Strict Scrutiny - Our Long Road Out of Autocracy

Episode Date: July 13, 2026

Kate is joined by returning guest and friend of the show, Kim Lane Scheppele, the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs at Princeton, and one of the world’s leading scholars of democratic backsliding, autocracy, and the rule of law. They discuss how the Supreme Court has been “captured,” the ways Donald Trump is attempting to remake Washington, D.C., in his image, and what Hungary can teach us about autocracy and how to recover from it.Favorite things: Kate:Emil Bove Defended Trump in Court. Then Trump Made Him a Judge, Mattathias Schwartz (NYT); Mailman: My Wild Ride Delivering the Mail in Appalachia and Finally Finding Home, Stephen Starring Grant Kim:Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, Maggie Haberman & Jonathan Swan; Into the Wood Chipper: A Whistleblower's Account of How the Trump Administration Shredded USAID, Nicholas Enrich; The Dual State, Ernst Fraenkel; The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt; It Can't Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis; Borgen - Power & Glory (Netflix); Gok Wan's Easy Asian (Prime Video) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE on November 6th in Washington, DC: Crookedcon.comBuy Melissa’s book, The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern ReaderBuy Leah’s book, Lawless, now out in paperbackFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and BlueskyFor a transcript of an episode of Strict Scrutiny please email [e-mail]

Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It's everywhere right now, the celebration of America's 250th, and we're in the thick of it this month. Christian nationalists are using this milestone not to unite, but to divide. They're pushing the lie that America was founded to be a quote-unquote Christian nation, where just one religious movement gets to decide who fully belongs, instead of the truth that America was founded as a democracy committed to liberty and justice for all. The idea that America was founded as a Christian nation is propaganda, not patriotism. It's a dangerous lie meant to justify censorship, discrimination, attacks on public schools,

assaults on LGBT-plus rights, restrictions on reproductive freedom, and government favoritism toward one extremist version of Christianity. Americans United for separation of church and state is here to fight back against this dangerous and egregious misrepresentation of our founding documents. A.U fights daily for everyone's ability to live as themselves and to believe as they choose, so long as they don't harm others. It's a novel idea in the day and age when almost every day we're seeing Christian nationalism weaponize a faith to attack individual freedoms across our country. So do something patriotic this summer as you're dodging the propaganda flying at you from all

angles, become a member of Americans United. By supporting AU, you're committing to standing up and protecting church state separation in every area of life. You can learn more about how you can support AU and the protection of everyone's rights at AU.org forward slash crooked. Mr. Chief Justice, please support it. It's an old joke. When I argue, men, argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word.

She spoke not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said, I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our next. Hello and welcome back to strict scrutiny, your podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. I am your lone regular host today, Kate Shaw, and I'm delighted to be joined by a returning guest and friend of the show Kim Lane Shepley, the Lawrence S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs at Princeton, and one of the world's leading scholars of democratic backsliding, autocracy, and the rule of law. Kim, welcome back to strict scrutiny. Great to be here. So for those of you who don't know, Kim, let me just say a few words about her before we dive in. Her research examines the rise and fall of constitutional

government, and she is recently focused on the rise of autocratic leaders who are elected on these populist political platforms and who then use the law to undermine constitutional institutions and democracy. Her comparative scholarship and commentary is both broad and deep, and her work on Hungary has been particularly instructive in recent years. And we are going to get to that. But Kim, as you know, we typically begin our shows with breaking legal news. So I think if it's okay, we will start there and then turn to our deep dive on what's going on in Hungary right now and what we here in the United States can learn from it. Great. Wonderful. Okay, so let's dive in. It has only been a week since Leah and Melissa and I sat down to take stock of the Supreme Court term that just ended.

So before we turn to this last week's news, Kim, I haven't had a chance to really get your take on the term, right? So whether that's the opinion narrowly invalidating Trump's birthright citizenship executive order that came down on the last day, or its decisions handing him new power over independent agency heads with the big exception of the Fed. So those are just the term in general. Before we turn to breaking news, kind of what are your big, takeaways from SCOTUS as a court watcher with a very particular perspective. Well, first of all, thanks for having me on and thanks for starting there because, you know, in my background, I worked for four years at the Hungarian Constitutional Court, and I worked for one year at the Russian Constitutional Court. These are both courts that got captured by the

autocratic leaders that came in and decided that rule of law was a tool that they could use against their opponents. So I know a lot about captured courts. And my conclusion at the end of this term is that the U.S. is living with a captured court. Okay. Now, why do I say that? I mean, captured courts, you know, sort of like clocks can be right twice a day. I mean, captured courts don't just rubber stamp what an executive does because the captured courts have to maintain the fiction that they're still courts, that they're still independent, they're still doing law somehow. So what I've learn from looking at other courts elsewhere is that captured courts tend to rule against their autocratic minders in three cases, right? One are cases where the autocrat walks himself into a

cul-de-sac, wants to change his mind, but doesn't actually want to appear to reverse what he did. So the court will then declare unlawful whatever it is the autocrat did. The court will look independent. The autocrat will say, great, I really wanted to do that. I will certainly honor the rule of law, we'll follow the decision and everybody thinks things are normal. Think the National Guard case, right? How was Trump going to get the National Guard out of Los Angeles and Chicago without the court telling him he had to pull them back? And you'll notice that actually he was eager to comply, right? So classic case, Pat Court getting the executive out of a cul-de-sac. While saving face, right? Like, while not appearing publicly to make an about face of any sort.

Yes. Exactly. And, you know, they had to reach to find the arguments. And, you know, Marty Lieerman, as I know you've covered on the pod, you know, gave them a very good out. And I don't think Marty's an advocate of a PAC court by any means. But the fact that they chose that case to stand up to him is an example of this, you know, leader in a cul-de-sac needs help kind of scenario. There's another kind of scenario, which is where the court starts to come under persistent criticism for being not independent, not doing law. So they have to appear to do law. So what they'll do is do law in a context. in which the president has other ways to do the thing that the court is forbidding him from doing.

Think tariffs. Okay. Now, with tariffs, what I was doing thinking maybe this is what's going on, I was watching the countries that Trump was ranting against was a very specific set of countries, I mean, China and Britain and Canada, the UK. And there are other authorities under which Trump can issue tariffs. And what he was doing in that long period between the oral argument of the decision, I mean, you know, the court can also just wait till June and give everybody a heart attack by issuing 10 decisions at once like they did this here.

But, you know, but that was a long time in a case that looked easy from the oral argument. So I think what the court was doing was waiting until Trump transferred a lot of those tariff authorities to other laws. So that by the time they struck down his, you know, tariff the world, including Penguins Act, right? he had already transferred the tariffs he cared about. And it was a little bit of a cul-de-sac movement. Like, how was he going to rescind the tariff on penguins? Right? There were a lot of tariffs he probably didn't care about. So, again, it was, and then Trump railed against them to make it look like this is, I mean, I think he was genuinely angry because I don't think he knows the details of his own tariff regime, right? But the ones that he had singled out had already been transferred to other legal authorities by the time that came down, right? the court looked just deeply independent to many court watchers. And so, you know, and Trump still gets to do most, if not all of the terrifying that he was doing under the prior regime. So win-win. Exactly. And then there's just a third case, just really quickly what the PAC courts do. And that is that, you know, courts are supposed to uphold individual rights. And occasionally you get a case where

the individual rights at stake are so crucial that they've generated a huge amount of, you know, sort of public attention, and that for the court to back down in that kind of a context is something that would be deeply embarrassing to the court and expose the court as not doing law, let's say, okay? Think birthright citizenship. Okay, now, what was interesting to me about the birthright citizenship case and what I saw in my cases in Russia and in Hungary on human rights issues was that very often when the court would rule against the executive on a matter that involved human rights.

they would do so while also sort of indicating an escape route. You know, here's how it is that you can do what you want if you just do it in a different way. And this is where I take the Kavanaugh statutory argument to be not closing the door, right, but opening the door. And Trump has immediately, of course, jumped through that door and immediately said he's going to do something. So, again, the court was getting a lot of credit, although I must say that by now so many people are aware of the way the court is just defending. Trump's indefensible policies, overturning precedent, not reasoning through, you know, to sort of logical legal answers, for example. I mean, how would you grade this stuff on a law school exam, not well? You know, so by that time, by the time they got to birthright citizenship,

I think a lot of the legal commentariat was saying, look, this isn't the kind of win he expected. This isn't really just, you know, standing up for the 14th Amendment. This is opening the door to something else. So those kinds of three cases, you know, the cul-de-sac, you can do it another way, and we have to appear to be doing law, but we're going to try to give you an out, are all signs of a PAC court. And in all the other cases, they ruled in favor of what Trump wanted overturning a lot of very settled law. So we're living with a PAC court. Yeah. And the one other case that comes to mind, of course, is his loss in the Fed case. But, you know, arguably, that's a category two case, because they don't say you can't fire her, just that you didn't afford sufficient process here.

So I think that's potentially in that category, or maybe it's in the cul-de-sac category. Maybe Trump did realize that actually being granted this plenary authority to remove governors or chairs of the Fed would be wildly destabilizing. And actually he didn't want to. He just wanted to kind of flex first. So it could be either, I think, one of the first two. But I think those are really illuminating categories. And I'm going to like bottle this explanation. And the next time I think we witness somebody lauding the court for its kind of display of

independence this term, I think I'm going to force them to or at least try to force them to listen to this explanation because it's incredibly convincing. This episode of strict scrutiny is sponsored by BetterHelp. We talk about mental health more openly now, but asking for help can still feel hard. And BetterHelp's latest research confirms that. Better Helps' 26 state of stigma report surveyed 2,000 Americans and revealed that 85% of Americans believe that getting support is wise, yet 74% say that society discourages people from doing so.

There are a lot of times when people consider or need therapy. Some people think that there are members of our Supreme Court who could have used some therapy to process some of the trauma of their youth or just difficult situations that they may have had over time. And some speculate that they didn't get the therapy that they needed. And so instead, we are all paying the price right now as they want. work it out on us and our rights. There's a better way.

Better help can help. Better help therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the United States with over 30,000 therapists. BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, meaning that your ideal therapy match is out there. Don't let stigma stand in the way of support. Start therapy with BetterHelp. Sign up and get 10% off at betterhelp.com slash strict.

That's BetterHELP. dot com slash strict. Strictney is brought to you by Zbiotics. Guess what, folks? It's hot Melissa's summer. That's right. My calendar is absolutely packed between parties, hanging out, rooftop cocktails.

But, you know, with all of that activity, I'm still doing something to take care of my future self, and that is drinking Zbiotics pre-alcohol before I go out. Zbiotics pre-alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. And here's how it works. When you drink, the alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in your gut.

It's the buildup of that byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme that breaks the byproduct down. So if you remember to take pre-alcohol and make it your first drink of the night and then drink responsibly, you'll feel your best the next day. again, my schedule is packed this summer. I am doing the most hanging out with friends, hanging out on the rooftops, maybe going to picnics in the park, and I want to feel my best the next day. I want to come back to make sure that I'm covering the Supreme Court with all of my systems firing. That means that pre-alcohol is my little insurance policy. Zbiotics pre-alcohol make sure that I wake up every morning feeling fresh and ready to go, ready to battle some government tyranny.

So you too can be ready in this fight to be a more perfect union. Just head over to zbiotics.com slash strict for 15% off so you can try Zbiotics pre-alcohol for yourself. July is packed with barbecues, fireworks, late weekends, late nights with friends, all of the things. And you can keep the good times rolling into the next day. Just drink pre-alcohol before you go out and wake up ready for whatever your next day brings. remember to head over to zbiotics.com slash strict and use the code strict at checkout for 15% off. I, for one, am excited to spend a little time talking about things other than the Supreme Court, at least like in this conversation. And to a degree this summer, while the court is not hearing cases,

next term is already shaping up to be a huge one. So it's going to be a kind of short reprieve. They are hearing not only whatever litigation might crop up around the midterms and Trump's efforts to meddle with them, but we already have a lot of big cases on environmental protection and religious freedom and whether individuals have a right to own an error 15, like, I'm not kidding, but we have a couple of months before we actually have to grapple with those cases. So let's talk first about just a little bit of breaking news that we got in the last week. And I just mentioned the midterm elections. So one, I think very concerning development from last week is that Trump fired the three remaining commissioners on the Election Assistance Commission or EAC, which is kind of a low-profile

agency, but it does some quite important work. So there were three remaining commissioners after one resigned earlier this year, maybe it was last year, two Democrats and a Republican. It sounds from the reporting as though he fired the two Democratic commissioners and allowed the Republican to resign, but either way, the upshot is that this 25-year-old agency is now without any commissioners at its head. And in terms of what the agency does, it provides states with pretty important assistance in administering elections. States stay in the driver's seat. That's the way the Constitution assigns authority for election administration, and the statute that creates the EAC and gives it these powers doesn't change that. But it does give the federal government a role in distributing

federal funds to help elections and maintaining the national mail voter registration system and helping test and certify state election systems. So this, I think, mass firing seems like one, an important test of slaughter, the Federal Trade Commission case, one of the big cases from last term where Trump is given the power to fire heads of independent agencies. like the Federal Trade Commission. It's not, to my mind, clear from Slaughter that Trump even has the authority to fire the heads of this agency because it's an agency that's pretty different in relevant respects from the FTC. It's not clear it does law execution of the sort the Federal Trade Commission does. But it also feels like a pretty obvious ploy to remove to defang an agency

that might have done something to stand in the way of efforts to manipulate elections. So I guess, Kim, any reaction to this development and also any sort of insight, you can provide on how this fits with moves of other aspiring autocrats or authoritarians when it comes to seizing the infrastructure of elections to the extent that they can. Yeah. So this is worrisome for all the reasons that you say. I think it's also important in trying to think about, are we living in an autocracy or not, to realize that the whole is often more than the sum of the parts. So this is really crucial. But you combine this with his executive order, trying to federalize elections with the threats that have come out from the Justice Department

to states that are refusing to turn over their voter rolls, to what he's doing with the post office board that's going to refuse to deliver mail ballots to people who were not on these lists, to the threats to withhold homeland security funding, right, to states that don't cooperate on and on and on, plus gerrymandering and everything else, right? Basically, what they're doing is an assault on every single piece of our election. machinery that can be controlled from Washington, right? And as you say, this is, I mean, what our greatest protection is is a massively decentralized system. But, you know, if you think about what it would take to tip elections, you know, going after blue cities and red states where you've got

red state election administrators that have already jumped in on sharing information and so on, may be enough to swing congressional districts along with the gerrymandering. So, you know, they're going to, they're launching a full-scale assault. on the election system already. And the firing of the members of the election advisory committee, which again is one of those things, I mean, who everyone was scrambling to think,

what does this thing do? And there's a great explainer, by the way, on just security, talking about how there's still a staff, they can still issue grants, they can still do stuff. And what I'm worried about is that the next challenge, right, is it lawful to regulate a civil service?

You know, that's going to be the next test. So I suspect that we're also going to start seeing firing down into agencies of people who are civil service protected. So again, there's the election tampering part of this, but then there's also the getting rid of the civil service part of this, you know, and the extension of slaughter to cover everything within the president's purview, and they're just pushing the edges waiting for the case. Right. And there are other cases kind of coming down the pike. There's a case pending before the federal circuit called Jackler about firings of two immigration judges who are members of the civil service, but I think it's definitely right.

This is an important post-slaughter test case with huge implications potentially for election administration, but also, to my mind, suggest that they are going to be maximalist in their reading of slaughter and certainly test whether its logic extends to the president's authority to summarily fire everyone of the two million people in the federal civil service. I think they think the logic of slaughter supports them in an effort to do that. I think there are very strong arguments against it, but I do think that it's a critically important next frontier. So next piece of news I wanted to flag is that we had a development in the ongoing saga of the reflecting pool, aka metaphor for this administration writ large.

As listeners will likely recall, this multi-million dollar renovation has gone seriously awry, algae blooming like daffodils, large swaths of blue paint peeling off, and the administration has, as ever, sought to deflect responsibility and shift blame for this disaster. So Kim, what are they doing to try to shift blame and deflect responsibility in this instance? Yeah, well, so first of all, I love these green hats that have come out with Make Algae Great again, you know, when there's just... Actually, I haven't seen those. That's awesome. It's just a lot. And there's the LGBTQ month and, you know, all the kinds of things. So, I mean, anyway, so there's just no end of what you can do with the reflecting pool.

So, you know, what they've done now is to charge this guy, who's an Olympic canoeist, actually, with a pretty serious. is felony of destruction of federal property for having reached his hand into the pool and perhaps touched the peeling paint on the side of the reflecting pool. Who knew that was a crime? Okay, so what they've done is they've now tried to ramp up this narrative, that it's not that Trump just hired his crony to do, to try to turn the reflecting pool into a swimming pool. By the way, I have a swimming pool. I've known what's happened when you try to repaint the bottom of it. It's like really not an easy task, right? Anyway, the point is that they just treated it like a swimming pool. It's not a swimming pool. It doesn't have the filtration system of a swimming pool. And now they're

trying to cover up the fact that Trump had no idea what he was doing and hired a crony and drove the beast and a whole entourage across the reflecting pool, as I understand it, right? I mean, they drove on it. So anyway, some guy reaching in and touching the thing is really not where the action is, but it's where they want to divert the story too. And I want to say, again, like, each of these things is always bigger than it looks. It's why it's important to talk about, which is that Trump is in the process of reconstructing Washington, D.C. He's doing the reflecting pool. He's doing the East Wing. He's going to try to put up this triumphal arch. He's trying to do this golf course. You know, you just look at, and they've also covered the North Portico of the

White House with TARC. Like, who knows what they're going to do. going to do. And our suspicion is that they're going to take those, you know, rather simple columns that hold up the North Portico and turn them into, you know, those kind of Greek columns that you only use, you know, to kind of show off. So, I mean, anyway, he's remaking things. And what this is saying is that if you touch any of that, you are liable for the destruction of federal property, right? So it's a much bigger thing. These are meant to be changing the narrative and also chilling effects on the limits of criticism and the limits of protest around the way he's defacing Washington, T.C. Yeah, no, thank you for that sort of broader contextualization. I think it's so important. And this

Hearn, this former Olympic canoeer, as you said, is charged with a serious felony willfully and violently damaging federal property. He is represented by our friend Norm Eisen. And Hearn says that he was out biking. He stopped at the pool. He touched a piece of floating liner that was already detached, and the next thing he knew he was under arrest. So I do think that, obviously, this is a high-stakes sort of scenario for him personally, but in terms of what the administration is trying to do, right, it is trying to send a message that, like, you shall not mock, right? You shall not challenge. You shall not question, right? The leader's, yeah, kind of physical reconfiguring of Washington, D.C., like our nation's capital,

that does belong to all of us, that he is unilaterally trying to remake in his image. And so it does feel, I think this is why the kind of pool saga has really struck such a note. It feels like it's about a lot more than one decorative reflecting pool. And on that note, something else that was a one-off but also feels really significant. And so even though it's a story that people may have kind of lost track of, I want to sort of mention because I do think it's part of this whole is greater than the sum of its parts narrative. And that is the recent development with Wisconsin state judge. I'm not sure if it's Duggan or Duggan, but I'll say Judge Duggan. What people may remember was charged with allegedly helping an undocumented Mexican national evade ICE when leaving her courtroom in Milwaukee.

She was then charged with and convicted of obstructing federal agents and then sentenced last week. The sentence was just to $5,000, not just to, that's a significant sum, but there was no jail time and it was just a fine. And so I guess that is a good result in that there was. was, you know, I think almost up to two years of a potential federal sentence on the table. DOJ had just pointed to the sentence and guidelines range, but actually not, as I understand it, advocated for a specific sentence, but seems unhappy with this fine only sentence. So clearly did want some time. And I just, it seemed the entire episode feels so chilling to me, in particular in light of the judge's, you know, now defendants, former judge, I guess she's

not a judge at this point, statement that kind of referenced her conduct in the context of her obligation to her duty as a judge and to the sanctity of courthouses. And to the extent she did do what the indictment alleged, like that is what motivated her. Anyway, so I'm just curious if you had any reaction to that. Yeah. So, you know, in some of the other legal systems that I work in, there's an option in criminal trials to find somebody guilty but not dangerous and then not impose any sentence. Like, yes, you've strictly violated the law, but really we're not going to make a big deal out of it. I think the biggest deal in the Judge Duggan case is here again, chilling effects. A lot of what the Trump administration is doing is singling out particular

individuals for doing things that are minor. And in fact, under the evidence, it was really highly contested whether she was helping this particular person to escape ice. The person went through a back hallway into the public hallway and right past the ICE agents. So either that was a bungled attempt to get him to flee or it was just not what they charged. The crucial thing is that she's off the bench. Yeah. Right? And so what this says is that they can swoop in and bring these charges for what does not look like intentional or harmful conduct and get any judge off the bench at a moment's notice.

Right? So that's the part that worries me is how many judges are now thinking twice about every, time they handles a case involving somebody who may be undocumented. And also with courthouse rules. What you see is a lot of states now coming out with rules about ICE not being permitted on state property, for example. And this was a state court, as I recall. So, you know, so we're going to have a federalism battle here over whether the states can protect their own state institutions as sites of federal enforcement. I know in New Jersey, there have now been, I don't know, almost a dozen laws passed that restrict where ice can operate and all this kind of stuff.

And I'm just waiting for the lawsuits that challenge state's abilities to push back. So those are, I think, some of the bigger considerations here. But intimidation of the judiciary is something they're doing on many fronts. This is one of many. Indeed. Okay. So another development in the judiciary that involves, I think, an effort to kind of delay, but maybe not intimidate judges. and that is the one involving E. Jean Carroll, who may finally maybe getting some of the money that she was awarded in her lawsuit against Donald Trump, I mean, never underestimate his ability to delay. But it does seem like he may be out of or almost out of options in that. People may recall that the Supreme Court denied his last ditch attempt to get the court to grant cert in his petition challenging the award of $5 million. That denial led to

an order by the district judge before whom this trial unfolded, Judge Kaplan, basically ordering this money in escrow be paid to E. Jean Carroll. Trump has gone to the Second Circuit already to challenge that order. He said he's going to ask SCOTUS to reconsider the denial of search. But it seems like even if he does all of those things, at most within a couple of weeks, this money should actually be transferred to E. Jean Carroll, although there again, remember, is the other lawsuit and award that she still hasn't seen. I don't think a dollar from. So that all remains to be, you know, kind of finally resolved. And I think there's a certain petition pending out of that second case as well. Finally, one thing I wanted to flag

before we moved on, there was another killing by ICE last week, this time of Lorenzo Salgado Arajo, a Mexican national who's been in the United States for decades, as has become horrifyingly familiar at this point. Agents claim that he was definitely in a car. And the claim is that he, you know, steered toward them or went to hit them with his car, the companions in the car with him vehemently deny that account. But I did open fire, shoot him, and he died shortly thereafter. So I am sure that more facts will emerge about that Houston incident over the course of the next few weeks. We're going to take a quick break. But first, we believe the answer to right-wing authoritarianism and all of the stooges who uphold it is a massive pro-democracy movement. And we want you to be part of

So we are hosting a strict scrutiny live in Washington, D.C., on November 6th. That is one day before the all-day CrookedCon event on November 7th. CrookedCon will take place just after the midterm elections, so there is going to be a lot to discuss. Like wondering aloud why God has cursed us with both Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas at the same time. Join us for all the jurist nonsense you can handle. Tickets for strict scrutiny live and all-day CrookedCon are available at. at crookedcon.com. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by Remy.

Guess what, folks? I went to the dentist, and she told me that the back molars looked like maybe I was a little tense at night and I was grinding my teeth in my sleep. Kelle Suprize, actually not really a surprise at all. Who wouldn't be tense in grinding their teeth after all of this stuff coming out of the Supreme Court?

But you know what? I'm not going to let this court get in my way and I'm not going to let them grind down my molars. that is why I trust Remy to protect my teeth using their custom night guard, along with 350,000 other Americans. Remy nightguards are the only FDA cleared and clinically tested at-home impression kit nightguards on the market. Not only do they prevent teeth damage from grinding, they also help reduce jaw tension and facial muscle strain and improve your sleep quality. You'll get the same professional quality and comfort as a night guard from the dentist

for 80% less of the cost by taking your own impression from the convenience of your home. Remy saves your impressions so you can enjoy the convenience and savings of Remy Club, where they'll ship a new top and bottom night guard right to you every six months. Here's how it works. You head over to Remy. You purchase your Remy kit, and after you purchase it, your impression kit comes straight to your door. You follow Remy's step-by-step instructions to get your perfect impression. Remy crafts and ships you, your custom fit night guard right to your home, and you get your

night guard back and start protecting your teeth immediately. Pop it in every night, no teeth grinding, no grinding down my molars. I'm not going to let this court get in the way of me having a perfect smile and a perfect bite. No surrey. You two can protect your teeth with Remy by using Code Strict to get 55% off your new night guard from now until the end of August with Remy Club, subscribe, and see. save. That's 55% off. Shop, R-E-M-I.com forward-slash-Strict with Code Strict. Thank you, Remy, for sponsoring this episode and saving my molars. This episode of Strictney is brought to you by

Alloy Health. Here's something that nobody tells you. The skin changes that start in your 40s aren't just about aging. They're hormonal. Specifically, they're about estrogen loss. Estrogen naturally helps maintain collagen, support elasticity, and keep your skin hydrated. As estrogen declines, your skin gets thinner, drier, and more crepey. Sounds amazing. That means your expensive cleaner, retinol moisturizer, all of the things, none of the things, were actually designed to work to solve this hormonal problem. That's why you need to do something differently. I'm in my 50s, but don't worry, folks, I'm not letting it get me down and I'm not letting my skin get thin, crepey, dry, or dull. I am calling my folks at Alloy, and I'm getting the estriol

cream that I can put around my eyes, takes care of the crow's feet, keeps me looking fresh, supple, moisturized, dewy-skinned, but not thin-skinned like someone we know. Nobody told us that as we get older, our routines needed to change. For a long time, solutions didn't really exist, but now they do. The answer is M4 skin care from Alloy, the first head-to-to-line of estriol-powered skin care. Estriol is a safe, gentle, and bio-identical form of estrogen that's clinically proven to rebuild collagen, restore elasticity, and visibly reduce wrinkles. The full prescription strength line targets your face, eyes, body. It's all estrogen-powered skin care everywhere you notice changes. And the process is simple. M-4 is available by prescription,

so you start with a quick online form. You'll be matched with a menopause specialized physician who reviews your intake and prescribes exactly what's right for your skin. Plus, you get $0.4 unlimited messaging with your doctor. Once approved, your prescription ships straight to you. So there's no appointments, no pharmacy trips, no insurance hassle. It's HSA and FSA eligible and it's delivered free to your door. So try M4 skincare from Alloy and see results in as little as eight weeks. Head over to MyAloid.com and use the code strict to get $20 off your

first order. Your menopause specialized doctor will tailor your skincare to your needs, plus you get zero dollar unlimited messaging with your doctor. Just head over to m-y-a-l-l-o-y-com and use code strict to get $20 off your first order. Let's now turn Kim to Hungary. I already gave you a general introduction, but I'm going to just briefly now give you a Hungary-specific introduction, which is to say for our listeners that Kim's research on Hungary has been just totally essential. to understanding how Victor Orban, who was the prime minister from 1998 to 2002, and then again from 2010 to 26, really transformed what was a robust democracy inside Europe into an entrenched autocratic system. And her work is now playing a central role in understanding this new political chapter that Hungary is embarking on. Because in the spring of 2026, despite facing this incredibly unequal playing field with mass.

media entirely arrayed against the challenger and arguably rigged election system, an opposition leader who actually is a former member of Orban's own party named Peter Majar and his brand new party won over 70% of parliamentary seats, thus knocking Orban and his Fides party out of power and pulling off an electoral upset that many experts thought was just utterly impossible. So this is obviously a time of real turmoil in the United States. And so I'm super grateful to have you here to shed some light on kind of what is going on in Hungary, what the consolidation that Orban was able to affect looked like, and then how this new government is trying to go about rebuilding democratic institutions and the rule of law. Okay, sorry, that was a long windup. Let's start just by contextualizing what Mujahar was going up against in the 2026 election.

Can you talk about what he was facing and how he was able to overcome all of it to walk. away with this really resounding victory. Yeah, I think that Peter Maudiard has a lot of lessons that we can learn here in the United States. The election system in Hungary was just totally rigged. Victor Orban had been getting less than half the vote and two-thirds of the seats in the parliament for more than a decade. And the secret to that rigging was that votes in the countryside counted two to three times

as much as votes in the cities. what you saw in Hungary is the pattern we see almost everywhere, which is that, you know, the liberal elites are concentrated in cities, the voters who uphold the sort of populist autocratic leaders are in the countryside. And so, and, you know, in prior elections in Hungary, the unified opposition mostly campaigned in cities, and the system was so rigged against them that even if they got a substantial vote, they couldn't win majorities in parliament. I mean, people were estimating before this election that the opposition could win a bare majority only if they got 55% or more of the vote and that Orban could get two-thirds of the seats if he got

45% of the vote. Okay, so that's how rigged the whole system was. So Peter Maudiard jumped out of Orban's party. I mean, no one had heard of him before February 2024. You know, so a little over two years ago, he jumps out of Orban's party because there's a ped of scandal, not involving him, not involving Orban, but involving the pardon of a guy who had run a state school where a lot of the staff had been involved in a pedophilia ring. So this pardon generated a scandal. The justice minister was forced to resign. The president was forced to resign. The justice minister was the woman going through a contentious divorce at the time with a guy called Peter Maudiard. Okay. So he jumps out of the woodwork. to defend his wife's honor as they're going through this whole messy divorce by saying to Orban,

like, how dare you hide behind women's skirts? I mean, you can't make up this drama, right? But the point was he was not somebody who was on the political radar screen before that moment. And then, you know, all the women listen up, like, would you trust a guy who did this? He had taped his wife's conversations over dinner in which she exposed the corruption of the Orban government, which was a parent in which she knew about, and which we don't know the extent to which she participated, but she talked about it. So he comes out and says, how dare, you know, he hide behind women's skirts to Orban. And then he says, and I've got the tapes. Okay.

So he goes on, like by this time, all the media are captured. There are no TV stations, no radio stations, that the opposition can even get their people onto for interviews. Peter Mondiour goes on to this YouTube channel that the opposition had set up, which turned out to be crucial, and gives this two. our interview exposing the tapes, exposing the corruption from inside Orban's government, and gets this huge following. Now, you know, I could go on and on with this level of detail, but let me just say the reason for mentioning this is that, you know, sometimes people just

pop onto the scene who aren't the expected folks. And this guy came out of Orban's machine, so he understood how it worked, which was also, I think, crucial to his success. he also came out not with a left program or a right program or the usual kind of political program, but first he was against corruption. And then as crowd started to gather and as people wanted to hear more from him, he started to say, and, you know, the current government is massively corrupt. Lots of evidence of that. And that's the reason why your hospitals are decrepit. You know, public transportation doesn't work. The school system's falling apart. they're stealing all the money so it's not going for these things. That kind of appeal, he stayed with through the entire campaign.

So is that a left-wing program or a right-wing program? Right? Really hard to say. So people, you know, always say to me, oh, well, he's just another right-winger. And the answer was, you really couldn't tell from what he said. And he avoided hot-button issues of the right, so he said virtually nothing about immigration, for example. He also avoided hot button issues of the left. So he said nothing about LGBTQ issues, which were really on the table since Orban banned the pride parade and 500,000 people showed up the year before, not including Peter Madre. So he just avoided all that and kept talking about their corrupts so you're not getting anything. And the reason why is that you've lost your voice vote for me. I will be that voice. Okay. So that's the campaign. He then spends two years. going out to every single little village. I mean, there were more than 700 settlements.

I mean, Hungary is the size of Indiana, okay? Imagine if you can figure out if there are 700 municipalities that he went to all of them, sometimes with no budget, he would go in, no security. Often driving a little pickup truck, he'd get on the back of it, start singing national songs, get people in the countryside to recite those poems with him that everyone had learned in grade school.

And then he would do this pitch about corruption and the breakdown of public services. And there's a map which shows you by little dots like all the places where he actually showed up in person. And overwhelmingly all those places voted for him. And so he broke the stranglehold that Orban had on the countryside because the whole system relied on that. And it had this trick in it that if you won enough of the votes in the countryside, you'd get bonus seats. So in the last election, and Victor Orban had gerrymandered all the districts. There are 106 districts. In the last election, Orban won 85 of the 106.

This time, Peter Maudiard won 96 of the 106, which is to say he mostly won by flipping parts of the country that had voted for Orban for 30 years. So the lessons here are you need somebody who understands how the system works. if you run a campaign that's hard to classify as left or right, but that focuses on corruption and what it's done to your life, you know, and then you figure out how the system is rigged and you run your campaign to play into the rigging rather than, you know, because you've got to win that first election. So anyway, so Peter Maudiour won with two-thirds of the seats in the parliament

in a system where the constitution can be amended by a single two-thirds vote of the unicameral parliament. So here we are, off to the races. Okay, yeah, and I do want to talk more about sort of what he has done and what is on the near-term horizon. But a great set of lessons there. One, the focusing on corruption, but connecting it to the material conditions of people's existence, not some abstract moral message about anti-corruption, but a tangible one that connects it to people's lived experiences. And then that interesting combination you described of first using mass media.

So I gather, you know, my understanding is that Orban had basically captured much of mass media, but using one of the pockets that is not captured, right, the ability to go via YouTube directly to the people. And then I presume continuing to speak directly to the people wherever possible on mass, but going at this very retail level to meet people where they are, in particular in the countryside, although that last piece is a little hard to imagine scaling in a country as big as ours. But, you know, a lot of it does seem potentially like, you know,

it holds important lessons for some successful anti-Trump anti-maga movement here. But maybe to, I just want to ask a question, and this kind of comes from this terrific piece you write, I think in your substack, things that are solid can melt into air that covers a lot of what we're talking about today. You talk a bit about why Orban was able to consolidate and hold power as fully end for as long as he did. And so I want to sort of describe the argument there and ask you to talk a little bit about it. So you basically say, the Orban government was able to be as successful at consolidation as it was by achieving four main goals, by having a tolerably functioning state, having a steadily growing economy, a credible moral message,

and the projection of invincibility. And you say in the run up to 2026, where Majjar topples him, all four of those pillars start to crumble. So the crumbling is one thing, the communicating to people about the reasons for the crumbling, as I think you were starting to get into, maybe something different. But can you talk a little bit about how much are capitalized on all of that in his opposition campaign? And then maybe if you want to connect, are those, how, if at all, do those pillars project on what MAGA has been able successfully to do insofar as it's been able to, well, they were, you know, they had one term in power, and obviously Trump was able to then

successfully return to power. So, so, or are those pillars kind of distinct to the Hungarian experience and not particularly applicable in the United States. Yeah, so in many ways, you know, Trump has capitalized on these same pillars. So tolerably functioning state. I mean, the U.S. mostly had a functioning state before Doge took a chainsaw to pieces of it, right, but he inherited a functioning state. So this was sort of not the problem. He also inherited a booming economy, you know, thanks to the prior regime,

but also the world was on its way up to. And, you know, he had a moral message. Part of it was drain the swamp, although he seems to have created a swamp. I mean, the other thing about the reflecting pool is that there's the swamp. But anyway, I mean, so there was this kind of anti-corruption message that Trump was actually using. And also, the state is too big and it's too much in your life. And, you know, I can save you and I am your vindication and so forth. So he had all of that.

And what's been interesting to me about Trump, Trump, because, you know, Orban had all those things, too. And the reason why Orban lost them was because of the corruption. The state stopped functioning because of the corruption. The economy was challenged in part because, and I have to admit my conflict of interest here, because I've been working on Hungary for a long time, after my court was captured in Hungary and it was clear the legal system wasn't going to help us, I in a group of my friends under a project called Reconnect, tried to lay the groundwork for the EU to cut the money they were giving to Hungary. It was in some year 6% of Hungarian GDP,

and a lot of the corruption in Orban's government came from the fact that the EU was, you know, generating this fire hose of money, which Orban then diverted to his cronies. And all of us knew that's where the corruption was. We had to convince the EU to stop. And they stopped the money in December of 2022. This was a 10-year project by some of us to get them to do it. And sure enough, they stopped the money to Hungary and Poland, actually, which also had an autocratic government. Wasn't as entrenched as our funds, but was still on that track.

Poland switches governments at the next election, and now Hungary switched governments at the next election. So it's the economy stupid, you know, still kind of matters. And so what we're seeing now, of course, in the U.S. is that between the tariffs and Iran and the oil, and whatever, Trump seems to be doing exactly the things that are going to thank the economy, you know, and I don't understand whether he doesn't get it or whether he thinks that rigging the election is going to mean it doesn't matter. Because Orban also rigged the election, being worried that all this stuff, I mean, Orban started rigging the election in 2013, but even so he rigged it even more for this last couple of rounds. So, you know, I'm just, all of that

stuff started falling apart under Orban. And I'm wondering if we're seeing this. And the moral message doesn't, I mean, if Trump was campaigning against corruption, he doesn't really look like he's doing that anymore. Right. So, so those same pillars, I think, are also weakening here. So it's not just a savvy campaigner. But I do want to say just one thing about media, because, you know, Orban really controls 80% of the media in Hungary by one estimate. And the opposition really had no traction in any TV, any radio, any of the major print media. They have a few online news portals and so on. What was crucial was Facebook. Ariens are on Facebook. And the EU, again, this was another campaign. A lot of us were trying to engage in at EU level. The EU had banned

political advertising on Facebook. And Orban had done a huge amount of political advertising on Facebook, and suddenly he was caught off guard because that was one of his major tools. So what happened is that the opposition was great at using Facebook. If I can just give you one example, there was this great anti-corruption crusader in the parliament as an independent member of parliament, Akush Hadhazi, who is, as I guess we would say, a large animal veterinarian, right, dealing with like not with cats and dogs, but cows and horses and so on. He, Orban's father was building of sort of Versailles like palace outside of Budapest. And everyone knows it's Orban's money. It's nominally his father's money. Anyway,

Hatt Hazi rents a drone, flies the drone over this complex and discovers that there are 10 zebra inside this thing. And of course, you know, Hungary natives, zebras are not native to Hungary. It's this, you know, and everyone probably in Hungary would recall that when Victor Yanukovych, the Russian-backed president of Ukraine, fled, they discovered his own private zoo with all these exotic animals as a kind of a symbol of the corruption of Ukraine. Well, what happened, this is the Facebook point. All of this whole group of young followers of Peter Maudiard started memifying the zebras, right? So like the zebras were everywhere. People would then show up at Maudiore valleys wearing zebra costume.

or they put little zebra insignia on things. And it just became the memeified symbol of all that's wrong with Orpott's corruption, right? So that's how to use social media, right? Because you can, I mean, here's this thing that actually happens. And there's this veterinarian who then files an animal cruelty complaint with the authorities saying, I want to go check the zebra. They don't allow him to check the zebra. So he drags out the story for a long time about these zebra, right?

But the youthful followers of Peter Maudiard memified the zebras. And they memified a lot of stuff. So they had a great comms team. Like every time there was an attack, there was an instant response on Facebook. So, you know, social media are not always an enemy of democracy. You know, sometimes they can be like the only thing that provides an opening for the opposition if the government has counter-controlled, you know, most of the media to defend what the government is doing. So interesting, you know, 15 years ago or so it did seem as though social media was actually an hugely important tool of kind of building democracy and democratic resilience. And then in recent years, that has seemed much more like an enemy. But that's really an important, I guess, counter to kind of now congealed conventional wisdom, which is that, you know, the tech oligarchs have been changing the rules to stifle democratic movements. But actually, the kind of anti-political advertising move, which I think. think was very controversial when Facebook adopted. It actually has, did end up really inuring to the

benefit of the Hungarian opposition. That's such an interesting point, and I had not heard the zebra story. So that all feels really encouraging and exciting. So you have a combination of internal collapse somewhat as a result of this external EU spigot being turned off. Maybe we are doing the collapsing internally ourselves without any such spigot being required in the United States and then the kind of multi-platform mobilization that obviously is ultimately successful. So now I think let's shift to the kinds of challenges that a new leader like Majera, Majera in particular, face after ascending to power following these autocratic or aspiring autocratic regimes. So you emphasize, including in your things that are solid, can melt into Airpiece,

that post-election euphoria fades quickly, especially when a new, administration, as in Hungary, inherits broken infrastructure and budget deficits, and, you know, there's an entrenched opposition. So how are Majjar and his team approaching this project of democratic repair from rebuilding agencies to restoring expertise, to replacing fear with professional norms, and getting basic services to work again? So, like, how are they doing that? And then I want to turn to some potential lessons for us from all of that. Yeah, so we're only a couple months in to this new government. Most of the people that Peter Mardier brought into his government have never been in government before. He did build a cabinet of experts. So, for example, the new foreign minister has a PhD in law and diplomacy from Tufts, and she left her job as vice president for communications at Vodafone London in order to take this job. So she's had experience in the international business sector. The guy who's now the health minister, actually, if anyone, seen anything about the election, both on election night and then on the inauguration night,

the guy who became the health minister did, was dancing, did this incredible dance. Oh, that guy, yes, yes. I mean, we all saw it. Just singled it out, like, two days ago for one of like the coolest people in the world, you know, that got a lot of headlines in Hungary. He was like 37th on the list of 39 cool people. Anyway, but I mean, that guy, I mean, he's an orthopedic surgeon who spent 10 years working at the National Health Service. in the UK, having pioneered some orthopedic surgical techniques that they used there. So, you know, real expert. And I could go through a lot of the rest of the cabinet, but it's people

who know the portfolios well that they're working on. And they've all been given license to just fix your sector. So move fast and fix things is sort of the inverse of move fast and bring things. I like it. I think I like it. Let's use that slogan. That's great. So his cabinet is doing that kind of stuff. The bigger problem is what do you do with all the entrenched autocrats? Because there are roadblocks. So the president of the country who has to sign all laws and constitutional amendments is a fetus holdover. And he signed everything Orban put before him. He's been involved in some of the worst of the worst abuses of the Orban government, at least legally stamping them because he was president of the Constitutional Court before he was president of the country. You can just give

this laundry list of stuff that he approved. Suddenly he's coming out and saying, we need checks and balances. And somebody needs, you know, like they never said that when it was their government, right? So he's there. Peter Malior wants to fire him, has put a law before the parliament that would result in the president being fired. Ditto with the constitutional court. So they have a court, it just handles constitutional questions. So it's part of our Supreme Court docket.

But very powerful, and they have a role in everything. And it's totally packed after 16 years of Orban. 15 of the judges were appointed without any serious inter-party discussion. And that's the other roadblock. So according to this new law that Peter Mondiard put on the table, the president would just be fired and the judges of the Constitutional Court, five of the judges, would be fired because they've instituted a new retirement age of 70, which was the old retirement age that were uplifted in part to put these people into place.

And now what's happening, and this is really something I didn't expect, human rights watch, and we don't know yet about the Venice Commission, but other human rights groups, human rights groups are saying, you can't just fire people like that. They have due process rights. And I'm thinking, really? I mean, so, and the Venice Commission, which is this consultative body in Europe that looks at whether governments are, meeting European standards, did the same kind of thing when Poland and Ukraine tried to undo the corruption and the autocratic capture in their systems. So we're running into this conflict between the human rights advocates who say the people who were in those jobs deserve due process, and you can't violate the rule of law by breaking of the law and firing them. I mean, think about the contrast with that and slaughter, for example, right? The good news is that in the U.S. would slaughter if we can get a president in who is interested in actually restoring expertise and bipartisan participation in multi-board panels and stuff like that, a new president can do it, no trouble. Maybe that's good, right?

So in Hungary, what they're confronting is this wall of opposition now, and I think Peter Mauder is going to go through and fire them and make them sue, but it's not a very elegant solution. The problem is there aren't very many elegant solutions. Just to say one last thing. What Orban did was to, so the president could have been impeached by the parliament. They changed the law last December to make that impossible. The people who are on the Constitutional Court, the current president, whose term, by the way, last till 2037, was just installed last year as the result of an ad hominem

law that allowed him to go straight from heading the public prosecution into the court when that move had been barred by law before. So one of the other ideas is to go through and unravel all the ad homin and ad personum, you know, laws that were that were constructed in order to put specific Orban loyalists into these jobs. The other thing is to reduce the length of terms of these offices, but in order for it to be effective, it has to apply to the current occupants. And then we get into a situation like we're talking about with the Supreme Court here. circling back to packed court as a theme.

If you've got institutions that are packed, how do you unpack them? What's going to happen is that there will be challenges like the ones we're seeing in Hungary. You can't fire the judges because they have life tenure. You can't limit their terms because they weren't limited before. If you're thinking about putting term limits on, I forget what the estimates are. I think, hey, you'll remember more than I, but it would take, what, 20 years before you have to, a meaningful rotation with the current... Something like that.

Yeah. On the bench? Yeah. Something like that, right? So when you have these transitions, you need immediate change. Yeah. And just to say one last thing. I mean, I think our court's been packed, you know, since Trump won, at least, since he

got three seats on the court. And what happened, and you've covered this on the pod in great detail, when you have a pack court or when you have these institutions and then you get an election, and then you get election that flips things. These are called in the political science literature U-turns, right? So, you're a democracy, you go down into an autocratic capture, then you try to make a U-turn back up into democracy. There is not a single case in the political science literature of any country that's made a successful U-turn that lasted longer than five years. Going back, I think, 50 years now, okay? Why is that? It's this problem, that if you've got autocratic capture of institutions,

those institutions veto what the new government does so that the new government doesn't look effective, they lose support, and because these autocrats still have supporters, they come back at the next election. Think of SCOTUS, what did they veto of Biden's initiatives? All the things that would have made Biden look instantly effective. They let slide everything that had long-term consequences. But if you just think about it this way, I mean, just student loans. as like the first example that comes to mind. But there were things Biden was trying to do

to achieve immediate results. That's where the court swept in and said, no, you can't do it. So when Biden was going to be up for re-election or when Harris replaced him, the argument was what did they do with four years? And that was largely the fault of the PACT court. Okay, that's happening in Poland

where the PACT Constitutional Tribunal and the president as a veto player have prevented the new pro-democratic government from achieving the change that they promised. Peter Maudior knows those cases, right? And so he's come in, hit the ground running, and he's just going to try to fire all the veto players. And now you've got human rights groups, human rights groups.

Anyway, don't get me started on this. I had a conversation with the leader of one of them yesterday, and I said, look, what about democracy? He said, that's somebody else's lane. We just do human rights. Okay, so unless you fire or really get rid of the roadblocks left over from autocratic capture. What you get is the re-election of Trump, the re-election of peace, the re-election of Bolsonaro and Brazil, we can talk about that one. So they're all on that track

to have one good election and then go back to the old system because these autocratic institutions are captured. Right. And if you're not sufficiently ambitious in the project of undoing what was done. And it's going to be a blip, sort of a fleeting, you know, reversion to the pre-autocratic norm and then and not actually fundamentally affect enough change that it's going to alter the trajectory that the society's on. Wow, nothing more than five years in terms of recovery in a half century is a really, really stark statistic. Strict scrutiny is brought to you by three-day blinds. I live in New York City, and privacy is a precious commodity. That's why there's nothing I'd rather be talking about right now than blinds, especially three-day blinds. There's a better way

to buy blinds and shades and shutters and drapery. It's not going to an interior decorator. It's not going to an upholstery store. It's heading over to three-day blinds. They are the leading manufacturer of high-quality custom window treatments in the United States. And right now, if you use the URL three day blinds.com slash strict. They are running a buy one, get one 50% off deal. We can shop for almost anything at home. So why not shop for blinds at home too? Three Day Blinds has local professionally trained design consultants who have an average of 10 plus years of experience. They can provide you with expert guidance on the right blinds for you in the comfort of your home. Just set up an appointment and you'll get a free, no obligation

quote, the same day. The expert team at 3.3 day blinds handles all the heavy lifting. They design, they measure, they install. You sit back, relax, and leave your privacy to the pros. With three day blinds, you choose from thousands of options that fit any budget or style. Plus, you can choose from light filtering and blackout blinds to motorization and smart blinds that work with your Alexa. Three day blinds is a real upgrade to your home. It's not a replacement for what you had before. Three day blinds has been in business for over 45 years and they have helped over two million people get the window treatment of their dreams. So they're a brand that you can trust. Right now, get quality window treatments that

fit your budget with three-day blinds. Head over to three-day blinds.com forward slash strict for their buy one, get-one, 50% off deal on custom blinds, shades, and drapery. For a free, no charge, no obligation consultation, just head to three-day blinds.com slash strict. That's buy one, get-1, 50% off when you head over to number three, d-a-y-blines.com slash strict. Quick question. Are you politically engaged and spiritually exhausted? If you said yes to both, welcome home. I'm Erin Ryan. And I'm Alyssa Master of Monaco. And we're the host of Hysteria, the podcast for women who care about democracy, culture, and not losing their minds in the process.

We break down the news, call out the nonsense, and spotlight the women actually fighting back on Capitol Hill, in classrooms, and everywhere the stakes are high. It's sharp, honest analysis featuring women's voices with humor and zero-haping. handholding. Listen to hysteria wherever you get your podcasts and watch full episodes on YouTube. I think you're anticipating some of what I'm going to ask you about the U.S. in a hypothetical post-Trump world. But a couple more hungry questions that what you were just saying have spurred for me. One, what is Majar doing or thinking about doing with the media, which you said, you know,

was largely captured under Orban? And he had to circumvent in order to get to the people. people at all when he was seeking to build this opposition. And then since we're talking about judges, there's been this judicial reform movement called Operation Purifying Fire that is distinct, I think, from this effort to remove some of the judges on the constitutional court. So can you talk both about Operation Purifying Fire and the media just to say a bit more about, you know, to pull a little bit more on some of the threads that you were just identifying? Yeah. So the media piece has gone even faster than Operation Purifying Fire.

So the first thing is that they have a public broadcaster. Most European countries have a public broadcaster. When you get the state, you get the public broadcaster. And Orban had packed the public broadcasting system with his loyalists. They had been broadcasting fake news for 16 years. Okay. Peter Maudiard came in, and the first thing that was very interesting was that there were a couple hundred employees of the public broadcaster

who wrote this petition to Peter Moliar that said, we're sick of producing propaganda. we would love to produce real news. They were trying to keep their jobs, okay, but they're also willing to switch sides. And they invited Peter Madhier on for an interview with the chief news reader in the evening, the Walter Cronkite of Hungary.

If anybody remembers Walter Cronkite, that will date me. But, you know, some major news presenter. And Peter Modier gets on the television, and he says to her, he said, you have been nothing but a factory of lies, and I am going to make sure this stops. He says this to her in the first opening interview. Because he'd never been interviewed on the primary news channel through the entire campaign.

Okay, so that was public broadcasting. What they've done with public broadcasting is they just shut it down. About four days ago, this statement appeared on people's television screens. I have a million pictures of all my friends sending me the picture of this appearing on the screen. And what it said in Hungarian, of course, was this has been a network of lies. we are going to remake it so from now on it will bring you only certified facts

stay tuned and this kind of stays on the screen and then they start broadcasting all these old communist era films that hadn't been broadcast for a long time because they were criticisms of the communist regime and once you broadcast them in the context of war by

and it's clear that it extends also to them so they've been doing this like anyway this kind of film festival of great Hungarian films what they're doing is they're redoing the whole system. They announced a new editor-in-chief. They brought on board real journalists. I mean, people who have been stringers for the international press, people who really have backgrounds,

so they're going to remake public television. Okay, that's part one. Part two, there's a commercial station, TV2, which is really the one that most people watch. The day after the election, it's run by a private company. The private company fired the news director in the entire news staff and has not had any news since. they were also a propaganda channel

and finally Orvan had set up this thing called a media council which was a public agency headed by for the last 10 years this guy Andresh Koltaiy And what they did was they had the mandate To ensure that broadcast and print And linear and online media

Were broadcasting news that was they even borrowed The Fox News slogan translated into Hungarian Free and Fair And so what? And so what this agency would do is go in and find news outlets that were not producing Orban-friendly news. And in some cases, shutting them down. I mean, media precarious financially everywhere, you add these crippling fines, and the media

would be staggering under debt, and then Orban's oligarchs would swoop in and buy them. So the media council was crucial to a lot of the media takeover, and Koltai was being called by people in the Madjar orbit, but also in the traditional opposition. the chief censor. They just passed a law last week, dissolving the media council, firing Coltai, and setting up a new sort of broadcast authority whose members will be appointed by journalists. So, yeah, Operation Purifying Fire. So that's the one to get rid of what Wondyar calls Orban's puppets. So it's the job to get rid of the president, the constitutional court, president of the Supreme Court, president of the competition, procurement authority. There's a whole list, the audit office, and so on. And so they've started

this process now of trying to get rid of them. They're using a lot of Orban's tactics in reverse. So Orban got rid of a lot of people by suddenly instituting a new retirement age. They've just done that. They've also got rid of a lot of people by dissolving agencies and creating new ones in their place. That's what just happened with the Media Council. So they're doing a lot of Orban's tricks in reverse. Now, there is a worry here because he has this constitutional majority. If he does this, there are no checks on his power. Okay. I do believe in checks and balances, but you can't, the checks can't be the checks left over from the autocrat. Okay. So there are a couple things that are hopeful here. One is that one of the first, the first constitutional amendments that Peter Magdara pushed through

was an amendment that limits the lifetime term of office of any prime minister to eight years. Orban's already had 20, right? So he's disqualified. But Peter Maudera said he would also abide by the amendment. So that limits his power. Okay, that's good. Part of Operation Purifying Fire also says that members of parliament are limited to three terms or 12 years in the parliament, and then they have to step down.

Trying to push rotation of power. This is also controversial because it gets rid of Orban's people, but it also gets rid of the traditional opposition parties that back. Maudiard and his people who are all brand new have a longer run at it. So that's controversial. But they're just, they're trying all kinds of things to get rid of the autocratic placeholders. And, you know, what I really wish the international human rights organizations and the international monitoring bodies would do is to come in and say, when you're making these changes in order to restore democratic checks and balances, it's different than

when you do it to entrench autocracy by sticking your people into those positions. And so far, I must say, we're running into a wall of formalists, right? Who say, nobody can fire a judge ever. And it's like, really? Yeah. Well, I'm reminded of something that Leah said on a recent podcast, which is that, you know, at least in our system,

motive matters in constitutional law. So if you're trying to change the rules in order to entrench an autocrat in power, that is just fundamentally different from trying to change. change the rules to restore democracy. And we don't have to pretend in this hyper-formalistic way that those two are the same. And I was also reminded while you were talking of something that your colleague, Jan Werner, and the former Hungarian judge Andros Chayo have talked about this kind of militant democracy or militant rule of law. Sometimes you need to use fairly aggressive tactics that don't fly and shouldn't in normal times in order to restore democracy and the rule of law.

And I take you to be making the point throughout this conversation that these kind of retreats to formalism are fundamentally self-defeating in extraordinary times like this one. And that's true in Hungary. And it's true forever in a post-Trump moment here. So maybe let's turn to that. What would a post-Trump moment look like? And what should individuals seeking to rebuild and restore prioritize? So I guess what would you say is the first one or two or three kinds of reforms that need to be undertaken. quickly before the old regime has a chance to regroup if, say, we are in 2029 in a post-Trump presidency. That could be a single term and then there's a return of MAGA in some form or there could be long-term restoration of real, you know, broad-based, multiracial participatory democracy in the United States. Like what would that kind of top three, say, priorities look like to you? Yeah. So I think the first thing is doing something about the Supreme Court. Okay.

Because it has been packed. I'm using to my ears, Kim. Yeah, lots of things you can do. I must say that the proposal that's mostly floated, which is let's just go up to 13, you know, let's just pack it. It's too easy to do that in reverse. There are a couple ways to do that differently. One was a trick, actually, that Orban and Erdogan used when they pack their courts. We can use them to unpack ours, which is if you increase the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court so that it has to hear more cases.

take away its discretion to make it hear more cases, and then say, because there are more cases, we need more judges. That would be one way to do it. The other way to do it is a proposal that I've heard that I really like, right, which is Constitution says there shall be one Supreme Court. Okay, we've got that. It says it has this jurisdiction. Limit the Supreme Court to original jurisdiction. Create a separate court underneath it, which is the general, we can call it the general court, the federal court. the federal court, which handles all the other business of the Supreme Court with no appeal,

cert or otherwise, to the Supreme Court. Because Congress has the power to make other courts. This is consistent with what the Constitution says the Supreme Court should do, and we just make another court. I like that one. And then you can figure out how not to just pack that court, right? It can't just be that if you get a Democratic at trick of, you know, all of the relevant presidency in both houses, that they just take it over, right? You've got to actually make it literally a check on the power of that triumvirate, you know, that's hard, but you got to do it. So anyway, so doing something about the Supreme Court is first. Second is slaughter is awful and slaughter is a gift, right, which is to say a new president can come in and fire all the holdovers.

That's the problem Peter Bondier is having. We won't have that problem because slaughter will give the president the power to fire those folks. Now, the question is how to then entrench expertise and bipartisanship and other kinds of checks on the executive agencies. And, you know, here's where, I mean, constitutional amendments are impossible. I think there may be ways for Congress, if we could get Congress to move on something to actually entrench, at least we can start with some things about expertise and civil service and so on. So, but I think slaughter is actually a gift to whoever's going to come next, but important gift. And the third thing is that I think we've got to make our system somewhat more.

We have lots of choke points and so on. But I think we also have to think about federalism. We can do that now, right? The blue states are kind of a refuge from some of the stuff that the federal government is doing. The blue state AGs have been probably the most active, single group of litigators. They've played on the landscape so far of federal law. I think we need to bolster state law. I think we have to increase the powers of states and try to cut back.

Some of the doctrines that have allowed the federal government to override states, the reason why is that if we get an autocratic comeback, this is the ballwork. Right? And that's going to be hard for a government that will want to centralize things. But I think we also have to boost the powers of states. Who knew? I never thought I'd be a state's rights person when I started in this field, But looking at this, the thing that saves you from autocracy is complexity.

You need more choke points that have to be captured before an autocrat gets it all. And with our one captured Supreme Court and with our paralyzed Congress, I'm afraid that's made us incredibly vulnerable. Yeah. Okay, so that's a great sort of agenda for the first, say, 100 days. Are there specific things that you can identify that are particularly, dangerous mistakes that a post-autocratic democratic government might make in, say, that same first 100 days? I have some sense of what you might say based on the conversation we just had, but I'm curious what you'd identify. Yeah, so I think that you need an election victory like the one

Peter Mondiard had, which is to say, overwhelming. A big one. Big one. The problem in places like Poland and actually in the U.S. and Brazil, these are close cases, right? And it's very hard to do big reform of close cases, close elections. So what you need is a big tent. And you need that big tent to provide the checks and balances if you can capture the hat trick, right, of the presidency and both houses of Congress. And that by that I mean, after the election, the big tent becomes a set of factions that have to be satisfied so that if you're going to set up a new court, it's not just, you know, one particular, it's not just the homeless Republicans or the social Democrats or like whomever, but they have to figure out among themselves a way of trying to develop and build checks into a system.

It's hard to make that transition from Big Tent, we're in this together to win an election, to now we're going to govern and we have to be mindful of the fact that we can't grab all the power that we have. So that's the pivot that's hard. And that's what the Mardar government's going through right now. And I'm not sure they have the pivot exactly right. You know, there's always a danger that an autocratic force can replace an autocratic force. The thing set up to just go into the driver's seat and drive that truck down the road, you know, especially if it's someone who comes from inside the party that captured things, as in the case of Hungary.

So, you know, you need immediate checks that may not be institutional, but may need to be public, may need to be civil society as government is being remade. So you need checks and balances all the way through the system. Right, but just maybe not the ones that we have become, that we've been accustomed to thinking about, they can take different forms. Exactly. Expand our imagination in terms of what those checks might look like. I think that's a great point. Okay, before I let you go, I just actually wanted to ask one specific question. We have referenced Poland a couple of times, and there's this really interesting new initiative called justice in motion that is based on something that a bunch of Polish judges did.

So justice in motion is a U.S. advocacy organization backed effort that I think a few of the organizations' Democracy Rising Collaborative keep our Republican Ohioans for the rule of law put together for this last week. And this was modeled after something that Polish judges did in 2020 and 2021 when Poland's ruling party started dismantling judicial independence. And a bunch of judges basically took to the road, like basically went to towns and villages to talk to the people about why preserving an independent judiciary and the rule of law was the foundation of a free society. So these groups in the U.S. are trying to do something similar with this bipartisan group of sitting and former. So not just former, but also sitting judges and lawyers and civic leaders. So I'm just curious if this is something

that's on your radar, that is an example of the kind of creative civic engagement and the kind of direct to the people effort that sounds a lot like what Majjar did in building his campaign in Hungary and what you make of efforts like this. Yeah, so I love this idea. And, you know, it was very effective when it was carried out in Poland. I might say that one of the ways that the Polish case was a little different, though, was that the Polish judges who had been incredibly beleaguered called in their colleagues from all over Europe.

So when they did these marches of the judges, you know, all in their robes, it was not just Polish judges, but judges who came from the Netherlands and from Germany and from France. And it was thousands of them, you know. Now, I'm not sure that the U.S. listens much to judges in other countries. So I guess that really wouldn't happen here. But still, this idea that you get judges, I mean, because judges are not politicians. And people need to see that judges are not politicians and that the rule of law is not the same thing as democracy, although crucial to it. And so the judges are the best ones really to explain that. And of course, many judges are talking to the public all the time.

They talk to juries. They talk to litigants. They're trying to explain the law to non-lawyers, like your podcast, right? And, I mean, this is something that we all need to start doing. And I think that this seeing judges in ropes out of the courtroom, you know, rule of law doesn't just happen in one place. It's just such a great idea. That is, I think, a wonderful place to end. Maybe before we go, can I ask you to stick around and recommend a couple of either pieces to read?

We've, you know, veered off into music, movies, et cetera, recently. I was just going to recommend a book and an article, so maybe I'll go first. Yeah. And the first is Matt Schwartz at the New York Times had a kind of eye-popping profile of now Third Circuit Judge, Emil Beauvais, last week in the the Times that opens with this anecdote about Beauvais still having his like screensaver on his cell phone, a picture of Trump, which is not something that judges typically do. So, you know, I definitely recommend that profile to people. And the other is a book I'm reading right now. We've talked now about the civil service a couple of times in this conversation. The book is a

memoir. It's called The Mailman by Stephen Starring Grant. And it's just about life as a rural mail carrier only for a brief period. This author had a different career before that and then COVID hit needed to find a job with health insurance and took up delivering mail in rural Appalachia where he's from. And it's just a pretty incredible account of life inside this crucial part of the federal government that is both visible because we actually do know our mail carriers a lot of the time, but also invisible and that there's so much about the way the post office works that I just didn't know, even though I've actually, you know, read about it a good amount. And it's a fascinating memoir that I'm really enjoying. And I think kind of is a sort of quiet

reminder of the nobility and importance of public service. And so highly recommend that. Over to you, Kim. Oh, that's great. Yeah, well, it's summer. So, you know, a lot of summer reading. So I'm about halfway through Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan's regime change, which is, I mean, I'll tell you, if you were alarmed before, this will make you more alarm, just the detail of the way that, I mean, we were talking about the reflecting pool, but the way that Trump has just been obsessed with trees, maple trees. You know, anyway, so I mean, just what you see what the president's thinking is just kind of alarming. But it's also crucial because you get to see, so who's actually doing things in the way else? I have another half-finished article. It's called Trump is a they, not a he.

because I think if we sit here and try to psychoanalyze Trump as if he's like the only thing running all this, we miss the fact that he doesn't know most of what's happening in his name. And I think you see in that, you know, exactly how that works. Another book that I can't recommend enough is Nicholas Enrich's book into the woodchipper. This is a book, this is a guy. USAID, right?

If you want to see what this Trump destruction look like from the inside, I mean, that's just such an amazing, amazing book. But then, you know, I think another thing to do is to pull out and read some things that put this into a kind of historical perspective. So Sinclair Lewis, it can't happen here. You know, written actually when the fascist threat was really quite real. Here we go all over again. Really worth reading that all over again. If you want something longer, more elevated and harder to read, but still it will make you feel good about yourself. Hannah Arendt's origins of totalitarianism is a real thing. classic. There's just a whole bunch of stuff in there that will resonate with our current moment. Ernst Frankel's the dual state. There's another one of those, kind of a slog, better for lawyers, because this is a guy who's a Jewish lawyer in Berlin in 1938 reporting on what he's seeing happening as the legal system under the Nazis starts to fall apart. So, you know, those are all things. But then again, you know, we should actually also have fun. So the thing I've really been

fascinated with it's on Amazon Prime actually Gok Juan's easy Asian this is the style Maven who teaches you how to cook Asian food okay so if you want something has nothing to do with politics the guy is hilarious so anyway that's that's a a little escapist recommendation that we all need some of that and actually one other thing so I recommend this to my students and I think actually it has now a really good reason for seeing it now there's a Danish series called Borgon it's actually a decade and a half older. So it's like the West Wing for parliamentary government. So if you want to see how parliamentary government operates, it's great. But season four, which was released only a few years ago, is about a potential takeover Denmark by competition between Russia, China and the U.S. for Denmark. I think Trump saw that season four of Oregon. And that gave him ideas. So if you want to see season four of Borgon, if you want, a political. political escapist thing to watch. That's the thing to watch. I doubt he's watching prestige European television, but maybe someone in his order did. It has some title. You can't quite imagine doing that. I doubt it. I'll tell you it. It really does resonate now. Is it? Okay. All right. Well, we'll have to check all of that out. Kimmelaine-Sheppley, what a great set of insights. Thank you so much for joining me today. Oh, thanks for talking to me and thanks for all the work you do.

Strictney is a crooked media production. Our show is produced by Melody Raoul and Michael Goldsmith. Jordan Thomas is our intern. Our team includes Matt DeGroote, Ben Hethcote, Johanna Case, Kenny Moffat, Eric Schute, and our music is by Eddie Cooper. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. Quick question. Are you politically engaged and spiritually exhausted? If you said yes to both, welcome home. I'm Erin Ryan.

And I'm Alyssa Master of Monaco. And we're the host of Hysteria, the podcast for women who care about democracy, culture, and not losing their minds in the process. We break down the news, call out the nonsense, and spotlight the women actually fighting back on Capitol Hill, in classrooms, and everywhere the stakes are high. It's sharp, honest analysis featuring women's voices with humor and zero handholding. Listen to hysteria wherever you get your podcasts and watch full episodes on YouTube.