The NPR Politics Podcast - Roundup: Potential Ukraine Ceasefire; Trump Attacks Judiciary

Episode Date: March 21, 2025

President Trump spoke separately to his Russian and Ukrainian counterparts this week to try and hammer out a peace deal to end the war. We explore what's in the deal and what chances it has to succeed. Then, a look at how President Trump has targeted members of the country's judicial system, from judges to law firms. This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, national security correspondent Greg Myre, national justice correspondent Ryan Lucas, and senior political editor & correspondent Domenico Montanaro.The podcast is produced by Bria Suggs & Kelli Wessinger and edited by Casey Morell. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hi, this is Mason in Novito, Florida, originally from New Zealand. I'm just about to feed our five very small, very hungry foster kittens who seem to think that singing for their lunch will make me go faster. This podcast was recorded at 12.22 PM on Friday, March 21st. Things may have changed by the time you hear it, and these kittens will probably have changed from being hungry and loud to quiet and happy and well-fed. Here's the show. Oh, man, I'm having parental traumatic stress disorder just thinking about feeding my children. Yeah, I actually thought those were hungry children for a moment.

That are monkeys. All the same. All the same. Very similar. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. And I'm Greg Myrie. I cover national security. I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent. And new developments are taking place to try and bring it in to Russia's war with Ukraine. Greg, there was talk of a ceasefire being agreed to in principle this week, at least a narrow one. Where do things stand? Yeah, well we're not quite there. Russia and Ukraine are both still shooting at each other, so the

people in those areas under attack certainly don't feel that it's a ceasefire. It has been moving along. Trump has certainly got things rolling. He had phone calls this week with Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader, and Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian leader. The US proposal is a straightforward 30-day ceasefire. Both sides stop shooting. Ukraine has agreed to that. Russia and Vladimir Putin have sought to add conditions and codicils and nuances and that has certainly slowed things down. And I think what Russia is trying to do is either delay or reshape the conditions a little bit so it's more favorable to Russia. But the Ukrainians

are on board. Now we'll have to. But the Ukrainians are on board. Now we'll have to see if the Russians can get on board, but there still seem to be quite a few obstacles. You certainly have a lot of Europeans and Ukrainians who believe that Putin is stalling, that he's playing Trump. We're not going to know if that's what's actually going on until or unless there is a deal or isn't one, but it feels a little bit like Trump is trying to get a win this week saying, you know, we got this 30 day ceasefire for infrastructure and

energy facilities that there would be no strikes on. And yet within hours, there were strikes from both sides and from Russia on a hospital. So what this is actually going to mean, what's going to actually happen, whether or not Ukraine is even going to give in to some of the red line sort of demands of Putin, it seems like they're very, very far apart. Yeah, Greg, I am struggling to see a ceasefire actually being in place even on like infrastructure. Russia is trying to calibrate it so that you could stop hitting the electrical plants and the fuel depots on both sides because the Ukrainians are sending their drones deep inside Russia, hitting fuel depots, hitting places like that, causing big fires, causing real damage. So Putin

seems to be saying, yeah, we'll stop that. We're getting hurt on that front, so we're willing to pause for 30 days and we'll stop hitting Ukrainian electrical facilities. But Russian forces, for most of the past year, have been making incremental gains at a very high cost on the ground. So Putin does seem very reluctant to stop that, that Russia's ground forces could lose their momentum if they have to pause for 30 days. So that's why Putin wants to really make this a pretty complicated partial truce. I think he's also looking at the bigger picture down the road saying we're not going to jump into this. We want guarantees that NATO troops won't go into Ukraine to monitor a ceasefire or permanent end to the war. There'll be no relations really between NATO and Ukraine. So Putin is adding all of these additional items to the list rather than just a straightforward 30-day

ceasefire, stop shooting in both directions. Nat. Or that they would rearm Ukrainians. I mean, I don't think Ukraine is going to agree to the idea that they can't have a military essentially anymore or that it would be some deteriorated version. I mean, this is a country that agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in the 1990s for the idea of having sovereignty and guaranteed security. That's what Zelensky has been looking for, the Ukrainian president, and has so far not gotten it from the United States. Can we take a step back and look at more broadly, President Trump is all about America first,

seems to be withdrawing the U.S. from the world, at least in some ways. He doesn't want the U.S. to have to be involved in Ukraine long term. He's pulling in. How does this proposed ceasefire fit with his, you know, America first foreign policy, no foreign wars, all of that? Yeah, so I think President Trump is, let's say, not consistent. That he has policies that can shift, that can move around in different directions. But you're right. In a general sense, he does talk about America first. He doesn't want to be involved in endless wars, and perhaps the best interpretation that I'm seeing is that he wants to resolve some of these conflicts quickly, Ukraine, Russia,

certainly being one of them, get a ceasefire, get a peace deal, and then move on to other things. He doesn't want to deal with an open-ended war there. We're seeing that in the Middle East, too, where he's tried to get himself involved with the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. But that would work if indeed you can get a quick resolution to either or both of those conflicts and others. But history tells us these are pretty deep-seated conflicts. The Russia-Ukraine wars really been going on for 11 years since Russia first invaded. So Trump may want to solve them quickly and move on, but most analysts will say it's not something you can do quickly. It's going to require a very long protracted process and

with no guarantees of success. So the reality may be very much at odds with what Trump would like to see happen. And you mentioned Gaza. That also moved away from peace this week, that situation in the Middle East. Yeah. And again, the US was, and the Trump administration was deeply involved. Trump's envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, who's also involved in the Russia-Ukraine negotiations, helped arrange that literally before Trump entered office on January 20th. So his administration was claiming credit for that, was very much involved.

Witkoff was putting out additional proposals, sort of changing the game plan a little bit on this ceasefire in the Middle East. And then it broke down. Israel attacked Hamas in Gaza. And I'll also add in over the weekend the U.S. began firing at Houthis in Yemen, so restarting that conflict at the same time. So again, these are all things that Trump thinks he can solve quickly, that an intense brief period of airstrikes against the Houthis will stop their attacks on ships in the Red Sea, that threats against Hamas will lead them to release the hostages and perhaps produce some sort of resolution there. But again, really hard to say that these things are going to get sorted out quickly, which

is what Trump seems rather than to be deeply involved in open-ended conflicts. I think it's really interesting when we talk about the war in Gaza. Israel consulted the United States on this according to the White House press secretary Caroline Levitt this week And that gives you the idea that there was tacit support from President Trump to go ahead with this so for all of their keenness in taking credit for the the ceasefire deal that got worked out while Biden was still in office But Trump was coming into office and wanting to say they took credit for getting the ceasefire, we've seen a very different President Trump in what he wants in between Israel and Gaza.

And I think there are real questions on whether or not Trump actually wants a ceasefire where Palestinians still live in Gaza and there's a two-state solution, that is not something he's backed. In fact, it's been the opposite since he's been president to say that we're going to find another strip of land somewhere where Palestinians from Gaza can go and then maybe set up a Riviera in Gaza. Remember, this is something that President Trump had said. So the idea that his team took credit for getting this ceasefire deal that now is

dissolved. It really raises a lot of questions about what the end game is that Trump sees for what should take place there. Okay, Greg, we are going to let you go for now, but do not go too far because we're coming back to you in a bit. But when we return, how the Trump administration and the judiciary find themselves increasingly at odds This is Tanya Mosley co-host of fresh air You'll see your favorite actors directors and comedians on late-night TV shows or YouTube But what you get with fresh air is a deep dive

Spend some quality time with people like Billie Eilish, Questlove, Ariana Grande, Stephen Colbert, and so many more. We ask questions you won't hear asked anywhere else. Listen to the Fresh Air podcast from NPR and WHYY. Over 70% of us say that we feel spiritual, but that doesn't mean we're going to church. Nope. The girls are doing reiki, the bros are doing psychedelics, and a whole lot of us are turning inward to manifest our best selves. On It's Been A Minute from NPR, I'm looking at why maybe you and your closest friends

are buying into wellness for spirituality. That's on the It's Been a Minute podcast from NPR. When you take a shower or get ready in the morning, how many products are you using? Everything from your shampoo to your lotion. In our study, we found that the average woman used about 19 products every day and the average man used about seven. These products might come at a cost. The ingredients they contain can be harmful to our health. Listen to the LifeKit podcast from NPR to learn more about the risks of personal care products. And we're back and NPR justice correspondent Ryan Lucas is with us. Hello, Ryan.

Hey there. We want to talk about the rapidly changing relationship between the White House and another co-equal branch of government, the judiciary. The Trump administration is frustrated that courts are slowing down or stopping the president from carrying out some of his policy decisions. In response, the White House has reacted by complaining of judicial overreach and by actively calling for judges to be removed from the bench. So Ryan, just walk us through the issues here. So look, the Trump administration is clearly aggressively trying to push the bounds of executive authority

of what the president has the authority to do. It's not getting any pushback from Congress, which of course is controlled by Republicans, both the House and Senate. The judiciary would be the other co-equal branch of government that you mentioned there, and the judiciary is getting a lot of court cases that are brought challenging administration policies.

In some instances, the judiciary is ruling in favor with the government, siding with the government in its rulings. And in a lot of instances, it is not. We have seen federal judges temporarily block administration policies. The most notable instance of that right now is one with James Boesberg here in Washington, DC. That relates to the administration's efforts to deport a bunch of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. The administration has been very aggressive. You, of course, have, I'm sure heard from the White House on this, but very aggressive

trying to push this, this, this case. The justice department has even gone so far as it's been trying to resist essentially providing information that the judge has requested, has demanded. And so it's a very tense time right now in the relationship between the executive branch and the judiciary as we're seeing. And I think we should note just that these are all cases in the very earliest stages.

These are temporary restraining orders, even early injunctions. This is not decisions being made on the merits. I guess there have been some appeals, but the process has not run itself out at all. Absolutely not. This is the and that's important to note. There is a process for this. This is how the system is supposed to work. You can challenge a policy, you go to court, you take a look at the legal angles of it. And if you don't like a ruling that you get on the merits, you can appeal like that is how this system is supposed to work. But what the administration is doing is really pushing back when it gets rulings against it that it doesn't like, essentially saying that judges don't have the authority to make these rulings

because the president was elected by the public. So we hear a lot about impeachment as relates to the president, but impeachment as relates to judges and justices is incredibly rare, right? Is this actually the remedy for the complaint that the White House has? Well, there are a couple of questions there. First, on is impeachment of federal judges rare? It is rare. There have only been 15 times that it's happened historically. The most recent one was in 2010. And in most of these cases, as in the case of 2010, this was for accepting bribes.

Often it's something like that. And the grounds for impeachment are the same as we talk about for a president. Treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors. What the administration and its allies are doing now is basically saying, there's no high crime or misdemeanor. There's no allegation of bribery. This is, we don't like your ruling, therefore you should be removed from the bench.

Yeah, and we saw this week Chief Justice John Roberts kind of pushed back against President Trump, saying that it was not an appropriate remedy for a president to be pushing for impeachment, that there's an appeals process, that you can disagree and you can take it up the ladder. And honestly, I think that's one reason why we see Trump as emboldened as he has been, because he does have a 6-3 Supreme Court that leans conservative, one that's in favor of a

unitary executive. In other words, a nearly all-powerful president, certainly one that's all-power powerful within the executive branch. So we're going to see this play out. And I think that that's why he's pushing as hard as he is because he wants to push this up to the highest court to see just how much a president's power can either be checked or not be checked. And there's there's certainly been some support among House Republicans for the idea of impeaching some of these judges. You would need support from Democrats in the Senate as well, and I feel pretty safe saying that they're not going to get that. And I don't think that they would get support from

all of the Republicans in the Senate either. I think that there's a lot of resistance to doing something like this. Well, speaking of Congress, though, I mean, there are three co-equal branches of government. There's the executive branch, legislative and the judiciary, as we've been talking about. But the Congress, which is controlled by Republicans, both the House and the Senate, they seem more than happy to give the reins to President Trump and allow him to do what he wants to do for the most part. So it's where Trump is going to run into some speed bumps, if they are speed bumps at all, is going to be with the judicial branch.

And President Trump was asked about this by Laura Ingraham for her show on Fox News, an interview she did this week. And he said that he would follow court orders, that he would not disobey court orders, but that they will appeal and that he expects to win. Well, there's also a disconnect between what the president is saying and what people think he's gonna do. You know, 58% in our latest NPR PBS News Marist poll, we asked them, do you have confidence that Trump would follow court orders if he didn't like them?

And they, 58% said, no, they don't think he will. So this is something that people are expecting, and there's a degree of numbness, I think, from the general public for the conduct that they expect from President Trump. There have also been pointed attacks from the White House on law firms that have represented people who opposed him. Since returning to office the president has taken executive action targeting three firms or people from those firms seeking to remove their security clearance and even limit who

they can represent or whether they can go into government buildings. So what's going on here? So this is the the president using the power of the presidency to go after these firms. The firms that have been targeted are Covington and Berlin, which represents Jack Smith, former Justice Department Special Counsel. You have Perkins-Cooey, which represented the Hillary Clinton campaign. And then the third firm was Paul Weiss, which is a big New York law firm. And talking to legal scholars, I mean, this is seen as an attempt essentially to punish these firms for representing, as you said, people or causes that the president doesn't like. But it also puts a chilling effect on the legal profession writ large.

It is meant to intimidate law firms from representing causes that the president doesn't like. And remember, a lot of these big law firms play key roles providing pro bono legal work to lawsuits that are brought challenging administration policies. And as we've talked about earlier today, there are a lot of lawsuits out there that are being filed challenging the administration's policies. And look the the the attacks that we've seen on law firms are not separate from the pushback that we've seen from the administration against the judiciary. Legal experts that I've spoken with say that these two things are very much connected they're kind of part and parcel of the administration's

broader attack for lack of a better word, on the legal community writ large, both attorneys and the judges. All right. Ryan, thank you so much for sharing your reporting. You bet. And when we come back, it's time for Can't Let It Go. And we're back. And so is Greg Myrie.

Hello again. Hi there, Tamara. And it is time for Can't Let It Go. That's the part of the pod where we talk about the things from the week that we just cannot stop thinking about politics or otherwise. Domenico, you're up first. Okay. Well, I'm kind of can't let go of a college student who returned an overdue library book.

And before you think this is my most boring, can't let it go, and least entertaining that you've ever heard, this is a library book that was returned 64 years later. It was a 1931 edition of a book called Camping and Woodcraft, a handbook for vacationing campers and for travelers in the wilderness. He's an 83-year-old man who sent this in with a $70 check because it was overdue and you know those nickels add up over time. And he wrote a letter with it as well. And he said, I determined that this book was a treasure, a light year ahead of anything published on the subject at the time I borrowed it,

and it has remained so over anything I've seen published since. So a really kind of sweet story. The librarian, before you think that she was very upset about this and him not following the rules, she said, you know, I've seen books deteriorated more that were loaned out for much shorter periods of time, and even found a book where they had clearly used a piece of bacon as a bookmark. Oh my God. So she was very appreciative of how he kept this. And it also made me think,

if our bookworm listeners out there are listening, what do they use as bookmarks? Has anybody used a piece of bacon as a bookmark? I mean, you would think it'd get all grease all over the pages. But I'm a book abuser. Scott Detro will attest to this. Unfortunately, he won't loan me books anymore.

What is this? I tag the pages. Dog tag. Yeah. I dog-ear the pages. Sometimes I take notes in the books. I really commune with- Of other people's books?

Well, that was the mistake I made and why Scott Detro will never lend me a book again. It sounds like one of those, like you're like a night terror person who like wakes up screaming in the middle of the night. That's what your books look like when they get returned, huh? With apologies. I don't do that to library books for the record. Just buy them. Yeah.

All right, Tam. So what can't you let go of other than your abusive books? Well, I cannot let go of the fact that President Trump this week released all of the remaining JFK assassination file documents and unredacted all of them. And really nothing has changed in our understanding. I was just going to say, and yet I have seen no headlines that say anything has changed at all whatsoever with this. It turns out, yeah, like we basically already knew what happened. It was Lee Harvey Oswald. But bonus, it included unredacting social security numbers for people who are still living, though President Trump talked about it

today in the Oval Office and he presumed they were all dead. Well, you know, I was given the task of releasing that because many presidents have gone through it and they haven't released. And I said, release, we even released Social Security numbers. I didn't want anything deleted. They said, so what about Social Security? People long gone, but they're long gone. So I can't imagine.

But I said, if you don't delete it, if you do delete it, we have people that say, why did you delete it? There's something in it. So we gave social security and we gave everything. So basically, he's saying some conspiracy theorist out there would have said they were hiding something. The funny thing is one of the people whose social security numbers was revealed is a man named Joe DiGenovava who was a lawyer who worked for Trump during his first term. I was going to say I knew that name.

Yep. Greg, what can't you let go of? Well it's March Madness, the NCAA basketball tournament. So I'm very excited about that. And in fact, my alma mater, Yale University, is in the tournament. And at least you didn't say a school in New Haven. My alma mater is school in New Haven. If we go back far enough into the the midst of time I actually played on the Yale basketball teams in college. True story, true story. Let me assure you we were not NCAA tournament material at that time. Oh, it's still Division I, Greg.

I'm going back. So far, there was no three-point line. Okay? Whoa. That's how long ago it was. We did have nets. We weren't shooting at Peach Baskets, but it was a long time ago. The Yale Bulldogs played the Texas A&M Aggies, and unfortunately, they lost by nine points,

but a pretty competitive game nonetheless. That was exciting. I'm still excited about the tour. Pretty good game. I didn't know Greg was a baller shot caller. I mean this is like secret facts about Greg Myrie I had no idea about. We need three more basketball players at NPR to start a team because I didn't play Division 1 basketball but I did play in high school so I would love to be able to play as I now get older here. And I only have so much time left. Yeah, I mean, those knees are only going to last

so long to me. It's not working really well, but that's pretty impressive, Greg. Who's your team to win at all? Florida. I really liked watching them play. They're really good. Yeah, very exciting, very fun to watch.

I think they might pull it off. I'm excited to watch St. John's because it has been a long time since St. John's really good. Yeah, very exciting. Very fun to watch. I think they might pull it off I'm excited to watch st. John's because it has been a long time since st John's was good and I am a Queens native as we know and that was it was about half a mile from my high school that I played at and I just loved going to st. John's games and I'm excited to see them actually doing well now My my six-year-old has a bracket and It is pure chaos and yet he is beating all of us right now and I do not know why. That's

about right because you can't, it doesn't, you know, I almost, it's almost frustrating to submit a bracket at all because you never know what's gonna happen. He went by colors this time. And that is a wrap for this week. Our executive producer is Mithani Maturi, Casey Morrell edits the podcast, our producers are Bria Suggs and Kelly Wessinger. Special thanks to Krishnadev Kalamur. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

I'm Greg Myrie. I cover national security. And I'm Domenico Montanaro, senior political editor and correspondent. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.