Podcast Summary
A shift towards vengeance in American politics: Trump's second term would focus on retribution and purging perceived enemies, with his policies potentially hindered by the COVID-19 pandemic
Donald Trump's potential second term would represent a significant shift from his first, with a focus on vengeance and rooting out perceived enemies. The reporting from The Daily's Maggie Haberman, Charlie Savage, and Jonathan Swan revealed that Trump's last year in his first term was marked by a desire for retribution, leading him to bring back loyalists and purge perceived disloyalists from his administration. Additionally, many of his desired policies from this period were hindered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, this series of episodes aims to explore what a second Trump presidency would mean for American democracy.
Trump's Second Term: A Power-Driven Agenda: Trump's second term would prioritize his personal desire for increased power, aligning with his team's goals, potentially leading to a presidency unlike any other.
Donald Trump's potential second term would prioritize his personal desire for increased power, with him seeking to remove any internal barriers or constraints. This ambition for power aligns with the policy agendas of those around him, who aim to achieve their goals by supporting Trump's power accumulation. The reporting reveals that Trump's focus on power extends beyond policy details and that he was stymied in his first term due to the presence of impediments within the government. The findings suggest a presidency unlike any other if Trump were to secure a second term.
Appointing loyal individuals for a second term: Trump plans to remove hindrances, appoint ideologically aligned individuals, and avoid hiring regrettable people in his second term to enact policies effectively.
During a potential second term, former President Trump aims to remove obstacles and encumbrances that hindered his policies during his first term. He plans to appoint ideologically aligned individuals in key positions, particularly in his cabinet, to help enact his agenda. Trump's biggest regret from his first term is the people he hired, and he intends to avoid repeating this mistake. Additionally, Trump seeks to appoint lawyers who will say "yes" instead of raising legal objections. This systematic vetting of lawyers for a potential second term has already begun. In the first term, politically appointed lawyers, often from the Federalist Society, acted as constraints and raised rule of law questions. However, in Trump's current view, these lawyers are now considered "squishes" and insufficiently supportive. This shift in perspective underscores the importance of appointing loyal individuals in critical roles to help Trump achieve his policy goals in a second term.
Trump's Efforts to Change Government Personnel: During Trump's presidency, he sought to reshape government personnel through non-traditional means, including the use of executive orders and the involvement of outside groups like The Federalist Society and America First Legal Group.
During the Trump administration, there was a push to clear away perceived obstacles at the higher levels of government through non-traditional means. Leonard Leo and The Federalist Society played a significant role in delivering Trump's Supreme Court picks, but Trump's relationship with them has soured. In its place, Stephen Miller's America First Legal Group is vetting lawyers. Trump's focus has also extended to removing what he calls "snakes" or perceived enemies from lower levels of government. The Federal government's career officials, numbering over 2,000,000, are protected by procedures that make it difficult to fire them. Trump's team, led by James Shirk, came up with an executive order (Schedule F) that could reclassify up to 50,000 employees as political appointees, allowing their firing and replacement. However, the legality of this order is uncertain, as it was rescinded by Biden and has not been tested in court. Ultimately, the Trumpified Supreme Court will decide whether a president has the power to implement such a large-scale personnel change.
Supreme Court's Interest in Expanding President's Power Could Lead to Radical Immigration Policies: The Supreme Court's conservative justices' desire to expand presidential power may facilitate radical immigration policies, such as increased deportations, militarized borders, and the end of birthright citizenship, potentially without legal objections or challenges from lower-ranking employees.
The current Supreme Court, particularly the six conservative justices, have a long-standing interest in increasing executive power, specifically the president's ability to remove those who don't align with his desires. This could pave the way for more radical policy changes, particularly in immigration. The Trump administration has proposed a significant crackdown on immigration, including increasing deportations, militarizing the border, and ending birthright citizenship. The potential personnel changes in the government could make it easier to implement these policies, even if they raise legal concerns. The absence of voices raising legal objections could lead to lower-ranking employees feeling compelled to comply rather than challenging potentially unlawful actions. This dynamic could result in a more authoritarian approach to governance.
Trump's Orbit Wants to Eliminate Executive Branch Independence: Trump's push for a unitary executive theory could lead to the elimination of independent agencies, giving him total control over significant parts of the government.
Trump's orbit aims to eradicate any pockets of independence within the executive branch of the government, as they believe executive power is vested solely in the president. This concept, known as the unitary executive theory, could lead to the elimination of independent agencies if Trump manages to secure a Supreme Court ruling in his favor. These agencies, such as the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission, currently retain some degree of independence despite falling under the executive branch. Trump's desire for control over these agencies, particularly the Federal Reserve, was evident during his first term when he publicly criticized their decisions on interest rates. If successful, Trump's efforts to bring these agencies under his authority would result in him exercising total control over significant chunks of the government that have historically had checks and balances in place.
Presidency vs Independent Agencies: Balancing Power and Independence: Presidential interference with independent agencies could lead to far-reaching consequences, including potential misuse of regulatory powers and threats to democratic norms and institutions.
The relationship between the presidency and independent agencies, such as the Federal Reserve and the Department of Justice, is a complex and evolving issue. While these agencies are intended to operate independently to promote long-term economic and political stability, there have been concerns that a president could potentially undermine this independence for short-term political gains. This discussion highlighted the potential implications of such a scenario, particularly in relation to President Trump's past statements and actions regarding agencies like the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice. If a president were to successfully challenge the independence of these agencies, it could have far-reaching consequences, potentially leading to the use of regulatory powers to punish political opponents or entities that criticize them. This raises important questions about the balance of power between the presidency and independent agencies, and the potential impact on democratic norms and institutions.
Trump's potential use of DOJ for political purposes in a second term: Trump may pressure DOJ to open investigations against enemies, potentially halting ongoing cases against him, and could result in politically motivated charges.
A second term for Trump could mean an even more intense use of the Justice Department for political purposes. During his first term, Trump pressured the department to open investigations into his enemies, and he may seek to force charges against people even without sufficient evidence in a second term. This would be a direct use of federal law enforcement power for political reasons, and it could mean an end to ongoing investigations and charges against Trump himself. The Justice Department's interpretation of the Constitution grants a sitting president temporary immunity from legal process, so federal cases against Trump would likely stop while he's in office. However, state cases could continue, and it remains to be seen how Trump would handle those. Overall, a Trump second term could bring significant changes to the role of the Justice Department in American politics.
Consolidation of presidential power under Trump: Trump's presidency builds on long-standing conservative efforts to expand executive authority, challenging democratic norms and values, but not yet the end of American democracy.
The current political climate under the Trump administration represents a significant consolidation of presidential power and intolerance for dissent, which builds upon a long-standing conservative effort to expand executive authority. This trend, while not yet the end of American democracy, poses a threat to our democratic norms and values. The Republican conservative movement has been attempting to increase the power of the presidency since the Nixon era, and Trump is taking advantage of these precedents to move in a more volatile and authoritarian direction. American-style democracy, which includes checks and balances and separation of powers, is being challenged by this concentration of power. Trump's admiration for authoritarian leaders further highlights this concern. While it's not the end of democracy, it does represent a shift towards a more volatile and less democratic style of governance.
Concerns over Trump's Presidency and Balance of Power: Trump's presidency raised concerns about executive power, with some fearing an authoritarian style of governance, but few legislative efforts have been made to constrain future administrations, making future elections and Congress control crucial.
Donald Trump's actions and desires for an empowered presidency have raised concerns about the balance of power in American democracy. While some argue that executive power has always been subject to interpretation, others worry that Trump's disregard for checks and balances could lead to a more authoritarian style of governance. Despite this, there have been few legislative efforts to constrain a future Trump administration, as demonstrated during Joe Biden's presidency when Democrats held a majority in Congress. The outcome of future elections and the resulting control of Congress will be crucial in determining the extent of executive power and the health of American democracy.
Post-Trump GOP: Less Checks and Balances: The Republican Party's shift towards loyalty to Trump has weakened checks and balances, making serious oversight uncertain unless Democrats regain control.
The composition of the Republican Party in Congress has changed significantly since Trump's presidency, with disloyal members being purged. This has removed a significant barrier to executive power and reduced the ability for serious checking and balancing from the legislative branch. The only way to ensure serious oversight is if Democrats control one or both chambers, which is not a certainty. Trump's appeal to his supporters is rooted in projecting strength and the belief that Democrats are trying to destroy the country. The idea of a strong man is essential to his persona and message, and this fits neatly with the need to seize power and use it to defeat adversaries. The fear of mob violence also acts as a disciplining force within the Trumpified Republican Party.
Protests supporting Palestinian cause lead to over 800 arrests on college campuses: Over the weekend, over 200 protesters were arrested for violating campus rules, defying orders to disperse, and exhibiting antisemitic behavior during protests for Palestinian cause. Since April 18th, over 800 protesters have been arrested on college campuses.
Over the weekend, more than 200 protesters were arrested at college campuses across the country during protests supporting the Palestinian cause. Arrests were reported at Northeastern University, Arizona State University, Indiana University, and Washington University in St. Louis. Administrators and police cited violations of campus rules, defiance of orders to disperse, and antisemitic behavior as reasons for the arrests. Since April 18th, when Columbia University asked police to remove a pro Palestinian encampment, over 800 protesters have been arrested on college campuses. Columbia University has since decided not to ask police to clear the encampment. The Daily was produced by Rob Zivko and Carlos Prieto, edited by Rachel Quester with assistance from Paige Cowett and Ben Calhoun, and features original music by Powell, Alicia Batube, Diane Wong, Jim Brunsberg, and Ben Landsberg. Special thanks to Ephim Shapiro and Maddie Masiello. The Daily is hosted by Michael LaVora and will return tomorrow.
