0:10

I'm Charlie Sykes. Welcome to another

0:12

episode of To the Contrary podcast. Donald

0:14

Trump is defying the Supreme Court.

0:16

Harvard is defying Donald Trump. And Elon

0:18

Musk is apparently trying to have

0:20

so many babies, legions of babies that

0:22

he can take with him to

0:24

Mars. This is actually not a parody.

0:27

This is real life. Meanwhile, we

0:29

have a global trade war and the

0:31

big law firms. are just

0:33

discovering now that if you lie down

0:35

with Donald Trump, you wake up with more

0:37

than just fleas. So

0:39

joining me to hash out all of

0:41

this, I've really been looking forward to

0:43

this. Julian Zelizer, welcome to the podcast.

0:45

Appreciate it very much. It's great to

0:47

be with you. Julian is

0:49

a professor of history and public affairs

0:51

at Princeton. He's a contributor to

0:54

foreign policy and NPR and the author

0:56

of 27 books. And, of course,

0:58

has his own substack, The Long View.

1:00

So this is a man who

1:02

I question whether he sleeps at all.

1:04

I mean, honestly, I do. Okay.

1:07

I am encouraged

1:10

that. There's so much to talk about.

1:12

By the way, did you see that

1:14

Wall Street Journal story about Elon Musk? I'm

1:16

a little obsessed about it. They did

1:18

a 6 ,000 -word piece about how Elon Musk

1:20

is actually out there trying to impregnate

1:22

as many women as possible to reach the

1:24

legion level because he wants to take all the

1:26

babies to Mars or something. And

1:29

it's like we can't come up

1:31

with a simulation that is

1:33

more bizarre than this. the

1:35

co -president the United States,

1:37

the leader of a

1:39

party that's all into family values,

1:42

is just basically trying to find as many

1:44

baby mamas as possible. And I'm sorry, Julian,

1:46

to start with this, but what the hell?

1:48

We live in this world. Well,

1:50

I think, look, it says a lot who

1:52

a president surrounds. himself with.

1:54

And this is not uncommon.

1:57

I mean, these are the

1:59

kinds of stories we hear on

2:01

a daily basis. And look, they

2:03

should be taken seriously in terms

2:05

of what it says about the

2:07

person. This is someone now dealing

2:09

with dismantling the federal government. And

2:12

these stories are the same person

2:14

who's doing that. And I think that's

2:16

a lot of what's causing concern

2:18

is the person up top. And I

2:20

mean, in this case, Elon Musk

2:22

really cognizant of the effects

2:24

of his project and his personal

2:26

life might say a little bit

2:28

about, you know, where his mind

2:30

is at this moment. Yeah.

2:33

I mean, who knew that having a

2:35

sociopath in charge of dismantling the federal government

2:37

might be problematic? We might have issues.

2:39

So let's just start with some of these

2:41

these stories, because. There's

2:43

so many things going on. I want to

2:45

talk about the piece you wrote about the

2:47

imperial presidency, which is something that I've been

2:49

thinking a lot about lately. We

2:51

obviously have the tariffs.

2:55

It's increasingly obvious that the

2:57

Trump administration is just

2:59

simply parroting Vladimir Putin's propaganda. But

3:01

let's start off with some of the

3:03

big stories of the day. And I

3:05

want to get to Harvard in just

3:07

a moment. But the biggest question, I

3:09

guess, I want to get your take. Do

3:12

you think, is the

3:14

Trump administration defying, openly

3:16

defying the U .S. Supreme Court? Because

3:19

I see people trying to put

3:21

a little bit of lipstick on all

3:23

this. Supreme Court rules 9 -0. He

3:25

has to return the Maryland man.

3:27

They have to facilitate it. And

3:29

they stage that scene in the Oval

3:31

Office where they're going, sure. will

3:33

facilitate it, wink, wink, if in fact

3:36

El Salvador releases him, which of

3:38

course they're not going to do. So

3:40

what is your take on the

3:42

level of defiance that we're seeing from

3:44

the Trump administration? They are

3:46

defying the courts and they're ratcheting

3:48

up the level of defiance and playing

3:51

rhetorical games about what they're doing

3:53

and switching the terms of what they're

3:55

doing, who they're doing it to,

3:57

doesn't change the basic. message

3:59

and ruling that comes from the court.

4:01

The Supreme Court, lower level courts have

4:04

all kept saying the same thing.

4:06

And I think it's very clear that

4:08

this is one more institution that

4:10

President Trump is willing to ignore, challenge,

4:12

intimidate. And I don't think

4:14

the Supreme Court is going

4:16

to have an easy time

4:18

upholding its decisions. At some

4:20

level, what we learn is

4:22

that the power of the

4:24

Supreme Court derives from

4:26

the respect that people have for

4:29

the court, including the president of

4:31

United States. If that is not

4:33

there, we are also learning there's

4:35

a lot of room for an

4:37

administration to simply ignore what the

4:39

court says. And I think it's

4:41

pretty clear that in these deportation

4:43

cases, that's where this is going.

4:46

I mean, this is terrifying when

4:48

you think about the possible implications

4:50

of this particular constitutional crisis. What

4:52

do you make of? Trump's

4:55

musing that next he wants

4:57

to go to homegrown criminals

4:59

by which he's apparently referring

5:01

to American citizens. And it

5:03

sounds like they would be

5:05

OK with taking an American

5:07

citizen who may be a criminal, maybe

5:09

a violent criminal and shipping them off

5:11

to El Salvador. And at that point

5:13

or some other country at that point

5:15

saying the courts have no jurisdiction. There is

5:18

no writ of habeas corpus. There

5:20

is no appeal whatsoever. Is

5:22

this one we should take him

5:24

literally seriously? Is he just trolling

5:26

us? What was your reaction

5:28

to that? The rule of thumb,

5:30

my rule of thumb is

5:32

when he says something, believe him.

5:34

He is incredibly transparent. He

5:36

just says what he's thinking. And

5:38

often then that leads to

5:40

action. And this isn't that far

5:42

from where we are. That's

5:45

the important thing. It's easy to

5:47

imagine the administration doing this.

5:49

It's easy to imagine the same

5:51

dynamic playing out with the

5:53

court. And, you know, what once

5:55

seemed... and a total violation of

5:57

what our constitution is about now seems

5:59

to be on the table. So I

6:01

take it very seriously. I think him

6:03

saying that is as much of a

6:05

red flag as you get. It's clearly

6:07

on his mind. And again,

6:09

the question is, if this

6:11

happens, what's going to be the

6:14

response? And I don't really

6:16

know. But what a threat. And

6:18

it's not a red -blue threat.

6:20

That is a constitutional threat.

6:22

And Republicans... and supporters should realize

6:25

that the whole point of this is

6:27

the threat is then just as great to

6:29

them. The point of

6:31

a system is everyone is protected

6:33

from rampant abuse of political power,

6:35

but that's what this would be.

6:39

Well, and there has been very, very

6:41

little pushback from Republicans for this, maybe

6:43

because they don't think that he is

6:45

serious about it. But it was disturbing

6:47

listening to the laughter in the Oval

6:49

Office when he made that point. You

6:51

know, the way that they're going about

6:53

this, and it is interesting reading some

6:55

of the coverage because there are

6:57

people saying, well, OK, he's not openly

6:59

defying the court because, you know,

7:01

technically they are saying that they will

7:03

facilitate the release. Look, this is

7:06

just. This doesn't even rise

7:08

to the level of gaslighting. It almost feels

7:10

like sort of juvenile snark, like, you know,

7:12

what are you going to do about it? Sitting

7:14

there in the Oval Office with

7:17

the president of El Salvador, you know,

7:19

every judge in America has to know

7:21

that they're they're not just defying the court. They're

7:23

insulting the intelligence of the judges because everybody knows

7:25

that all Donald Trump has to do is

7:27

to say to the president of El Salvador, send

7:29

him back and he would send him back. So

7:31

this is a game that's

7:33

being. played in a

7:35

very crude sort of way. So the

7:38

question is, and you kind of

7:40

referenced this though, now this is a challenge

7:42

to the Supreme Court. I mean, did

7:44

Andrew, you're the historian, did Andrew Jackson actually

7:46

say, you know, the Justice Marshall has made

7:48

his decision, now let him enforce it? Did

7:50

that actually happen or is that apocryphal? Do

7:53

we know? The saying has been

7:56

repeated and it holds, but that's

7:58

not the executive branch, Andrew Jackson, that

8:00

we have today. It's an

8:02

era where the presidency, when Jackson

8:04

was in office, as forceful

8:06

as he was, was very weak.

8:08

So that quote is with

8:10

a very different backdrop than today,

8:12

where a president has a

8:15

massive amount of power, authority, and

8:17

an executive apparatus that Andrew

8:19

Jackson couldn't even imagine. So

8:21

you see it with something like... how

8:24

easy it is for the administration

8:26

to hit the trigger. So I think

8:28

that's really a fundamental difference, even

8:30

when that quote is done. And that

8:32

quote by Jackson is exceptional. It's

8:34

not meant to be that presidents always

8:36

say this. That's why we talk

8:39

about that quote. So I think pointing

8:41

to it is only suggesting how

8:43

off what we're seeing is right now.

8:45

And again, it's much more dangerous

8:47

given the apparatus he has at his

8:49

disposal. What

8:52

is the court going to do? What can the court

8:54

do? You mentioned this can be very difficult for the

8:56

Supreme Court to do anything about it. One

8:58

assumes that Justice Roberts wanted a

9:00

nine to nothing decision because it

9:02

would be so definitive. You go

9:04

back to the Watergate era and

9:06

that was the message sent to

9:09

Richard Nixon. It was a unanimous

9:11

court, unanimous court. And basically, they're

9:13

just scoffing at them. So what

9:15

are the options that? the Supreme

9:17

Court and the other federal judges

9:19

have at this point. Well, you

9:21

know, when the Supreme Court made

9:23

the famous Nixon decision on the

9:25

tapes and required him to turn

9:27

the tapes over to a special

9:29

prosecutor, people were worried, would Nixon

9:32

do this? And so they did

9:34

have that fear. And it wasn't

9:36

clear to the court what would

9:38

happen if he just said no,

9:40

because that lack of enforcement power

9:42

that the Supreme Court has or

9:44

weak enforcement power was always apparent.

9:46

In the end, Nixon did it

9:48

because he had a certain amount

9:50

of understanding of the process. You

9:53

know, they can hold people in

9:55

contempt. Obviously, you can go to lower

9:57

level officials who are involved in

9:59

this and the court can intimidate by

10:01

saying you're going to be held

10:04

for contempt of court and you can

10:06

be subject to fines or prison.

10:08

Problem is, President Trump has

10:10

the pardon power. Problem is federal

10:12

marshals have to enforce it.

10:14

They are under the control of

10:16

the president. So it's unclear

10:18

if they can deploy that, but

10:20

they can. It's at least

10:22

a step and they can expose

10:24

what the administration's doing. The

10:26

second won't be what the court

10:28

can do, be more what

10:30

the voters can do. I mean,

10:32

each moment like this requires

10:34

more institutional resistance and more citizen

10:36

activism and protest like we're

10:38

seeing in Iowa. We just saw

10:40

Senator... confronted on some of

10:42

these issues. That's really going to be

10:44

it. So what the court can do,

10:47

I think, I mean, they do have

10:49

that contempt of court power, but I

10:51

think in the end is to continue

10:53

to expose what is going on right

10:55

now in the Oval Office and how

10:57

far the White House is willing to

10:59

go and at least force American voters

11:01

to reckon with the reality of what's

11:03

being done. Well, your sub

11:06

stack is called the long view. So

11:08

let's take a long view on all

11:10

of this. This seems to me as

11:12

it is the constitutional crisis that we

11:14

have been waiting for. Have

11:16

we ever had a constitutional crisis

11:18

like this before? What other constitutional

11:20

crises have we had and how

11:22

were they resolved? Well, I'll point

11:25

to them, but it shouldn't make

11:27

anyone feel better, meaning we obviously

11:29

had the Civil War, which is

11:31

a total constitutional breakdown, not just

11:33

a crisis. It's resolved through war

11:35

and fighting and a lot of

11:37

death. We have certainly

11:39

the Nixon administration, which at

11:41

the time was seen. as

11:44

a constitutional crisis. The October

11:46

massacre of 1973 is when Nixon

11:48

fires the special prosecutor, Archibald

11:50

Cox. He has him fired, who

11:52

is investigating him. And that

11:54

whole era was a bit of

11:56

a crisis, not just Watergate,

11:59

but the president was impounding funds

12:01

and Congress had to reclaim

12:03

that power. He was conducting secret

12:05

operations in Cambodia. Congress had

12:07

to try to reclaim that power.

12:09

So we had Nixon too.

12:11

That's resolved with Nixon. leaving, being

12:14

pressured by his own party,

12:16

not just Democrats out of office,

12:18

including Senator Goldwater, Barry Goldwater.

12:20

It also ends with the 70s

12:22

reforms that do attempt to

12:25

restore some balance of power, like

12:27

the Budget Act of 74,

12:29

the War Powers Act of 73.

12:32

I think we're in this territory

12:34

at this point. And what

12:36

the president has that Nixon certainly

12:39

didn't have was total partisan

12:41

support at this point that seems

12:43

unbreakable. It seems unbreakable. And

12:45

also it's the inner Trump that

12:48

I think makes it different. I

12:50

do think Nixon, for many things

12:52

he did bad, still was

12:54

operating in a world where he

12:56

understood he was within. the constitutional

12:58

system where there was shame and

13:00

embarrassment. And I don't

13:02

think any of that applies to

13:04

the president. And so that makes

13:06

him more willing to take immense

13:09

risks and to just really strain

13:11

how this entire process works. You

13:13

saw it last thing with the

13:15

tariff week because he was willing

13:17

to throw not only our market,

13:19

but the global market in total

13:21

chaos because that was his preference

13:24

of the moment. You

13:26

know, I thought about this a lot and

13:28

I agree with you completely. And this is

13:30

not reassuring because, you know, as you think

13:32

back on Watergate, of course, it was a

13:34

series of crimes and scandals, but it was

13:36

also it was the stress test for our

13:38

institutions and they passed that test. And I

13:40

think that that that led to a generation

13:42

of a little bit of. complacency,

13:44

the belief that the institutions would

13:46

hold, that there were guardrails, that

13:48

a lawless president could be reined

13:50

in. That's what the story of

13:53

Watergate seemed to be. And now

13:55

that seems like a past era

13:57

because none of those things apply.

13:59

And I remember in Trump's first

14:01

term, I actually had a conversation

14:03

with John Dean of all people.

14:05

And I said, do you think

14:07

that Nixon would have survived? If

14:10

he had the media ecosystem that

14:12

Donald Trump has now, that's before all

14:14

of this stuff has happened. And

14:16

he didn't. Dean didn't hesitate. He said,

14:18

no, I think I think Trump

14:20

would. I think Nixon would have gotten

14:22

away with it. So this was

14:24

a preexisting condition that he'd already established

14:26

this base of support in the

14:28

Republican Party, this media ecosystem that was

14:30

going to support him. I mean,

14:32

Nixon had what? He had a rabbi

14:34

and a couple of, you know. random

14:37

congressman who would show for him

14:39

and everything. But things

14:41

are completely different. And

14:43

really, none of those things

14:45

that you described exist

14:48

any longer, including the internalized

14:50

sense of shame. So

14:52

I'm really struck by the

14:54

way the administration is

14:57

doubling down on this. This

15:00

this illegal mistaken

15:02

rendition of the Maryland

15:04

man. Part of me

15:06

thought that that they might go

15:08

along with the court because

15:10

they want to talk about political

15:12

terms. They want to talk about,

15:14

you know, MS -13 gang members.

15:17

Right. They want to talk about

15:19

criminals by doing what they're

15:21

doing now. They are. They're off

15:23

message because now they're talking about

15:25

defying the court. And I

15:27

understand they want this debate. I

15:29

understand they love talking about

15:31

all of this, but they are

15:33

not focusing on, I think, where

15:35

the sweet spot in American public

15:37

opinion is. And here's the

15:39

dog that didn't bark is if

15:41

the administration continues to describe this

15:43

man, Abrego Garcia, as a

15:46

criminal, they've referred to him as

15:48

a terrorist. And yet. If they had

15:50

the evidence of that, wouldn't they

15:52

have presented it? Wouldn't that be the

15:54

ultimate card for them to play?

15:56

That in fact, he is a gang

15:58

member. He is a terrorist. He

16:00

is a thug. And yet they keep

16:03

saying it. But there's no evidence. And

16:05

they haven't presented any evidence. That

16:08

seems to be rather crucial. What

16:10

we're not hearing from them. Of

16:12

course. And I mean, there is

16:14

a reason we have due process. And

16:16

the point. isn't whether

16:18

you assume someone's bad or good

16:20

or done something wrong. There's

16:22

a process to discover this. If

16:25

there's no evidence, you can't then

16:27

take action. And so the first

16:29

part was eliminating that due process

16:32

and just shipping someone to an

16:34

overseas prison. And then the second

16:36

part is what you're saying, to

16:38

make claims without evidence after this

16:40

has happened. And they have not

16:42

exposed it. And I do think

16:44

politically, I mean, look, there are

16:46

vulnerabilities. Trump had a

16:49

lot of trouble in that first

16:51

term. He lost the election. He

16:53

lost in... know, the midterms, he

16:55

didn't do well, the Republicans in

16:57

2000. And I think in

16:59

this case, you have put your

17:01

finger on one of his weaknesses

17:04

is he can easily move from

17:06

a position of strength to weakness

17:08

as quickly as he can do

17:10

the opposite. And I think with

17:12

this, he has now turned it

17:14

into the confrontation with the courts

17:16

rather than what you're saying, focusing

17:18

on gangs and danger and violence

17:20

and crime, which is something that

17:22

helps him very much. I think

17:24

a second issue I'm looking at,

17:26

and probably you are as well,

17:28

is... is the reaction from the

17:30

public, not only with deportation, but

17:32

when a lot of these policies

17:34

start to sink in, you're seeing

17:36

a response in the state and

17:38

local level, not just from institutional

17:40

leaders. but from citizens at

17:42

town halls and at rallies the

17:44

other weekend. And I think that

17:47

will only intensify as this goes

17:49

on. So there are ways in

17:51

which his kind of chaos can

17:53

easily backfire. And I think in

17:55

this case, you're seeing that very

17:57

clearly. Yeah, I am reluctant to

17:59

talk about polls and how polls

18:02

work on this, because quite frankly.

18:04

I actually don't care what the

18:06

polls tell us about the illegal

18:08

rendition. It's wrong. I

18:10

mean, I don't care if a majority

18:12

of Americans want to do away with due

18:14

process. But it is interesting, as you're

18:16

pointing out, public opinion is shifting. He is

18:19

underwater. He's lost tremendous. He's

18:21

lost tremendous numbers, including on the

18:23

economy, which is deadly. The one area.

18:25

that he is still above water

18:28

is immigration, at least has been. This

18:30

is his strong point, which again

18:32

is why the pundits tell us he

18:34

wants to talk about this. But

18:36

if people begin to see this as

18:38

him being lawless or dangerous, he

18:41

could lose the one issue that's working

18:43

for him. Okay, so since we've

18:45

been doing the Nixon thing here, Nixon's

18:48

also remembered for having an enemies

18:50

list, which now seems rather benign.

18:52

Compared to the enemies list that

18:54

Donald Trump has, because Donald Trump

18:56

has an enemy list and he's

18:58

doing something about it. He is

19:00

targeting them. He is ordering investigations.

19:02

He is punishing them. He is

19:05

slashing funds. It really is remarkable.

19:07

You know, if Richard Nixon had

19:09

done any of the things that

19:11

Donald Trump has done, basically on

19:13

any news cycle, like on the

19:15

Chris Krebs thing, it would have

19:17

been an absolute firestorm back then.

19:19

But we are seeing. the,

19:23

you know, the pure retribution, which

19:25

we could focus on. But I

19:27

want to talk about what's going

19:29

on. But I

19:31

also want to talk about, I mean,

19:33

we've seen people cave in. We've seen

19:35

the law firms cave in. But Harvard

19:37

pushed back. Let's talk about that. Because

19:40

the record in higher education is really,

19:42

really mixed. A lot of

19:44

the universities seem to want to keep

19:46

their heads down or go along with

19:48

them. I talk with... on this podcast

19:50

with Michael Roth, who's the president of

19:52

Wesleyan University. He was one of the

19:54

few university presidents who was out there

19:56

early saying, guys, you have to resist

19:58

this. You have to push back. So

20:00

talk to me about why Harvard has

20:02

decided to draw this line and how

20:04

do you think that's going to play

20:06

out? I mean, what's going on? mean,

20:08

I don't I don't know internally how

20:10

the president thinks or what's going on,

20:12

but the demands are. It's

20:15

not just excessive. They're

20:17

not legitimate or sustainable.

20:19

You can't have the

20:21

executive branch control universities.

20:23

The whole point of

20:25

universities is to give

20:27

room for education, for

20:29

basic research. You'd

20:31

think a conservative, someone from the

20:33

Republican Party, which he is, would

20:35

appreciate that value. And I think

20:37

he ratcheted up what he wanted

20:39

to do in terms of having

20:42

a hand on almost everything that

20:44

was going on that I don't

20:46

think the university had any choice.

20:48

I think more university leaders, you're

20:50

hearing a little more now from.

20:53

I think you're going to hear others.

20:55

There's a lot of letters of support

20:57

for Harvard from the presidents of these

20:59

other institutions. And it was what you

21:01

said. I mean. They

21:04

demanded all these concessions from Colombia.

21:06

Colombia initially was agreeing to

21:08

it. And then they asked for

21:10

more. That's how this works. So

21:13

it's better, I think. And I

21:15

think Harvard realizes it is to stand

21:17

your ground and to force the

21:19

fight now rather than to giving in

21:21

so much, which then becomes the

21:23

dynamic everyone follows. And you can't run

21:25

a university in the way one

21:28

of the great universities of the world

21:30

producing all sorts of. research and

21:32

leaders, here is the executive branch going

21:34

after it. And I think that

21:36

was probably all in the mind of

21:38

the leadership at this point. And

21:41

so they decided to say, no, it's

21:43

a huge risk. It's going to

21:45

be a huge fight. Federal money is

21:47

powerful. But I

21:49

think it's a fight that they think

21:51

is worth having. And I think many

21:53

other leaders do as well. Well,

21:55

you know, I mean, as you

21:57

know, I've been a longtime very vocal

21:59

critic of higher education. I think

22:02

there are a lot of reforms that

22:04

needed to take place. But this

22:06

is not about free speech, about wokeism,

22:08

about undergraduate teaching, about any of

22:10

those things. They are

22:12

now targeting scientific research

22:14

into things like Lou

22:17

Gehrig's disease, you

22:19

know, major diseases out there,

22:21

you know, heart disease, vaccines,

22:23

etc. There is a

22:25

real concerted attack on the

22:27

scientific infrastructure of the country that

22:30

has nothing to do with

22:32

the culture war issues that they

22:34

claim to be waging. Correct.

22:37

And if you talk at any

22:39

of these universities, it's the scientists

22:41

who are feeling... the biggest burden.

22:43

I mean, a lot of these

22:45

other disciplines don't rely as much

22:47

on this kind of money, but

22:49

it's not simply that they're stopping

22:51

and they're going to start again.

22:53

If you talk to most of

22:55

these scientists, this is an endpoint

22:57

for the research because they can't

22:59

just start it up. This has

23:01

been going on for years. They

23:03

have trials going on. And so

23:05

it's devastating. And this isn't about

23:07

elite places of academia. This is

23:09

research that affects everyone, whether you're

23:11

living in the reddest part of

23:13

the country to the bluest part,

23:15

the medicines, the health care and

23:17

the technology. We haven't even talked

23:19

about that that comes out of

23:21

this kind of research. Silicon Valley

23:23

was born on the foundation of

23:25

federal money, defense money that went

23:27

to that region. All of this

23:29

is going to be either. Vanishing

23:31

or severely weakened? And I don't

23:33

know what to say other than

23:35

there is no scientist disputing. That's

23:37

what's going on in the universities

23:39

right now. So it's really not

23:41

just a war on the universities.

23:43

He's conducting a war on science.

23:45

And that should be clear to

23:47

people what they're supporting as he

23:49

does this. No, and it

23:51

would be interesting to see how that plays

23:53

out. Now, one caveat here. Bob

23:56

Bauer, a well -known lawyer, has

23:58

a Substack post. And he has

24:00

a little cautionary note that Harvard

24:02

has left itself a little bit

24:04

of wiggle room to negotiate a

24:06

settlement with the Trump administration. And

24:08

the lawyers they have hired

24:11

to defend them are very close

24:13

to Trump world. And so

24:15

there are people who have lines

24:17

of communication open. So his

24:19

suggestion is that. What, as you

24:21

pointed out, the Trump administration's

24:23

demands were literally impossible for Harvard.

24:25

Harvard wanted to make some

24:27

sort of deal, but the Trump

24:30

administration went so maximalist that

24:32

they could not possibly do it.

24:34

But they've hired some kind

24:36

of Trumpy lawyers, the guy that

24:38

represented Eric Adams, somebody who

24:40

advises Trump's organization on ethics. I

24:42

mean, not the resistance

24:44

attack dog. So we'll see

24:46

how that plays out. But

24:48

you also hope that Harvard's

24:51

stand will be contagious, that courage

24:53

is contagious. And the statement

24:55

that you referenced from 60 university

24:57

presidents, I think, was significant.

24:59

Speaking of lack of courage, I

25:01

continue to be just blown

25:03

away by all these fat cat

25:06

law firms that think that

25:08

they can get into bed with

25:10

Donald Trump, that they can

25:12

make a deal with him, that

25:14

rather than challenge. orders

25:16

that are clearly, and I'm not

25:18

a lawyer, but clearly unconstitutional that

25:21

they would lose if they were

25:23

challenged. One big law

25:25

firm after another agreed to this

25:27

deal, which they will provide hundreds

25:29

of millions of dollars in pro

25:31

bono work. And there's a piece

25:33

in the New York Times with

25:35

lots of different bylines saying that

25:37

law firms are now kind of

25:39

discovering that since they've agreed to

25:41

be part of this gigantic Trump

25:43

slush fund. The Trump is going

25:45

to make lots of demands on

25:47

them. The Trump is going to

25:50

use them. And they're in a

25:52

position right now, having cut off

25:54

parts of their souls, that they

25:56

can't defy him. If he says,

25:58

I want you to defend my

26:00

pillow guy. I want you to

26:02

defend Dinesh D'Souza. I want you

26:04

to litigate some completely bullshit thing

26:06

that I'm doing as president. They

26:09

either have to go along with it or

26:11

they're back where they started from. So what

26:13

a surprise to these law firms now having

26:15

a little bit of buyer's regret or ought

26:17

to have buyer's regret when they find out

26:19

how much Trump is going to ask of

26:21

them, which I think is totally predictable. I

26:23

mean, look, they're going to have regret for

26:25

that. This pro bono work

26:27

also is a bit of a

26:29

zero sum game in that they're

26:31

not doing other kinds of work,

26:33

which is part of the administration's

26:35

hope. They won't take cases. That

26:38

will be a problem for the

26:40

administration. I do think there are

26:42

law firms that are now also

26:44

saying no. There was just a

26:46

major court case where the courts

26:48

ruled clearly in favor of the

26:50

law firms. And I think that

26:52

also will make the law firms

26:54

like Paul Weiss, that was one

26:56

of the first. to do this,

26:58

not only regret that the deal

27:00

isn't an endpoint, it's just the

27:02

beginning, I'm sure, for the administration,

27:04

but it also just it sullies

27:06

their legacy. Some of these great

27:08

firms that have done amazing things

27:10

for the law now will be

27:12

remembered the leadership for this. And

27:14

as other law firms say no. That

27:17

highlights the mistaken path that some of

27:19

these others are taking. So I think

27:21

it's a big mistake. And these are

27:23

firms with a lot of money, a

27:25

lot of clout, a lot of clientele.

27:27

I just spoke with a lawyer who

27:29

I know from one of the firms

27:31

that said no. and

27:33

was in the case that won.

27:35

And I remember I asked him about

27:37

this and he said, no, we're

27:39

not going to, we're not settling with

27:42

this. This is not legitimate. It's

27:44

not constitutional. No, no, no, no. And

27:46

so the question is like with

27:48

universities, as more firms do that rather

27:50

than the Paul Weiss path. Does

27:53

it empower, embolden other law firms

27:55

to do the same? I think it's

27:57

essential. And I think the deals

27:59

that are being offered are not real

28:01

deals. All it is is a

28:03

kind of effort to intimidate and then

28:05

open the door for much more. So I

28:07

think if they don't say no now,

28:09

they're only going to lose much more. They're

28:11

not actually going to stop this. You

28:14

know, I know that's become kind of

28:16

a cliche, you know, that. That, you know,

28:18

people need to imagine, you know, when

28:20

they're sitting around with their grandchildren and they

28:22

say, you know, what did you do

28:24

during this period? But I'm actually imagining conversations

28:26

that are taking place right now between

28:29

the children of some of these senior lawyers.

28:33

saying, dad or mom, why

28:35

are you doing this? Look at what

28:37

Trump is doing at this particular moment.

28:39

We're not making a deal with Dwight

28:41

Eisenhower. This is not Harry Truman. This

28:43

is not Bill Clinton. This is Donald

28:45

Trump who is doing X, Y, Z.

28:47

We can make the entire list. And

28:49

that conversation has got to be pretty

28:51

intense because they're going to have to

28:53

explain that not just to their partners

28:55

and to their clients, but I think

28:57

to people in their lives who are

28:59

thinking, Your whole life, you

29:01

claim to be a person of

29:03

rule of law and of principle, and

29:05

you've done so well and all

29:07

of this. But again,

29:09

one of the lessons that we've

29:11

learned, which I suppose we should

29:14

have known, is that we were

29:16

under the illusion that the rich

29:18

and the powerful. would be the

29:20

most able to resist or willing

29:22

to resist an authoritarian president. And

29:24

Donald Trump's instinct was, though, that

29:27

if you're rich and you're powerful,

29:29

that means you have more to lose.

29:31

And so we've seen this collapse

29:33

of the rich and the powerful who

29:35

have the fuck you money, but

29:37

apparently not willing to say fuck you.

29:39

Right. Yes. And

29:42

I mean, what they can lose

29:44

actually pales in comparison to

29:46

what regular people lose if a

29:48

lot of this goes into

29:50

effect, which it is going into

29:52

effect. And that's really a

29:54

kind of sad statement on wealthier

29:56

people who are not standing

29:58

their ground. it's not even a

30:00

liberal. conservative argument we're

30:03

having this isn't you know reagan

30:05

versus the democrats versus mondale this is

30:07

not about that this is about

30:09

institutions and about the health of the

30:11

system and this is where people

30:13

with clout have to risk some of

30:15

the money they have and some

30:17

of the uh you know resources they

30:20

have to fight this fight because

30:22

i think the question you're saying young

30:24

people we hope are asking is

30:26

the question of the moment i mean

30:28

when you're in the middle of

30:30

a battle this severe. It's

30:33

going to take not just having

30:35

the right tool to fight back. It's

30:37

going to have to be the

30:39

right courage to do this and understanding

30:41

there are moments in history where

30:43

people are judged based on where they

30:45

stand on the issues of the

30:47

day. And, you know, I

30:49

remember at the inauguration when

30:51

you saw those high tech people

30:53

sitting right there. You

30:56

know, lining up because the financial

30:58

interest pushed them in the wrong direction.

31:00

That was a moment where people

31:02

were making the wrong decision. There's still

31:05

time and you're seeing some movement.

31:07

But but this is the period in

31:09

the next few weeks where you're

31:11

really going to need to see more

31:13

people making that kind of decision. No,

31:16

I think you're right. And I think we need

31:18

to remind ourselves that, you know, this is we're

31:20

still in the first 80 days of this presidency

31:22

and history is on. Fast forward.

31:24

I mean, you're the historian, but

31:26

I mean, the pace of change is

31:28

so great. And there's always a

31:30

lag time between when something happens and

31:32

the reaction to it, because I

31:34

think a lot of people are still

31:36

in denial. I think they engage

31:38

in delusions. I cannot tell you the

31:40

number of conservatives who said, oh,

31:43

Charlie, you suffer from derangement syndrome. It's

31:45

not going to be that bad.

31:47

Stop talking about a threat to democracy.

31:49

And many of them, well,

31:51

they haven't called me or anything, but

31:53

But you can see that they're

31:55

going, oh, my God, we should have

31:57

known, but we didn't. And this

31:59

is horrible. And the business community, of

32:02

course, is coming to grips with

32:04

their deep belief that the tariff threat

32:06

was simply the loaded gun on

32:08

the table that was never actually going

32:10

to be fired. Right. So let's

32:12

talk about tariffs for a moment and

32:14

what that says. You made the

32:17

point a couple of days ago, I

32:19

believe, you know, that. This is

32:21

just one more issue that reminds us

32:23

that expertise actually matters, that actually

32:25

knowing what you're doing is not irrelevant.

32:27

So talk to me about that

32:29

in the context of this trade war

32:31

we're in. Yeah, look, we have

32:34

all this skepticism about experts. It's not

32:36

just a conservative skepticism. A lot

32:38

of liberals have it. But you see

32:40

in these moments, expertise that has

32:42

been a big part of American politics,

32:44

certainly since World War II. We've

32:46

brought in economists. We've brought in scientists.

32:48

They're not perfect. They make mistakes.

32:51

They're not the decision makers. But boy,

32:53

is it important to have them

32:55

around the table, independent analysis. So that

32:57

when a president says, I'm going

32:59

to do X, you have people. room

33:01

and say, that might be bad.

33:03

That might not have a good effect.

33:06

It will do X, Y, and

33:08

Z. And to have a president at

33:10

least consider that as part of

33:12

the deliberation, part of the decision -making

33:14

process, has really been essential to our

33:16

great moments, scientific moments, military moments,

33:18

economic ones. The president doesn't

33:21

believe in that. He doesn't

33:23

have that around the table. I

33:25

think most of the experts

33:27

and economists he has around him

33:29

are people who were there

33:31

because they are known to be

33:33

loyal. They're not independent. They're

33:35

not providing that objective analysis. And

33:37

I thought the trade week,

33:39

whatever you want to call that

33:41

week of - Liberation Day. Wealth,

33:44

it's, yeah, imprisonment

33:46

day in terms of a

33:48

lot of wealth being lost revealed

33:50

that when you have a

33:52

president acting by the gut, by

33:55

instinct and not listening to

33:57

what every economist almost was saying

33:59

would probably happen, this what

34:01

happens. And so it's really essential

34:03

that. This can't be the

34:05

pattern for the future. Well,

34:07

it is the pattern for the future

34:10

of this administration, I think. I mean, if

34:12

the only grown up in the room

34:14

is is Secretary Besant. And apparently he had

34:16

gone around everyone and said, oh, don't

34:18

worry about this. He's the guy that came

34:20

up with the it's a gun, but

34:22

nobody will ever fire it because it would

34:24

be too crazy. And so maybe he

34:26

talked Trump sort of off the ledge. But

34:28

the thing about Trump is that I

34:31

think he's a terrible negotiator. I think that

34:33

that's a myth, but he is a

34:35

bully and he does have that instinct of

34:37

figuring out people's weakness. But the problem

34:39

is what happens when the bully comes up

34:41

against another bully or somebody who is

34:43

even tougher? And it's not clear to me

34:45

that in this game of chicken with

34:47

China, that China is going to blink. And

34:50

so what does Trump do then? It's

34:53

not simply the tariff back and

34:55

forth with a tougher. partner,

34:59

all the other issues we have

35:01

been talking about are going to

35:03

have terrible effects on our economic

35:05

competitiveness with China, where China is

35:07

investing in all of this. They

35:09

are investing in science. They're investing

35:11

in technology. Tom Friedman's been talking

35:13

and writing about this a lot.

35:15

And so the actual heart of

35:17

the economy is that. And so

35:19

not only is he doing the

35:21

tariff war, he's gutting what we

35:23

need to actually have an advantage.

35:25

But I think with China, he

35:27

has a very... formidable opponent, they

35:29

clearly don't feel the need to

35:31

budge very easily. And they can

35:33

wield their own power over the

35:35

United States. And I don't know

35:37

what he does. I mean, one

35:39

path is he backs down. It

35:41

calms him because he realizes he

35:43

can't win. But he'll claim victory,

35:45

right? I mean, you need to

35:47

understand that. He'll always claim victory.

35:49

That would be a better path.

35:51

The other path is he intensifies

35:53

and accelerates, again, just convinced by

35:55

his own rhetoric that he can

35:57

win. And in the process, it's

35:59

not about him. It's about the

36:01

United States and the country that

36:03

he weakens us and he undermines

36:05

our economic strength and growth for

36:07

this. dispute that is being handled

36:09

in the way he wants to handle it. You

36:12

know, those are the two

36:14

paths that I see right now.

36:16

But I do think he's

36:18

facing with the Chinese leadership someone

36:20

that will not be easily

36:23

moved. Well, I thought it

36:25

was revealing over the weekend when

36:27

We had those reports that he was

36:29

going to exempt computers and smartphones. And

36:32

then they kind of backed off

36:34

and said that was temporary, just complete

36:36

confusion. But he understands the pain,

36:38

the political pain that it would cause

36:40

for him if, in fact, prices

36:42

of popular items went up. I mean,

36:44

obviously, high profile, the iPhone, you

36:46

know, the computer. But there are a

36:49

lot of other things as well.

36:51

It's interesting to me, I come from

36:53

Wisconsin. that he's already talking

36:55

about a bailout for farmers. We did

36:57

this before. So not only do we

36:59

impose a tariff that makes food more

37:01

expensive, we get to pay twice when

37:03

we pay our taxes to bail the

37:05

farmers out. He did it before. That's

37:08

an indication that he understands that

37:10

there's going to be some damage. Yeah.

37:13

And in doing all this, he's

37:15

undermining. at least in theory, what

37:18

the tariffs are meant to

37:20

achieve because he puts them on.

37:22

He's tough and firm. Then

37:24

he backs away. Then he's creating

37:26

exemptions, both here. Then we're

37:28

paying on top of it subsidies

37:30

to make up for the

37:32

damage that is clearly happening. That's

37:34

a mess. That's not economic

37:36

policy. It's a mess. And I

37:38

think he already, within whatever

37:41

it's been, a week, a week

37:43

plus, has really not only

37:45

exposed the dangers of this cherry

37:47

-built tariff system that he put

37:49

into place. But he's also

37:51

shown, certainly to China, his own

37:53

limitations and his own vulnerabilities

37:55

from the bond market to constituents

37:57

in red states who are

37:59

going to feel the pain of

38:01

these tariffs in some ways

38:03

more than anyone. China knows

38:05

exactly now what buttons to

38:07

press if he continues with this.

38:09

And so if this is

38:12

the art of the deal, I'm

38:14

not sure it's a... of

38:16

model they want to teach at

38:18

the business schools, because it

38:20

doesn't seem to me to be

38:22

a particularly effective path. Well,

38:24

and also note the

38:26

potential for corruption here. I

38:29

think one of the

38:31

singular aspects of the

38:33

Trump administration is the

38:35

raw, in broad daylight,

38:37

corruption. Historically,

38:40

this is what free marketers have been

38:42

warning about for more than a century, the

38:44

potential of picking winners and losers. And

38:46

by the way, conservatives used to hate the

38:48

idea of the federal government picking winners

38:50

and losers. Well, now it's not just the

38:52

federal government. It's one man who can

38:54

rule by fear and favor that I'm going

38:56

to give you an exemption. I'm not

38:58

going to give you an exemption if you

39:01

play ball with me. Grover

39:03

Cleveland himself. called

39:05

this The Communism of Pelf, which I

39:07

thought was a great... We had to

39:09

bring the word pelf back, but Griff.

39:11

And you know that he's going to

39:13

maximize the use of that, which leads

39:16

me to something you wrote about earlier

39:18

this week that I've thought about over

39:20

the years in a cynical way. Arthur

39:23

Schlesinger Jr. wrote

39:25

a book called The

39:27

Imperial Presidency back in

39:30

the 1970s. I

39:32

think inspired mainly by Richard Nixon,

39:34

but there was that, it feels

39:36

like there was a brief moment

39:38

for like five minutes when people

39:40

said, you know, this presidency thing's

39:42

getting out of hand. We have

39:44

imbued the presidency with too many

39:47

powers. So talk to me about

39:49

what you think about looking back

39:51

at Arthur Schlesinger. Did Democrats just

39:53

lose interest in that whole issue?

39:55

when they won the office. And

39:57

that's the way it seems. The

39:59

Republicans are concerned about it when

40:01

there's a Democrat in the White

40:03

House. Democrats are concerned about it

40:05

when there's a Republican in the

40:07

White House. But here we are,

40:09

what, 50 years after that book,

40:11

and the presidency is more imperial

40:13

than ever. Look, I

40:15

think it was a serious moment. So

40:17

he publishes that in 73. He

40:20

had worked for Kennedy. as

40:22

a speechwriter and advisor. And the

40:24

book is not just about Nixon.

40:26

It's also about Lyndon Johnson. It's

40:28

about essentially how war power had

40:30

really led to an expansion which

40:32

Schlesinger admits he himself did not

40:34

recognize how dangerous this could be.

40:36

And you do have a period

40:39

in the 1970s where I think

40:41

it's taken seriously in both parties.

40:43

You have Nixon resigning. You have

40:45

the War Powers Act. You have

40:47

the budget reform of 74, which

40:49

takes power. back to Congress. You

40:51

have the CIA reforms, which is

40:53

actually part of this year. You

40:55

have an independent council, which becomes

40:57

controversial, but it is created as

41:00

part of the effort to reign

41:02

in the president. Jimmy Carter is

41:04

kind of an anti -president president.

41:06

He does everything powerful. possibly

41:08

to be powerless. But over

41:10

time, it did erode. I

41:12

mean, the attraction of the

41:14

presidency in an age of

41:16

big government and international obligations

41:18

is very strong. It's easier

41:21

than a messy Congress. Polarization

41:23

in Congress made things harder to

41:25

achieve. So presidents tried this route.

41:27

And then we've had national security

41:29

crises like 9 -11, which led

41:31

to a restoration of executive affairs.

41:33

So lots of things. It

41:36

was more than five minutes, but

41:38

lots of things eroded that. But

41:40

the lesson of that book, the

41:42

lesson of that decade are very

41:44

pertinent right now. And we've just

41:46

added a layer where even the

41:48

critics and the people who feared

41:50

the imperial presidency assumed that... the

41:53

most imperial president would have a

41:55

respect at some level for the

41:57

constitutional, for the constitution, would have

41:59

some level of shame if things

42:01

were exposed. And now we have

42:03

a situation where that doesn't exist.

42:05

So I think that's kind of

42:07

a short history of how we

42:10

move from Schlesinger's book to where

42:12

we are today. But it's worth

42:14

reading the book because it's kind

42:16

of one of those amazing texts

42:18

that outline what we are facing.

42:20

One last thing. this is that

42:22

the end of his book, he

42:24

offers this incredible warning, Schlesinger, where

42:27

he says it's not simply about

42:29

the president. What really matters, he

42:31

has a paragraph, is do

42:33

the other institutions respond? He says

42:35

they are not gone. The courts,

42:37

Congress, the media, universities, he actually

42:39

lists all of these. He says

42:41

the real question is in moments

42:43

when presidents are doing this, Do

42:45

they stand up? Do they do

42:48

something? They have the capacity to,

42:50

but do they have the will

42:52

to do it? And I think

42:54

that message is also extremely important

42:56

right now. We're not going to

42:58

dismantle the presidency and presidential power

43:00

in the next year or two,

43:02

but all these other institutions in

43:04

some ways. Right now, it's on

43:06

them, it's on all of us

43:08

to defend, again, not red versus

43:11

blue, blue versus red, but the

43:13

health of a constitution and democracy

43:15

versus those who are eroding it.

43:17

It's going to be hard to pick

43:20

up those pieces, though. That's part

43:22

of the problem. You know, thinking that

43:24

this erosion of these norms, it's

43:26

like going bankrupt. You do it gradually,

43:28

gradually, and then all at once.

43:30

And all of those assumptions are gone.

43:32

And it's difficult to see what

43:34

the road back is if you have

43:36

one political party that no longer

43:38

supports it. Quite frankly, if

43:40

power is shifted, we just don't

43:42

even know what people's expectations are. Julian

43:45

Zelizer, this has been a real pleasure.

43:47

Thank you so much for joining me. People

43:49

can find your work over at the

43:51

Longview on Substack. You're on all the time

43:53

because you do not sleep. I don't

43:55

believe that. So thank you, Julian. Thank you

43:58

so much. Thanks Thanks so much for

44:00

having me on. It was a pleasure. And

44:02

thank you all for listening to

44:05

this episode of To the Contrary

44:07

Podcast. We do this every week,

44:09

because now, more than ever, it's

44:11

important to remember that we are

44:13

not the crazy ones. Thank you.