Tom Nichols: Why Are We Still Surprised?

Summary

Summary of "Tom Nichols: Why Are We Still Surprised?"

Podcast: To The Contrary with Charlie Sykes
Host: Charlie Sykes
Guest: Tom Nichols (The Atlantic)
Release Date: March 23, 2025

Introduction

In this compelling episode of To The Contrary, host Charlie Sykes engages in a deep conversation with political commentator Tom Nichols from The Atlantic. They dissect the unsettling political landscape of 2025, exploring why despite extensive warnings and predictions, the current administration's actions continue to shock and alarm the public and institutions alike.

The Continued Surprise Amid Warnings

Charlie Sykes initiates the discussion by questioning the persistent surprise at the administration’s actions despite ample forewarnings.

[00:10] Charlie Sykes: "Why are we still so surprised? ... after all of this, why are we still capable of being surprised?"

Tom Nichols attributes this to human nature's desire for normalcy and a "failure of imagination."

[01:00] Tom Nichols: "We're human beings and we love normalcy. ... so, well yeah, you know, he has a few drinks, but ... right up until the moment it's not."

Nichols highlights that while long been warned about potential overreach, the inability to envision the extent of possible governmental abuse leaves society unprepared for sudden and severe actions.

Capitulation of Institutions

A significant portion of the discussion centers on various institutions capitulating to President Trump’s demands, undermining their integrity and independence.

Charlie Sykes expresses frustration over law firms and universities yielding to Trump's pressures.

[02:51] Charlie Sykes: "Law firms ... agreeing to commit to causes Trump has championed. ... this is extortion in plain sight."

Nichols concurs, suggesting that the establishment believes enduring Trump's tenure requires concessions, effectively normalizing authoritarian practices.

[03:45] Tom Nichols: "There is an idea taking hold that ... we only have to put up with this guy for another three and a half years."

This systemic resignation exacerbates the crisis, as traditional bastions of resistance are compromised from within.

Erosion of the Rule of Law

The conversation delves into Trump's ongoing assault on the judiciary and the fragile state of the rule of law.

Charlie Sykes underscores the dangerous precedent set by targeting judges and undermining due process.

[23:33] Charlie Sykes: "This makes it especially dangerous moment for the rule of law and for the judiciary."

Tom Nichols elaborates on how Trump’s rhetoric delegitimizes judicial authority, fostering a culture where legal safeguards become obsolete.

[26:28] Tom Nichols: "They're picking this fight now to establish a larger principle that judges don't matter."

This erosion threatens fundamental democratic principles, risking an authoritarian shift where legal protections are disregarded.

The Role of Money and Influence: Elon Musk and Political Power

A critical segment addresses the immense influence of billionaires like Elon Musk in politics, particularly his involvement in judicial elections.

Charlie Sykes highlights Musk's intervention in Wisconsin's Supreme Court race, questioning the implications of such financial power.

[27:12] Charlie Sykes: "Elon Musk is dumping ... this is going to be very interesting to see what happens here in Wisconsin."

Tom Nichols critiques the concentration of political influence in the hands of a few wealthy individuals, likening it to an unsustainable pyramid structure.

[28:41] Tom Nichols: "Someone with Musk's background ... just throwing scads of money out the window ... it's a pyramid that gets so narrow at the top."

This dynamic undermines democratic processes, allowing oligarchs to sway outcomes disproportionately.

Trump-Putin Dynamics and Foreign Policy Concerns

The duo scrutinizes the peculiar and troubling interactions between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, raising alarms about international relations and national security.

Charlie Sykes references a controversial negotiation attempt between Trump and Putin, questioning its validity and implications.

[33:37] Charlie Sykes: "Vladimir Putin continues to play with and roll Donald Trump ... refuses to accept the ceasefire."

Tom Nichols criticizes Trump's negotiation tactics, emphasizing Putin's manipulative strategies and Trump's lack of preparedness.

[34:04] Tom Nichols: "Putin was on television ... it was a power move ... Trump has no idea what he's doing."

This interaction exemplifies the administration's unpredictable and often reckless approach to foreign policy, potentially endangering global stability.

Defense Budget and Policy Cuts

The discussion shifts to proposed defense budget reductions spearheaded by Trump and supported by Musk, raising concerns about national security.

Charlie Sykes expresses skepticism about the administration's ability to implement coherent defense cuts.

[47:54] Charlie Sykes: "Looking at the Trump, Vladimir Putin negotiations ... and what they could go wrong."

Tom Nichols points out the administration’s misguided priorities, focusing on superficial cuts rather than addressing substantive defense issues.

[49:08] Tom Nichols: "They think that by cutting a bunch of DEI seminars ... negligible."

This mismanagement threatens the efficacy and sustainability of the U.S. military infrastructure.

Congressional Response and Future Outlook

Sykes and Nichols contemplate the possible reactions from Congress and the broader political landscape, considering the limited time frame before the 2026 elections.

Tom Nichols speculates whether Congress will react decisively or continue to capitulate out of fear and exhaustion.

[54:09] Tom Nichols: "For 60 days ... they've kept everybody in line for ... only 60 days."

Charlie Sykes remains hopeful yet cautious, pondering if a critical mass of opposition will emerge as discomfort with the administration's actions grows.

[55:18] Charlie Sykes: "It's only 60 days ... let's cling to that for a moment."

Conclusion

The episode concludes with Sykes and Nichols emphasizing the precarious state of American democracy in 2025. The capitulation of key institutions, erosion of the rule of law, and outsized influence of wealthy individuals like Elon Musk pose significant threats. Additionally, the unpredictable foreign policy maneuvers under Trump exacerbate both domestic and international tensions. The conversation serves as a stark reminder of the importance of vigilance and proactive measures to safeguard democratic principles.

[55:47] Charlie Sykes: "We'll keep doing this because now more than ever, it's important to remind ourselves that we are not the crazy ones."

Notable Quotes

• Sykes: "We are not the crazy ones." [55:49]
• Nichols: "This Supreme Court is an activist court. It's a radical court." [30:12]
• Nichols: "We believe in the rule of law. That's why you get a fair trial and then a first class hanging." [24:15]

---

This episode provides a thorough examination of the systemic challenges facing American democracy, emphasizing the urgent need for institutional resilience and public awareness to counteract authoritarian tendencies.

Transcript

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, I think we have to do this all over again, don't we? So, welcome to a new episode of the to the Contrary podcast. I am joined by Tom Nichols from the Atlantic. Tom, welcome back. Thanks for joining me.

[Tom Nichols]

Thanks, Charlie. Thanks for having me.

[Charlie Sykes]

Okay, I want to start with a mega question or a meta question. Why. Why are we still so surprised? Why are we still, after all of this, why are we still capable of being surprised? And I'll tell you what I'm specifically referring to a little bit later, but, you know, at 8:00 last night, I'm, you know, sitting there with, you know, gin and tonic, watching something on Netflix and, you know, made the mistake of doing some doom scrolling and it feels like, you know, getting kicked in the stomach. And I'm thinking, why after all this time, are we still shocked by shit that is coming down from this administration? Help me out here, Tom.

[Tom Nichols]

Well, part of it is because we're human beings and we love normalcy. You know, we say to ourselves, nothing really. I mean, how bad could it be?

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, that's right, how bad?

[Tom Nichols]

You know, it's like it didn't. And also it's. We're kind of like the guy, you know, your drunk friend drove you home a few times and it was a little scary after a night at the bar, but you got home every time, right? You didn't die, you didn't have a big flaming wreck. And so it's like, well, yeah, you know, he has a few drinks, but I mean, we, he's okay. We can. Well, that's true. Right up until the moment it's not.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah.

[Tom Nichols]

You know, and so that's a part of it that we're just, that we're just people and we just hate to think, I mean, this was why, you know, during the Cold War, we didn't want to think about nuclear war. Right, Right. It's too. It's not going to happen. Everything's fin, you know, and, and if we had known half the shit that was going on, we wouldn't have slept nights. But I think the other part of it is that people are, especially the people. I think a lot of people who either actively supported Trump or who kind of made a deal with themselves to say, well, you know, I'm gonna support him, because eggs are whatever the, whatever the rationalization was. It's hard for them now to say. It's hard to say you were wrong. It's hard to process that.

[Charlie Sykes]

But I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about people like us who wrote cover stories, who wrote endless, endless articles saying it's going to be bad, it's going to be terrible, Trump 2.0 is going to be exponentially worse. There's nothing that's happening now that we did not warn about and yet we're still shocked and surprised by it or.

[Tom Nichols]

Well, I'm going to, I, I will, I'm going to part company with you a little bit, Charlie, and say this is my only surprise right now is that it hasn't gotten worse faster. Okay, so I'm still bracing. I mean, I, I do the same thing. I'm doom scrolling too. And I'm saying, you know, here, here comes, I mean, it's just going to be, I don't think we're approaching a crisis of government, I think, you know, really since 2017, at least for those four years. But now maybe, maybe I wasn't, maybe I, maybe I had a Failure of Imagination 4 years ago about how bad it could get. But I don't feel like I'm, I mean, I think if anything I find myself saying, what terrible thing is going to happen next? And what terrible stuff is going on that I'm not even aware of yet?

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, see, that is the failure of imagination. And I think that's something we need to confront because, and I think that to the extent that people are surprised or shocked, it is because of this failure of imaginary what could happen next. So, okay, as a digression, I know that you've already finished it, so no spoiler alerts, but I was watching this new Robert De Niro miniseries on Netflix, zero day where he plays an example president and there's a disaster. And it did occur to me at a certain point. Again, by the way, you can tell it's completely fictional because there's an African American woman president, right? There's a Speaker of the House of Representatives who's actually actively involved in government and is willing to push back on the president. So you know that it's fiction and you know that it's fiction because lots of people are really, really concerned about civil liberties. Okay, so leaving us leave, leaving aside.

[Tom Nichols]

The, to get past the opening episode, you have to, you have to believe that a guy like De Niro, you know, talks like this, got elected president, you know, a little bit, a little bit of a stretch, you know, the New Yorker who got, you know, and so, you know, every time I see De Niro, I think, you know, I would like to live in a country where a guy, you know, a hard ass old man from New York City, who, you know, kind of has this kind of, hey, you know, could be elected president. If you can get by that, the rest of it will fall into place.

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, we do have a guy from New York City who got elected president, but it was not Robert De Niro. So we don't live in that world.

[Tom Nichols]

It's the guy De Niro hated at the end of the bar.

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, exactly. So I. So it occurs to me at a certain point, though, that if there is a crisis, that if there is an attack, if there is something that happens, you know, that creates a national emergency, that we need to begin to use our imagination to imagine. How might a Donald Trump, who controls the military, who control. Who is unaccountable and immune, who controls the FBI and the CIA, who's been willing to use the power of government, what might he be willing to do in terms of shutting? Because obviously, he is not concerned about civil liberties. He is not concerned about incremental change. I mean, this is one of those things where it feels as if the lack of guardrails has not been completely. We have not totally factored in the extent to which the guardrails have collapsed and the willingness of this administration to exceed its powers. So who would stop the president from declaring martial law and suspending elections? Would it be the courts? Would it be Congress? Would it be. What institution would stand up to him?

[Tom Nichols]

I think the most disconcerting thing, when you think about that scenario, Charlie, is that to think about all the things that Trump could do that are already within his legal authority.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yes.

[Tom Nichols]

Like we keep. Like when you're talking about the courts or who's gonna step in or who's gonna, you know, put a stop to this. The problem is, especially since 1945, especially because of arrangements and institutions that we put in place during the Cold War, the American system of government is organized around allowing the President to take dramatic actions in the case of a national emergency. Because, remember, you know, we're old guys. What would a national emergency be? You know, Washington in flames, millions of people dead. The president needs to be able to act. You know, so he still has all those powers. And the only thing that we ever counted on to restrain the actions of a president under those circumstances is the belief that the American people would never elect a kook or a dictator. So we. We just, you know, this is the Madisonian guardrail of, you know, the. Yes, someone could do bad things, but the American people will never elect someone like that. Yeah, well, now you have. And now he has a full panoply of amazing powers at his disposal that are perfectly legal and within the Constitution. Now, who could in. Install limits on that action in the first instance? The answer is Congress. Congress is the Article one power, and that's. They're gone.

[Charlie Sykes]

They're.

[Tom Nichols]

They're not.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah, they don't, that's not gonna happen.

[Tom Nichols]

This is not their problem. They don't want to hear about it. They either agree with him or they're afraid of him, or they are just craven opportunists who just want to, you know, that when, that, when the terrible things start happening in Washington, they want to make sure they have a limo and a driver. The courts are already doing this and they're standing alone. The courts are, the courts are on their own right now. But without some national sense of urgency from the people from the states, from, again, from Congress, you know, they can issue rulings, but as we're seeing, you know, in this, in this confrontation over immigration, Trump just says, oh, you know, it's like, oh, I didn't hear that. Garbled. Yeah, didn't get the message. Planes already in international waters, you know. Yeah, you know, sorry, didn't. Didn't get the message.

[Charlie Sykes]

So what would a sense of urgency look like, though?

[Tom Nichols]

Well, the problem is that to really translate to a sense of urgency in the Congress, you would actually have to have Republicans who care.

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, exactly.

[Tom Nichols]

They control the Congress.

[Charlie Sykes]

So that's not going to happen after 2026.

[Tom Nichols]

If Democrats take the House, urgency would look like hearings and subpoenas and passing laws that then dare the Senate to, to block them.

[Charlie Sykes]

Right.

[Tom Nichols]

I mean, 2026 could be everything in a situation like this.

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, let me go back to that.

[Tom Nichols]

In, in the, in the national reporting. I mean, we're still getting these, we're still getting these, you know, kind of vaporous headlines about Trump, you know, testing the limits of executive power. And Trump. There was one, I guess, in the, in the Washington Post the other day. Trump has a plan for the economy, but he's not explaining it well.

[Charlie Sykes]

I saw that. Yes, that was a, that was a fake headline. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So going back to the surprise, though, I really have been trying to think about this, and I think part of it is that I'm not, that I am personally not shocked or surprised by what Trump is doing. I think, obviously it's rather extraordinary, the speed and the volume with which he's doing it. But all of that was predictable. What I did not see coming was the, what Ron Fournier is now calling the crisis of capitulation. One you know institution after another, whether it was the billionaires, whether it's the media, whether it's abc, the rush to obey in advance, and not just in government, but in civil society. And so we all woke up on Friday morning, Actually, I got kicked in the stomach Thursday night reading this story in the New York Times. Law firm bends in face of Trump demands. Paul Weiss, one of three law firms targeted by President Trump as part of his retribution campaign, said it resolved the conflict by agreeing to a range of commitments. Okay, I just want to read this. President Trump and the head of the law firm, Paul Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Big Time Law firm, have reached a deal under which Trump will drop the executive order he leveled against the firm, Mr. Trump said on Thursday. In the deal, the firm agreed to a series of commitments, including to represent clients, no matter their political affiliation, and contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Trump has championed. Okay, so this is extortion in plain sight. And let me do one more. Members of the legal profession said in interviews they were surprised by the deal as it appears as if the firm, which is dominated by Democrats and has long prided itself in being at the forefront of the fight against the government for civil rights. Yeah, fuck. That was capitulating to Trump over an executive order that is likely illegal. So you put that next to the story in Politico. Universities are caving to Trump with a stunning speed and scope. Colleges and universities across the country are capitulating to President Donald Trump with staggering speed, moving to slash progressive policies and crackdown on student activism as they face compounding threats from an administration hell bent on reshaping higher education. So it's not just that the resistance seems to be scattered. There are people who have just, like, jumping up, waving the flag, saying, not me. And it starts with the billionaires, starts with the big corporations. Now these giant law firms. Law firms exist to screw you, right? To fight back. Universities, you know, are these strong institutions with these great traditions, and they're all caving in. And I think that's the really shocking element of 2025. Your thoughts?

[Tom Nichols]

Yeah, I agree. And I think when we go back to the question of the failure of imagination, I obviously am not a lawyer, never worked at a law firm. I'm doing this as long distance psychoanalysis. I think that there is an idea taking hold that, look, we now know because of Trump's age and it's his second term, we only have to put up with this guy for another three and a half years. So let's just Cut all the deals we have to cut. Excuse me, to keep them out of our soup as best we can. Let's just, you know, because it's not forever. And I, I, that's my guess.

[Charlie Sykes]

Wouldn't it be the opposite though? Wouldn't it be that if we only have to deal with them for two years, don't make a, you know, don't cover ourselves with shame the way. Because you might have a Democrat in the White House at some point who going to remember this shit.

[Tom Nichols]

But. Well, first of all, Democrats don't clearly don't hold those kinds of grudges. Right. I mean they're, they don't do the revenge tour the way Trump does. The, the other thing I think is, you know, you said law firms are there to fight. They're also there to settle. This feels like settle like, like, yeah, oh, this is going to be years of painful combat. It's going to be difficult and it's going to drag us into the limelight. Let's just settle the part. The 40 million to causes the President cares about was the part that just blew my mind. I'm like, who does that? Who says, okay, fine. And we will basically make our politics congruent with yours, with the universities. I think in a way. Look, law firms exist to fight for you. Yes. But they also exist to make money. So again, having never been a lawyer who has to work for billable hours, I don't know why they did it. But with universities where I've spent a big chunk of my life as, you know, as a professor. Professor, the first thing I thought, I have a degree from, I have a graduate degree from Columbia. So, you know, first thing I thought was, you have a multi gazillion dollar endowment. Why wouldn't you just tell Donald Trump, keep your $150 million?

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah.

[Tom Nichols]

You know, that's why we have an endowment. The whole point of an endowment is so that you're not beholden to, to, you know, so that you, so that it can't be turned into Trump University. So that the federal government can't tell you what to do. Yes. You have to be in accordance with the law because you want to have solid partnerships between universities and the government. I really believe that's good for the country to have the United States government and our best universities funding exchanging ideas. You know, I always thought that was, I think, in fact one of the, if I can digress for one second, one of the terrible things that happened after Vietnam was that universities really wanted to hold the government at arm's length because of, you know, the, because people were coming up with things like Agent Orange and, you know, the Rand Corporation and bombing and all that. Anyway. But I don't understand why the universities don't just say together. The ivies alone have endowments that are like bigger than countries. And I don't understand this, this preemptive caving. I just, I don't get it.

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, you know, I think it's, it's, it. They're, they're, they're flabby, they're not used to fighting. I think they've been so insular in terms of their values. They cutting off, you know, that they have and also become so addicted to outside money. Look, I've been very, very critical of higher education. You know, in fact, I wrote a book in the before Times called, you know, fail you the False promise of Higher Education. You know, talking about the incredible, you know, explosion of tuitions and expenses and student debt, the flight from teaching, all of that, the indulgence in all sorts of, I would say, boutique ideologies that left them, I think, unprepared to deal with outside pressure. But leaving that, leaving that aside, I wonder, and this is going to be my most. But this will be my moment of naivete if at some point what we see going forward is going to be a resurgence of or at least respect for libertarian small government. And let me just say this because, you know, this is something that conservatives warned about for many years, that a government that is big enough to do anything for you is also big enough to do anything for you. And this moment where we realize how powerful government has become, how intimidating government has become, how many institutions and individuals are now afraid of their government, this is what you get when you become entangled with government. And at one time, conservatives argued, you know what, all of those goodies come with strings and somebody that you don't like someday may pull those strings and then pooh, pooh, pooh. Well, now it's, now it's happening. So to your point about the universities, maybe you're going to have to get off the government teeth at some point or at least reduce your reliance.

[Tom Nichols]

The point about the strings, I mean, I remember those arguments when I was part of that, you know, the before times. But I think one thing was, of course, the expectation that presidents are successful, educated people and couldn't possibly hate universities, which was a mistake. But the other, I think, you know, as we've been talking about this, I keep thinking that part of the, the vibe, you know, I'm Gonna go with vibes here for a second.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah.

[Tom Nichols]

Part of the vibe I get is just make this guy go away. Like, just say whatever you have to.

[Charlie Sykes]

Just, he'll be right.

[Tom Nichols]

Make him go away. Throw him a bone, you know, feed him. He's.

[Charlie Sykes]

Tell him he's wonderful.

[Tom Nichols]

They're underestimating him and the people around him by thinking, look, he's just stupid. And if you just pay him off, you know, of course, once you pay the Dane geld, it never stops. But I think they really have this sense of, okay, you know, this is going to blow over. Just pay him off, make him go away. He'll move on to something else. Now, that's that, you know, the history of Trump is that he will always find some other shiny lure in the water to go chase at some point. But I don't think the problem is that they've thought, unlike 2017, they've had four years to think this through.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah.

[Tom Nichols]

And a friend of mine made a very interesting point the other day. She said it would have been better if Trump had just been reelected in 2020. It's an interesting thought experiment to say, because then they wouldn't have had four years to sit around and gnaw on these grievances and come up with all these kooky plans and set up these networks and, you know, pump all this poison. And also, Trump would have had to deal with the, with the after effects of COVID and the inflation and all the stuff that was going to come, but it didn't happen. So now here we are. And I think that there's an exhaustion in the American establishment that says, whatever, fine, we'll sign whatever you want. Just go away. And he's not going to go away. They're not. It's not going to end with no $40 million of chump change to say, yeah, we'll, you know, we'll pursue immigration cases that you happen to like or, fine, we'll tell the kids to cool it on the anti Semitism, you know, the, the, or the, you know, we'll, we'll let you look at our curriculum. I mean, it's not going to end.

[Charlie Sykes]

No, it's not. It's not going to end. So let's talk about this fight about the, the judges and the, in the rule of law. Because, and again, as a thought experiment, and maybe this is not a thought experiment, but here's an uncomfortable fact, I think for some of our listeners that Donald Trump right now is having the fight that he wants over deportation of these, these gang Members, you know, we may look at it as, you know, you know, a dangerous war against the judiciary. He was always going to wage a war against the judiciary. This should not be a surprise. He's a convicted felon who has been demeaning and attacking judges for as long as I can remember. You know, you go back to June of 2016, he's attacking the judge who was presiding over the Trump University case. Remember, he attacked him, you know, saying he was biased because he was Mexican. And back then, you had Republicans like Paul Ryan who were willing to say that was textbook racism, but it's not new. But so the fact that he's attacking judges, you kind of would see that. But now he's framing it and his supporters are framing it as you. Either for these terrorists or against these terrorists, I am deporting dangerous criminals. And you and I, I don't know how you feel about it, but in the past, and maybe this is where I was going with, with that Robert De Niro show that when people think there's a real threat and when it's law and order versus due process, due process is always a fragile thing in American culture. It's one of the reasons why we built up so many guardrails around it, because the impulse is that when you're under threat that you go with anything, lock them up, throw them away, use enhanced interrogation. But. So Donald Trump likes the fact that he's picked a fight when he's dealing with what he says are violent gang members that are being deported. And he's got his entire MAGA base aligned with him on this. So this is, this is, this makes it especially dangerous moment for the rule of law and for the judiciary, is my point.

[Tom Nichols]

Yeah. Because the plaintiffs are the least appealing people in the world.

[Charlie Sykes]

Exactly. Right.

[Tom Nichols]

And of course, Americans who pride themselves on equal justice before the law, even for the most horrendous, skeeviest, nastiest defendants. We don't really, we say that. Right. You know, but we, you know, there's, I always think of that great line from one of my favorite movies, Silverado, where Brian Dennehy, he's a sheriff, and he says, we're going to give you a fair trial and a first class hanging. And you know, that, that, that is very much in the American bloodstream.

[Charlie Sykes]

It is very much.

[Tom Nichols]

We believe in the rule of law. That's why you get a fair trial and then a first class hanging.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah.

[Tom Nichols]

And Trump's people, again, I remember, I'm thinking back to 2017 and when he was in the white, that first night in the White House and the lighting was all garish, and they, they didn't know that everybody's kind of wandering in and out and he's doing his scrawl and holding stuff up, you know, and it was so slapdash and dumb. They've had four years to say, we're not going to do that again. This time, we're going to pick fights over things that we know will be, end up in the courts, that we know will be accompanied by video of some of the most unsavory human beings we can find. And we're going to dare the judges to tell us that we can't send a guy covered in gang tattoos, you know, back to, to wherever. And, of course, they've extended that away from the, from this particular instance to repeating, because that's partly the way Trump gets through to his voters, is simple repetition by repeating. Judges can't make these decisions.

[Charlie Sykes]

Right.

[Tom Nichols]

Judges make these decisions all the time. They've been making them all the time for years. Because that's our system of government. That, for the, for the Trumpers, that's a flaw, that's a mistake, that's a constitutional error. For us, it's how our system is, is designed. Because one day, it's not going to be a guy covered in tattoos, it's going to be you.

[Charlie Sykes]

Right. And again, that's something, but that's an abstraction. This gives them a chance to circulate, to have their cruelty porn go viral of all of the, of all the detainees naked in El Salvador in prisons. So this is, I just think people need to understand that there's, there's, there's a class of punditry that's always like, well, this is not going to work or this is going to backfire. Anytime someone takes a law and order position after a crisis or after a riot or after a terrible crime, they, they're going to be able to, they will have a lot of support for that. And I think that's, again, part of the danger. Okay. So, I mean, the clever thing they're doing.

[Tom Nichols]

Yeah, the clever thing they're doing is, is they're picking this fight now to a step to establish a larger principle that judges don't matter.

[Charlie Sykes]

Right.

[Tom Nichols]

And one day, it's not going to be about immigration. It's going to be about your civil rights. It will be about whether the only thing standing between you and some arbitrary, authoritarian, dare I say, fascist, you know, move where people are arrested and detained without, you know, warrant and habeas Corpus goes out the window and all that stuff that some judge says, you can't do this. And we have already gotten used to the idea that we don't really care what a judge says about it.

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, you're, you're absolutely right. And also, we ought to recognize that this is not, this is not strictly or uniquely Trumpian, that conservative Republicans have been talking about unelected activist judges for a very, very long time, going back into the Earl Warren court. Right. Well, there's a long tradition of this attack, by the way, just as a digression in my newsletter to the contrary, which I urge you to subscribe to. On Friday, I talked about what's happening here in the state of Wisconsin where we have an election for state Supreme Court, speaking of judges. And Elon Musk is dumping. I don't know whether it's 11 million or it's $15 million, but this is one seat on one state Supreme Court, and people are now estimating that it will cost $100 million, $100 million. He's been thoroughly politicized. No one's even pretending that this is about the judicial integrity or independence. Every piece of literature I get has the conservative candidate, Brad Schimmel, who used to be a normal Republican with Donald Trump, you know, that this is for Donald Trump, that Donald Trump, you know, needs protection, Donald Trump needs support. And Elon Musk is basically making this a test case of the, the reach of maga. So it's going to be very interesting to see what happens here in Wisconsin.

[Tom Nichols]

Two things occur to me about that. One is when I hear about Elon Musk going, you know, doing this, I think of Bill Kristol's comment some, some years ago, where these guys are bringing out my inner socialist. Because it says to me there's something wrong with a system where one citizen can amass enough money to be able to travel the country like Johnny Appleseed, just throwing scads of money out the window without money. That, to him, is change he finds in the couch cushions.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah.

[Tom Nichols]

You know, there comes a moment where you say, is it a reasonable understanding of capitalism to say that we now have a pyramid that gets so narrow at the top that three or four people can simply go from election to election to election and drop $20 million on the doorstep as if it's like just pulling it out of a money clip in their pocket? But the other thing about going back to the judges is that it. It's just remarkable to me how quickly the Republicans went from unelected. Judges are a Real danger to this country to, unless they're ours.

[Charlie Sykes]

Right.

[Tom Nichols]

They're, you know, like judges should thoroughly politicize. One judge cannot decide everything for the country unless it's a guy in Texas who doesn't like mephistone.

[Charlie Sykes]

Right.

[Tom Nichols]

And, and so they've become, you know, they've become in a sense, I mean, I took a lot of static from some of our old friends on the right when I said this. This Supreme Court is an activist court. It's, it is, it's a radical court. And the, and the people that Trump, that are supporting Trump who are on the bench are, are activist judges because everything they do is stuff that Republicans and conservatives would have absolutely had an aneurysm about if it were a liberal judge doing it. And so now they're, now the Republicans are playing a very, I shouldn't say the Republicans even, I should say the Trump movement is playing a very clever double game, which is unelected judges should shut up and get out of the way. They have no authority to do anything. On the other hand, if it's a judge we happen to like in some, you know, district where we went shopping in Texas, that guy should be able to tell the entire country that they can't have a certain medication.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah, there's, there's so much projection and there's so much, many double standards. But yeah, two points here. Number one, this is really a test of Elon Musk, of Elon Musk's money and his ability to, you know, spread that influence, which by the way, is, is now one of the dominant political realities of our lives that, that Republicans in the House of Representatives are afraid to buck Donald Trump because they know that if they do, Elon Musk is going to come in, they will be primaried and he will drop more money than God into their districts. If, if Brad Schimmel wins in Wisconsin, it will be just another indication of how powerful Elon Musk is. If, on the other hand, the pushback is strong enough and the Democrats are trying to make this a referendum here in Wisconsin on Elon Musk and if he falls short, it will be a brush back pitch. But the, the note, I guess I'm also just struck by the degree to which they've internalized the idea that judges are not about determining what is, you know, what the law says, that, that they are partisan actors, that you actually have a candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court that is running to advance Donald Trump's agenda to protect Donald Trump's lawlessness, and he makes no bones about it. There's no euphemism. Okay, so since this is also the week, it's so weird how much stuff is happening in any given week. I want to get your take on the Trump, Vladimir Putin negotiations, where Vladimir Putin, I think it looks to me, and I'm not the Russia expert, you are, that Vladimir Putin continues to play with and roll Donald Trump and that Donald Trump does not realize it got an agreement for a temporary ceasefire on the attack on energy infrastructure or something. But having made Donald Trump wait for what, more than an hour is that it refused to accept the ceasefire that he had agreed to with Volodymyr Zelensky. So give me your sense of the state of play and how, what the dynamic is between what you think the dynamic is between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, which continues to fascinate and horrify.

[Tom Nichols]

Let me just be Dr. Evil for a moment and say you mentioned negotiations, or as I would say, negotiations.

[Charlie Sykes]

They weren't for people who are not watching on YouTube.

[Tom Nichols]

Those were. Yes, I did the Dr. Evil Air quotes. Negotiations. It wasn't a negotiation. First, Putin didn't just keep Trump waiting. I think to really understand the dynamic here of who's the big dog.

[Charlie Sykes]

He.

[Tom Nichols]

Putin was on television. He's in a big meeting, right? And this guy says, well, Mr. President, you know, I know you have a phone call with Donald Trump to, you know, And Putin's like, yeah, yeah, I do. But go ahead, ask your question. Whatever. You know, it was sort of like, yeah, you can almost see Putin going, yeah, yeah, I have a lot of meetings with a lot of people. People, go ahead, pal, ask me your questions. He can wait. And it was really a kind of a power move, you know, it was a. I'll. I mean, Putin does this all the.

[Charlie Sykes]

Time, by the way, very much.

[Tom Nichols]

He will keep people, heads of state, interviewer, whoever. He keeps them waiting, cooling their heels for hours. He. It's, it's a tactic that he enjoys. Very Stalinist, by the way. Very old school. So then he gets on the phone with, with Trump, who has no idea what he's doing. Remember, Trump never prepares this stuff. He's unbreakable. And, and the days when he would be briefed by Jim Mattis or Rex Tillerson or, you know, John, his chief staff, Kelly. Kelly. Getting old, Charlie. Those days are Nobody, nobody in that Oval Office knows what the hell is going on. He gets on the phone, Trump says, here's an idea. I'll stop attacking stuff that I've already blown to smithereens over and over again. And Zelensky stops attacking stuff that's really hurting me, like oil refineries and Black Sea assets. So I will give up almost nothing. Zelensky gives up everything. And I reserve the right to still keep killing civilians at will. And Trump, you know, obviously, I guess, goes for that. And then, and then Putin says, nah, you know, I'm gonna just keep. I shouldn't be laughing. I mean, he just kind of waves it away after all that and starts, you know, blasting the shit out of.

[Charlie Sykes]

He humiliated him before the conversation and then immediately after the conversation. Does Trump understand this, or. I mean, he doesn't.

[Tom Nichols]

He clearly doesn't. I mean, I don't. Look, I don't know Donald Trump personally. I can't ask him. Do you get that you're being, you know, basically played and made an ass of here? But I think he really believes that Putin likes him. And, you know, we're not just on the wrong side here. We are becoming the wrong side here. We are actively conniving with the bad guys, which makes us one of the bad guys to do these things. Because while all this is going on, you would think, for example, if Putin saying, well, well, Donald, you know, I'm not going to do these things, you would think, hey, maybe I ought to hold off on that executive order blowing up the Voice of America on Radio Free Liberty right now.

[Charlie Sykes]

Oh, my God. Putin.

[Tom Nichols]

Putin hates those. Putin hates Radio Liberty like a lot of bad people around the world. Really. I don't mean to digress about this, but I have a soft spot. I used to know.

[Charlie Sykes]

It's important, right?

[Tom Nichols]

For Radio Liberty. I've been there. You know, if you, if you really want to understand what it means to do that kind of journalism, you really get a sense of it. When you go to Prague and you visit Radio Liberty and realize that they have this installation just on the edge of the city that's practically like a military base because it needs that level of security. Liberty from all of the kind of, you know, horrible bastards in the world that want to kill people who work for Radio, for Europe, Radio Liberty, Radio Asia, Radio Marti, all these other organizations. You would think that if Trump understood any of this, he'd say, maybe I can hold back one symbolic chip. Maybe I can. You know, not bad mouth Zelensky here, but he. He doesn't.

[Charlie Sykes]

He.

[Tom Nichols]

He doesn't. Look, the guy who says, I know how to make deals is a businessman who's had a lifetime of experience of making bad deals, you know?

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, I see. If you agree with me, I thought One of the big wins for Vladimir Putin was just getting Donald Trump directly involved in the negotiations. Because normally the president. You don't bring the president in until the very, very end of the negotiation. You don't put him front and center. Because Donald Trump is such a bad negotiator. He is notoriously unprepared, he is easily distracted, he's easily flattered, and there's a pattern where he's making one concession after another. You mentioned shutting down Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, all of this last week at the same time. And this one is like deep breath here, eliminating that whole database, the whole tracking of the 30,000 children who have been kidnapped. I mean, what was that about? I mean, you would think that to.

[Tom Nichols]

Curry favor with Vladimir Putin and he doesn't. If he.

[Charlie Sykes]

Even doing the unthinkable things. Yeah.

[Tom Nichols]

Pardon?

[Charlie Sykes]

Even doing the unthinkable things. I mean, the unthinkable.

[Tom Nichols]

But to him, these aren't real people, Charlie. These aren't real children. These aren't real issues. It's all a matter of what makes me look good, what makes me feel good, what. You know, it's. When you're talking about somebody with this level of gargantuan narcissism, you don't expect them to sit around and think about the fate of 30,000 children, you know, and let me say words that you don't often hear me say when it comes to negotiations. In fairness to Donald Trump, you don't involve the president in any president.

[Charlie Sykes]

Right?

[Tom Nichols]

In these things. No. I don't care if it's Ronald Reagan or Joe Biden or Jack Kennedy. You don't.

[Charlie Sykes]

Obama. Yeah.

[Tom Nichols]

The only time the president gets on the phone is to say, hey, all that stuff our teams just worked out, we're good on that. Right? That's. That's where presidents come in. But he, he has no sense of that. There's nobody that's capable of working those tracks. Everybody is frozen. I mean, technically, we have a Secretary of state. You know, hypothetically, Marco Rubio is the Secretary of State, but he's not involved. And you said something that was very insightful here, that the real advantage was getting, was getting Trump on the phone at all. Because what Putin wants to establish is that Ukraine is not a real country, therefore they can never be involved in these negotiations. That the big guys, you know, that the, that the grown ups, the, the, the capos, the commission. I mean, if you think of it in Mafia terms. Right.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah.

[Tom Nichols]

You know, you know, you don't bring in, you don't if you're deciding whether to whack somebody out, you don't bring the guy in to talk about it. The bosses talk about it and they make a decision. And that's what Putin wants to establish, that the only people that are capable of deciding the fate of Ukraine are Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Not the Europeans, not Zelensky, not the United nations, not anybody. And that's what Putin wanted all along. And I'm sure I'm going to extend some charity here to somebody in the White House. I'm sure that someone in the White House must have had this thought to say this, this is bad, but you can't, I don't, I don't think you can brief Donald Trump or explain this stuff. He, he hears Vladimir Putin wants to talk to you on the phone and, and he's like a teenage girl getting a call from Bobby Sherman. I guess I just dated myself with that reference. But my wife.

[Charlie Sykes]

No, but I don't worry about it. I, I got that. I got that. So when you and I are, as you and I are speaking, the big headline speaking of foreign policy is that Elon Musk was going to get briefed on our super secret war plans against China. Now Trump is denying that, saying it's fake. Yeah. Dear God. I mean, I don't know what else you say about that. And my reaction is that again, we shouldn't be, it's shocking, but we shouldn't be surprised because Elon Musk is getting everything. Elon Musk is the co. President. I mean, Donald, the fact that Donald Trump is denying it, I don't think means anything. I mean, if Elon Musk wants to see stuff, he's going to see stuff. What do you think? What could go wrong there?

[Tom Nichols]

First thing I thought was, so Elon Musk has, basically has a higher security clearance than J.D. vance. He is the vice, he's still technically the vice President. I know, you know, last time I checked, but I had two thoughts immediately, which is, yeah, sure, why wouldn't you give us totally super secret briefing on China to a guy who has multiple business interests in China, regularly talks to the Chinese government. You know, this is any, any government employee, as I once was, with a security clearance, as I once had, is, have, has their stomach and knots right now about how this violates security protocols on so many levels that it's beyond, you know, beyond enumeration. The other thing I thought, and I don't know if this will happen, I wondered if the people who are going to give this briefing Understand that the version they need to give him is the, you know, PowerPointed, what we would give to any random congressman or staffer version because, you know, the. I mean, it's. It sounds terrifying to say we're going to give him an explanation of our war plans with China. There are two things you can do with it. First of all, briefings can occur at several levels of classification. I could. I mean, from what I used to teach at the Naval War College, Charlie, I could give you a briefing right now on our war plans with China off the top of my head that have no classification. I never did that as classified work. It'd be stuff that I would just be pulling off the top of my head that would probably be accurate but not really useful. Like, you know, okay, so here's some things. We move the Navy, that'd be first. Right. You know, it's big water. But the other is that I doubt that Elon Musk will actually understand very much of it if it gets complicated. I mean, it doesn't. Part of getting a briefing like this is that you. You actually have to have some foundational knowledge of things. So, I mean, I've seen this happen, and I'm trying. I guess I'm trying to be reassuring to people who may listen.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yeah.

[Tom Nichols]

I have seen members of Congress and other senior leaders get briefings that they just didn't. Couldn't really comprehend. They sort of got the top line, you know, like, are we ready for war with Country X? Yes, we are. Okay, good. You know, that, like, there's not a lot unless he's going to sit there and take pictures and walk out with a folder of documents. I'm. I'm not that worried about it because I'm still praying that the people that are going to give him this understand that, you know, not to give him the crown jewels. But even if they did, I'm not sure he would. I'm not sure that would be useful information to. I'm not sure even given that, you know, Trump doesn't understand this stuff most of the time.

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, in many ways, though, that's dangerous because the worst thing in the world is for your adversary to miscalculate. It's interesting enough that Steve Bannon has become the voice. I won't say the voice of reason, but the one person pointing out how conflicted and tone deaf Elon Musk is, he's been pointing out the mistakes he's making on domestic policy. But it was Steve Bannon who, not that long ago, seem to imply that you know seem to imply that Elon Musk was the, you know, Communist Party's bitch, that he was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Communist Party because he had so many ties. Now, whether or not that's true or not, it's interesting that, that within MAGA there are people who are thinking this is really, really, really a bad idea. Now do we know what the wrong.

[Tom Nichols]

About, you know, that, I mean, I don't know whether, you know, Bannon's right about how, whether, how owned Musk is. The general thing on which he's right is in any normal world, someone with Musk's background in context would never be allowed to set foot in that room as a matter of just operational and operational security kind of hygiene. You just wouldn't do it. You know, you would say, oh, you'd like, you're a well known industrialist and rich guy and you'd like a briefing on China. We'll send a guy to your office. Thank you for your interest in national security. We're going to send a couple of guys to your headquarters in San Francisco. Please feel free to ask questions that we will then not answer in any substantive way. I'm hoping that's still what happens. But it's so fascinating, the ban, you know, because I think the other reason I, I don't believe that Bannon really has the best interests of the country at heart. I think. No, no, you know, what he's really mad about is this was supposed to be me joined at the hip to Donald Trump. How did this guy, you know, why am I still podcasting and this guy is, you know, hanging at Mar A Lago and giving impromptu briefings in the Oval Office. And I think, you know, it's always a fascinating window into MAGA world how much they all hate each other, you know, about what it really is in there.

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, I mean, it is, you know, the, the courtiers who are, you know, jostling for, you know, proximity to the crown. So I think it's going to be very interesting to see what happens when, if Musk and Hegseth come forward with these massive, these plans to massively cut the defense budget, including our combat capabilities. Look, I, I have no illusions that the Pentagon budget is not grossly bloated, but I have no confidence that they will come up with a coherent, responsible prudence scheme. And this is the one area where I think there might be some pushback in Congress if they really want to slash our war fighting capabilities.

[Tom Nichols]

There's two things about what Musk thinks he's doing. With Hegseth, who I think is kind of an absentee landlord, because Pete Hegseth seems only to care about making sure that, you know, minorities are scrubbed from DoD websites. By the way, interesting moment that somebody actually got fired, that a Pentagon spokesman actually got turfed over the Jackie Robinson thing, which shows you that because it was so stupid and it was just, you know, that, that he just, I mean, he didn't get fired. He hasn't been sent.

[Charlie Sykes]

Our limits. There, there is something, okay, there is something.

[Tom Nichols]

You can actually be incompetent enough to get benched occasionally. But the two things are this one is when, you know, I agree with you, the defense, again, As a former DoD employee, the Pennsylvania budget is bloated, but it's bloated in the places that Trump and Musk don't care about. They're not going to cut programs and systems that are funneling billions of dollars to contractors and private industry, which is where, you know, the money is. I mean, there's a chunk of the Defense Department that is nothing. Then I think people need to understand this. We talk about cutting defense budget. What's the big part of the defense budget? Salaries, pensions, health care, housing. There are hard. Even before Trump came into office, there were going to be hard decisions about an organization where you're allowed to retire at 42 or 43, collect a full pension and have lifetime medical care. You know, my civilian colleagues and I, I couldn't collect a full pension until I was a partial pension till I was 59 and a half. I got a modest government pension once I retired at 61. But my civilian colleagues and I always laugh that, you know, the military, for all of its very conservative merit based values, is actually governed by something that is basically Greek socialism where you can retire at 40 and start drawing your pension and have fully covered health care for you and your family. That's unsustainable. But if you really cared about getting in there and sort of cutting gigantic programs, I mean, the program to modernize the American strategic nuclear deterrent, that program is way out of control at this point. The, the numbers are, you know, inconceivably large at this point. They're not going to do that because that's not whose side they're on. They're about, you know, cutting. They think that by cutting a bunch of DEI seminars that they're going to cut the defense budget and that is negligible. But the other thing they're up to, that will is already getting pushback from Congress, is this kind of crackpot Plan to reorganize all the combatant commands.

[Charlie Sykes]

Yes. Right.

[Tom Nichols]

And for people that don't know what that means, every geographic region of the world for about 20 odd years now, in order to try to have more internal coherence and mobility and agility, the, the world's been divided up into commands. So all of South America is Southern Command. Right. There's one four star general. He handles, or she handles all of the stuff that goes on with the military, like, you know, from, from Central America down to the, to, to, you know, Uruguay. Right. European Command, that's NATO and our other friends in Europe and just that whole area, including Russia, Indo Pacific Command, the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean. So, so they're organized this way and that's pretty complicated. It Trump is saying, well, I want to consolidate these because somehow that will save money. I think that's not only dumb, but there's no real plan for doing it. And it would take a Secretary of Defense. It would take a real Secretary of Defense, someone who has years of experience, understands this system, understands the legislation from the 80s, Goldwater, Nichols and others that created a lot of this stuff. I mean, this would, this would be a huge lift even for people who know what they're doing. Yeah, but taking a talk show host and saying, hey, reorganize all the combatant commands is going to be, you know, I think somebody put it. It's going to be like watching a dog try to screw in a light bulb. I mean, it's just not.

[Charlie Sykes]

Seems suboptimal.

[Tom Nichols]

Yes, Suboptimal is a, is a uncharacteristically restrained word for you, Charlie, but it is.

[Charlie Sykes]

I try to be, I try to be restrained.

[Tom Nichols]

That's what it is. And you've already had and somebody else complaining about it. So maybe Roger Wicker.

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, I mean, this is the question admitted. At what point do you have the people, you know, in Congress who recognize how reckless all of this is? And we haven't even gotten to what they're doing with Social Security. There's a certain recklessness going on right now that you get a sense that everybody's sort of taking a deep breath and watching them, you know, go through the China shop. But, you know, at some point you're going to have to. Congress has to get engaged and pass real bills. Right. Actual legislation. So far, let's be honest about it, one of the surprises has been that Trump and people like Mike Johnson have been successful in keeping everybody in line. But there are some of these issues where, you know that there are constituencies out there, they're going to make this much more difficult. Difficult.

[Tom Nichols]

For 60 days, Charlie, they've kept everybody in line for. Let's remember this is only 60 days.

[Charlie Sykes]

Right?

[Tom Nichols]

And I wonder. And I'll. I guess you're the interviewer, but I guess I'll throw. I wonder if they're waiting for the pain to become enough that they then have the top cover to move against Doge and Musk and all this other. That, that Harriet Hageman town hall was really interesting in, in Wyoming when they started yelling, deport Elon and Hageman. And this is just the most amazing thing in a. To hear in a, you know, deep red district, blurts out, why are you. So what did she see? She said, why are you people so obsessed with the federal government?

[Charlie Sykes]

Like, okay, Congresswoman.

[Tom Nichols]

Yeah, okay, well, you know, and I just wonder if they're. I wonder if everybody, as you say, they've been muted and they're staying together. But I just, I, and I, again, I. This is just a gut instinct. I wonder if they're stepping back and saying, let Elon drive the car off the edge of the cliff rather than us having to go up against him one on one. Let enough anger build up there.

[Charlie Sykes]

Well, and the other analogy would be that the moment they sense blood in the water, that, that they will, they will circle at that point. Because right now, Musk seems unstoppable and it's too dangerous to stop him. For what, at this, at this, at this point. But, yeah, let's. Let's cling to that for a moment. It's only 60 days. Tom Nichols, thank you so much for your time joining me this weekend. I appreciate it very much. You can read Tom's stuff in the Atlantic. So have a great weekend, Tom.

[Tom Nichols]

Thank you, Charlie.

[Charlie Sykes]

And thank you all for listening to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. We'll keep doing this because now more than ever, it's important to remind ourselves that we are not the crazy ones. Thanks.