On with Kara Swisher - Defending Trump’s ‘Enemies’ with Attorney Abbe Lowell

Episode Date: February 9, 2026

President Trump makes no secret about having a long list of perceived enemies. And for the people he targets, there’s one lawyer many of them call: Abbe Lowell. The longtime Washington defense attorney built a career representing both Republicans and Democrats. But last year, Lowell left a partner position at a big firm to start his own office dedicated to helping those "unlawfully and inappropriately targeted" by the Trump administration. Kara and Lowell talk about his work representing clients like New York Attorney General Letita James, Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and independent journalist Don Lemon; the strategy behind Trump’s lawfare; and the ways Abbe is positioning his new practice to anticipate the Trump administration’s next moves. Questions? Comments? Email us at [e-mail] or find us on YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Threads, and Bluesky @onwithkaraswisher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Every day, something happens. If you had asked me a week ago how it's going, I wouldn't have known that I had to figure out a way to get Don Lemon out of jail the next day. Hi, everyone, from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is on with Kara Swisher, and I'm Kara Swisher. President Trump makes no secret about having a long list of enemies. And for people targeted by his administration, there's one lawyer that everyone seems to have on speed dial, Abby Loll.

Loll is a longtime Washington defense attorney who's represented both Republicans and Democrats during Trump's first term, he even provided legal counsel to Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. But in the last year, Lowell has dedicated himself to representing people who've opposed the Trump administration. Clients like New York Attorney General, Letitia James, Federal Reserve Governor, Lisa Cook, Trump's former national security advisor, John Bolton, and now independent journalist, Don Lemon. Here he is talking about Lemon's case on MS Now a few days ago. This is an administration that's not just willing to trample on the Bill of Rights. they're eager to do it.

It's a warning sign. And if we can't rely on those bill of rights to protect you and Don and others who give us the news or lawyers who come up and defend you when you do that, then we're in a lot more trouble that the average person believes. I think it's really important to talk someone like Abby, who I met a million years ago as a reporter for the Washington Post. And the idea of lawyers standing up to Trump is a really important thing, and a lot of them have acquiesced.

And Abby has set out on his own. and what he's doing is critically important going forward, as some of the big law firms more concerned with their moneymaking, bend the knee. All right, let's go to my conversation with Abby Lowell. Our expert question comes from New York Times investigative reporter Jody Cantor, who covers the Supreme Court, so stick around. A tins donut and coffee is the original collab.

And now, any classic donut is a dollar when you buy any size original or dark rose coffee. Get a deal on the iconic duo with a Tins Dollar donut, Plus tax at participating restaurants for limited time. Terms apply. See app for details. It's time for Tims. Does the winter weather have you feeling tired, antisocial, sad? You may want to take a cue from our friends in Norway.

Really, they tend to orient towards the things that they like about the season instead of just sort of seeing it as a time of year to endure. How to embrace the winter. That's on the next, explain it to me. new episodes every Sunday wherever you get your podcasts. Coming up on Today Explain, I talked to one of the top stars of the Democratic Party

and one of the most divisive about her run for Senate in Texas. I wonder, like, is there times in which the rhetoric goes too far? There are times in which you should say, you know, maybe I messed that one up? No. Not in this environment.

I don't. I think that, you know, we are really in uncharted territory. Representative Jasmine Crockett. This week on Today, explain. Listen wherever you get your podcast. Abby Lowell, thanks for coming on on. We've known each other for quite a while, hasn't it, for a long time?

We have. And various iterations of our lives, which is nice. Yeah, I was at the Washington Post. Sad, let's have a moment. I know. That's a bad day today, isn't it? Yeah, today, yesterday. All the days, Jeff Bezos has owned it in the last couple of years, actually. Anyway, let's just get started in on it because you are sort of everywhere. And last year, you left for people that don't know, a partner position at Winston and Strawn, a prestigious law firm to start your own office. It's partially dedicated to representing people targeted by this administration. Now, Winston and Strawn was reportedly turning down cases

defending clients targeted by the Trump administration. Talk a little bit about why so many big firms are shying away from the fight and aren't willing to end up on Trump's retribution list. And why are you? Let's talk about the big firm problem to start with. At some point over the last, you could name it 15, 20, 25 years, most big law firms have become more and more reliant on their corporate clients, whether it's for corporate work or even litigation work. If these corporate clients have, as they often will, the need to get permission, license, something from a government entity,

be it the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, then their clients who fuel their revenue are going to say, don't make waves. And if a firm is dedicated, or at least they think they're dedicated, solely to the bottom line, and their majority of their clients are telling them, you've got to keep a low profile, that's the thing that's motivating these firms the most. Right. It's unfortunate because it basically reflects that over the last 25, 30, 40 years, law firms stop being professions and started being businesses. And that's not the way it should have been. And it's even not the way the founders envisioned it when our country began?

Why is it different now? Because people being curing favor with corporations seems normal and having to deal with the government, right? This is not a new thing. What shifted? And I'll note the head of Paul Wise, the chairman, Brad Karp, just resigned because he was implicated in the Epstein files of being close to him. I'm not sure anything else, just to be clear.

But talk a little bit about that dynamic. and why it changed with the Trump administration. Yeah, okay, so there's two parts of this equation. There was a time where firms like Paul Weiss was known as a litigation firm. They would have institutional clients, but mostly people hired them to do their battles one at a time. You might represent a client once and never see them again. When you start getting institutional clients for whom you are both asking for and getting

business on both sides, the litigation and the business side, that's where the business side gets to predominate and says, we need this license, we need this permission, don't make waves. But more than 50% of the equation, Kara, is not on the law firm side. It's on the government side. It's that in the history of our country, there's never been a president or those carrying out his commands that will do what these law firms are afraid of. That will say, I am not approving your merger, Disney, or whoever, because if you are criticizing me, I'm using my power as a and therefore you better watch out what you say and what you do. This is the combination. If firms are more and more worried about the bottom line driven by their corporate clients,

and corporate clients are afraid of going against the government, and the government is willing to use its power to stifle speech, to stifle freedom, to basically stifle all the things guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, that's the storm that's created this moment. And this is what pushed you out of becoming independent. It's like the benefits and negatives for you. You obviously have freedom. I don't work for big news companies because of this. Similar thing.

I was like tired of listening to them, essentially. Okay. So in my career, I have always challenged the overreach of administrations all the way back to Ronald Regens where I sued the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of the localities in Washington when they wanted to change the flight paths at national airport. I mean, the difference between my career up until 2025, in 2025 is that the government might overreach a couple of times a year. And then you would represent your clients, right? Now the government overreach is a couple of times a week. And so there's

many more things to be done. So that's the reason that I would be in a position when the moment came to try to meet that moment because it's why I became a lawyer to begin with. Now, with that background, I can tell you about 2025. In the beginning of 2025, as it would have been in any other year, various clients came and asked if I could help. The first was the FBI agents who did not want Donald Trump to reveal their identities for those who had worked on the January 6th investigations. And this was at a time that lawyers were beginning to be pressured by the Trump administration. Some law firms were beginning to make deals. And so my law firm said, that's not one we think we can do.

All right, that was one. Shortly thereafter, I got contacted by a friend who worked for the USAID workers that had been stranded abroad. If you remember when that agency was taken down, many people were left literally stranded. And again, the intake committee said, we don't want to ruffle the feathers on that one. And then there was another one in between. That doesn't matter. But the straw that broke the camel's back for me was when New York State Attorney General, Letitia James called. And she and I met two days later in her office. It was exactly what I do for a living to help people in her situation. And at that point, I knew the firm was going to not say yes, because after all,

Letitia James was the person who successfully sued and got a judgment for fraud against Donald Trump and his businesses. And so that was the moment that I told the firm, this was not going to work. And over that weekend, that's where it happened. So what is the downside? We all sit around and go, okay, this part, this part. What was the downside for you? Resources. Well, yeah, the downside was, on Friday, I decided to do this.

I needed to write a letter on behalf of Attorney General James by Tuesday. and that meant between the weekend and Tuesday, the downside was I had to find my lawyer to incorporate me. I had to go find malpractice insurance. I had to design my own letterhead. I had to borrow office space. I had to do all the above in 72 hours, which normally law firms require their partners to give them notice and get out 30 days. I gave them less than three days. The downside was just the logistics of starting a new business in 2025 America. everything from finding space to finding colleagues to being able to get a computer. Remember, when I left Winston & Strawn that weekend, I was off their grid. My laptop turned into a brick.

45 boxes of files were left behind, and I left the building. And so that was the immediate challenge. What was their reaction? I don't think they were super surprised, given that there had been these events where I kept pressing them to do things. I think that was first. I think they were shocked that I said we had to do it, in 36 hours, and it turned out to be like 48 hours. And I think ultimately, I mean, look, it was amicable in the way that I, and I understand. I understand what the big law firm's

vulnerabilities are. I'm not happy about it. I don't agree with it. I think the law firms could have banned together day one and said, we're not going in that direction. I think that was a lack of leadership across the board of lawyers in America. I understand it, but I don't agree with it. So I don't think they were shocked. And as I said, under the circumstances, as it was amicable, although I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed in them. I'm disappointed in lawyers across America. And I'll tell you where I'm really disappointed.

You've heard that some law firms, you know, went and made deals, right? Okay, we get that. And we know that some, a handful, said, no, we're fighting back. What people aren't recognizing is that almost every big firm in America used to do this vast amount of what's called pro bono work for community agencies, social service agencies, nonprofits, whether it was in the immigration world or the women reproductive rights world or the environmental world or any other world in which lawyers did their work for free. What is not being well reported is that all those, think about this. Let's say there are, I'm going to make it up. Let's say there are 500 law firms in America and let's say they all have 100 lawyers. And let's say that each of those lawyers do 50 hours of pro bono work a year. Think about the tens of thousands of hours. And law firms have cut back on that. And that is a gap that is not. been filled. Right, right. Let's talk about some of your cases recently so people get a sense of it.

Don Lemon obviously was the most recent high-profile case representing the former CNN anchor and independent journalist now, who was arrested in late January. Before the arrest, Don was covering group of protesters who entered City's church in St. Paul, Minnesota. One of the pastors there is an ICE official. Don said repeatedly that he was there as a journalist, nothing more. And I should know that Don is a friend of mine. And he's been on this show and on pivot. So to start, can you walk us through the days leading up to the arrest because Lemmon told Jimmy Kimmel, he even offered to turn himself in, and instead he was very publicly arrested in a hotel in L.A. where he's getting ready to cover the Grammys. I thought he would get arrested. I wasn't so sure he thought he was going to get arrested,

but talk to me a little bit about this case. So you'll remember these events started on that Sunday, the 18th, where Don and others were in Minneapolis to cover the protests. There was this group that he got connected with that were heading to a protest. He's a journalist. He'll cover a group that's going to protest wherever they go. This group went to a church. He filmed it. He interviewed people there. The event happened. It was done. I think he was in Minneapolis for five or six hours. Yeah. Almost immediately from the top down being Attorney General Bondi and the assistant attorney general Dylan from the Civil Rights Division and who else knows in the administration started not just saying that this was an outrage, that people would walk into a house of worship

and basically protest, but that Don and other journalists, there was one other independent named Georgia Fort that was there, were not just journalists, but they were activists doing it. And they said they need to be arrested, they need to be charged. So Don and I were connected. As soon as that happened, it was probably the very day. And I started understanding what was going on. And the very first thing I did was I wrote Deputy Attorney General Dodd Blanche,

who I've known in practice for years. And I said to him in words in a... effect. I want you to know, Todd, I represent Don Lemon. I understand you're investigating, or at least that's what's being announced. If you are, you should be in contact. We should do this the right way. There's no reason to do it in an extraordinary way to make a public spectacle of it. Let us know what you're doing, and I'll make arrangements. I have done that dozens of times in my career, and especially if you're not representing somebody who's, for example, a real flight risk or somebody who is being accused of being a serial killer, they normally will let you do that,

right? Unless they're trying to make a show of it. And what we know about this administration is show first, substance, second. If at all. And so I never heard back from Todd. Then the awful events in Minneapolis, you know, happened again in the killing of Alex Freddie. And I don't know that I thought that them going after Don Lemon was their highest priority.

Right. I should have known better. because what we know about this administration is they're very good at basically saying, if this is my right hand, pay attention to it while I do something with my left. They are the administration of distraction. So again, I wasn't terribly concerned, and you said you had a premonition. I just was like there was enough there. Like, I just heard from the lawyers.

It was like, he got real close, you know, and I was like, did he? You know, I mean, but that's all they needed. That's all I'm saying is I didn't, I thought they would do it. Well, yeah, they don't have a proper basis to have. done this, but then the outrage gets even more, right? Not only did they ignore my normal request, let's not make a spectacle of this. Don goes out to Los Angeles to cover the Grammys. He's on an event before the two days before, and he's coming back into his hotel, and not one, and not two, but a bevy of agents surround him in an elevator and basically arrest him and take him out,

and they do that at 1130 at night, not because there's somebody sticking around for him to be processed, for the exact opposite reason, so that he'll have to spend a night in jail. Correct. So that's what happened. He was in communicato. We knew from his husband that it had happened. We were immediately in touch with people in L.A.

to start the process of knowing that he wouldn't be presented in front of a judge until later that next day, which happened, and we did get him out. But that was, look at it. That was all for show. It was all because that's what they do. Absolutely. So Attorney General Pembani actually took credit for the arrest as well as other arrests of two protesters

and another journalist of the church, Georgia Fort. Bondi claimed on acts that the arrests happen at her personal direction. I'm in charge here, I guess. And the White House celebrated his own post on social media with chains and his picture, lemons, lemonade, whatever, stupid joke they were telling. Talk about the significance of that,

that the nation's top law enforcement officials claiming she directed the arrest of these people and the White House gloating. I've never seen anything like. that. Well, yeah, but I mean, Kara, every day we wake up and by the end of the day, some will say some sentence that sounds like, quote, we've never seen anything like this, saying, quote. Yes, I was just trying to stop myself. I tell all my friends and my journalists who work with

words, I need a new word. I need a new word for unprecedented, crazy, outrageous, ridiculous. All right, put that aside. As to your specific question, I've said that as to Don what this means is a terrible, terrible, a set of events. I mean, you imagine being roused that way and putting in a car and driven off to a location. So that's itself traumatic enough. And also, Georgia Fort was in our home with her children. There was like 12 of them.

Yeah, and I've seen the video. It's just terrific, right? So let's talk about the two things we talked about. You mentioned lawyers, and now we mentioned journalists. Let me get on my soapbox. Okay. Everybody in America knows that our founders came up with this amazingly brilliant system

of what we call checks and balances, where we have three co-equal branches of government that are supposed to rein in the other branches. That was the heavy-duty lift. But they were smarter than that. And they understood deeply that there were two other institutions that would ensure the rule of law.

One were lawyers, and the other were journalists. It's not a mistake that in those first ten Bill of Rights, two of them address freedom of press and the ability to have a lawyer of your choice. That said, when this, This administration was planning their return. It's not random. It's not ad hoc.

And it's not an outlier that their first attack after they had already neutered the Congress and they had politicized the courts was to go after the lawyers and to go after the journalists. I mean, talk to Ben Franklin, who understood the importance of a free press. And people forget that John Adams represented the British soldiers that were charged with murder in the Boston massacre, got them acquitted. and then went on to be president of the United States. Yep, yep, absolutely. But just for people to understand, a federal magistrate judge also declined to approve Lemon's arrest,

and federal appeals court declined to overrule that decision. So how unusual is it that they went ahead anyway and got the grand jury, which is very easy to do? Well, in this administration, it's not unusual at all, but people really ought to take your sentence and ponder it for another few seconds. They went to a magistrate, a federal magistrate, and said, give us arrest warrants for Georgia Fort and Don Lemon as well as others.

The magistrate, not inexperienced, said, no, there's not probable cause here. They went to the district court judge who said, I am not in a position to overrule the magistrate. They then sort of secretly went to the court of appeals to order in a very unusual thing called a writ of mandamus to order that to happen. And the A circuit said, no, we're not doing that. as against that, they went to a grand jury of citizens. I'll come back to that in second and got the majority of which a grand jury could be up to 23, but you need 12 of them to vote to vote for probable cause. The old expression in the law was prosecutors could get a grand jury to indict a hamps sandwich.

I don't understand in Minneapolis with all the publicity how this grand jury was instructed on the facts and the law. We don't know. We don't know. But that's what we're going to try to. find out first in this case. Now, on the other side of the coin, as I pointed out, we've been advising New York State Attorney General Leticia James, who got an indictment because President Trump put in one of his cronies to be the U.S. attorney when real prosecutors wouldn't take that case, and we got that indictment dismissed because of the way it was done was improper. They tried

two other times to indict her in front of different grand juries in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and two grand juries told them no. That is itself unprecedented. When they did it right, presumably. Well, they tried. But by the way, that's a moment in time, Kara. In my practice, I have never, ever been in a case where a federal prosecutor has asked a federal grand jury to return an indictment that had any merit in which the grand jury said no.

Well, D.C. has happened in D.C. in various places. Yeah. True. To play devil's advocate for a second, Lemon and others entered private property during a church service. He kept filming despite being asked to leave. And for the churchgoers, it was undoubtedly scary. Yes, the protesters were nonviolent, but places of worship would become targeted some violence in this country many times. How do you look at that when you're pushing back against that? So it's so Trump administration.

You know, and anybody who's paid attention to the news knows, that folks on the right have been interrupting the services of LGBTQ church services for a while. And I don't remember this administration arresting any of those journalists or any of those protesters as well. So we start with selectivity. This is the definition of selective prosecution for a political purpose. In terms of the government's theory of prosecution, it is that under the law, under let's say the FACE Act, that the folks in the church had a right to be able to observe their civil rights of freedom of practice of religion and you interfered with it. The problem is you're going to have two parts of the First Amendment that are combating each other, because in that same First Amendment is the right to free speech and the right to have the ability to perform your religion. Right. So where do those match? They match somewhere. There have been protests at churches and other houses of worship since the country has been founded.

Does that mean it's illegal to do it? That's not the way that statute was passed. The statute was passed initially for the Ku Klux. Klan that we're doing more than interrupting people's church services. This is for people who don't know it's a conspiracy against rights law. It was enacted after the Civil War and designed to prevent groups like the Klu-Klazlan from intimidating people. The other law the government is using, again, for listeners who don't know, is the FACE Act, FAC, and it's a 1994 law that's supposed to prevent people's access to abortion clinics and places of worship.

This is what they're hanging in on, presumably. It is. Now, I'm not saying that the protesters, look, The judgment of people who are rightfully upset about what the government's doing in general and in Minnesota and Minneapolis in specific, certainly we understand why they would say I'm going to the streets, I'm going to the courthouses, and if they really did believe that the minister at this church was somebody who was involved in the ice raids, I'm not suggesting that was smart to do. I just haven't really thought about that through. What I do know is whatever this group did, what Don Lemon did that day was as,

as the 30-year veteran journalist that he's always done. It would be, and it would be quite the opposite, if you think about it. I always point out in the last week, you know, what was one of the turning moments in the civil rights movement during the 1960s was that we had television cameras watching the brutality of those police officers in the South that were sicking their dogs and spraying fire hoses? If we didn't see that, I think we might not have been able to turn around the country's mood. we need the Don Lemons and we need the Georgia forts and we need every journalist to be there on the front line because it can turn public opinion and it's embedded in the Constitution.

It's why the First Amendment has freedom of the press in it. Did his sting at least create a legal opening for the government? It was looking for anything. And months ago, I said, Don, be very careful because they're going to find a way to get to you. Like when he started, that was one of the first things. I told him to get libel insurance. a whole bunch of stuff when we were talking. And one of them was they will find any opening. Just be carefully, have it sealed up. Well, I mean, that's the point.

I mean, you all in the journalist world, and you've been both various sides of it, it takes a degree of courage in a bad situation to be there. I mean, I don't see that the job that journalists do in this regard is not in the same milieu as when we send journalists to cover wars abroad. They can get killed. Indeed, they do. It's a sacrifice that journalists are.

understand. So being on the front line, whether it's in the Ukraine or on the streets of Minneapolis, is part of what is supposed to happen. And does it put him in harm's way? It puts him in harm's way. Did I think, if you would ask me even, I don't know, a month ago, if somebody like Don Lemon is following a group of people that are going from place to place in Minneapolis and is filming them and interviewing them, would he ever be arrested for doing that, even though I think there's nothing off the table for this administration, that would have been a moment too far. Yeah, absolutely. And even if you and Lemon ultimately win here, how does the mere act of bringing in No, no, no, don't say if, say when.

When, when, when, okay, I'm sorry, okay, when you and Lemon ultimately win here, or it could be dropped, that's the other way to go. How does the mere act of bringing a case like this against journalists erode press freedom? And I'll point to investigative journalist Rohn-Ferra, who also has a legal degree, had a really excellent thread on social media about how both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for eroding those protections of news gathering. He says it's part of a trend that started under President Obama and his administration's use of the Espionage Act to charge people who shared classified information. But Pharaoh also wrote, quote, when governments begin criminalizing the observation of dissent

using technical oversteps as justification, it's often a warning sign. No, well, look, this administration, I don't know if this is a silver lining, but it's a characteristic of this administration. they often tell you right up front what they're doing. And it also helps us to defend. They have said, we don't care if we win our cases. We're going to name and shame. We're going to make it hard for people.

They're going to have to hire lawyers. They're going to have to take time out of their careers. We're going to put them in a position where they're on their heels. That is itself unprecedented. I mean, you know, decade after decade of attorneys general have made it clear the point of what prosecutors' jobs are. And it isn't that. So you start there.

If that's their goal, which is I don't care. if I win, I just want to create havoc, that erodes the protections, whether you're a journalist, whether you're a defendant who has had political retribution against you because of what you've said or done, that erodes at the outset. Now, having said that, we're pushing back. I mean, you have judges that are throwing cases out, grand juries that are rejecting. It still means that people have had to find their lawyer and take time out of their career. Right. And as to Don, I think it has woken up. There are two things that happened in Minerese. in the last few weeks, that could very well be a tipping point.

One is the tragedies of U.S. federal agents killing people on the streets for peaceful protesting. And the second is these arrests of at least these two journalists, because it basically has shown the world how far this administration is willing to go. And I don't know. Maybe it's a, you know, Selma, Alabama moment or Pettus Bridge moment. I don't know that yet, but it could be. We'll be back in a minute. support for this show comes from quo one phone call is all it takes to bring new opportunities so if you're missing calls to your business you could be missing out quo spelled q u o helps you make sure you stay on top of things and helps you never miss a call again more than 90 000 businesses rely on quo to stay connected professional and consistently reachable your entire team can handle calls and texts from one shared number no more miss messages or disconnected conversations everyone sees the full thread making replies faster and customers feel genuinely cared for. Quo isn't just a phone system, it's a smart system. Its AI automatically logs

calls generate summaries and highlights next step, so nothing gets lost. It can even respond after hours so your business stays responsive even when you're not around. Coe can help you deliver a more personal experience and stay connected to your customers. Make this the year where no opportunity and no customer slips away. Try Quo for free, plus get 20% off your first six months when you go to quo.com slash Kara. That's QUO.com slash Kara. Quo, no miss calls, no miss customers. Support for this show comes from Serval AI. If you run a business, you know how important your IT department is, but you also know they're always inundated with tasks. Most of their time is wasted working on password resets, accessing requests, and onboarding. And the more your business grows,

the more these requests pile up. But with Serval, they say they can cut about 80% of your help desk tickets, and they can help free up your team to focus on more meaningful work. Unlike other legacy players, Serval was built for AI agents from the ground up. Serval AI writes automation in seconds. Your IT team just describes what they need in plain English and Serval generates production ready automations instantly. Plus, Serval guarantees 50% help desk automation by week four of your free pilot. But try it now because pilots are limited. Serval powers the fastest growing companies in the world like perplexity, Mercor, Verkata, and Clay. Get your team out of the help desk and back to work they enjoy. Book your free pilot at serval.com slash Kara. That's S-E-R-V-A-L-com slash Kara K-A-R-A.

Support for this show comes from IQ Bar. If you're looking for a smarter snack choice this year, that protein bars from IQ Bar offer clean, delicious ingredients that can help keep you physically and mentally fit. IQ Bar says all their products are clean label certified. entirely free of gluten, dairy, soy, GMOs, and artificial ingredients, not to mention packed with brain-boasting ingredients like magnesium, lions, mane, and more. IQ bar doesn't just offer protein bars, though, committed to getting to the gym more this year. You can rehydrate after your workout with IQ mix, a zero-sugar drink mix that hydrates with electrolytes meant to improve mood and boost clarity.

You can even change up your morning routine with IQ Joe, a mushroom coffee designed for mental clarity this pack with 200 milligrams of natural caffeine. Plus, it comes in four different flavors that IQ Bar says are better than any brewed coffee. And right now, IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ Bar products, including the ultimate sampler pack plus free shipping. To get your 20% off, text Kara to 64,000. You can text Kara K-A-R-A to 64,000. That's Kara to 64,000.

Message and data rates may apply. see terms for details. So you have a lot of other politically targeted clients that fall into four broad categories. Journalists doing their job, people fired for doing their job, people whose security clearances were revoked so they can't do their job, and people against whom Trump has a personal vendetta. Often, sometimes that reaches across all of them. You're representing these former FBI agency reference in DOJ prosecutors who were fired, and Trump is trying to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Her case is currently

the Supreme Court. The justice seem likely to let Cook keep her job while her case keeps playing out, but other cases involving members of independent agencies, they seem inclined to let the president do what he wants. Talk a little bit about the Cook case. I'll talk about the Cook case in the context that you just said it. So for years, there has been this debate in the law about how far the power of Article 2, the executive branch's article is. If it says the president or the executive branch shall take care that the law be fulfilled, how far does that go? That was called the unified executive theory of law. And it's been debated for literally, you know, I'm sure two and a half decades for sure.

No administration has tried to press it like everything else this administration does beyond its logic or its proper rationale. So they started eroding at various agencies. And when they fire people, sometimes the letters that go out say something like pursuant to the president's power under Article 2, you are hereby fired. So they tried that with the Federal Trade Commission. They tried it with immigration judges. They've tried it with just the high-level people of the FBI who were representing. That is their theory. It is true that we're in an era where this Supreme Court, having been chosen from those people who believe in this executive power,

is predisposed to say the president should have more power than past Supreme Court's have said. That is the baseline. That's the starting point. What makes Governor Cook's case different is that the same Supreme Court, even as recently as the argument that occurred and that FTC case some weeks ago, has always said that the Federal Reserve Board is different. It comes from the time that it was its first national bank of the United States. It comes from that it's not an executive agency that does what the SEC does. It comes from its special role in America finances. And so that has been in the language of the court.

And we've used that language to show the court that what the president did, which was, I am firing her because I want to. Now, I have to explain this, and I think I can do it in just three sentences. Sure. I just pointed out Article 2 power. The president did not use his Article 2 power to pretend to fire Lisa Cook. He concedes that he has to fire her under the phrase, I am doing it for cause, because that's what this statute says. Right. However, he has said, like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, that for cause means, whatever I say it means, whenever I say what it means.

And so for cause for him was having one of his stooges, one of his lieutenants, Bill Pulte of a federal housing agency, create a baseless criminal referral to the DOJ saying that Dr. Cook had somehow misrepresented on two different mortgages, which was her primary residence. And using that alone, which was conduct before she was a governor, that's the ground. He says that's, quote, for cause, end quote. So the court is going to struggle with how much power for cause gives the president. We're pretty confident that they will say that whatever for cause means, it doesn't mean that. That's what singular is different about her case. However, in the same period, we expect the court will decide the FTC slaughter case.

This is Rebecca Slaughter for people. I'm sorry, yes. And we'll do away with this precedent that was called Humphreys Executor, which has been on the books for 100 years, that basically limits the president's power. We all think that have been following the court, that case is done. That will be in presidential power, the equivalent of Roe versus Wade.

Meaning he'll be able to do fire who he wants. In most of those agencies. In most of those agencies, right. Correct. So while we're on the subject in Supreme Court, every episode we get a question from an outside. expert, here's yours. Hi there. This is Jody Cantor from the New York Times. I'm an investigative reporter. My job is to illuminate the Supreme Court. And because of that, I would like to ask

Abby Lowell about judges. And I'd like to take advantage of your long experience. An amazing thing about your career is that you've been practicing for a long time. How have judges changed generationally? Do they do their jobs in your observation exactly the way they do? 20, 30, 40 years ago. You've got some very sensitive cases connected to the Trump administration right now. What are your reasons for either confidence or lack of confidence in how the judges are going to be dealing with those cases? Thank you. Okay.

So, Jody, first I'm going to go past your reference to how long I've been practicing. Page, I know. She called us all, Abby. I know, really. She just totally do. Will you talk to her offline about that? I will. All right, good.

Secondly, to answer your question, this is a way I've tried to describe what I've seen over my years. There has, for the longest time, been some political and philosophical litmus tests to appoint Supreme Court justices. And you can trace that back for probably 30 years, maybe even longer for sure.

And so we were used to that. And we were also used to the Senate playing a role of making sure that at the edges that didn't go too far. Everybody knows that Robert Bork didn't get the votes necessary when the Senate thought that was a little bit further than the court should ever go. And there were opposite such things. What didn't happen until the recent modern era was that litmus test, that political and philosophical litmus test, didn't go to the lowest courts. We didn't see that phenomenon on who's going to be at the trial court level.

We used to have judges who had trial court experience to be trial court judges. Now that litmus test is what the political parties do at every level. So that's one phenomenon, Jody, that's different about the judges. Also, because judges have stayed in the area of public servant salaries, the people who populate the judge's positions are often from the government to start with, which also means that they're often from prosecutors' offices. You don't have a lot of people that are working at big law firms at hundreds of thousands of dollars a year giving up that to be in a lifetime appointment to be a judge.

judge. So you have that phenomenon. I mean, what a first-year associates make on Wall Street? $300,000? I mean, that's nuts. So you have that phenomenon going through. So between the litmus test, the populating with judges with people of your philosophy, the disparity in where we're getting judges from, the benches are turning a little bit more conservative and sometimes way more conservative. That's what I've observed over the years. Having said that, since Donald Trump got into office, there's hundreds of lawsuits that have been filed against him. They thought their plan was to what they call it, flood the zone. Lawyers have flooded the zone.

And I think there have been over 150, maybe as many as 200, injunctions that have been issued at the trial level. Now, of course, some are getting reversed on appeal, and some of them will get to the Supreme Court, but not all of them will get to the Supreme Court. So to be succinct about it, Jody, first, we have the litmus test on all levels of judges. Second, we have the disparity from where judges come from, which will make them more conservative

by bent. And third, we have an administration that's willing to press every legal issue in terms of the unitary executive to its father's extent, and that would get you 2026. But they are pushing back. A lot of judges are pushing back, even if they're conservative, correct? You've seen that trend, which I think is a surprise to the Trump people. Well, I mean, we've had some amazing opinions that are being issued by the most conservative judges on some of the courts of appeals that are basically saying we're not allowing the president to do what it is he wants to do. I don't know that I think that there is a test that says that all the favorable opinions are coming from democratically appointed judges and all the unfavorable ones are coming from Republicans. I don't think that's the case. But I think it's a good sign that some of the most vociferous of the opinions reigning him have come from people that were appointed, by the way, by even him in his first term.

Is there a way to change any of these things you're talking about? This is what I would do. First, I would have all judges from the Supreme Court down to the district court level, not be lifetime appointments. I think that's one of the things that happens is all these presidents appoint 40-year-olds to be on the Supreme Court for 30 years. I mean, I would have, you know, 10-year terms or 12, perhaps tops. Second of all, on the district court and the Court of Appeals, I would do the same. Next, I know that this is maybe different because every public servant should be paid a better wage. But if you want better judges and you want the best of law to go to those, you're going to have to figure out a compensation system that doesn't put them at such a disadvantage to everybody else.

That's the second reason. And third, just like in the law firms where we're going to have to figure out, you know, and third, just like in the law firms where we're we started talking about this, people have to remember why people should be lawyers. People have to remember that this wasn't supposed to be a business at all times. It's supposed to be part of the cause that represents and protects the rule of law. So those would be three things that would make a difference. One of the things that's good about what's going on now is that I think applications to law schools are up. And I'm hoping that that's the case because people are saying, wait, this is a moment where lawyers can do their job. So let's get to your clients, Mark, Zade, and Miles Taylor, to others,

their security clearance is revoked, which people who don't live in Washington, that's a big deal. These cases tend to fly into the radar, given everything else the government administration is doing. Talk about why they're worth paying attention to. This is sort of oxygen for many people like that. All right. So to operate in Washington when you're a whistleblower lawyer like Mark Zade, when you're somebody who operates outside as a government contractor or when you are in government like Miles Taylor was, you need, as I have to have security clearance. I have to have one to represent people like this. And security clearances are uniquely vested in the executive branch to decide who gets it on criteria for which they get a lot of discretion.

However, when the president makes clear that I'm revoking your clearance because I don't like that you sued me, or I am invoking it because of something called the national interest and not because you're a security threat, or does it because he said, I don't like what you wrote about me, then you provide a wind to challenge that. And so he did a remarkable series of things among all the remarkable things. First of all, back in the spring, you remember, he revoked the security clearance of lawyers in entire law firms. And tech companies. They did that to Chris Krebs company. Right. And they did it to Miles, who was his own. So in terms of that, remember that the district court judges who heard that prevented it, issued an injunction to restore or to prevent the suspension

of those large law firms. In the case of my friend and client, Mark's aide, who's an individual, he not only had his security clearance suspended, it was actually revoked. And remember, Mark's offense was that he represented one of the people that was involved in coming forward as a whistleblower that caused the impeachment of Trump over the Ukraine phone call. And so we also challenged that in court. The judge enjoined that from happening. And on all these cases, the government has now taken appeal to the next level of court. So that's where we sit, right? That's where we sit on all of them.

Where do you expect it to end? At the Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court. I mean, someplace, one of these cases will go to the Supreme Court. So you're also representing, I said, people who Trump wanted to target. We've talked about New York Attorney General, Letitia James. As you mentioned earlier, the administration's repeatedly gone after James so far as not succeeded. What extent those failures mask the long-term threats?

Because the administration doesn't feel like it's going to stop. And federal prosecutors reportedly launched a new investigation. and to James and her hairdresser? I think the answer to that is similar to your question to me about its impact on the First Amendment and on free journalists. So if you don't care if you win, and if you keep investigating somebody over and over again, today it's about the mortgage, tomorrow, it's about your hairdresser.

After that, it could be about your parking ticket. Then it's wearing. Luckily, though, there's the ability of somebody who's as dedicated and courageous as Letitia James, not to be coward, not to be fearful, but to keep fighting back. But does it have an impact? Of course it has an impact. It has an impact when the President of the United States on more than three, four dozen occasions

can say, I want to go after Letitia James. Now, the motion that never got heard in our case because we won on an earlier motion was the motion in which we put forward the concept of what's called prosecutorial vindictiveness. And if there is never a better example than the president demanding that she get charged, that's a great example. So does it have an impact? Does it erode? It does. If there's a silver lining, and it is there, it's just a thin silver lining to what's been happening, is that we are able to show the motives of this administration and on many, if not a majority of occasions, we are winning. What is the common thread in all of these cases? There's a broader strategy, presumably, beyond catering to his whims. Apparently, if he says it three times, they have to do it.

Whatever. He'll be gone at some point. But it may be just catering to the king. I don't know. No, no, no. Unfortunately, I don't think these are ad hoc things. No. I think there is, no.

I think this group of people who were out of power for the four years of the Biden administration and hoped that Donald Trump would return, who authored Project 2025 and did other things, knew that if they got back in power, this moment it occurred. And it is deliberate. It is, what have they done? They have basically eradicated the Republican Party. It's the Trump Party. There's nobody on the Republican side in the United States Congress with very rare example that does their job. They have politicized the courts and have basically detracted Americans' confidence in the court system. They have attacked the lawyers. They have attacked the journalists. There is a thread. The thread looks like pre-World War II Italy. The thread looks like other parts of the country. I could say it this way. Let's say it was four months ago, maybe even a better year ago. And I said, okay, name the city in the country that basically

took lawyers out of the game by taking away their security clearances and made them cower and decide not to take cases. That they basically told the press that if you ever report against me, We're going to put you out of business, and I'm going to see you for defamation, so they stopped doing it. If I said to you that they were going to shoot peaceful protesters in the streets, would you say the U.S.? Or would you say Russia, Iran, or other places? This is not random. Everybody ought to know that there are people who believe the time has come to take this power back from the people, from the institutions. To what end?

I don't know. I can't quite figure out why the Stephen Miller's and the Donald Trump. and the others who enable him think that when they're gone, they're going to leave a legacy that's going to survive, but they don't seem to care, and for the next two years,

that's what we're dealing with. Yeah, I think keeping themselves in power is the end of itself, and hatefulness. And Stephen Miller seems a really complex, psychological figure in so many ways. It is a complicated mess. So in order to decipher this,

you need historians, you need lawyers, and you need a bunch of psychologists to figure it out. We'll be back at it. a minute. Support for On with Carous Swisher comes from the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Let's be clear, when the government starts enforcing religion, that's not morality, that's control. The First Amendment exists so no one gets to hard code their beliefs into the law, not Silicon Valley,

not Washington, not Christian nationalists. The Freedom from Religion Foundation is one of the few organizations that's working towards actually enforcing that boundary in courts, in schools, and in state houses. And they say, this is about power, not piety, and that when government, and religion merge, power always wins. If you care about your personal freedom, real equality, and keeping the state out of your conscience, it's time to support them. Visit f-fr-f-f-r-us-slash-new-year or text my name, Kara, K-A-A-1-5-11 to learn more or to join. Text Kara to 5-Eleven-5-11 or go to F-F-R-F-U-S-N-N-E. That's Kara to 5-E-1-1 and help protect a country that belongs to all of us.

Text fees may apply. Support for this show comes from Delete Me. These days, it's easier than ever for bad actors to get your information and exploit it. The good news is there's Delete Me. I've tried Delete Me many times. I use it all the time, and I think it's a really great service.

It helps you find out what information is about you out there and how it's being collated by data brokers, most of whom do not have your best interests in mind. One of the things I'm always surprised about is how much bad information there is about me mixed with good information and about how they know everywhere I've lived for the past 900 years. It's ridiculous, but it's also disturbing. Delete Me makes it easy, quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when

surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. With Delete Me, you can protect your personal privacy and the privacy of your business from doxing attacks before sensitive information can be exploited. The New York Times wirecutter is named Delete Me, their top pick for data removal services compared to the others out there, and I can attest to that. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join deleteme.com slash Kara and use the promo code Kara at checkout.

The only way to get 20% off is to go to join delete me.com slash Kara and enter the code Kara at checkout. That's K-A-R-A. That's Join DeleteMe.com slash Kara code Kera. When it comes to the new Melania movie, here are some important numbers to remember. 40 million. That's how much Amazon paid Melania Trump's production studio for the rights to the film. It's the highest price ever paid for a documentary. 35 million.

That's about how much Amazon spent marketing the film. 28 million. How much went to the first lady? And 7 million. That's how much. much the Melania movie made on opening weekend, which is honestly pretty good, and certainly more of the many box office insiders projected. So how did this movie get made? Who's it for? And if this is finally Melania Trump's side of the story, what does she have to say?

That's coming up on Today Explain from Vox. Listen weekday afternoons, wherever you get your podcast. So let's end by looking at some of the big legal challenges in the next few months or years. First, there's Trump's decision to sue the IRS for $10 billion over the leaking of his tax records in 2020. Now, Trump likely does have a legitimate claim against the IRS, but the sum is absurd. It's a massive conflict of interest. Before he won re-election, he also sued the DOJ for $230 million in that case is ongoing. What's to stop the government from settling with him? He is the government. How does that work? Yeah, this is unprecedented for even somebody like me or Jody or somebody to O'Pine.

right? Yeah. So this is great. This would be like in our average lives if I was the person who slipped on my own sidewalk and I was going to sue myself for my negligence and I would make a deal with my left hand taking money out of my pocket and giving it to my right hand from my other pocket. That's exactly. So I mean, so I get the framework. This is what could stop it. First of all, there is going to be people, entities who challenge the conflict, who point to the law that says that you can't be both the plaintiff and effect, the defendant in the same case. And secondly, what can I tell you? Hopefully there are judges out there who realize just how awful this would be if we allow him to sue himself for $10 billion

and then settle the case for $5 or sue for $230 and command Pam Bondi, okay, I'll drop the case, pay me $100 million. It's just beyond your comprehension. right? Yeah, yeah, well, we'll see. Another major story is the FBI's seizure of 2020 voting records in Fulton County, Georgia, which includes most of Atlanta. Days for the raid, Trump said, quote, people will soon be prosecuted for what they did. The president's claims of voter fraud in Georgia that year have been repeatedly disproven. But with the midterms later in the year, a lot of people are very worried. What kind of ripple effects could this raid have going forward and what does it signal to local election officials on the ground besides be scared, presumably. That's a goal here. Well, you earlier in our conversation pointed out their desire to hold on to power. Okay. What I think I go around and people are equally fearful of other than being shot in the streets for protesting is that somehow people think Trump is going to steal the 2026 election or the 28 election or he's going to make sure that it doesn't happen at all. Right.

Well, every accusation is a confession with these people. So not an unusual thing to think. But go ahead. And you start seeing some of the things, right? yesterday or the day before he says, I want to nationalize elections? Yeah. I mean, he just makes up a phrase that even people in his own party say, no, no, no, you can't do that. Yeah, the constitution for people don't know gives state the power to carry an election. There were people who said you can't knock down half of the White House either, which he seemed to be able to do. So,

you can't put it past him to find a way to nationalize the elections or put national guards around people's voting booths so that people are intimidated to come and vote. People should be rightfully concerned about that. and using the power of the government to go after a debunk theory of fraud in the 2020 election. He's not even doing it about something that happened yesterday. He's saying he's doing it to continue his hoax that the election of 2020 was stolen from him and sends the FBI and others to a voting center in Fulton County to grab the ballots. That is an omen about what could happen in other places that he has been yelling about.

One of the reasons he said on TV, I think, he wants to nationalize. He said, there's corruption in Philadelphia, in Atlanta. I forgot the names of the cities. So if I were the election officials in those places, I would basically start locking up your ballots. Or at least putting lawyers in the way from when they try. Now, how could he use the legal system and power of the justice reform to try to take over elections? Because it's very explicit in the Constitution. I think he says it, and now his minions are going back to the room to figure out,

How could we do that if we wanted to? So I don't know the answer. And by the way, let you and I make a deal, that if you're a smart person and I try to be a smart person, let's not come up with a way he could do it so that he could use that. That's correct. Good point. Fair point.

Let's let him figure it out the wrong way so that it could be successfully attacked when he tries. Okay. And you said election should lock out ballots. Can they do that and even in the phase of a federal warrant? Well, yeah. I mean, I think the thing is, is that you bring what you can, right? if they seize things, you can make a motion to unsease things. If they subpoena things, you can move to quash the subpoena.

If they come in without a subpoena or without a search warrant, election officials all over the country need to know their rights. You don't have to talk to any of these folks, and you don't have to give them anything without a court order. And what does that mean? Just like I'm trying to figure out why somebody would be indicted for being a journalist in Minneapolis, magistrates and judges are a front-line protection

for the overreach of the executive branch. They have to rise to the occasion and not let it happen. There's a very good argument of get off my lawn. Get off my lawn. Get off my lawn. Get off my lawn. Get off on now. So in an interview back in August, you said one of the things you're doing at your firm is not waiting for the next bad thing to happen, but knowing that it's coming. I think about this a lot. I'm like, they're so good at getting to set the agenda with reaction rather than action. So how do you anticipate what the Trump administration is going to do next?

What are the big fights you are gearing up for right now? Well, without tipping our hand about some of the things that are being worked on down the hallway from me right now, we have spent many weeks talking about offensive litigation instead of being completely defensive. I always tell people that when people say, like, when you get down, what would make you down? I say, well, sometimes I feel like I'm at the carnival game of whack-a-mole. You know, we hit one of them down and another one comes up. The good news is that maybe there's one fewer mole than there was the day before. having said that, so we know his game plan. We now know that he's seeking to intimidate people in the elections world. So there will be possibility of bringing suits that will define by declaratory judgment what the rights of these state and local officials are that can't be nationalized. There are, we know, his aggrandizement for things and property, whether it be the new arch over the memorial bridge, whether it be knocking down the east wing. He's talked about. He's talked about.

wanting to take over the D.C. public health courses, we now know where he's going, and there can be those suits that are brought offensively to tell him that he's outside the bounds of whatever statute or no statute he believes he is going to do. When his people take actions like shooting and killing people on the streets, sure, they've got a certain amount of immunity, and I guess this is reactive, but nobody is using the Federal Tort Claims Act as much as it will be being used now in the future to address those. So there are offenses that can be done. Again, the system was created to give a presumption of regularity to the government doing its job. And in a sane and rational moment, that immunity makes sense. The problem with the system is that it envisioned that we would live

in sane and rational moments. So we're now trying to figure out the solution. Well, a lot of Trump people, they're asking for immunity right now or soon, like more immunity from him directly. And I was like, why? Did you do anything? And they're like, no. But I was like, well, you're going to jail if you did, I'm guessing in the future. But if you didn't, possibly not. So how do you get to them if they get that immunity, the ones that actually did wrong things?

Okay. So what the president can do, as he has done over and over in this administration, which is a story unto itself, is the buying pardons, the buying commutations. He can immunize under federal statutes lots of things. What he can't do is immunize people from civil liability, except for narrow circumstances of what the statutes allow. And what has been one of the best parts of the last year, if you're looking for again a silver lining? The rise of state attorneys general to meet the moment, to use the powers of state law or local prosecutors who are also banning together because the president can't immunize his actors from those two forms of liability.

So that's also a place where people can be a little hopeful. In the future, going in the future. In the future. So, Christy Noam better not go to Minnesota anytime after 2020. Or a couple of the other places where we have these state prosecutors say, not in my backyard. Yeah. Okay. Abby, this is so fascinating, so substantive.

I really appreciate it. And the work you're doing is really, I mean, to make God's work. Well, thank you for having me. And I want to say before we end that I'm not alone. There are so many of us out there now. Yeah, we may not be in the biggest firms that you've heard the names of over the last decades, but there are lots of people that are now flooding the zone to push back against the abuse of power. It gives me courage every day. Same thing in journalism. Every day. More and more

independent journalists. Good for you guys. Let me tell you everybody, the water's fine. So jump in. Today's show was produced by Christian Castro, Hessell, Michelle Aloy, Megan Bernie, and Caitlin Lynch. Nishat Kerou is Vox Media's executive producer of podcast. Special thanks to Aymann Waylon and Madeline LaPlante Duby. Our engineers are Fernando O'Reilly. Ruta and Rick Juan, and our theme use is by Tracademics. If you're already following this show, you're standing up to Donald Trump. If not, watch out for Pam Bondi and her go wherever you listen to podcast. Search for On with Carous Swisher and hit follow.

Thanks for listening to On With Carous Swisher from Podium Media, New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Thursday with more.