[music]

Brigid Bergin: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, senior reporter in the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom. Coming up on today's show, we'll continue our series of interviews with New York City mayoral candidates. Up today is City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams. She entered the race relatively late but has picked up a few key endorsements. We'll hear what she's pitching for her campaign and talk through some big news related to her day job. The City Council has sued Mayor Adams over ICE reopening on Rikers Island.

Plus, later in the show, we'll talk to the person who runs the Internet's Wayback Machine, which preserves Web history. We'll talk about its importance, especially in this moment, when the Trump administration is directing some government web pages to be taken down. We'll wrap today's show with a call-in for grandparents on the role you play in your kids' and grandkids' lives and whether it's different from the role grandparents played in your life.

First, the growing conflict between attorneys for the Trump administration and the courts. Yesterday, Chief US District Judge James Boasberg of Washington, DC announced plans to launch proceedings to determine if any Trump administration officials defied his court order not to remove any Venezuelan migrants from the country. Boasberg has said that the decision to remove people on those flights back in mid-March in defiance of his earlier order amounted to "a willful disregard sufficient for the court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the government in criminal contempt."

This also marks yet another escalation in the fight between the Trump administration and the nation's judiciary, a conflict of constitutional proportions. Joining me now to help unpack how we arrived at this point, what it means going forward, and to answer your questions about the role of the courts, the rule of law, is legal scholar, author, and journalist Emily Bazelon. She is a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine and the Truman Capote Fellow for Creative Writing and Law at Yale Law School. She's also the best-selling author of Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration and is a co-host of the Slate Political Gabfest. Emily, thank you so much for joining us. I'm always so grateful to talk to you.

Emily Bazelon: Oh, that's so nice of you. It's so nice to be here.

Brigid Bergin: I want to just jump right in with that headline about Judge Boasberg's decision yesterday and give some context to how we got to this point. First, what authority was President Trump invoking initially to deport these Venezuelan migrants in the first place?

Emily Bazelon: Yes. Good place to start. In the case in Judge Boasberg's courtroom, the authority was the Alien Enemies Act. This is a super old law in the United States that had previously only been invoked in wartime, which gives the president power to deport people when they are deemed to be enemies of the United States. President Trump is using it in unprecedented circumstances when there is no war. The argument here is that there is a gang in Venezuela that is somehow a wartime invasion of the United States, even though that gang is a criminal enterprise, but not representing the Venezuelan government.

Brigid Bergin: There were individuals who were taken from the United States to El Salvador. Those flights came after a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and another group, Democracy Forward, which were suing over the President's use of that Alien Enemies Act that you mentioned. That case went before Judge Boasberg, correct?

Emily Bazelon: Yes, exactly. Basically, what happened was that there were some migrants who were locked up in detention. Somehow, they or their lawyers got wind that there were going to be these deportation flights, and so the lawyers rushed into court to say, "Wait a second, our clients haven't had any chance to go before a court. They haven't had notice, they haven't had a hearing. A lot of them say that they're not in this gang at all."

There are both factual questions about who these people are and then this legal question about whether Trump really has the authority to invoke this law in this unprecedented way. There was a rushed hearing in Judge Boasberg's courtroom. In the middle of it, it seemed possible, if not pretty clear, that the flights were taking off despite the fact that Judge Boasberg had said, "Wait a second, I'm having this hearing."

In the middle of the hearing, he said, "If it's true that these flights have gotten off the ground while we've been in the courtroom, then the government needs to turn them around and bring these people back into the country so they have a chance to contest these allegations against them." That's a really dramatic remedy, turning flights around, but there was no other remedy here because, as Judge Boasberg, I think, correctly surmised, once they were in prison in El Salvador, it was going to be very hard to get these folks back. That's the position we're in now.

Brigid Bergin: Those flights included individuals who had legal authorization to be in the United States. One of those individuals is someone whose case has garnered a lot of attention, a Maryland man, Kilmar Armando Ábrego García. What stands out about his case in particular?

Emily Bazelon: He's in a different position. He's not Venezuelan. He is from El Salvador. In 2019, he got picked up. He was in the country without authorization. There were immigration proceedings against him in which there were some allegations that he was part of another gang, MS-13. Not a lot of proof of those allegations, but one immigration judge said, "Yes, good enough. You can deport him." Then he came back into court, and he said, "Wait a second. I'm afraid that if you send me back to El Salvador, I could face violence or torture because there's a gang in El Salvador that's coming after my family."

A different immigration judge believed him and so gave an order that he would be not subject to deportation. It's called Withholding of Removal. That's the technical legal phrase, basically, the government cannot remove you, cannot deport you to El Salvador, because you have this credible fear of persecution. Since then, Ábrego García was living in Maryland. The immigration proceedings against him were just halted. He ended up on this flight to El Salvador by mistake. We know that because the government said that in court very clearly. Yet the government has refused to take any steps, as far as we know, to return him to the United States and deal with his immigration appeals and issues here.

That case is playing out in another courtroom, different from Judge Boasberg's. It's a courtroom in Maryland. The judge is Paula Xinis. She ordered the government to take steps to return him, to "facilitate his return" was the word she used. Now we're having a lot of questions from the government and stonewalling about what that actually means.

Brigid Bergin: As we continue to unpack that case and some of these other issues here, listeners, I want to invite you to join this conversation. We know that a lot of you have questions about what this showdown between the courts and the Trump administration is all about. Are you concerned that we are in a constitutional crisis? If so, is that inspiring you to do anything, to act? Are you contacting your representatives, any other actions you're taking? If you are a Trump supporter, is this how you expected the administration to carry out its deportation policies? Any other questions you may have for my guest, legal scholar, author, journalist, Emily Bazelon, you can call or text us. The number is 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692.

Emily, in this particular case, as you said, Judge Xinis had ordered the government to facilitate his return to the United States. How are Trump administration officials both defending their decision to deport him while also claiming to be following this order?

Emily Bazelon: That's a great question. There's been a split-screen of response. In the White House on Monday, President Trump, the president of El Salvador, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and some other folks were basically kind of laughing at the idea that they would take any steps to return Ábrego García and just kind of pretending that the district court judge had ordered them to send military planes into El Salvador. The president of El Salvador said, "Well, I can't smuggle him back into the country," as if that was what anyone was talking about here. There was a kind of laughing off and creating a set of pretend facts about what, in fact, is really at stake here and what the court had ordered.

Then, in court, we've seen a lot of stonewalling in which the government is pointing to slight ambiguities in a Supreme Court order that affirmed Judge Xinis. The Supreme Court said to the government, "You should be sharing what you can about the steps you're taking to bring Ábrego García back." The government is saying, "Well, there's really no information we can share here. We don't have the power to bring him back. Also, this is a zone of executive authority that the courts have no business in at all." They're really saying there should be no review by the courts here. That's the current state of play.

Brigid Bergin: Am I understanding that the Supreme Court did weigh-in in favor of Ábrego García's return in some slice?

Emily Bazelon: Yes.

Brigid Bergin: What role did they play, and what was their ruling in this case?

Emily Bazelon: They affirmed the part of Judge Xinis' order that says that the government has to facilitate his return. They also said very clearly that the government has to handle this case as if this illegal deportation to El Salvador had not happened at all. In other words, the government needs to fix this. The government has done this before. This is not the first person we've wrongfully deported. In other cases, including during the first Trump administration, the government has admitted that it screwed up in cases like this and spent months searching for people, so this is a process that the government knows how to do.

The court, I think, was politely saying in the spirit of its order, "Come on, guys, you know how to try to bring this guy back so that these immigration proceedings can properly proceed in the United States." The government is reading the tiny wiggle room in the Supreme Court order as license to just totally defy the district court.

Brigid Bergin: Wow, Emily, a listener text. "So if these folks aren't returned, what does their status become in El Salvador? Are they just permanently in jail there? Have they been charged there?"

Emily Bazelon: That is such a good question. I think all of us wish we knew the answers. As far as we know they have not been charged there. There is a contract between the United States and El Salvador, which says that our government is paying their government $6 million to imprison 300 people for a year and that what happens at the end of that year is up to the decision-making of the United States government. Further evidence, of course, that all of this is in the hands of the Trump administration in terms of what actually happens to these people.

Brigid Bergin: In addition to what we're seeing in this particular case. President Trump made a comment. We actually played it on the show yesterday. We're going to play it again today. He said that homegrowns are next. It's a little bit off-mic, so you're going to have to listen carefully because he was speaking with the president of El Salvador at the time. Let's listen to what he said.

President Trump: The homegrown criminals are next. I said homegrowns are next. The homegrowns, but you've got to build about five more places.

President of El Salvador: Yes. That's big.

[laughter]

President Trump: It's not big enough.

Brigid Bergin: For those who maybe couldn't make that out, the president was saying, "Homegrown criminals are next. I said homegrowns are next. The homegrowns. You've got to build five more places." "It's not big enough." Obviously, there was laughter at the end of it. Emily, after you take a deep breath, what is your reaction to hearing the president's comments there?

Emily Bazelon: This is the chilling idea that United States citizens could also be disappeared, shipped off into El Salvador with no due process and that that's a step our government is contemplating. Kristi Noem, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, also said about these Venezuelan migrants, that they should stay in prison for the rest of their lives in El Salvador. We're talking about some pretty dark steps here that the government is contemplating.

Brigid Bergin: Let's go to the phones. Let's go to Lee in Scarsdale. Lee, you have a question for Emily Bazelon?

Lee: Yes, I do. If the executive is not going to go ahead and enforce the judiciary's will, what's the ultimate recourse? Getting creative, can the judiciary empower state police or National Guard to carry out their wishes if it comes to this?

Emily Bazelon: That's a great question I think lots of people are wondering about. I should say that there are a bunch of steps before we get to this point. These proceedings are going to play out in Boasberg and Zinis' courtroom. They're going to eventually issue final orders that are going to be appealable. They're going to go up to the circuit courts in DC and in what's called the Fourth Circuit in Maryland. Then they're going to go up to the Supreme Court.

At the end of the road, it is possible that the crisis you're imagining will happen where the Supreme Court will order the Trump administration to do something, and the Trump administration will refuse to do it. At this point, we'll be in really uncharted territory for the United States of America. No, I don't think the Supreme Court or any federal court has the power to order the state police or the National Guard to do anything. The courts are dependent on executive authority to carry out their orders. That's how the American system works. We have not tested it in the way that you and lots of people are trying to imagine right now. The truth is, I don't really know what would happen. In the end, this is our democracy, it belongs to all of us. It is politics and the political will of the American people that will have the final say.

Brigid Bergin: Listeners, if you're just joining us, I'm Brigid Bergin filling in for Brian today. My guest is Emily Bazelon, legal scholar, author, journalist. We are talking about this ongoing conflict between the courts and the Trump administration. We're taking your calls. What are your questions for Emily? What do you think about what is happening? Are we in a constitutional crisis? Are there any actions that you're taking in response to that? The number is 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692.

Emily, another listener texted and asked, "If the Justice Department is found in criminal contempt, what are the possible penalties?" "From my perspective," the listener writes, "locking up one of the government officials is the only leverage to get this guy back in the US, as financial penalties will obviously be ignored." I know you said there were several steps, but what is some of the potential sanctions that officials could face?

Emily Bazelon: Both Boasberg and Zinis brought up the idea of contempt. Boasberg did talk about criminal contempt, where you actually could lock someone up as opposed to just fining them, which is civil contempt. First, the judges would have to identify who the person to hold in contempt actually is. Is it the lawyer standing in front of you who's evasive and refusing to answer your questions? Is it that person's boss? Is it the Attorney General or the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security? Is it the president? How far up the food chain do you go? Then, what can courts realistically expect to happen at the end of this road?

Again, we're in this very hard-to-predict territory with these questions, because this is just not a thing that usually happens where you have the government basically baiting a judge to find a government official in contempt of court.

Brigid Bergin: To that end, Emily, what are the risks to judges in these types of cases and really to the judicial branch writ large when they attempt to sanction the Justice Department?

Emily Bazelon: Well, judges have life tenure. They're supposed to be independent, right? They're not elected. They're supposed to be a step removed from our political process in a way that enables them to be really faithful to the rule of law and to making sure that people's civil rights are protected. I just want to make clear, they're in a strong position in terms of the constitutional structure in many ways.

I've been talking to a lot of judges lately, and this is, in some ways, what they're here for. They need to do their jobs. They take that really seriously. The judges I've been talking to are the opposite of cowed. That said, there are some serious security threats that are going on. People are having pizzas unannounced, unordered, delivered to their houses as a way of signaling, "We know who you are." There have been pipe bomb threats. There have been death threats. There is real concern in the federal judiciary right now about a raised security alert.

Some of that, I think, is related to the fact that we've seen really irresponsible calls from members of Congress, at one point from President Trump, calling for the impeachment of judges, not because they've been derelict in their duties, but because whoever is criticizing them just doesn't like their rulings. That is not what we use the remedy of impeachment for in the United States. There's a raising of the alert level for the judiciary right now for those reasons.

Brigid Bergin: We need to take a short break. We'll have much more with my guest, the legal scholar and journalist Emily Bazelon, and your calls coming up.

[music]

Brigid Bergin: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, filling in for Brian today. My guest is Emily Bazelon, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine and the Truman Capote Fellow for Creative Writing and Law at Yale Law School. She's also a best-selling author and co-host of the Slate Political Gabfest. Emily, I'm going to bring a caller in, Ed in Somerset County, New Jersey. Ed, I know your line's a little shaky, so go ahead with the question you have for Emily.

Ed: Hi. It's really not a question. As a Republican and lifelong family, the whole bit, this is really not what we voted for. We didn't vote for someone to take control of the government at his whim and feel that he is a king. It's dangerous flagrantly just ignoring everything that America stands for. I'm going to invoke the word treason. I didn't say that earlier. I apologize. Everything that this gentleman is doing and the people who are supporting him and facilitating his acts is just ridiculous. I urge everybody, Republicans, Independents, Democrats, dare I say, into the streets. That's the only way this is going to work. People need to get into the streets.

Brigid Bergin: Ed, can I ask you a question? You said you voted for the president. Is that correct?

Ed: Yes.

Brigid Bergin: What was it about the campaign that he led, his position, particularly on immigration, that was salient to you in the moment, and what was the moment for you when things changed?

Ed: Well, the vote was more for economy, jobs, bringing back jobs, whatever.

Brigid Bergin: Sure.

Ed: Immigration was really not on my radar, so to speak. I understand there are legals and stuff like that. It's more technology taking people's jobs. It's more automation. Look, every president deports people. Look at Obama, everybody. They do it quietly and under the radar, and do it legally. This gentleman is making a show of it and a mockery of everything because he has to be grandstanding, he has to be in the spotlight because he's a narcissist.

Brigid Bergin: Ed, thank you so much for that call. I really appreciate that perspective. Someone who identifies himself as a lifelong Republican. Emily, I want to also share a text that we got from another listener who wrote, "I'm not a supporter of the #FakePresident#Trump, but why are these bleeding-heart Liberals so worried about illegal alien gang members? Love to get your response to both of those, listeners.

Emily Bazelon: I think that there is a kind of conflation here of accusations against people being in gangs and what we've actually proved about them. I would just ask a question, if someone points a finger at someone else and says, "You're a gang member," if that was someone in your family and you knew that wasn't true, would you want a chance to be able to show, "No, that's not true," before you got deported? That's what's really at stake here.

Brigid Bergin: I want to go to another caller. Let's go to Alan in the Bronx. Alan, thanks for calling WNYC.

Alan: Thank you so much for taking my call. I'm wondering what is happening with the US Embassy there. I thought the embassies were part of supporting the American people. It belongs to us. Is the embassy involved in helping out, and why is that not happening?

Brigid Bergin: Great question. Thanks, Alan. Emily, I think he's specifically referring to the embassy in El Salvador. Is there any role for the American embassy in El Salvador to help people in this situation?

Emily Bazelon: Sure, if the Trump administration asks them to, the embassy could get involved and negotiate a release. The US Embassy is controlled by the president. It's part of the executive branch. It doesn't have its own authority to go off and do something against the wishes of the president. Interestingly, this week, a senator from Maryland, Chris Van Hollen, went to El Salvador to try to meet with Mr. Ábrego García and talk to the El Salvadoran government about this imprisonment. He was turned away, he was not allowed to meet with Ábrego García. He spoke to the vice president of El Salvador, but not the president.

Even someone really high up, a senator, can't turn this around by himself because he doesn't control the executive branch of the American government, which is an enormously big and powerful organ.

Brigid Bergin: Well, let's go to Janet in Maplewood who has a question about whether one of the other branches of government could intervene. Janet, thanks for calling WNYC.

Janet: Thanks for taking my call. Why couldn't Congress draft a bill to prohibit any citizen, immigrant, asylum seeker, or person residing in the US from being imprisoned in any country outside the US, if not within the purview or jurisdiction of the United States, to expedite them?

Emily Bazelon: Congress could do that. Congress has not been willing to challenge President Trump on really anything so far. Congress is controlled by Republicans, and Republicans seem to be, at least right now, willing to fall in line. I think your question remains incredibly important to keep asking because Congress is a coequal branch of government with the executive and with the judges. Right now, it's just kind of missing in action.

Brigid Bergin: I think there are certainly signs that congressional lawmakers are starting to hear from their constituents on this issue. I'm going to play a clip from a recent town hall meeting that Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa held. He got an earful from his constituents there. Here's a little bit of what that sounded like.

Senator Chuck Grassley: The Constitution, the framers of the Constitution said that every person, not citizen, every person within the jurisdiction of the United States has due process.

[applause]

Senator Chuck Grassley: [unintelligible 00:26:28] administration. We would like to know what you, as the people, the Congress, who are supposed to rein in this dictator, what are you going to do about it? People have been sentenced to life imprisonment in a foreign country with no due process.

[applause]

Senator Chuck Grassley: Our government cannot do anything?

[applause]

Speaker: Get [unintelligible 00:26:49].

Senator Chuck Grassley: Why won't you do your job, Senator?

Speaker: Yes.

Speaker: Yes, why?

Senator Chuck Grassley: [unintelligible 00:26:55] Can't obey the Supreme Court. Trump's not obeying the Supreme Court. He just ignores them.

Brigid Bergin: Emily, as you said, Congress has not stepped up in these issues as of yet, but some constituents are starting to raise some concerns. Without asking you to become a political pundit, are there other ways that particularly maybe members in the minority, could start to serve as a check on the executive branch, or is that just they're limited by the fact they don't have the numbers to do it?

Emily Bazelon: Well, they can talk. Right? They can speak, and that's really important. I think what you saw from Senator Van Hollen this week going to El Salvador, is trying to take another step to keep trying to make this case stay in the news. Part of what's going to happen right now is Judge Xinis' latest order was to spend two weeks having the government answer questions from the plaintiffs about what steps they are taking to facilitate this return. The government so far is not providing any new information, but there's a risk here that the case will drop out of the news for the next couple of weeks as the judge takes this pause.

I think the pause makes sense because you want to build a record for the appellate court and the Supreme Court, no matter what happens, given the posture of this case. Members of Congress and other folks with power can certainly help keep people thinking about these issues and these cases as they proceed. In order for Congress to have investigatory power, the power to subpoena officials, to bring them up to testify in Congress, they have to control either the House or the Senate. Right now, the Democrats control neither. That will be part of what is at stake in the 2026 elections.

Brigid Bergin: Interesting. Emily, since the start of this administration, several pieces of the president's agenda have been tied up in court battles, again, really trying to set the politics aside, what is the role of Justice Department lawyers in defending the government? What's the role they're supposed to be playing?

Emily Bazelon: It is up to Justice Department lawyers to defend the actions of every administration. For decades, they have prided themselves in making the very best legal arguments and presentations they can, whether they're serving a Republican or a Democrat. These are the ranks of the Justice Department. They're people. They're called career attorneys. They continue from administration to administration.

However, every lawyer has an ethical responsibility, a duty of candor to the court to make truthful representations in court. I think a lot of what we're seeing here that is so difficult for the courts to handle is what seems to be a lot of evasion or even just lying, falsehoods in court from government lawyers. That is very challenging because until now, government lawyers have enjoyed what's called the presumption of regularity in court. In other words, judges think, "Okay, unless it's shown otherwise, I'm going to assume the government is telling the truth and operating in good faith." That's part of how we just keep the wheels of justice turning. The government doesn't have to prove every single thing it says all the time, the assumption is it's going to be true.

Now we're starting to see that really get called into question. It's another road we have not been on before. What happens if courts lose trust in the government to that degree?

Brigid Bergin: It's fascinating just to take this national phenomenon and bring it really local. As you wrote about recently, we saw that here in New York City with the tug of war over the federal case facing Mayor Eric Adams, and the fact that we saw so many of those federal prosecutors resign, and even in the dismissal that Judge Dale Hull wrote saying that what appeared to be happening amounted to a quid pro quo related to immigration policies. How do you see a case like that fit into this larger trend?

Emily Bazelon: I think that's a really good example of what we're trying to talk about here. In the end, again, the remedies for these kinds of problems are political. In the past, when multiple lawyers from the Justice Department resigned or threatened to resign because they thought they were being asked to do something that was unethical that contravened their responsibilities, there was political upheaval. Members of a president's own party in the Nixon administration. Fellow Republicans denounced these kinds of moves when President Nixon was doing them. We haven't really seen that kind of bipartisan response to President Trump's overreach or to these legal issues that we're talking about. Until we see that, this administration does not seem inclined to change its behavior.

Brigid Bergin: Let's go to Carl in Staten Island. Carl, thanks for calling WNYC.

Carl: Hi. Thank you for taking my call. Just curious, is the procedure for impeaching a federal judge the same as it would be for impeaching the president? Does it have to be the impeachment go through the House of Representatives and then 60 votes for conviction in the Senate?

Emily Bazelon: Yes, exactly. First, the House of Representatives brings articles of impeachment. If they adopt them by a majority, then you go to an impeachment trial in the Senate, and they have to be found guilty. I think it's either two-thirds or three-fourths of the Senate have to vote for that. Think about that. Those are really high bars. You have to have lots and lots of agreement in Congress. That's part of why judicial impeachment has been very rare in American history.

Brigid Bergin: We got a text from a listener. "As a Palestinian American who is immensely law-abiding citizen, I'm terrified for myself and my family as to what can happen to us. There seems to be no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. I feel that my ethnicity is simply illegal and denied me rights to the American Constitution. What do I do?"

Emily Bazelon: I'm not sure I'm really the person to tell you what to do. I don't mean to not be reassuring, but I'm a journalist just watching what's happening and trying to provide information about it. It's beyond me to tell you exactly what to do. I'm sorry.

Brigid Bergin: Yes. It's a big question, and it's an overwhelming moment. I'm wondering, Emily, if with your historical lens on, is there a moment in time that feels comparable to the tests facing the courts in this moment?

Emily Bazelon: That is a great question. I do think during Watergate, we saw some similar challenges from President Nixon to the rule of law and questions about whether he was going to follow court orders. Another example is trying to use the IRS and its power to investigate people for their taxes as a weapon of the President. There's some similarities there. What you saw, as I was referring to a little bit earlier, was a real rejection of that kind of conduct, a bipartisan rejection of it. Members of Congress marching up to the White House to tell Nixon to resign in the end.

You saw huge declines in public approvals in the polls. Then you saw the courts really stand up to Nixon. At that moment, eventually, and it took a while, Watergate takes a long time to play out. That's one thing to remember here. We're in the beginning of this. It took years for Watergate to resolve. In the end, it did resolve. Nixon lost so much support that he was forced to resign. Then you saw Congress really pass a whole bunch of reform-minded legislation to try to contain and curtail these kinds of abuses of executive power in the future. Maybe we need a generational "looking back" at that moment to remind us of what's possible.

Brigid Bergin: It sounds like having that historical memory is going to be particularly important going forward. Emily, a listener texts, this is Diana from Scarsdale, "I have a question. Could a judge bring a lawsuit to Congress to impeach the president for contempt of the judicial branch or for not complying with the Constitution, which goes against the oath of office?"

Emily Bazelon: I love how imaginative everyone is trying to be. I seriously do, because sometimes, plausible ideas and legal theories can emerge in just this way. Congress isn't a forum for a lawsuit so I don't think that the judiciary can appeal to Congress in the way that you're imagining. Again, in the end, this is about the American people and how we want our democracy to be; collectively, all of you have the power to resolve these questions. It doesn't feel obvious how to do that right now. There will be another election in 2026. I dearly hope it will be a free and fair election.

Brigid Bergin: That sets up my final question for you, Emily. Which is what will you be watching going forward from the Trump administration related to these cases, and of course, from the courts?

Emily Bazelon: I'll be watching for how much everybody is maintaining the rule of law, staying within accepted boundaries. Then I'll be watching for how the public responds. Are people paying attention? Do public approval ratings for the various parts of government reflect what's happening? Are people getting accurate information? Do they trust the sources that still are providing accurate information? What are the next steps for the American electoral and political system? We're at the beginning of President Trump's second term. There's a long way to go. There also are these existing checks and balances. I know they can seem weak and shaky right now, but they do still exist. In the end, it's all up to all of us to help maintain them.

Brigid Bergin: Emily Bazelon is staff writer for The New York Times Magazine and the Truman Capote Fellow for Creative Writing and Law at Yale Law School. She's the best-selling author, most recently of Charged: The New Movement to Transform American Prosecution and End Mass Incarceration, and is a co-host of the Slate Political Gabfest. Emily, thank you for joining me. Thanks for your expertise. We really appreciate it.

Emily Bazelon: Thanks so much for having me and for the great questions.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.