No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Backfire: Trump writes his OWN attack ad

Episode Date: April 2, 2026

Trump writes his own attack ad for Democrats to use against the Republicans this November. Brian interviews NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani about the Iran war and his first 100 days in office, and law professor Leah Litman about the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship hearing.Shop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Trump writes his own attack ad for Democrats to use against the Republicans this November. And I've got two interviews. New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani joins to discuss the Iran War and his first 100 days in office. And law professor Leah Lipman joins to discuss the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship hearing. I'm Brian Teller Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So there was a clip on the White House's social media accounts that was abruptly taken down. But you know what they say about the Internet. And so without further ado, I present to you the contents of a clip that I presume will be quite present over the next

few months as we head toward midterms. Don't send any money for daycare. Because the United States can't take care of daycare. That has to be up to a state. We can't take care of daycare. We're a big country. We have 50 states. We have all these other people.

We're fighting wars. We can't take care of daycare. You got to let a state take care of daycare, and they should pay for it too. They should pay. They have to raise their taxes. But they should pay for it. And we could lower our taxes a little bit to them. but to them to make up, but it's not possible for us to take care of daycare.

Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can't do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing, military protection. We have to guard the country. But all these little things, all these little scams that have taken place. You have to let states take care of them, Russell, and you have to do it. I mean, my God, just get this guy on the campaign trail.

Like, talk about a winning message. No daycare, no health care, just wars. That is the only priority of the federal government. We have to spend less money on things that impact regular Americans so that we can dump every single fucking dollar into war. Brought to you, of course, by the no new wars president. But the most egregious part is that, of all people, Trump knows better because as grocery prices rise and utility bills rise and gas costs rise,

Trump exploited that very phenomenon to win the election and even outright admitted it. This was him just after November 2024. Likewise, an old-fashioned term that we use groceries. I used it on the campaign. It's such an old-fashioned term, but a beautiful term, groceries. It sort of says a bag with different things in it. Groceries went through the roof.

And I campaigned on that. I talked about the word groceries for a lot. In other words, he was well aware. And yet, since he's actually taken power, think about what he and his party have actually done to solve those very issues that they ran on. The Republicans gutted Medicaid for 17 million Americans. They gutted ACA subsidies for 24 million Americans. Gutted food assistance for millions of Americans.

They've enabled a trade war that spiked the cost of everything. They've greenlit a war that sent the cost of oil surging. And now they're seeking approval for another $200 billion to fund a war that, by the way, Trump swore up and down he would never let happen. I'm not going to start a war. I'm going to stop wars. No more wars. No more disruptions.

We will have prosperity. and we will have peace. Under Trump, we will have no more wars, no more disruptions, and we will have prosperity and peace for all. I am the candidate of peace. I am peace. So not only did he break that promise with no rationale ever given, but he's broken literally every promise that went along with it.

Like he swore he'd be in America first president, and all that's happened since he's taken over is that Americans' lives have become more expensive and the programs that Americans rely on have become more out of reach. And yet all the while, this guy stands up there and lectures all of us for deigning to have believed that the government could actually help regular Americans. He stands there and says, you know, now that he's already gotten your vote, that the only priority of the federal government is war.

Not Medicare, not Medicaid, not daycare, not issues that you contend with on a daily basis, issues that actually impact your life, but war. That's it. We work every fucking day so that we can be little cogs in Trump's war machine. So my message to everyone in this country, left, right and center, is that we don't have to stand for this. We have elected Democrats across the country who are actually walking the walk when it comes to focusing on regular Americans. You're about to hear my interview with Zoran Mamdani. He talks about making fast and free buses a reality in New York.

In Virginia, Abigail Spanberger and the Democratic legislature just passed a spade of bills focused on prescription drugs, preventative health care, affordable housing, free tax filing. And those are just two examples. two different jurisdictions. Trump may have said all of the right things on the campaign trail, but Democrats are showing that they are willing to deliver. That's the difference. One party did PR, all to consolidate power for themselves. The other party is actually showing up. Something to keep in mind with midterms right around the corner. And again, don't take my word for it. Take Trump's, because I'm sure you'll be hearing his own words in ads across the country,

followed by the phrase, I'm insert Democrat, and I approve this message. Next up are my interviews with Zornamamdani and Leah Lippman. No lie is brought to you by Huell. So are you someone who has 30 minutes to cook or 30 seconds? Because I 100% fall into the latter category. If it's not literally ready for me to eat, I usually just skip the entire meal. Not super healthy, but then again, I work in politics, so the whole healthy lifestyle ship is probably sailed.

But my loss is Hules' gain, because without it, I probably would be in a calorie deficit. Right now I'm drinking hules ready to drink vanilla flavor. My favorite is strawberry banana, but I finished those five minutes after I got them. But vanilla is awesome. There's also chocolate, chocolate peanut butter, cookies and cream, all excellent flavors. And these things have everything I need. First off, again, they taste great, so that's a huge plus. But beyond that, we're talking 35 grams of protein, 27 essential vitamins and minerals,

no artificial sweeteners, colors, or flavors, and it's gluten-free. Meaning, for under $5, you've got a complete meal that you can literally grab and go. Personally, I add creatine to mine, which blends perfectly with just a quick shake, so I get everything I need after the gym. And best of all, it legit fills me up, so I'm not immediately searching for snacks and junk food right afterwards. For a limited time, get Huell today with an exclusive offer of 15% off with the code BTC at hule.com slash BTC. That's Huell.com BTC, code BTC at checkout. New customers only. I'm joined now by the mayor of New York City.

Zaron Mamdani, thanks so much for joining me. It's a pleasure to be back. So I want to get your reaction first and foremost to some breaking news right now, and that is that the Republican Party is now weighing health care cuts to pay for this increasingly expensive war or incursion or excursion or military operation, whatever they're calling it today in Iran. We know that they're trying to push through $200 billion for a war that Donald Trump campaigned on never getting into.

Can I have your reaction to the massive massive. amount of money and the massive amount of sacrifice that it would take to actually get this funding passed. I think we're seeing the fact that in the face of Americans facing a historic affordability crisis, that we have the pursuit of something that has already cost $23 billion thus far, the kind of money that could transform working class Americans live, whether through investments in Medicare or teachers or even elimination of student debt for tens of thousands of Americans and all of that being thrown aside for the pursuit of yet another regime change war. And it's a war that should be opposed on every single ground, not just procedural, but also

moral, but also political. And also a war that should be opposed on the grounds of the fact that it is being financed by the very money that could make it easier to keep calling this city, this country home. And yet there is a blindness to that fact all while we're being told that this is not what we're seeing with our own eyes. Why do you presume that foreign administration and a political party that spent so much of their political capital campaigning on this idea that they would not do this, that they, you know, kind of jumped head first into doing exactly the behavior that they condemned? You know, I can't speak to what would make someone to get to that decision.

I can just tell you that it's one that when I speak to New Yorkers across the city, no matter political party, that people oppose. I may be a young mayor, but I'm always. old enough to have remembered the disastrous consequences of regime change wars. And that's exactly what we're seeing in this. And the pursuit of this war is one that is not just using money that could be used elsewhere. It's also driving up prices across the city and across this country. And that's making it harder for working class Americans to live their day-to-day lives and meet their day-to-day needs. So I want to talk about New York specifically now. On the campaign trail, you had a lot of promises

that campaign promises that you were especially focused on, free buses, freezing the rent, universal child care. Can you give a little update? And I know that we're, you know, I know that you've just passed your 100-day mark in office. Can you give an update as to where some of those campaign promises stand? Absolutely. So first and foremost of those three, the most expansive and expensive was that of universal child care. And on day eight of our administration, we joined hands with Governor Hockel to announce that we were putting our city on the roadmap to achieving exactly that. $1.2 billion in state funding and support so that we could start to deliver free child care

for two-year-olds across the city starting this fall. So this fall, we're delivering that free child care for two-year-olds to 2,000 kids. Next year, 12,000 kids. By the end of four years, by the end of the first term, we will be delivering universal childcare for every two-year-old in New York City. And we're doing this while also fixing the previous system for three-year-olds, which hadn't been able to keep up demand. meeting demand for New Yorkers across the five boroughs.

And so we're creating about a thousand more seats in that program as well. And all of this is tackling what after housing is the number one crisis that New Yorkers are facing in trying to stay in the city because the cost of child care is at least $20,000 a year. And that's frankly insurmountable, whether you're making 50K a year, 100K a year, even 200K a year, you're going to feel that kind of cost. Then when it comes to making buses fast and free, it continues to be our focus. We have just recently made policy decisions that will speed up the bus routes that over 130,000 New Yorkers use on a daily basis. And that's our North Star is how to take what at times are buses that are crawling slower than New Yorker walks when they're late to making them the envy of the country.

Working with the state to make them free, we're in the process of this budget negotiation right now. We saw in both the Assembly and the Senate, the New York State Legislature, a vision come forward where they want to start to make routes free, which were incredibly hard. and by we're hopeful that by the end of this budget process, we'll see the first results of that with a pilot program across the city. And then with the rent freeze, I continue to believe that New Yorkers do deserve a rent freeze at a time when we're seeing profits increase for landlords. We're seeing the fact that the median household income for tenants last year was just $60,000 in these rent-stabilized units. Ultimately, the final decision is with the Rent Guidelines Board. They are considering all of the evidence. They're going to make their final determination this summer.

And I've been encouraging New Yorkers to be a part of that consideration. Go out to the hearings they'll have in June. They can find more info for that at NYC.gov forward slash RGB in the weeks to come. Now, in order to pay for some of these priorities, you on the campaign trail proposed a 2% citywide income tax on those individuals who are earning over a million dollars. Is that still in play? And can you talk about the broader aim alongside Senator Bernie Sanders to move forward with a wealth tax for those who are making over a certain threshold of money?

You know, we're talking about a city that is at one level, the wealthiest city and the wealthiest country and the history of the world. And at another level is a place where one in four New Yorkers are living in poverty. And this income inequality that has become endemic to life in our city is not fixed. It's not natural. It's a result in many ways of political choices at the city, state, and national levels. And I continue to believe that taxing the wealthiest, New Yorkers, the most profitable corporations that little bit more to ensure that working class New Yorkers can afford to live in this city is something that is necessary. And it continues to be part of our advocacy with the state. And we've also said that, you know, we are open to a number of

different ways that we could tax wealth in this city and in this state because we want to ensure that a financial crisis that working class people had nothing to do with is not one that they're then asked to bear the burden of responding to. In terms of some type of wealth tax, the critics will come forward and say and threaten really capital flight, that they're going to leave New York and go somewhere else. What is the response to that? And I say that not just as the mayor of, or I ask that, not just as the, to not just the mayor of New York, but frankly other high income blue cities and states that are trying to contend

or reconcile with, okay, how do we both raise revenue so that we can. can implement policies that garner the support of the vast, vast, vast majority of constituents, while also taking into account the fact that there are these threats that are leveled by high earners who, you know, threatened to go to red states, for example, that offer them havens where they're not going to get taxed. I think the first thing is to come back to the facts. You know, when I was in the State Assembly, we were advocating to raise personal income taxes and corporate taxes at the time to meet the needs of working class New Yorkers. we were told that millionaires were going to flee.

That was in 2021. We raised about $4 billion in additional revenue that year. And what we found is that now we have more millionaires than we did back at that point. And these are the kinds of facts that too often are missing from the conversation. I'm sure you remember when I was running for mayor, many people said that they would be leaving on day one, if not even day zero. And what we have seen instead is that that kind of a proposed flight has not actually taken place. it's not to say we shouldn't take it seriously, but it's to say that when these kinds of threats are being put forward,

we have to ask what is the evidence that's actually standing up behind them, or is this just the kind of fearmongering that often meets any kind of ambitious vision for working class people? And that's where I think it has to get back to because we're talking about a city where it costs three bucks to get on the bus or ride the train, and that's out of reach for one in five New Yorkers. It's the same city where some people are buying condos for $260 million. So clearly what our current approach is,

is not working. We have to make this a place where we're making it easier to stay as opposed to easier to leave. And it turns out those those cushy Park Avenue apartments overlooking Central Park are probably not too easy to replicate if they want to go down down south or to the Midwest or wherever. You know, while you're making so much progress on implementing these campaign promises, what would be the ultimate goal? Like, these are all put goals that you put forward for yourself and in large part are accomplishing them right now. But I presume that you look at this as the on-ramp, not the final destination. And so, you know, once you've built up this political capital and trust with voters, because you're keeping true to your promises,

what would a bigger vision for New York beyond free buses, freezing the rent and universal child care, which is not to put any of those things down because those are massive impacts? But But what is the next iteration of your leadership look like? I think it's that working class people can feel our policies in their lives, right? That they can feel the benefit of this political agenda in the lives and the struggles that they're living on a day-to-day basis. And what I mean by that is that too often, you know, it feels as if you're trying to translate something into someone's life to make it clear why this matters or what this means to them.

When we're talking to New Yorkers about the cost of getting on the bus or child care or the rent, people understand that intuitively because those are the very costs that are giving them anxiety about whether they can make it to the next month or the month after that. And so for me, the longer term goal here is that a working person has an easier life to live in this city and that they can see clearly how city government is making an impact in it. And you know, when I ran and even when I was inaugurated, I spoke about, having run as a Democratic Socialist and now looking to govern as a Democratic Socialist. And to me, Democratic Socialism, it is a belief in the fact that democracy has to be extended

from just the ballot box into the rest of people's lives where they can feel like they are actors in what they're actually doing as opposed to things just happen to them. And that's what we're looking for is every single place that people are being pushed by a cost of living crisis, that it feels as if oxygen is being taken out of their bodies and their lives, how can we bring that back to them? Have you had interactions with other Democratic mayors, yes, but like other Democratic politicians writ large about how to transpose some of the successes that you've had in both your policy and your messaging to help other folks around the country? But, you know, I've been lucky enough to meet a number of mayors and

other Democratic politicians when they've either come to New York City or it's been on the phone And I've shared whatever the lessons are that from what we've learned over these last about three months, I'll be frank with you. I'm still looking to learn at this time as opposed to lecture to anyone else. And so one of the things that's been such a joy, frankly, is my political mentor is Bernie Sanders and just being able to be in regular touch with him as to what are the ways we should be tackling this crisis. And what I've so appreciated about him is the fact that he's not just the senator or the presidential candidate that many of us think of him as. There's also a former mayor of Burlington. And so oftentimes it's some of the very, you know, emphasis that he lends to me is we have to also focus on the day-to-day things.

So if you're asking me about universal childcare, you know, freezing the rent, making buses fast and free, I have to do those things and fill the potholes in the city. Yeah. So that, you know, every time you feel a bump, if you're riding a bike, if you're driving a car, that's a feeling that city government doesn't care about me. And so we're trying to make that clear in everything that we do on the day to day. You had just responded a couple of days ago with the number of potholes that you filled. Can you quickly tell me what that number is?

We are getting to a place, I think at this time, because we gave a number a few days ago. That number has now gone up. So I'm going to have to get back to you. I think we're getting roughly in the ballpark of. Roughly in the ballpark. I mean, we're coming close to 100,000. by the time that we've been in office. How does it get to the point where in the five minutes that you've been in office,

you're able to fill 100,000, where was the previous administration in doing a lot of the work that you're doing on a daily basis right now? And I don't mean this as a, I'm not, I don't mean this as a knock. I mean, how can you, or, I mean, I guess it is, I guess it is kind of a knock, but like, how do you get to the point where there are, there is so much work left undone or or unattended to the point where you can say, you know, in the first, in a hundred days in office, you've filled a hundred thousand potholes in counting. You know, I can't speak to what the previous administration was up to when it came to some

of these things, you know, sometimes they were abroad, right? Sometimes they weren't here. But I think it comes back to the fact that I view these things as evidence of the kind of work we're trying to do. filling a pothole is not a small thing. It's not an unimportant thing. If you can't fill a pothole, how are you going to deliver universal child care? These are two parts of the same kind of connected set of politics. You have to be able to do both of these things for someone to trust that city government can deliver for them. And the other beautiful thing here I'll tell you is that I am

leading a city government of 300,000 municipal workers who work so hard every single day. And when we're talking about these potholes, we're talking about deal. DOT workers who are out there. And they are putting everything they have into this. And frankly, for far too long, they haven't been recognized. And that's also been one of the most exciting things here is to shine a little bit of a light on what it looks like to be a part of a city workforce that is doing incredible work, keeping the city running and committed to the welfare of people called the city home. You know, you had mentioned that your mentor is Bernie Sanders. What's the one piece of advice that Bernie had given to you that you still think about or that had the biggest

impact on you? I think in many ways Bernie is the inspiration for this slogan that we've taken up, which I've now belatedly realized has a connection to Paw Patrol, which is that there's no problem too big, no task too small. Because what Bernie has emphasized to me is this idea of sewer socialism that has sometimes it's felt as if been lost to time, this idea that you deliver this expansive vision of politics through fixes to the most granular problems in people's lives is one that has to be at the heart of the way in which we're approaching every single issue. And we have to remember that there's a reason why people have lost faith in government. It's because they see examples of government's failure on a regular basis.

And if you want to get their faith back, you don't convince them in a debate or you give a great speech. You convince them by taking care of the thing that they would point to. as a reason as to why they don't believe. And whether it's sewer socialism or maybe we're kind of now doubted pot hole praxis, we're looking to take on every single thing that we can. You know, hearing you talk about making actual democratic or left wing or pro-democracy governance work,

you know, bears some resemblance to the abundance conversation that sprouted up in the last year. And there were some critics that looked at abundance as a way to kind of shoehorn through, neoliberal policies, because if you're focusing on abundance policies or making Democratic governance work, then that is kind of a way to just smooth over bigger thinking fixes to this stuff. But can you speak on that issue more broadly, whether you think abundance policies are mutually exclusive with big, bold, sweeping governance that makes the city work? I don't think so.

I don't think that there's an innate tension in some of the proposals that have been foot forward. I think the things that are so appealing to me about what I've read when it comes to kind of an abundance theory is the focus on efficiency and the understanding that to have public goods, you have to have public excellence. And so for me, it's taking the best of what that puts forward when it looks at the ways in which a lot of proceduralism has rendered some of our most ambitious ideas impractical and then fixing the procedures so that we can actually deliver those ideas. Sometimes when a procedure is broken and we don't get the impact that we'd intended, people take that as a reflection on the idea itself.

I think that the ideas are the ones we have to actually deliver. And what I'm seeing in so much of what we're approaching in city government is that there is a way to do this work if you're as serious as you are about the intent as you are about the outcome of it. We'll leave it there. Mayor Mundani, thank you so much for the time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

It's a pleasure of you today. No Lie is brought to you by Shopify. Starting something new isn't just hard, it's scary. So much work goes into this thing that you're not entirely sure is going to work out, and it can be hard to make that leap of faith. Trust me, I know. When I started this podcast, I wasn't even sure what I was doing. What if nobody listens?

What if I can't offer something worth listening to? Now I'm glad that I believed in myself and launched this podcast, despite all the fears and hesitations. But let's be clear, it certainly helps when you have a partner like Shopify on your side to help. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of things. of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the United States, from my website, Brianteller-Cohen.com, to brands just getting started. Get started with your own design studio.

With hundreds of ready-to-use templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand style. Accelerate your efficiency, whether you're uploading products or trying to improve existing ones. Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product photography. Get the word out like you have an entire marketing team behind you. easily create email and social media campaigns wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling. And best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world-class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond.

And what if people haven't heard about my brand? Shopify helps you find your customers with easy to run email and social media campaigns. It's time to turn those what-ifs into with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com slash BTC. Go to Shopify.com slash BTC. That's Shopify.com slash BTC. I'm joined now by law professor at University of Michigan and co-host of the strict scrutiny podcast, Leah Lippman.

Thanks so much for joining me. Thanks for having me. So we've just heard arguments in Trump v. Barbara, which is the birthright citizenship case of the Supreme Court. So from what I had heard so far, it was a pretty rough go for the Trump team. But I want to get your opinion as a Supreme Court expert. How do you think this went for Trump versus how it went for the. other party? I think it's clear that the court is going to rule correctly that the executive order

purporting to deny people birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. I don't think it's clear that the ruling is going to be unanimous. And that itself is a travesty just because the text of the 14th Amendment is super clear. The history is super clear. And so even though Donald Trump is about to get this huge loss, he will have succeeded in polarizing this issue and unsettling it in some respects. And in doing is about to give the Supreme Court this huge gift of making them look independent and credible when they reject his unhinged, deranged theory. What did you make of the fact that he decided to appear at the arguments in person? You know, I really didn't know what to make of it.

I'm sure the justices were not amused by it because it probably made it seem like more of a spectacle, but they deserve him. You know, they partially created him. Yeah. And they have given him a lot of what he wants. So it's hard to know exactly why he picked this case. He had threatened to attend the oral argument in the tariffs case, but then didn't follow through with it.

He did follow through with this one, a part of he wondered if he was setting us up for an April Fool's joke. But I don't know why he chose this one in particular. Do you think there's any merit to this idea that he went kind of as this as this foreboding presence? I mean, you had used the word threatened to go for his tariff case. But I actually did kind of look at this as through that lens. Like he was there to remind the Supreme Court justices who they owe their jobs to.

And, you know, him being there might kind of chill them into being more acquiescent to him than they would otherwise be if he wasn't present. Do you buy that at all? It's possible he diluted himself into thinking that. But there's just no way his actual presence was going to be that level of intimidation. to the justices because, you know, they have a host of security and protection in a way that lower federal court judges do not. And so in some ways, you know, the threats he makes on true social and the statements he gives in press conferences riling up his base against him,

that's way more concerning than him just showing up at an oral argument. Did you read into the fact that he decided to leave after the Solicitor General made his made his arguments and didn't stay for the other side to rebut what had been said? It certainly made me wonder. I don't know that I got to read on exactly why. You know, it's very possible he got bored. These oral arguments are very dry and technical. It's also possible that he picked up on the fact that the argument wasn't going well for the lawyer for the federal government. You know, hard to know which of the two or maybe a third. Well, the thing that struck me is, listen to these arguments. I do a legal series every day with Mark Elias. I have another series that I do

with Glenn Kershner, who is a 30-year former federal prosecutor. So I get my fill of legalese and jargon. And even despite all of that, listening to these Supreme Court arguments, it is a whole different level of technicality and jargon. And so I can imagine for somebody like Donald Trump who is in like year five of bragging about how he, how he aced a dementia test, the hardest question was to like identify a fucking farm animal for him, for somebody like that to be in this courtroom listening to these arguments might might not feel like the most welcoming argument, you know? Okay.

So that's true. On the other hand, Neil Gorsuch was able to get the crowd to laugh at the expense of the federal government. And I think even Donald Trump could probably pick up on that, even if he could not follow any of the actual words that were being said. To that end, was there any moment in particular? that you thought felt like that could serve as, you know, if the federal government loses, the nail in the coffin?

I'm not sure there was a single moment that was a nail in the coffin as far as this moment exposed the key weakness in the federal government's theory, just because there are thousands of key weaknesses, any of which is sufficient to reject their argument. I do feel like the 14th Amendment to the Constitution existing is a pretty big nail in the coffin in this case. The 14th Amendment, right? And so it seemed like, you know, the various Republican appointees were just trotting out the different weaknesses. You know, for Justice Gorsuch, he's like, you know, there's that decision, Wong Kim Arc heard about it. You know, so that seems bad for you.

Justice Barrett, by contrast, relied more on the history behind the 14th Amendment and the fact that it was designed to overturn Dred Scott and ensure that the descendants of enslaved persons would be citizens. Justice Kavanaugh, by contrast, you know, focused more on the federal statute codifying birthright citizenship. So it's just kind of a, pick your poison. If we do see one of the justices or multiple justices, and I assume this is going to probably fall in the Alito or Thomas bucket, side with Trump in this case, after they've done so, after we've seen this court kind of bend over backwards in blind deference to Trump in the past, I mean, they created out of whole cloth this provision that a president can't be held accountable

for criminal activity that they commit. They ignored Section 3 of the first. 14th Amendment that says that you can't run for federal office again if you've engaged in or given aid or comfort to those who've engaged in insurrection, which of course Trump was found to have done. So what does it say that we will, you know, in the event that a, that a Thomas or Alito decides to side with Trump on this, what does that say about the credibility of this court that seems increasingly capable or willing to completely discard the constitution in blind deference to their political ideology? It's another pretty damning indictment of this court.

And the fact that any justice would embrace this argument, which is so soundly inconsistent with text, history, precedent, every single possible source of authority and law you can imagine. It's hard to come up with, you know, yet another example of how the Supreme Court could prove itself to be more of a clown show, and yet they always find new ways. How could they hear this case? Like, I'm sitting there listening to this, and there are, there are thousands of cases that get rejected every year, valid cases that get rejected every year, because, you know, you only have, you only have so much time. They only have so much,

you know, everything, everything is limited, right? And, and yet this is such a crazy case where they're basically just saying the 14th Amendment of the Constitution doesn't exist or shouldn't exist, whatever it may be. It's, you know, it's become a laughing stock across the country right now. And yet they got to take the case, like this case got to take the spot of some other case that was probably much more deserving. And so like, I just don't understand why this, why they would say yes to hearing something that is just so juvenile and elementary. It's really annoying because they could have disposed of this issue last year when they heard the case involving nationwide injunctions. The plaintiffs in that case said, look, if you're going to say you can't get nationwide injunctions, you should also consider whether this underlying executive order is lawful.

The three Democratic appointees said, yeah, it's illegal. The Republican appointees declined to do so. The justices also didn't have to hear oral argument in this case. They could have issued a six sentence opinion that just says, yep, lower court correct, see the 14th Amendment. And they chose to do so. And I honestly think that one key reason is they are buying themselves more. credibility and more favorable publicity when they draw this out because everyone is now talking about the oral argument. We're going to be talking about it again come opinion season. And so they're just

buying themselves more opportunities for favorable publicity, whereas if they would have disposed to fit simultaneously with saying no nationwide injunctions or if they would have summarily said months ago, executive order is illegal, that's not going to give them cover for the many horrible decisions they are going to release toward the end of this term, whether it is a decision that possibly ends what remains of the Voting Rights Act, whether it is a decision giving Donald Trump basically plenary authority over the federal government and the power to fire officials who lead almost every federal agency or any of the other cases where they're going to do who knows what. Although would you say that if we do see a split decision, if we do see, you know,

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Lito side with Trump, wouldn't that undermine the, the softball, like, gimme that this court was seeking by even hearing this case? It will a little, but it's only going to drown out a little bit of the light. You know, all of the headlines are still going to say, Supreme Court affirms birthright citizenship rules against Trump. Do you think, taking kind of a 30,000-foot view of this, if Democrats were able to regain control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, that, you know, anything they put forward in front of this,

is 6-3 conservative court, where the judges are relatively young. And this is like D.C. young, right? Where if you're like 60 years old, you're a baby. But relatively, yeah, relatively young. Do you think that there, that Democrats should try and move forward with a plan to expand the court? Expand the court, impose ethics rules on the court, limit the Supreme Court's authority to strike down laws like the Voting Rights Act, limit the Supreme Court's authority to strike down regulations, like a clean power plan. I mean, you need to do a lot in order to rein in this blunderbuss of a court. And what would it take, just on court expansion alone, what would it take, technically speaking, to be able to do that? Majority in the House, majority in the Senate,

and a president who's willing to sign the legislation. And when you say majority in the Senate, that is, that is a 60-year-old threshold. If they're willing to get rid of the filibuster, then, you know, you would just need a majority of the senators. Otherwise, yes, you would need a filibuster-proof majority. All right. Well, look, look. I mean, you know, from a political perspective, I was looking at analysis yesterday on what the Senate map was looking like. And, you know, this, because of how unpopular Trump is and because of the swings that we're seeing in the electorate from 2024 to 2026, suddenly the Senate is in a much bigger way than we ever thought possible, especially given how difficult the Senate map is, but suddenly seats in North Carolina and Maine and Ohio and Alaska and Texas. are in play in a way that I don't think anybody could have imagined in the immediate aftermath of the November election in 2024.

So we'll see. I mean, there is a world where the ceiling for Democrats in the Senate becomes like 53, 54 if they're able to run the table. And frankly, given the fact that we've seen 16, 17 point swings to the left in some of these races, even in deep red districts, even in, you know, places like Tennessee and Florida just recently, I mean, Marilago is now represented by a Democrat in the state legislature. So, so, you know, that is not an impossible task. I think, frankly, I think what's going to be more difficult is making sure that Democrats have the stomach to actually wield power if and when they get it. And that seems to be our perpetual issue. But hopefully, hopefully this is a Democratic Party that we're able to usher in after midterms that recognizes the urgency of this moment. So with that said, from your lips.

Yeah. Where can folks here and see more from you? So I have a podcast by co-host, Strict Scrutiny. Our regular episodes drop every Monday, anywhere you get your podcast as well as on YouTube, as well as bonus episodes whenever the Supreme Court does something extra crazy. I'm also on Blue Sky at Leah Lippman. And of course, you can check out my book, Lawless, how the Supreme Court runs on conservative grievance, fringe theories, and bad vibes at your favorite independent bookstore or anywhere you get your books. Awesome. I'm going to put the link to Strict Scrutiny right here on. on the screen and also in the post description. For those who are listening on the podcast, I'm going to throw that into the show notes. Leah, thank you so much for taking the time.

I appreciate it. Thanks for having me. Thanks again to Sorin Mamdani and Leah Lipman. That's it for this episode. Talk to you on Sunday. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera.

If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and leave a five-star rating and a review. And as always, you can find me at Brian Tyler Cohen on all of my other channels, or you can go to bryantaylorcoen.com to learn more.