Raging Moderates with Scott Galloway and Jessica Tarlov - Biden’s Cancer Diagnosis

Episode Date: May 20, 2025

Scott and Jessica break down President Biden’s aggressive cancer diagnosis, which comes just as a new book claims his team may have hidden signs of serious decline during the 2024 campaign. Meanwhile, Trump’s Middle East trip makes waves as his domestic agenda stalls. To appease hardline conservatives, Republicans push changes to the megabill—including stricter Medicaid work requirements, cuts to green energy tax credits, and the removal of Medicaid access for undocumented immigrants. Then, former federal prosecutor and Stay Tuned host Preet Bharara joins to unpack the growing legal and ethical crises surrounding the Trump administration. Follow Jessica Tarlov, @JessicaTarlov.  Follow Prof G, @profgalloway. Follow Raging Moderates, @RagingModeratesPod. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Will you rise with the sun to help change mental health care forever? Join the Sunrise Challenge to raise funds for CAMH, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, to support life-saving progress in mental health care. From May 26th to 30th, Canadians will rise as one and show those living with mental illness and addiction that they're not alone. Help CAMH build a future where no one is left behind. So, who will you rise for?

Register today at SunriseChallenge.ca. That's SunriseChallenge.ca. When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer. So download the app and get delivery

in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees exclusions and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over-deliver. Welcome to Raging Moderates, I'm Scott Galloway. And I'm Jessica Charlov. Jess, how are you? I'm great.

Yeah? I'm refreshed from my vacation. Oh, how was that? You were in Italy, right? It was really good. Well. Spain. Traveling with a three and one-year-old is brutal.

Yeah. And I have many thoughts on how much nicer it is in Europe vis-a-vis having little kids. Like, they don't make you feel terrible about it. And at the airport, there's a special line for families that are just like covered in strollers and diapers. And you feel at one with those of you who've taken the little kid plunge, but it was a great trip.

How was your week? Really nice back in London and it's sunny here. So London, when it's sunny is the nicest city in the world. So for a good like 15, 18 days a year, it's a fantastic city. But what you said about family in Europe, it does really resonate. The example I would use to kind of typifies

what I'll call a more focused concentration or respect for families is in Germany. There are these beer gardens everywhere, but they also have trampolines and carousels. So it's like there's something for everybody. You go get a beer and then your kids go crazy. And maybe it's because the cities I've lived in is pretty segregated. It's like people who are cursed with families and paying that price, you need to go over here and then adults only over here. And it seems like Europe does a much better job of

integrating or of a hybrid model, if you will. Yeah, you know, you bring your kid out to dinner no matter the time and they fall asleep in the stroller and there's stroller parking and no one's giving you the side eye. It's the kind of stuff I know in life, everyone's talking about these falling birth rates. But I was like, do we want a third?

Like, am I ovulating? We could do this. And then no dice. There is no third baby. Tables for five are much harder. Four is much easier. And by the way, just along those lines, I'm convinced that you'd get much more passive hostility

if you bring your kid to a restaurant where I live in SoHo than a dog. Because dogs are cool, right? It's like, oh, we have water bowls, but no children allowed. No children allowed. I totally agree. Anyways, today we're discussing Biden's cancer diagnosis and a new book about his coverup,

the future of the GOP's mega bill. And we have Preet Bharara, Preet, my good, good friend, my one call. Also, I got a story about Preet. Do you know that scene from Tootsie? You're probably too young to have seen the movie Tootsie. No, I love Tootsie. And Bill Murray is like, just got such a great rap and all these people are surrounding him

and raptured and rubbing his shoulders and all these women are just like looking fondly and adoringly at him. Vox had this, or was it a code conference, something carapult together where she got Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos and I don't know, everybody. Just casually got Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos and I don't know, everybody. Just casually got Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos. And there was a party afterwards and I saw this semi-circle of people enraptured by this guy and I walk over and there was Preet in his suit and his dreamy blue eyes swirling around a glass of wine.

And I'm not exaggerating. It was like that scene. Everyone was just hanging on his every word. I don't know, he's like the sexiest man alive or the sexiest former Southern District head of the Southern District. Anyways. Well, that's a much more limited group.

I would give him even bigger than just SDNY. Low bar. But he is, for people who are attracted to intelligence, there's like a lane, what's it called? People attracted to smart men. No, that's like everybody, but there is like, oh, a sapiosexual. Sapiosexual, okay. We could have spent two years with this uncomfortable pause

and I wouldn't have gotten to sapiosexual. So I'm fascinated by mating, just a quick review. The three things that women find most sexually attractive in a man are one, his ability to signal future resources, not even just current resources, you have to have a plan. Two, intellect, to your point, you know the fastest way to communicate intellect, Jess?

I don't know. Humor. Oh. Humor is the fastest way. Is that why you're so funny? It's the only way I had game. If you can make a woman laugh, she will have coffee and go on a date with you.

And laugh in bed too. I get that. When people are like, oh, it's supposed to be so serious. I'm like, what is funnier than sex or like the weird stuff that goes on around it? 100%. And then the third thing, as I try and dig my way out of this hole,

the third thing is kindness, which is the most underrated. It's the thing that men don't realize is actually very attractive is how you treat service people, your clear commitment to your parents, because women at some point know deep down that they might be vulnerable during gestation or raising kids and they want someone who's kind. Anyways, that's nothing to do with anything

we're talking about today. Well, kind of. I mean, we're talking about humanity, and this is humanity. There we go. All right, let's get into it. It's been another wild week in politics. While Trump was overseas and getting the world treatment

from the Saudis during his Middle East trip, his legislative priorities were falling apart back home, and Washington conservative hardliners in the House Budget Committee sank a key vote on Trump's domestic bill only to reverse course late Sunday after GOP leaders promised changes. Those include stricter Medicaid work requirements, cutting Biden-era green energy tax credits, and removing Medicaid access for undocumented immigrants. But of course, Trump wasn't about to let the chaos back home steal the spotlight. During a business stop in the UAE, he pivoted back to one of his favorite topics,

tariffs, and not just talk. He announced his administration plans to skip negotiations entirely and slap new tariffs on dozens of countries, a move that could rattle global markets and strain relations with key U.S. allies in Europe and Asia. And if that were enough political whiplash, on Sunday, it was announced that Joe Biden was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer. The news comes just days before the release of a new book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, which raises fresh questions about what the public didn't know and what insiders did know about Biden's physical condition during the 2024 campaign.

According to the reporting, Biden's health was deteriorating so rapidly that aides feared he might need a wheelchair if he won re-election, but they kept it quiet, taking every possible step to keep him upright until he eventually dropped out. Jess, let's start with Biden's tragic news for him and his family. What do you make of it all? Well, it's incredibly sad to hear that he has cancer. It's something that touches all of our lives.

I lost my dad to cancer and reading that it's a very aggressive form that's already permeated the bones. That's terrible news all around. And I hope that he and his family are able to spend some time tuned out from what is to be a savage week in politics because of the release of this book and the Robert Herr special counsel tapes that came out as well and a lot of people are jumping on that bad wagon. So I hope that they can find some time for themselves and I trust that they're getting great medical care. It also is opening up this Pandora's

box even further about cover-ups and how it's possible that he has progressed so far without telling the public what's been going on, was he sick while he was in office. Dr. Zeke Emanuel, one of the Emanuel brothers, was on Morning Joe Monday morning and said his expectation would be that he would have had this for 10 years. I didn't know a lot about prostate cancer, and I'm not going to pretend that I'm any sort of expert, but I didn't even know that you... It's now advised that you not get checked your PSA levels after you turn 70.

He's an 82-year-old man. So has he been not checking this? He has a Gleason score of nine. It goes from two to 10, which seems very advanced. They found out that he was sick through a UTI. Has he not had a UTI? For the past several years, a lot of open-ended questions. And I mostly want him and his family

to feel good and secure and get the care that they need and also for this week to not be as ugly as I expect that it is going to be. What about you? Yeah, look, he's a good man. And anytime you hear about someone who gets this kind of news, you have empathy for them and their family. I go more to what it means for the nation and sort of what we can draw from it. An 82-year-old diagnosed with prostate cancer is not an unusual diagnosis. I mean, basically, what was strange here and is a bit of a wake-up call is that it had gotten so advanced. You'd think the president would have, I just joined one of these high-end medical concierge clinics,

and basically they just scan you all the time. And I'm just shocked that it would have gotten that far, that a Gleason of nine, if anyone should catch stuff early, I would have thought it was the president. It's a terrible diagnosis. I'm not a doctor, but it just doesn't, you know, this is very bad news for the Biden family. I think on a larger level, I think we need age limits. If he had been re-elected,

he will probably spend the next one, two, five years severely impaired, not only because he's going to be 83, 84, 85, but he's going to be fighting a devastating illness. Let's hope that he survives and maybe even beats it. But what would that have meant if he was the president? It would have meant that he couldn't take foreign trips. It would have meant that no one trusted him to make decisions. It would have meant if he was the president. It would have meant that he couldn't take foreign trips. It would have meant that no one trusted him to make decisions.

It would have meant constant lying. There would have been a full-time spin protection lying circle, an informal cabinet doing nothing but trying to protect him and continue to lie about his faculties and abilities. Well, it would have been President Kamala Harris. Would it have been? Do you think, see, this is what I'm not sure of, Jess. I think the guy is a good man.

I also think he's a raging fucking narcissist, as is many of the people who get to DC. Do you think he would have handed over the mantle? I'm not sure he would have. I think he would be more likely to, having at least clocked that he won the second term and beaten Donald Trump again, but people are doing a lot of reassessments of who they think Joe Biden is.

And yes, fundamentally a good man, but even the people who love him the most, like there was a very moving piece by Steve Shale, longtime Democratic consultant, Florida, worked for the Biden campaign 2020, saying like it's a special kind of ego to run for president and to do it multiple times, right? And then to do it even in the face of the headwinds that we're seeing when you are 78, 79, 80 years old, the best thing that he can do is kind of recede from public life at this point because every interview makes it worse for the rest of us. Like the session on the view where Dr. Jill is still, you know, hopping in when necessary because he trails off or whatever's going on is really bleak. But as someone caring for a dad who's about to be 95 and has also had to had very

uncomfortable conversations with CEOs who've done an amazing job for a company for 20 years and have to say to them, you're too old, we're asking you to step down. And they see it as, all right, you're basically telling me to go home and die. That's how they see it. You have to sort of almost shove all this goodwill

and loyalty aside and do what's best for the shareholders. You know, these are really uncomfortable conversations. Anyone who's had an aging parent, they're under the impression, and they're not bad people, that no, I can continue to live on my own. And this is people much younger than President Biden. And then when you have people around you enabling it, you can absolutely see how this happens. And that it's not, I don't wanna say it's not their fault, but you can understand how an individual believes with the right people around me,

I can continue to do the best job and I beat them once, I'll beat them again. And that's why we need age limits on both sides. There are 34 year olds I know who are incredible, who would be in my opinion, have the neurological, physical, emotional, and mental strength to be president. And yet they're not eligible though. We've decided their body of experience,

their brain development, their judgment and reasoning and their faculties are not up to the task of the highest office in the land. But an 85 year old at the end of his term is. I don't know anyone who's beat biology. Biology is undefeated. And the notion that we're just gonna ignore it on the high and we need age limits for the Supreme Court

and we need, okay, you cannot be in elected office beyond, I would pick 70, but okay, maybe 75. And here's the thing. It's also the kindest thing to do. Because what I've seen of corporations is when they have mandatory retirement, and they have mandatory tenure limits on the directors, you want to talk about people who have fucking nothing going on. But occasionally, they get to show up to a board meeting and have a free dinner and think big thoughts.

And you got to tell these people whose companies kicked them out a long time ago. No, you can't be on this board any longer. That is such an uncomfortable conversation that nobody wants to have it. So what's great is you have boards that have tenure limits. You can be on this board for no more than eight, 10 or 12 years. Not only will it be best for the country, but I think the kindest thing to do is not make it a question or an issue. Once you hit 70 or 75, you go home a hero and you spend time with your grandkids and we're done. And I think that's the conversation we should be having instead of like, it was some sort of malicious cover up.

No, we're all covering for our old aging parents. We're all trying to pretend and talk ourselves into believing that they're okay, that they're better than they are, and you see them at their best moments. So I hope this inspires a productive conversation where we say, okay, Britain has age limits on their Supreme court justices here. As most countries or a lot of countries have them, let's have an age limit on the presidency, our senators, our Congress people, and our Supreme Court justices.

It puts the country at risk when you have people this old with literally their finger on the button. Your thoughts. Yeah, I agree with you and I've had multiple conversations around this issue and people push about, oh oh you're being ageist Etc if we're talking about 75, I don't think that's that ageist. Have I said something like oh, you know

You can't even be 60 that would be ludicrous but if you're talking about people where there is Biology very clear about how your brain changes how your body shuts down That this is what we can expect at that stage in your life, why would you want that person as the leader of the free world or why would you want that person as one of the nine most important legal minds in the country? I think that people will come around to those kinds of conversations.

The issue is will the folks who are still filling those positions get out of the way? Because there are all of these older Democrats that are retiring like Dick Durbin, right? Who's, you know, passing the torch, Jean Shaheen, etc. And then you have someone who has the stamina and energy of a 30 year old like Bernie Sanders, but in his 80s, who's not slowing down or stopping. The inconsistency on this issue is what's really difficult for me because there are people that you can point to, like a Joe Biden who seemed very fit, right?

He's out riding a bike, he goes for jogs, et cetera. And then you read some of the coverage from original sin from Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson's book, and you see moments of a completely different Biden. And I've been struggling with this personally Jay Tapper and Alex Thompson's book, and you see moments of a completely different Biden. And I've been struggling with this personally because I do feel guilty as someone with an important role in the media. And I defended Joe Biden. I certainly was honest about what I was seeing. You know, like if he was falling or going in a weird direction I never got

into that's a cheap fake or a deep fake, for instance. But certainly once that State of the Union speech came around where he went for like an hour and a half and then he was doing the rope line and making fun of Marjorie Taylor Greene and owning the room, I was like, Biden is back. And that's when Ezra Klein changed how he felt, Matt Ecclesius, etc. But perhaps I shouldn't have thought that Dean Phillips was out of his mind or been part of a chorus, more like what you were talking about where he said,

it's OK for somebody who might have a serious chance at winning the nomination or at least inspiring the Democratic Party to open their eyes and do some real self-reflection to get in there. Because Dean Phillips was clear that he didn't think that he was supposed to be the guy. He wanted Gretchen Whitmer, Gavin Newsom, Wes Moore, these people that we talk about for 2028 to get in there earlier, but no one was raising their hand.

And some of that was probably that Biden wasn't bad all the time, that you could have a meeting with him and he would be the same that he was 2019, 2020 when he won the presidency decidedly. But a lot of it seems to have been just abject terror about the wrath of the party and the establishment when it turns on you. Yeah, so I'm the original agist. Bill Maher called me an agist.

And I said, yeah, and you know who else is ageist? Biology. I think my 14 year old makes really bad decisions. And I think my dad left to his own devices would make even more bad decisions. And at some point we had to tell him he could no longer drive because he was gonna kill someone.

Do you realize that people, I think it's people over the age of 75 are dramatically more dangerous behind the wheel than a brand new 16 year old. We always talk about how dangerous new kids are and they drink and- Well, their reflexes, right, are just completely gone. Yeah, they're really fucking old.

My reflexes aren't what they used to be. I'm like, I can't get over the fact that how my reflexes are degrading anyways. In addition, the other benefit of having age limits is that we need to clear out more room for younger voices. I see this every day in higher education. There are so many young outstanding academics who can't get traction in their career and oftentimes end up leaving the profession because some 84 year old who was the bomb in gap one accounting in 1973 won't get the fuck out of the

way because of tenure and won't go home. And it creates more uncomfortable conversations. I mean, Goldman Sachs and McKinsey are great at this and that is once you literally hit 45, they start politely nudging you out of the firm. A the firms are incredibly profitable, but they start creating basically retirement funds and you can access them once you retire. They want you out because the only way they can continue to attract

the type of human capital that continues to make their organizations perform at the highest level is it creates room for young people. And one of the nice things about DC is it does attract a ton of young, incredible talent at a staff level. But there are too many great young people in the Senate and the House who are thinking about running who don't run because some fucking 85-year-old won't get out of the way, who just shouldn't be there. But because they've been taking money from special interest groups forever, Because some fucking 85 year old won't get out of the way. Who just shouldn't be there.

But because they've been taking money from special interest groups forever, because the party will always support the incumbent, because the incumbent does have the biggest chance of winning, we end up with a cross between the walking dead and the golden girls, deciding public policy. So I hope this inspires a more serious conversation not about, oh, the Biden family, they did something wrong. No, they didn't.

They do what every family does. They were trying to protect their loved one and they saw the best side of him. But we need to have an honest conversation around age limits, which won't happen. We also have to have a serious conversation around the political strategy for navigating the fallout from this book and the continued conversations around the Biden era because

it is not going away. And you think it's a big deal. So I think it'll come and go. I, I work at Fox News. This ain't going anywhere. It will lead every newscast until there's some feedback that the viewers aren't into it anymore. And the viewers are not going to not be into It will lead every newscast until there's some feedback that the viewers aren't into it anymore. And the viewers are not gonna not be into stories about Joe Biden not knowing who George Clooney was, even if that's disputed by some people or that they were gonna use a wheelchair

or whatever else is to come. And I haven't read the book. I've only read excerpts of it. If you have people like Van Jones saying this is a crime against the Republic, like the shouts are coming from within the House or whatever the term is for it. I firmly believe that this cannot be allowed to become the main narrative. It just absolutely can't.

We have a moment where Trump is tanking our economy, where they're pushing through this bill that's going to cut $880 billion to Medicaid. Americans are pessimistic about the economy. We do have an election coming up in 2026. It feels like forever away, but no, it really does feel like forever away. But it is coming. And Democrats, and myself included, are always up for self-flagellation. Republicans do no inward thinking, right?

Oh, we lost, let's move on. Sometimes let's just even continue doing the same exact thing. We didn't lose, the election was rigged. And we'll sit there and browbeat ourselves into oblivion. And that's what fills me with fear at this moment that we're gonna not just take the book for what it is, read it, consume it, maybe you go see Tapper speak live or whatever. I think it's going to be at the 92nd Street. Why? Next month.

But that we allow this to become the narrative and don't own our own election campaign because Republicans get to set our agenda. That's freaking me out. Well, here's the thing. This is a pretty safe prediction. Age and cognitive decline, it's not linear. And Donald Trump presents as more robust. The next three and a half years are not good years for people that age. Yeah. If you just look at actuarial tables and obese, what is he 78 or 79? There's like a one in three chance he dies while in office.

So the same things they were trying to cover up, the Democratic machine and the Biden family, are likely going to show up in this White House. Because guess what folks, biology always wins. Okay, let's take a quick break. Stay with us. Donald Trump's been back in office long enough to shock or surprise just about anyone who voted for him at this point, be it the signal scandal or the tariff turnarounds, the Jeanine Pirro of it all, the way he talks about Ozempic. And he takes the fat, the fat shot drug. So rude.

I'm in London and I just paid for this damn fat drug I take. I said it's not working. On Today Explained, we're asking if any of his voters are experiencing voters' remorse, especially those ones who are newer to his winning coalition, younger voters, black voters, Latin voters. We're heading to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to ask them if... regrets? Do they have a few? And just by way of spoiler to get this

out of the way, the answer is yes, they do. And he takes the fat, the fat shot drug. Welcome back. Let's turn to Congress. What do you think is the path forward for Trump's mega bill or is there a path forward? There's always a path forward in Donald Trump's Republican Party because they only care about pleasing him. So they have a very slim majority, five votes. It was a big setback on Friday when the bill failed out of the Budget Committee, Chip Roy

and four other GOP hardliners voted for the Democrats against it, but lo and behold, Sunday night, now they're for it or they voted present. Chip Roy has his moments and then he caves. And that's the story for basically everyone in the Republican Party, save for Thomas Massey, who usually means what he says. They're going to move forward with this. They're going to increase the deficit by three trillion if it gets passed. The big cuts Medicaid I already mentioned. Now that the CBO has actually had time with the bill, some of these stats that are coming out would send you reeling. You actually can't process how somebody could be for a bill like this. People making between $17K and $51K could lose an average of $700 in after-tax

income. Those making $4.3 million or more would gain an average of $389,000. The bottom 60% of taxpayers would get an average tax cut of $700 under the plan, but over $10 million would lose their health insurance. And I'm pretty sure that your health insurance is worth more than $700 in your pocket. And I guess in a bright spot, if you take them at your word, which is always difficult, this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate.

You know, Josh Hawley had a New York Times op-ed saying, you can't cut Medicaid. Ron Johnson wants more cut. That's my favorite. The people who are like, no, I can't be for this because it doesn't cut enough. But you know, I'll take it. Susan Collins, Jerry Moran,

all the rural hospitals are going to be gone. It's going to wipe out rural medical care in this country. And every once in a while, it's a good time to be a Democrat. And in this case, it is because you have all of these Republicans, whose feet are going to be held to the fire because they represent rural states. And they've got millions of constituents that are saying I'm gonna have nowhere to go.

A, won't have healthcare in the first place, but then if I do get sick, I can't even get to a hospital to get the care that I need. Yeah, and I think that's the correct framing. What I have seen is that it's a tax cut for the top 5% and it's a tax hike for the lower 95. And in addition, the thing that I harp on about is it's going to add what I've seen about four and a half or $5 trillion to the deficit. I've seen numbers that are much bigger.

I'm taking the more conservative one. That's about $30,000 per household. And keep in mind the deficits that we're racking up are not being used to fund education or fund technical development or make investments in infrastructure That could ultimately pay off for future generations it's essentially to extend corporate tax cuts and increase defense spending and They're trying to minimize some of that deficit reduction by cutting social services or you know, as you said Medicaid I

uploaded my W-2s from last year into three different LLMs and said, how does the proposed Trump tax bill going to affect me? And they came back with things. I'm going to get wealthier. And one even started off with good news. So essentially this is young people get to borrow money, four and a half trillion dollars, because the thing is our credit is fine for probably 10, 20, maybe 30 years. People are crying that, oh yeah, interest rates will go up.

They already are. We just lost our AAA credit rating from, I think this was Moody's? Moody's, yeah. So we saw the 10 year go up, which means student loans, mortgages, everything, companies' ability to borrow money, to pay for it, additional factories. So basically, everyone in America is going to pay slightly more money for everything.

That's what an increased interest rates do, such that we can fund a tax cut for the top 5%, and our credit will be fine for a while. I don't think that there's going to be a failed treasury auction for a while, but effectively what this is, is people under the age of call it 40 have to borrow an additional $5 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the old and the wealthy.

And people say to me, I was at a time, Scott, it's not young versus old, it's poor versus rich. They're the same fucking thing. Cause if you look at the people who would benefit most from this tax cut, yeah, they're the rich, but they usually are people in their 60s and 70s. I think the Democrats need to do a better job of, you realize this is like a household that's taking on,

right now the household makes 50 grand, spends 70 grand, has 370 grand in debt and is about to take on another 50 grand in debt. And by the way, when mom and dad die, they'll have spent all that time going to Cabo and parting and buying, you know, Alexis. But that debt is gonna be inherited by their children. It just, it strikes me as just such a criminal act against the young and we don't frame it that way.

We say, okay, we need to lower taxes. And also I think if you came to the table and said, there are really some hard decisions to be made around our biggest entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, we have to make really ugly, severe cuts and we're gonna match those cuts proportionate or two to one with tax increases on corporations who are paying the lowest taxes

since 1929 or in the very wealthy who continue to see a regressive or enjoy a regressive tax rate. I think you could make a moral and an economic argument for making those types of really deep, terrible cuts and then said, okay, because there's some hard decisions to be made and we're going to start a path towards fiscal responsibility, which will ultimately lower the interest costs on our debt, which will ultimately lower the costs for everybody, but folks, we can't afford to keep spending the way

we're spending and we can't afford to not bring in more revenues. I think I could have gotten on board with that, but instead they're like, no, let's cut people's healthcare so we can give the top 5% tax cut. And the Republicans pushing back on this thing for their TikTok moment, they did talk about the deficit, but it was all through the lens of the cuts don't go deep enough. And I'm like, Jesus Christ. You don't think these cuts are going deep enough? That's where you're going with this? The cruelty is the point. In every aspect of Republican policy making,

the cruelty is the point. And you're totally right. Contextualizing the deficit in real terms would be an enormous public service that if any of these politicians would like to get on board with, I would certainly amplify it. I want to know about what it means for my mortgage rate. I want to know what it means for my grocery bill. I want to know what it means for, you know, how fast my 529 for

my kids so that they can go to college is going to grow or be slowed by the deficit, etc. All of that stuff. But I think that you really need to make it as simple as possible. Like, if you do this, you lose this. We can choose a tax cut for the wealthy or nutritional assistance. We can choose a tax cut for the wealthy or your Medicaid coverage. We can choose. I mean, remember, I mean, we were sold so many lies during the confirmation hearings, but all this talk about we're going to actually do an audit of the Pentagon. Now Secretary Hicks has told us that. And lo and behold, there are no cuts to the Pentagon. They're increasing the budgets. Republicans are never going to cut defense spending. That is a lie that they tell you every single time, along with we actually care about the debt and the deficit as well. So I really want Democrats to get like super simple, like pretend you're telling my three-year-old what's actually in this bill and draw that straight line from the tax cuts to the loss of

services that matter to the lives of the average American. And that's not to say that the Americans aren't getting it. Trump is underwater in terms of how he's handling the economy. This bill is hugely unpopular. But they live only for the day, right? They love the one you're with. They're not thinking about what happens in 26 or in 28. They're just trying to cram as much junk down our throats

as possible, as quickly as possible. And then they're going to worry about the repercussions later. Yeah, so just let me cement my reputation as an ageist. It really is old people fucking this country. I mean, first off, if passed, this tax bill would be the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in U.S. history. And it's much more fun to create a class war.

But who are the rich again? There aren't a lot of 26 year olds thinking, wow, this tax cuts going to be great for me. Yeah. If you look at who owns shares, who benefits from these tax cuts, it's the old. And here's the problem. The old continue have figured out a way to vote themselves more money. Oh, and guess what? We're talking about cutting Medicaid. But we're not talking about cutting Medicare or Social Security, right? Because that's old people. And old rich people.

Old rich people. Because old rich people still use their Medicare. Well, yeah, they still love their Medicare. It's great health care at a low price. They still want, you know, I paid into it, by the way, the majority of people who once they take out Social Security, take out more than they put in. And it's not called a Social Security pension fund. It's called a Social Security tax, meaning it may not benefit you directly.

And then people say, Scott, but it's not a deficit issue. Well, of course it's similar. It's a tax on young people. When Social Security was initially conceived, there were 12 young people supporting every retiree. Now it's three to one, and people are working and living 20 or 30 years longer, and Jessica Tarlov and Scott Galloway should not get Social Security.

And here's the problem going back to we need age limits in Congress. Say we're able to continue to live irresponsibly and live beyond our means and continue to take advantage of the full faith and credit of the US government, which has been earned through hard work and fiscal responsibility over 225 years. In 30 years, 75% of Congress will be dead. See, above they're too fucking old. So they don't have a vested interest

in the future of America. I'll be dead by then. I mean, I know this firsthand. I believe where I live in Florida will probably be underwater at some point, but it's probably going to be 50 years and I've done the math. I'm just not that damn worried about it. Whereas a 25 year old is more concerned with climate change. I understand that. And we need more 25 year olds in Congress such that we can be a little bit more future forward,

such that we can be thinking about the requisite long-term investments to ensure our kids and grandkids have the same types of opportunities we do. So what is the incentive for people in Congress who are really fucking old? Well, whatever, future generations will deal with warming oceans and an unsustainable debt load.

As long as my credit card continues to be accepted and I can continue feeding at the trough until I'm dead, I'm down with these ridiculously short-term policies, these tax cuts, which largely benefit the wealthy Republicans aren't cutting defense spending, social security, or Medicare, all which would be unpopular with the constituents. Instead, they're going after the health and nutrition programs for the poorest Americans, which again is Latin for the youngest Americans.

So again, this is the bill just, it goes from bad to worse here. The bill proposes cutting SNAP spending by 30%. I can't imagine a better investment than SNAP. Okay, stop a kid from being obese, such that he doesn't have to spend a thousand bucks a month for a Zempik, is not clinically depressed, is able to make more money. People who are obese make less money. They're more likely to need knee and hip replacements and be on kidney dialysis when they get older,

which is really, really expensive. SNAP beneficiaries only receive about two bucks per meal. The federal government spent 113 billion on SNAP in fiscal year 2023, making the 27 increased AMT exemptions permanent will reduce revenues by 140 billion a year. So you could essentially, if you just made the AMT exemptions,

if you said they're not permanent, if you had an alternative minimum tax such that wealthy people had to pay at least a certain amount, by the way, that amount isn't high, it would fund SNAP. And the thing about it is distinct of the moral argument, distinct of the sob argument,

which Democrats scream into TikTok about, we'll have more money. We won't have to spend as much money if we have a semi-healthy populace. I'm done with the morality argument. They're just stupid. We've literally decided, okay, guys, give us your credit card.

We're gonna run up. It's like that film, Leaving Las Vegas, where Nicolas Cage says, I'm such a fucking raging alcoholic. I am so addicted to alcohol that I've given up any, any hope of rehab. I'm just going to cash my last check for my severance pay and I'm going to hang out with a prostitute

and party like there's no, you know, like it's 1999 because I'm going to be dead soon. That is how we are approaching our government right now. We are Nicolas Cage and leaving Las Vegas. Elizabeth Shue was my dad's number one crush in the entire world. Oh, I feel so old, me and your dad. Well, Andy's dead on top of that, right?

So I feel really old. He was much older, I'm not much older. He would have been 70 too. That's bringing the conversation down. She just did make a comeback though in the Karate, what's it called? The Karate Show with Ralph. Karate Kid 100. I didn't see it,

but you're totally right about the investment part of it. Like just make the economic argument. And, you know, I love the cruelty is the point. I go back to it all the time. Like, when Republicans oppose school lunches. And you think, like, how is that physically possible that you could say it's a bad idea for kids to have food in their bellies?

Just make the argument then. You're so concerned about how well we perform. Guess when you can't do any learning and you can't function when you're hungry. So just give them a sandwich and let them do better in school. It's always the easiest stuff, like the simple things and because they're morally bankrupt, they won't go with it. It's a really boring detail, but I just wanted to note that in the Energy and Commerce Committee last week, they went 26 hours straight, like overnight and Democrats introduced 33 amendments and all of them failed, which they knew because we didn't have the

numbers, but they brought in all of these people who are on Medicaid to tell their stories about what would happen to them or the people who are close to them if the programs got cut. And watching, I didn't stay up all night for it, C-SPAN had great coverage of it, but watching democracy actually happening live in front of us and people using the process, I thought, A, this is a way that Democrats are fighting back and at least getting these stories out there to amplify.

But B, if we have that kind of energy across all of these committees and in the press and on all of the social media posts surrounding this reconciliation bill, maybe it gets through the House, but it will be impossible for it to get through the Senate, at least in its current form. Our producer David gave us some great data here. So essentially, one study found that children with access to Medicaid grew up healthier and less dependent on government benefits. Medicaid spending delivered a two to 7%

annual return on investment. This year, the children ended up receiving disability payments. And studies also show an association between SNAP participation and a reduction in healthcare costs by as much as $5,000 per person per year. So in sum, these are great investments. It's good business. And then on the other side, the other thing that really pisses me off and people just don't

grasp, the estate tax exemption is going to be increased from $15 million to $30 million for married couples next year. What that means is if you're wealthy, you put stuff in an estate and it transfers tax free down to your heirs. And one of the things that distinguishes America from Europe is that we've always been somewhat against dynastic wealth and we tax estates such that we can make forward leaning investments to give a ton of young people incentive to work hard such that they can make it because the government is able to make great investments in technology, whether it's the internet or GPS or education, to give them a shot at being rich.

And Europe's always been about kind of inherited family wealth. Europe is now less dynastic on many levels than we are. And the thing that is so insane about this is that if you look at studies on the relationship between money and happiness, once you get above, call it $30 million in wealth, you have no incremental happiness. And what people don't understand about these trusts, they value it at 30 million based on the value

when it goes into the trust. If it grows to be worth $100 million over 20 or 30 years, which isn't unlikely, it all transfers tax-free. And here's the thing, and there's empirical and anecdotal evidence here. I know a lot of rich kids in New York. Trust me, folks, they're not any happier than wealthy kids. So as someone who's worked really hard

and has aggregated some economic security, one of the things I want as a reward for my good fortune and my hard work is I wanna give my kids a better life than the average kid. Let me just come out of the closet. I want to give my kids enough money so they can have a house and know that they don't have to worry about education costs. All right? You can easily do that, easily do that with $10 million. You don't need 30. You don't even need really 10 million to give your kid a head start because you think I've worked so fucking hard.

I want to give my kids advantage. I think that is a natural instinct. All my friends who talk a big game about, well, I'm going to pay through their college and then they're on their own. None of them do that. Their kid is a good kid. They can't pursue their dreams without help from mom and dad. Mom and dad.

Mom and dad want them to live near them. Inflation, they end up giving their kids money. Fine, I think that's one of the benefits in what we work so hard when we're parents is such that we can help our kids out. But anything above, call it five or 10 million, not even that much. You think that gives your kid incremental happiness?

It doesn't. Well, a lot of people feel like it hurts them in the long term. Like the Bill Gateses of the, obviously, we're talking millions of dollars now, but he's not giving them anything, right? Or they each get a million dollars or something like that? Yeah, I mean, there's different ways to cut the cat there.

I mean, my guess is they're getting indirectly a lot of, Bill Gates's kid gets a lake up on a lot of levels economically. But anyways, my point is, let's call it a million bucks. You know the kid's not going to go hungry. You know the kid can afford education. Probably that's going to help in terms of a down payment towards the house, right?

Anything above that, you get no incremental happiness. You get none. So, and it goes back to the notion, I think there should be an AMT tax of 50 to 70% on anything above $10 million, because it's not going to get you any incremental happiness. Whereas making forward leaning investments with that capital to give younger people more of a shot, that gives a lot of people a lot of happiness.

But all of this shit is not only giveaways, but it doesn't create any incremental value for anybody. The difference between holding on to $ million of your 15 million in earnings versus being able to hold on to 9 million of your 15 million in earnings, no incremental benefit to you or your family. There's nothing you're going to be able to do that you weren't able to do before. It's not going to increase your health, your well-being. It's not going to lessen any more of your anxiety.

You're just going to be richer. You're just going to have a bigger number. What I find so disappointing about this tax bill is okay. I understand that the top 1% and in most instances, the 0.1% want a bigger number, but you're not going to increase the well-being of anybody. You're not going to increase the happiness. All you're going to do is create tremendous anxiety and despair among those people losing their Medicaid and create additional costs for everybody through higher interest rates because it's irresponsible, racking up deficits,

and increase taxation or reliance on government services and nonprofits when all of these people, you know, start getting their toes and their fingers cut off because of full-blown diabetes that wasn't arrested earlier in their life or that they didn't get treatment for. So we make the moral argument all the time as Democrats. I think we need to start making the economic argument that this is just going to cost us a lot more down the road. All we're doing is creating a fiscal disaster for the government and for the people who are still going to be around, i.e. 25% of Congress will still survive, still be around. And we don't do that. We just scream and cry about the morality of it all. We need to move to the economic side.

Yeah. And also emphasize that we're talking about a difference in a tax rate from 37% to 39%. Right. This isn't like we're suddenly going to be rating your coffers at a level that you can't withstand. And I wish that more rich people would talk about these issues the way that you are or like, you know, Ro Khanna represents the most billionaires of any district in the country. He says constantly we need to tax the rich more, tax the rich more, and they still send him back. These are not people who are stupid. These are not people who are economically illiterate. They're obviously seeing something more to the story.

And maybe we should get them on a road show to talk about why it's important to support policies that are more evenly distributed across different social classes. Okay, let's take a quick break. Stay with us. different social classes. Okay, let's take a quick break. Stay with us.

Welcome back. Joining us today is a former federal prosecutor and host of the Stay Tuned with Preet podcast. Welcome to the show, a good friend. And my one, this is true. This is, here we go, the good Preet. My one phone call. When she gets real for the dog, which it will at some point,

and I find myself in a very unfortunate situation, I have one call and I have told Preet that he is my one call and that if he ever sees my phone or my caller ID come up, he is to answer immediately. Must take it. He is both a sharp political or sharp legal mind, I should say, but also just very smart, very calm kind of guy you want in your corner. Anyways, good to see you, Preet.

Good to see you. I have to apologize given that introduction that I'm not in my usual barrister uniform, a little casual today. Oh, that's good. Yeah. If and when you should call upon me for my legal duties, I will have the proper attire. I appreciate that. What's on your mind?

So the reason I reached out to you, well, we're good, good friends. And in addition, we've been talking a lot about how to more effectively push back. I think like a lot of Democrats, we share a real frustration that there is a more robust pushback. And one of the ideas, I won't say we, that I've

suggested is that if you are essentially shipping people to black sites or what in my opinion, fits the definition of concentration camps outside, sending people outside to a place where they're no longer subject to the same rights they would have on their domestic territory or where they're shipped off from that you are subject to criminal prosecution and that people who engage in illegal incarceration or corruption or fraud are still subject to

at some point prosecution. And I have set this with absolutely no legal domain expertise. Why should that stop you ever, Scott? There you go. There you go. It's perfect for 2025. There you go. So you are that domain expertise.

Is this a viable strategy or am I just barking at the moon here? So a couple of, I'm a lawyer, so a couple of prefatory things. It depends on what you're talking about. It depends on what the conduct is. It depends on what an investigation reveals. I was just thinking as you were speaking,

literally about black sites, there was a lot of debate after the second Bush administration about whether or not people who were acting on orders literally to take people to black sites, whether CIA officers should be subject to investigation and prosecution and Barack Obama, you know, Democrat, liberal, decided in consultation with his aides that that would not be an appropriate use of the Justice Department's resources and people can debate that and go back and forth on that. There's not a profoundly deep history in recent

times of doing that sort of thing. The other thing I'd point out, it sounds like from what you were postulating in your question is something that's going to take place in three and a half years, something that would take place in the future administration that doesn't do a lot to solve the violations of not just norms and not just regulations, but statutes that may be going on. The third thing I would say is, to the extent people want accountability and fairness and the

rule of law to be back in the seat, that's all well and good. I will say that to the extent people are thinking about that, as some people listening to this might be, as a political strategy, that has been not borne out, right? Donald Trump was in fact subjected to multiple criminal investigations. He was subjected to two impeachments and it didn't stop him politically. So I guess it depends on what, you know, if we're talking about proper rule of law accountability, that's one thing, which would be not for a while. And we can talk about the particulars of that.

But the idea that there are some parties now, given the Justice Department that's in full control more than it's ever been in the hands of a sitting president, those things are not viable for a while. And as a political matter, they can backfire as I think there's a decent argument that they did with respect to the prosecutions of Donald Trump, even the one that was completed and successful by the Manhattan DA's office. So have I, is that enough cold water? Scott's depressed. He's going to start crying any moment now that you've. Well, it is a weekday. Let me just double click on that.

The only place I would offer pushback is that I think is a political strategy reminding people that many of the crimes that may or may not be in committed right now under the Prosecution of the full letter of the law probably have a statute of limitations that is greater than three years and nine months Yeah And there's a political consideration and I've suggested that at some point if we retake control of Congress that we draft Legislation that probably won't pass or be vetoed that says You know El Salvador, keep in mind when the house flips back or when governments change, if we find that you in fact are incarcerating US citizens, regardless of whether you thought

it was a good deal with the president, that you'll be subject to economic sanctions. I would outline that right now, that I think a certain reminder that the America's memory is long and our reach is far Might actually temper some of what I believe is extraordinarily Unethical at a minimum and likely illegal that it actually might be effective But what you're pushing back on is no to date it hasn't. It's been the opposite. It's been ineffective. Is that accurate? Yeah.

But like, you know, hope springs eternal. I will say also just a couple, just a couple more things. One, people should stand up for the rule of law and call out potential violations and transgressions where they see them. Point one is these guys act like they're always going to be in power. They act like there's never going to be an ex administration and it's certainly not going to be a democratic administration. And that is just not so. We'll see what happens in 2028, but there is a, you know, mathematically speaking, a 50% chance that he succeeded by a democratic administration and all the precedents that he has

set and his people have set for the threshold and the standard for not just prosecuting but opening up a difficult and aggressive investigation, our fair game for the other side. Right? I'm not saying that there should be a tit for tat and that if there was over aggressive weaponization of the Justice Department that the next folks should do the same thing, but people are human beings and people might want to do that and that's a distinct possibility.

If you look at the standard set by the Trump administration for when they see fit to send FBI agents or ICE agents or Secret Service agents to someone's door and look at someone, whether it's Ed Martin, the departing US attorney in the District of Columbia, or a cabinet level position like DNI Tulsi Gabbard, the way they're talking about what prompts a criminal investigation and more than that, what prompts a declaration that someone is guilty before being investigated, before being charged and before being convicted is quite low. I mean, just take a look at the example of, since we're in the wake of the controversy over former FBI director Jim Cone.

Seashellgate? Seashellgate. Yeah. That's a great name. I hadn't thought of that. My gift to you. Thank you. Was it a dumb thing to do? Should he have thought better of it? Should he have been aware of the fact that some people would interpret 86 to mean something other than, you know, get rid of somebody who's in public office? Sure. But you had Tulsi Gabbard, who is a Senate confirmed, considerably important, powerful person in the Trump administration who says outright, based on, on that ambiguous Instagram post that Jim Comey must not only be investigated, but has already declared and decided that he should be imprisoned and should go to jail, you know, tells you what their standards are.

And if that's the standard for investigation, there are a whole host of people already. And I would be willing to bet a lot of money, if not all my money, that there'll be further targets on the other side, on the Trump side, who have said and done things that constitute less ambiguous threats. Trump himself has used violent imagery, violent language. Donald Trump's son has used violent imagery and language with respect to among other people, Nancy Pelosi's husband, who was brutally beaten within an inch of his life. You have other supporters of Donald Trump who have

themselves used the 86 term with respect to Joe Biden. So what's fair for one is fair for the other. And so I don't see a problem with people raising the specter of that, given the low, low standard that's being set for investigation and prosecution by the Trump folks. I know Scott is very interested in kind of the personal revenge tour of this or what could be coming down the pike. I'm not advocating that.

That's not how I would frame it, Jess, but go ahead. No, like what could happen to these people? Like we finally grow up pair and start pushing back. We start thinking like them, that tour. That tour, and I'm buying a ticket for that tour, no matter how much it costs. You've made me defensive, Jess. Sorry.

I'm sorry, go ahead. I apologize, I feel like this is our first site. I'm calling Freit, I'm calling my one call. But if you're calling right now, I'm busy. I'm already here. Well, he's already here. There you go, take advantage. A couple things that I'm already here. Well, he's already here. There you go. Take advantage. A couple things that I'm curious about,

not so much on the individual front, but I hear a lot of the courts are doing their job right now, at least when it comes to policy issues, especially in the realm of immigration, where it feels like every level from local judges up to the Supreme Court are saying, no, you can't do this. You can't be using the Alien Enemies Act, et cetera. How would you rate the level of pushback or effectiveness

that we are seeing from the courts right now on the policy front? I think pretty good, but it depends on how you're grading them. It's like saying that a math teacher is holding ground by telling a student that two plus two does not equal five. Yeah, we should applaud that. In an Orwellian environment in which there are school teachers teaching and accepting an answer of five, being the sum of two plus two, judges saying otherwise are doing a great job and it's important. But let's not lose sight of the fact that we're in

a crazy time when people have to explain that. We're at a crazy time when the Supreme Court that's loaded with conservatives, three of whom have been appointed by Trump himself, have decided, you know, not literally, not so fast. If you're going to deport someone, you got to look at what the law says. And Supreme Court case after Supreme Court case has interpreted the Constitution to mean there's got to be some due process. It doesn't have to be a full blown trial, like we're being scared with, but some due process to make sure that you've got the right person and the person is deportable and is deportable to the place where you're saying, and it's got to be more than 24 hours. So that I think is a good sign. And I don't mean to denigrate it or downplay it at all, but it's a little bit like two plus two equals five,

and it's refreshing in a black is white, fake news, up is down universe for people to say, you know, you know what, math is math and the constitution is the constitution. It's good. Good, we have some good news. I'm just curious, I imagine you're still close with, certainly in touch with people still at SDNY,

or from your former life. How do people who are in the business of doing justice, which is what your book was called, feeling right now about getting up and going to work and figuring all of this out in the Trump era? Yeah, there are two sides to the coin. I still think it is the case that the massive work being done by federal prosecutors in the country Yeah, there are two sides to the coin. I still think it is the case that the mass of work being

done by federal prosecutors in the country and Department of Justice lawyers, whether in Washington or in the various US attorney's offices, is apolitical, continues apace, whether it's violent crime prosecutions or fraud prosecutions and the like. There are different priorities and emphases that Pam Bondi has put forward in various memos since she started, but the bread and butter of the office is probably the same. Now, with respect to certain fraud prosecutions and investigations, they get a lot of outsized attention,

like of people who are, or may be in the president's ambit or who are elected officials, you know, maybe it's a little bit different. And, you know, everyone can feel unhappy, even if it's not one of their cases, if they think there's a thumb on the scale, or they think that people are being, you know, unduly harassed. I think there's a certain amount of trepidation on the part of a lot of people at the Department of Justice, but I still think that the majority of folks are just keeping their heads down and doing their job, even if they're not so thrilled at what's going on at the top.

So I have a question that requires more political judgment and legal expertise, although it does involve the law. And you referenced earlier that I just called it seashell gate. I love what Yuval Noah Harari said, that democracies thrive on trust while dictatorships are built on fear. My sense is this is a perfect example of that.

This will be swatted away under any sort of responsible legal scrutiny. Free speech, I just think this is a ridiculous attempt to intimidate and create an atmosphere of fear such that people do not speak out and they silence any criticism of the president. What are your thoughts around that notion, Preet? I think that's exactly correct. I've been saying for some time that the only logic behind, or at least one of the principle pieces of logic behind, bringing completely ridiculous, stupid, unprecedented, unconstitutional, two plus two equals five claims, which is what Trump has done under the Alien Enemies Act, under these executive orders against law firms. And there's a whole bunch of other issues along these lines as well. They're doomed to failure. Nobody on the

right or the left or the middle, um, who is schooled in the law or wears a robe, really, with very, very, very small exceptions, think otherwise. Birthright citizenship is another that I left off the list. But the point is to have the fight, to have the political debate and to chill the actions of other people. With the law firm executive orders, which my firm was a subject. The point seems to be even though every court that's addressed it has issued an immediate

temporary restraining order, one court has issued a permanent injunction. It's not going to fly. It violates the first amendment, the fifth amendment, the sixth amendment, various provisions of some of those amendments. The point is to make people think twice. Should I spend time and energy and represent a cause or a person who is adverse to the president of the United States or the president's party? That's just one example and it goes to exactly what you were saying.

If you can broadcast to the world that it may be the case that even if you're born in this country, you will not have the privileges and rights that the constitution has said from the beginning are due and owing to you. Maybe you won't come here. So they're fighting a political battle, a policy battle. They're trying to beat their chests and say, we don't care what the courts say up to a point. And we'll see what happens when we get to that point. We don't care. Our view is the right one.

We have the army. The courts don't. And so that is the right one. We have the army, the courts don't. And so that is going to have a chilling effect on reasonable people to do that, which they have always understood was constitutional, lawful and proper. So in addition to being a federal prosecutor, you've worked with really prestigious law firms. And something that was really chilling and disappointing, quite frankly, and I maybe it's been misrepresented in the media and I'm very open to learning here

because I think you have more insight into actually what went down here. So I've been really disappointed in what I'll call this domino of cowardice and that as corporations have said, okay, it's easier for, with respect to shareholder value, to just give a million bucks in inauguration campaign and pay $40 million for some lame documentary

for the first lady and basically just kisses ass to stay out of his way. I can sort of empathize with that viewpoint. What was even more disappointing though was certain really prestigious law firms doing what I would loosely categorize as bending a knee and saying all right we'll do pro bono work for the family, or we won't take on certain clients. It just seemed so, such an entire like puncturing or rupturing of the legal system and what it's supposed to stand for in terms of justice being blind. Am I exaggerating what happened here? Give us your thoughts on the context here and whether I'm being as always overly emotional here.

So I want to be careful because I'm, I'm being as always overly emotional here. So I want to be careful because I am in the legal firmament. I work for a firm that did not, it's not just your phrase, it's the phrase that Donald Trump uses, which makes you more than wince if you're a practicing lawyer or if you're anyone who cares about the rule of law. We did not bend the knee and I'm very proud of that fact.

And I continue to work there as a I'm very proud of that fact and I continue to work there as a partner in part because of that fact. I don't want to be impolitic or impolite about saying anything disparaging about the firms that did in your phrase, not my phrase, in the president's phrase, not my phrase, bend the knee. You can imagine how I might think about that given my first statement. These are tough decisions. There's a lot of force and power on the side of the government. There's a lot of force and power on the side of the President of the United States. I think that what you have said is not outside of the mainstream of thought of people both

in the legal profession and outside the legal profession. On its face, as has been evidenced by the court decisions that were rendered very quickly that I mentioned a minute ago, the executive orders are unlawful, unconstitutional, and I always like to add to that, un-American. They will never pass muster. They'll never be a thing in the future. It's another example of, this is two plus two equals 96. And I think that the better and more correct and more righteous course, not just the right course,

but the more righteous course, if we can use that word still in 2025, was to fight because these executive orders are, I don't think it's too strong a word to say, tyrannical and abusive and should not be allowed to stand. So I'm glad that my firm and some other firms are taking that approach. And Preet is much more polite and gentlemanly than I am. The Demand Justice site has this article called Standing Up to Big Law Cowards, and this is law firms that have pledged almost a billion dollars in free work to Trump. And they include ANO, Shearman, Cab, Wallader, I believe the name is, Kirkland, Latham and Watkins, Milbank, Paul Weiss, Simpson-Thatcher, Skadden and Wilkie are all firms that have decided to

do pro-bono work and legal work to appease Trump. And I don't know how much you can say about this from a personal perspective since you're working in this field actively, but how legitimate do you think individual lawyers or firms fears about continuing on with the good work that they're doing are warranted or justified in this environment? I have a very good friend who represents undocumented immigrants here, mostly Venezuelans, a lot of Ukrainians, and she's very scared to continue her work as they set about essentially criminalizing, practicing law. Well, kudos to your friend.

I think that's important work. Look, I think we still live in America. We said before that the judges are doing a good job of holding the fort all the way up to the Supreme Court. I think it does take a little bit more courage now and resolve to do that kind of work than it may have taken before. And I don't think we're at the point yet where individual actions will be taken or could be taken, although, you know, check back with me in six months or 10 months. That

work can continue. Certainly it's the case that certain kinds of representations are probably less likely to be blessed and green-lighted at firms that have decided to settle with the president. The fear will always exist that you don't want to further upset the apple cart or upset the person at the top of the government. That's what got you in the soup in the first place, right? Like my firm, once upon a time we had as our partner, someone I greatly respect, Bob Mueller, former FBI director and special counsel, and had the temerity to hire one of the great lawmen of the past century in our office. That's the thing that put us on the wrong side

of Donald Trump. And so there's a natural tendency for there to be a chilling effect if you're going to do things that are going to put you on the wrong side of Donald Trump. And so there's a natural tendency for there to be a chilling effect. If you're going to do things that are going to put you on the wrong side of Donald Trump. So all I can say is good luck to her and all the people who are doing that. You can't let up in the face of that kind of intimidation. She's a huge fan and she's definitely listening. So she'll be excited to hear your encouragement. Good. One last question.

We ask all our guests this. What's one issue that makes you rage and one thing that you think we should all chill out about? Oh gosh. I mean, obviously the rule of law stuff makes me rage. Everything we've been talking about, I speak, I try to speak in calm, measured tones, but the attacks on law firms enrage me

because I'm a member of the profession and I'm an officer of the court. And it's a manipulation of the psychology of people who are not just lawyers and officers of the court, but also members of businesses. These are not charities. And I hate the fact that Trump and his people are deviously clever enough to put people in the back foot. And again, not speaking about any particular person or entity in particular, what causes me rage is, you know, if this were a play or a novel,

one of the lessons you would learn from it, that if you have someone who is as devilish and unprincipled and amoral, not just amoral, but amoral as Donald Trump come to town. The sad truth is that he often, and we've seen this again and again and again, will often reveal the lack of courage, the lack of principle and the lack of virtue in his rivals. And that is a fact of life.

And if this were just a story or an allegory, that would be one thing. But I think about that a lot. His opponents are often shown to be maybe if not as impure and unprincipled as him, but wanting, wanting. And that's why people who fight back and have the courage and the tenacity to fight back in this environment, like your friend and others are to be valued and encouraged and supported more than ever before. Oh, and what do we, what should we chill out about? Yeah,

you know, a lot of the dumb stuff that Trump does in the first term, I tell the story about how I tweeted after Donald Trump said that the White House was a shithole or some such derogatory term, lots of people took offense. Lots of people who were quote unquote members of the resistance said, that's horrific. You shouldn't talk like that. And I posted a tweet back when Twitter had some people on the other side of the fence on it that, of the top 50 things we need to worry about

from this president, his insult to the White House is not one of them. And in response after response after response, people said, that's not true. We can multitask. It's all important. It's not proportionality is a word that I've been using more lately. You know, attention is limited.

Resources are limited. I hate the phrase, pick your battles, but, you know, order your priorities. He's going to say a lot of stupid shit that can occupy five minutes of airtime. It's not worth the five minutes of airtime. Think about what the kinds of things that you folks are talking about, and Scott was talking about earlier, the rendering of people over the objection of actual judges' rulings, the distortion and disrespect of the Constitution by the people who keep pointing to the Constitution and say they revere the Constitution. They don't.

Those are the things that we need to focus on and keep our eyes on. Preet Bharara is an American lawyer and former federal prosecutor who served as the United States attorney for the Southern district of New York from 2009 to 2017 as of 2025, he's a partner at the Wilmer Hale law firm. He's also the host and founder of Stay Tuned with Preet Bharara. Preet, I always love hearing from you. And for those of you, it's not easy to make a podcast about the legal profession interesting. And I actually listened to your podcast.

Thank you, sir. And you know what? Guess what? Can I plug something else? Sure. As of one week ago today, Stay Tuned with Preet is now on Substack too, as I know lots of people are. Oh, amazing.

Check us out there, check us out everywhere. Good. I always appreciate your time, Preet. Thanks folks. Thank you. All right, Jess, that's it. That's it for this episode. Thank you for listening to Raging Moderates.

Our producers are David Toledo and Eric Genikes. I mangled that. I'm sorry, Eric. I'm old. I shouldn't be president and I can't pronounce the name of all these wonderful new employees we have. Our technical director is Drew Burrows. Only took me seven years to figure that one out. You can now find Raging Moderates. Put my finger on the button. My brain's shrinking. I can absolutely validate my prostate is the size of

a grapefruit. You can now find Raging Moderates on its own feed every Tuesday and Friday. That's right, its own feed. That means exclusive interviews with sharp political minds you won't hear anywhere else. This week we're talking with Larry Sabato about Trump's threat to democracy. Make sure to follow us wherever you get your podcasts. You don't miss an episode. Just have a great rest of the week. You too.