Court is oriented toward this radical change that has happened over the last five and a half weeks in our country. And honestly, this is also important because of the way this came up. That midnight deadline we were looking at last night was set so firmly and so urgently by the federal judge who was hearing this case because he had to do it by motion to enforce. He had to do a motion to enforce because Trump really was ignoring that court's previous orders. Right. And so when we look to see how the Supreme Court handles this, tomorrow at noon, we're going to be looking to see how the Supreme Court handles that very scary issue, how this Supreme Court is going to treat the prospect of this president, this administration, potentially ignoring the courts. They have been joking about this and making, you know, macho sounding bluffs about this for a long time now, particularly from the vice president. J.D. vance, how is the Supreme Court gonna deal with it now that it's real? Do they try to give him what he wants from the courts so that Trump doesn't break that glass, doesn't, you know, smash through the brightest bright line that we have and effectively end the Republican? Do they appease him because they, oh, he's so scary. We better not make him defy a court order. We better make sure all court orders go his way. Or do they make clear to him that his powers as president actually don't allow him to defy the courts to tell him that he's not always going to get what he wants from the courts and when the courts tell him something he doesn't like, he has to obey the courts anyway? Do they tell him that if he does try to defy the courts, he is effectively declaring war on the United States of America? We'll see. We don't know how the US Supreme Court is going to handle this, and we don't know how directly they're going to get at this key issue. But this case moves to them tomorrow at noon Eastern time. So eyes wide open on that and take it with all the seriousness it deserves. We've got the top Senate Democrat on the Judiciary Committee here tonight to talk about what happened yesterday in the Senate when Trump nominees for senior Justice Department positions told him and other members of the Judiciary Committee that they weren't sure that Trump should always obey court rulings that happened in the Senate yesterday. The leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to be here talking with us about it in just a moment, ahead of tomorrow's Supreme Court actions on this case. It's a very chilling subject. It's one I take very seriously. It is absolutely the excellent endgame discussion for us as a republic. It is as serious as it gets. Meanwhile, this is what it looked like in Washington, D.C. today as workers from that agency, from USAID, were each given a grand total of 15 minutes by the Trump administration to come into USAID headquarters and retrieve their belongings from their offices. While they were doing that, people showed up in big numbers to support them and clap for them and to say thank you. Oh, there's so many emotions. I already cried this morning when I arrived. You know, someone said, you know, thanks for being here, and I just burst into tears. Thank you. We're here. We thank you. This is not happening in the dark that was Washington, D.C. today as people showed up to support and thank USAID workers who the Trump administration is trying to fire as they try to shut down that agency, even though they pretty clearly are just legally not allowed to do that. People turning out to protest, but also support the people who are at the sharp end of this stick. One of the tools the Trump administration has been using to try to destroy USAID and to disassemble so many other agencies is wholesale firing on mass firing everybody who's considered a probationary employee. And you've heard that term over this last couple of weeks when they have been using this as the basis for firing people. Being a probationary employee, it usually means you're in your first, first year or two on the job. It can also mean that you've transferred into a new job or you've been promoted within the last year or two. Probationary makes it sound like you've been in trouble. Right? And you're like, you're on probation. We're watching you because you did something wrong. It's not that at all. It is a meaningless category in terms of the importance of the work that's being done by that employee, their skill level, their performance, their value to the government and to their agency. But nevertheless, the Trump administration has ordered mass firings of people based purely on that classification just because they thought it would be easy to get away with that, legally speaking. Turns out. Not so fast. Tonight, a federal judge on the West Coast. Federal judge in California has just ruled that the Trump administration's instructions to agencies about indiscriminately firing all these people, thousands and thousands of probationary employees thus far. A judge just ruled tonight that the instruction from the Trump administration to all the agencies about firing these people is, quote, illegal and, quote, should be stopped. Rescinded Federal Judge William Alsop said from the bench in his ruling tonight, quote, the Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees within another agency. He said, quote, it can hire its own employees, yes, can fire them, but it cannot order or direct some other agency to do so. Judge Elsa further ordered tonight from the bench that the rescinding of the Trump administration directive to fire probationary employees. He ordered that the rescinding of that directive should be conveyed tonight to the Pentagon, to the U.S. defense Department. And I think that's because tomorrow is the day on which the Pentagon was otherwise expected to March more than 5,000 fired employees out the door. Well, again, the judge said the Defense Department needs to be informed of my ruling tonight, not tomorrow, tonight. So whether or not they still try to fire those 5,000 plus employees tomorrow at Defense Department, it may not happen because of this judge's order. We shall see. We don't think that this order from this judge tonight means that all the other probationary employees who have already been fired are going to be reinstated. We don't think that's the implication of this ruling. But we're going to have to wait to see his written order in this case, which we expect tomorrow. Again, he ruled from the bench tonight. He ordered that his ruling from the bench be conveyed to the Pentagon. But we expect his written ruling tomorrow. Today, noaa, the national oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which among other things gives us, you know, the weather forecast, they sent out notices today that they are indiscriminately firing hundreds of employees from that agency. Trump administration also today announced plans to close hundreds of help centers, places people could go to get free help and advice on their taxes. Oh good. These are the so called taxpayer assistance centers. They're going to close 110 of those all around the country. Yeah. Can't possibly have taxpayer assistance. That announcement comes as the IRS was told to fire more than 6,000 people this past week just as tax filing season is getting underway. We're also going to be talking tonight with a reporter on VA issues tonight. Trump has just fired more than 2,000 people from the VA from the agency that serves our nation's veterans, including people who work to support the veterans crisis line. Yeah, there's a lot of fraud, waste and abuse there, huh? Gotta cut that. Trump also cut funding for veterans cancer care. Seriously. And for veterans cemeteries. Seriously. Before good journalism about those cuts and a resulting huge outcry yesterday forced them to reinstate some of those things. But they did try to cut them. Have more on that coming up tonight. But these cuts that I'm talking about, the impact of these cuts that I'm talking about, the legal fight over these cuts, but also the pushback against these cuts and what they're doing, it's not at all a Washington story by now. It really is by now, everywhere.