Podcast Summary: Julian Zelizer: The Rule of Law Meets the Trump Doctrine

To The Contrary with Charlie Sykes
Host: Charlie Sykes
Guest: Julian Zelizer, Professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton, contributor to Foreign Policy and NPR, author of 27 books, and writer for his Substack, The Longview.
Episode Release Date: April 17, 2025
Episode Title: Julian Zelizer: The Rule of Law Meets the Trump Doctrine

Introduction

In the latest episode of To The Contrary, host Charlie Sykes engages in a profound discussion with historian and public affairs expert Julian Zelizer. The conversation delves into the alarming actions of the Trump administration, examining its defiance of established legal norms and the potential constitutional crisis unfolding in the United States.

“Donald Trump is defying the Supreme Court. Harvard is defying Donald Trump. And Elon Musk is apparently trying to have so many babies, legions of babies that he can take with him to Mars. This is actually not a parody. This is real life.”
— Charlie Sykes [00:10]

Defiance of the Supreme Court

Sykes initiates the dialogue by questioning whether the Trump administration is openly defying the U.S. Supreme Court. He references a Supreme Court ruling mandating the return of a Maryland man to the U.S., suggesting that the administration's response—allegedly staging a cooperative scene in the Oval Office—amounts to gaslighting and belittling the judiciary.

“They are defying the courts and they're ratcheting up the level of defiance and playing rhetorical games about what they're doing and switching the terms of what they're doing... If that is not there, we are also learning there's a lot of room for an administration to simply ignore what the court says.”
— Julian Zelizer [03:46]

Zelizer underscores the erosion of the Supreme Court's authority, emphasizing that its power fundamentally relies on respect from both the public and the executive branch. The administration's blatant disregard poses severe challenges to the judiciary's ability to uphold its decisions effectively.

Potential Constitutional Crisis

The conversation intensifies as Sykes brings up Trump's rhetoric about targeting "homegrown criminals," hinting at the possibility of deporting American citizens without due process.

“My rule of thumb is when he says something, believe him, he is incredibly transparent. He just says what he's thinking. And often then that leads to action.”
— Julian Zelizer [05:28]

Zelizer warns that such statements are serious red flags, indicating potential actions that contravene constitutional protections like Habeas Corpus. He reflects on Trump's transparency, suggesting that utterances may translate into concrete policies, thereby escalating the constitutional threat.

“It's a constitutional threat. And Republicans. Yeah. And supporters should realize that the whole point of a system is everyone is protected from rampant abuse of political power. But that's what this would be.”
— Julian Zelizer [06:39]

Lack of Republican Pushback

Sykes points out the minimal resistance from Republicans regarding Trump's defiance, speculating that the party may not perceive the president's threats as serious. Zelizer concurs, noting the administration's ability to oscillate between strength and weakness, which can backfire by shifting public opinion against Trump on key issues like immigration.

“The first part was eliminating that due process and just shipping someone to an overseas prison. And then the second part is what you're saying to make claims without evidence after this has happened...”
— Julian Zelizer [16:13]

Harvard's Resistance to the Administration

Transitioning to higher education, Sykes discusses Harvard's stance against Trump's administration, contrasting it with other law firms that have seemingly capitulated. He highlights Harvard's refusal to meet Trump's excessive demands, which threaten academic freedom and scientific research.

“He ratcheted up what he wanted to do in terms of having a hand on almost everything that was going on, that I don't think the university had any choice.”
— Julian Zelizer [20:07]

Zelizer praises Harvard's decision to stand firm, suggesting that it sets a precedent for other institutions to resist federal overreach. He emphasizes that Harvard's resistance is not isolated and anticipates broader support from other universities.

Corruption and Law Firms' Complicity

Sykes criticizes major law firms for their entanglement with Trump, arguing that their willingness to comply with unconstitutional demands undermines the rule of law. He expresses concern over firms offering pro bono work that essentially serves as a "Trump slush fund."

“This pro bono work also is a bit of a zero sum game in that they're not doing other kinds of work... These are firms with a lot of money, a lot of clout, a lot of clientele.”
— Julian Zelizer [26:23]

Zelizer argues that such compromises not only tarnish the firms' legacies but also erode their ability to oppose the administration effectively. He highlights the moral and professional dilemmas faced by these firms, suggesting that their submission facilitates further abuse of power by the president.

Tariffs and the Trade War

Shifting focus to economic policy, Sykes and Zelizer analyze the Trump administration's tariff strategies, specifically criticizing the erratic implementation and lack of expert consultation.

“We have all this skepticism about experts. It's not just a conservative skepticism... But you see in these moments, expertise that has been a big part of American politics...”
— Julian Zelizer [32:31]

Zelizer laments the administration's disregard for economic expertise, which has led to ineffective and damaging trade policies. He warns that Trump's gut-driven decisions, devoid of independent analysis, are detrimental to U.S. economic competitiveness and global standing.

“He's also shown certainly to China, his own limitations and his own vulnerabilities... And China knows exactly now what buttons to press if he continues with this.”
— Julian Zelizer [36:24]

The Imperial Presidency and Historical Context

The discussion turns to the concept of the "Imperial Presidency," referencing Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s seminal work from the 1970s. Sykes draws parallels between Nixon's overreach and Trump's actions, questioning whether modern political dynamics have rendered past lessons obsolete.

“Jimmy Carter, he's kind of an anti president president. He does everything possibly to be powerless... And we've just added a layer where even the critics and the people who feared the imperial presidency assumed that even the most imperial president would have a respect at some level for the Constitution...”
— Julian Zelizer [40:15]

Zelizer contextualizes the current situation within a historical framework, noting that previous reforms aimed to curb presidential power have been undermined by increasing executive authority and political polarization. He emphasizes that the durability of democratic institutions now depends on both their resilience and the willingness of other institutions to resist presidential overreach.

“He says it's not simply about the President, what really matters. He has a paragraph is do the other institutions respond?... They have the capacity to, but do they have the will to do it?”
— Julian Zelizer [43:17]

Conclusion

Charlie Sykes concludes the episode by reflecting on the precarious state of American democracy, underscored by the rapid erosion of institutional norms and the perilous concentration of power within the executive branch. He underscores the urgency of collective action to uphold the Constitution and prevent the further descent into authoritarianism.

“This has been a real pleasure, thank you so much for joining me.”
— Charlie Sykes [43:59]

Julian Zelizer echoes the sentiment, advocating for institutional and citizen activism to counteract the ongoing threats to democratic governance.

“Thanks so much for having me on. It was real pleasure.”
— Julian Zelizer [44:02]

Key Takeaways:

1. Presidential Overreach: The Trump administration's blatant defiance of the Supreme Court and potential violations of constitutional protections signify a perilous shift towards authoritarianism.

2. Erosion of Institutional Respect: The diminishing respect for judicial and academic institutions undermines democratic checks and balances essential for governance.

3. Complicity of Elite Institutions: Major law firms and universities face ethical dilemmas, with some capitulating to presidential demands, thereby facilitating further abuse of power.

4. Ineffective Economic Policies: The administration's disregard for expert economic advice has led to inefficient and damaging trade policies, weakening U.S. economic competitiveness.

5. Historical Parallels: The current situation mirrors past concerns about the "Imperial Presidency," but with modern complexities that exacerbate the concentration of executive power.

6. Call to Action: Strengthening democratic institutions requires both systemic resilience and active participation from other branches of government and citizens to resist executive overreach.

Notable Quotes:

• “They are defying the courts and they're ratcheting up the level of defiance...”
  — Julian Zelizer [03:46]

• “The rule of thumb. My rule of thumb is when he says something, believe him...”
  — Julian Zelizer [05:28]

• “This is not simply about the President, what really matters. Do the other institutions respond?”
  — Julian Zelizer [43:17]

This episode serves as a critical examination of the Trump administration's challenges to the rule of law, highlighting the fragility of democratic institutions in the face of concentrated executive power. Julian Zelizer's insights provide a sobering analysis of the current constitutional crisis and underscore the urgent need for collective resistance to preserve democratic governance.