What A Day - The Trump Administration's All-Out Assault On Judges

Episode Date: March 20, 2025

Are we in a constitutional crisis? That’s the big question on the minds of legal experts across the country right now, as President Donald Trump and his allies ramp up attacks on federal judges who rule against him. The president’s latest beef is with the federal judge who tried to block his administration from deporting more than 250 migrants, mostly from Venezuela. A swath of the American Right, including billionaire Elon Musk, has now decided that if federal judges won’t back Trump at every legal turn, they should be impeached and removed from the bench. Leah Litman, co-host of Crooked’s legal podcast ‘Strict Scrutiny,’ stops by to talk about this moment and its legal significance.Later in the show, Crooked Climate Correspondent Anya Zoledziowski breaks down the craziness happening at the Environmental Protection Agency.And in headlines: The Federal Reserve kept interest rates flat and warned Trump’s tariffs have thrown the economy's health into question, Trump said he had a ‘very good telephone call' with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy about a ceasefire with Russia, and Attorney General Pam Bondi called a recent string of vandalism attacks on Tesla dealerships ‘nothing short of domestic terrorism.’Show Notes:Listen to the latest episode of Strict Scrutiny - https://crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8Support victims of the fire – votesaveamerica.com/reliefWhat A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

It's Thursday, March 20th. I'm Jane Coaston and this is What a Day, the show that really cannot get enough of watching Republicans get absolutely rocked at town halls. This time, it's Representative Mike Flood of Nebraska. Is that ASMR? more? On today's show, the Trump administration plays things real chill and calls a tax on Tesla dealerships domestic terrorism, and the Federal Reserve keeps interest rates steady amid mounting economic uncertainty.

But first, are we in a constitutional crisis? That's the big question on the minds of legal experts right now. President Donald Trump has been whining about judges who rule against him since, like, what seems like forever. But he's taken both his rhetoric and his threats to new heights this week. His beef is with the federal judge who tried to block his administration from deporting more than 250 migrants, mostly from Venezuela. The judge has asked the government multiple times to answer some very basic questions

about those deportation flights, like, you know, who was on them? And when did they take off from the United States? He's even given the government an extra day to reply. But apparently asking those questions was very mean, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was on Fox News Wednesday. This judge had no right to do that. They're meddling in foreign affairs. They're meddling in our government.

See, he does have the right, Attorney General Bondi, and he does because we don't actually know if the hundreds of people in those plans were dangerous or guilty of anything at all. The administration has released almost no information about the deportees, and the Justice Department's lawyers in the case have basically been like We did nothing wrong. You're just gonna have to trust us because national security, etc, etc But to press secretary Caroline Levitt the legal pushback is a political conspiracy During her Wednesday press briefing. She really leaned into the idea that the judge was wrong because his politics are bad

This judge judge Boas, is a Democrat activist. He was appointed by Barack Obama. His wife has donated more than $10,000 to Democrats, and he has consistently shown his disdain for this president and his policies, and it's unacceptable. You took me right where I wanted to go about the idea that these people are all foreign terrorists, but Judge Boasberg was originally appointed by Georgia W. Bush and then elevated by Barack Obama. I just feel like I should clear that up. During his Fox News interview Tuesday, President Donald Trump

insisted that he would never disobey a court order. He literally said, you can't do that. But then a few hours later, he said on True Social, quote, If a president doesn't have the right to throw murderers and other criminals out of our country because a radical left lunatic judge wants to assume the role of president, then our country is in very big trouble and destined to fail. And his best friend and co-president, Elon Musk, seems to want judges who rule against the administration impeached for, as far as I can tell, ruling against the administration.

According to the New York Times, Musk is even maxing out donations to members of Congress in support of impeaching judges. And now the right wing is all riled up about this. Here's commentator Mark Levin loudly agreeing with the impeachment calls on Fox News. The American people are losing faith in the judiciary. We can't have a judicial oligarchy of unelected judges at the trial court level who aren't even in the Constitution telling the president what to do on human resources, on the border, on deporting criminal illegal aliens.

Shorter version, the whambulance has arrived. So basically, a swath of the American right has decided that if judges won't give the Trump administration what they want, those judges should be removed. Which sounds like a constitutional crisis to me. So to talk about this moment and its significance, I had to speak with Leah Litman. She's co-host of Crooked's Legal Podcast, Strict Scrutiny. Leah, welcome to What A Day. Thanks for having me.

So this dispute between Trump and the courts over these deportations has a lot of very smart legal experts worried that we may be heading for a constitutional crisis. And I keep seeing people on the right basically saying, get rid of all the judges. Any judge who rules against us is bad and evil. That sounds like a constitutional crisis to me. So are we in one? I think we have been in one for a while. The president's systematic disregard for anything approximating the law is antithetical to a constitutional system. When he declined to spend funds that Congress had appropriated, I think that that is anti-constitutional behavior.

It just undermines a premise of our constitutional system. When he's summarily deporting people and claiming the authority to do that without due process of law and sending them to a country they have never been to. That is a constitutional crisis. Yeah. Are we in a new phase? What is different about this particular case? Because Trump hates judges who rule against him. That's something that we've known about him for what, 10 years now?

But this case where you literally have a judge saying, you can't do this, and not only is the administration doing it, but then they're bragging about it on Twitter. Right. I think it's a few things that separate this case from some of the others where there was questionable compliance. One is I think the facts suggesting noncompliance are just more clear and more public and transparent than they have been in other cases. Because in other cases, there were disputes about whether certain funds had to be restored under the order

or whether they could be canceled, for example, for other reasons. Here, it's clear they deported people under the Alien Enemies Act. And it's also clear a plane took off after the judge issued the order, right? You can't really dispute that. What's also clear is, as you say,

they are straight up bragging about it, right? You have his borders are on Fox basically saying, judges ain't going to tell us shit. You have the president of El Salvador basically doing the laugh cry emoji saying too late and Secretary of State Marco Rubio retweeting it. So yes, the specter of noncompliance has taken on, I'd say, additional force and it's just looking more transparent here than it has in other cases. So is this a new phase? Yes, but honestly, every few days has felt like a new phase in this unfolding constitutional

crisis and that's not to understate the severity of it. It is instead to underscore how deep in this we already are. Here's what gets me. So on Twitter, you have members of this administration acting as if they are the biggest, baddest bitches on the block. But in court, lawyers for the Trump administration insist that they actually are following the law, even though the judge ordered the plan to turn around and then they just didn't. They've also stonewalled him when he asked for more information about how many flights there were,

who was on them, and about whether he had the right to ask those questions, which, who is on the flights that you're sending to another country to a super prison seems like a pretty basic question. What do you make of the arguments or lack of arguments the Trump administration is making here? I mean, it was truly stunning. The hearing at which the government lawyer basically told Judge Boesberg, I am not authorized to tell you anything besides we are in perfect compliance and there is nothing to see here, Your Honor,

was astonishing. I mean, he basically was telling Judge Boesberg, I can't tell you classified information, which is false. Judge Boesberg hears classified information all the time. He was one of the judges appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, by Chief Justice Roberts. And the administration wouldn't even say the reason

why they were refusing to disclose the information to Judge Boesberg, which is part and parcel of asserting things like state secrets privilege or other rules that might allow them to refuse to answer questions. It was, again, ridiculous. So if Trump flouts the courts, what can the courts actually do about that? What kind of enforcement mechanism do they have for a rogue president who believes that he's, I don't know, even weirder Andrew Jackson? Yeah, contempt and civil fines are the short answer.

Judges can hold in contempt different officials. Honestly, I think Judge Boesberg could hold in contempt the government lawyer who was basically telling him, go fuck yourself in court the other day. He can also hold in contempt potentially other federal officers who are carrying out the orders, impose civil fines on them. So that is the tool that courts have to order compliance

with their decisions. Is it a universally effective one? No. Is it going to guarantee that the Trump administration is going to follow the orders? No. But that's kind of what they have. And I think the other big tool that we have seen

in American history is when officials try to defy or raise questions about whether they are going to comply with court orders, sometimes you will have other branches of the federal government basically stand with the courts. I think that is part of what makes the situation we are in so concerning, is you have the Republicans in Congress rolling over and doing whatever thing to debase themselves

that Donald Trump demands. And so the lack of other branches being willing to stand with the courts is part of what makes this, I think, additionally concerning. In Trump's temper tantrum against Judge Boasberg on Truth Social, he suggested Boasberg should be impeached. And impeachment might be possible, but removal and conviction is not given the numbers in the Senate. So what's behind these calls besides the basic, I hate these refs?

It's a delegitimation campaign, right? They are attempting to grease the wheels, you know, for efforts to, let's say, not comply while insisting they are complying, right? They are trying to work the refs and convince everyone within the Republican coalition that these judges are illegitimate and their rulings are. And that could make it easier for the Supreme Court to reverse these rulings if they have all of the Republican coalition on that side.

So I think they are just trying to move the goalpost and the Overton window. Trump's call for judicial impeachments was so alarming that Supreme Court Justice John Roberts weighed in, albeit with like a virtual wrist slap, but still something. And I think a lot of people took it as a pretty big deal because it's very unusual. What did you make of that? It is very unusual. And so I'll give him like half a crumb of a cookie, you know, for doing that.

You know, he also did this during the first Trump administration when he said there are no Obama judges, Trump judges. And it is important to have people, officials standing up for the idea that presidents have to comply with the law. I would note that John Roberts failed to do that, stand up for and stick with the idea that presidents have to comply with the law last summer when he was issuing the immunity

ruling and effectively putting Trump above the law and allowing presidents to behave like kings. And so it's a little rich for him to come around and all of a sudden say like, oh, I am shocked and surprised that presidents are acting like authoritarian kings when I basically laid the groundwork for that to happen. Now, this really, this bothers me on every possible level because I know that there are people who are gonna hear about this case and say, so what? Some of the people who were deported may have belonged to a violent gang.

You've seen some of those responses online of like, well, this person who was murdered didn't get due process. And I'm like, that's not how this works. But that's definitely the message the Trump administration is pushing, even though it's released almost no information about the people on the plains. Some of them may have entered the country illegally. And I wonder if you could reflect on those facts as it relates to why the Trump administration

might have chosen this case to test the legal limits of a judge's order. Do you think it's a coincidence? I do not. No, I don't. No, I don't at all, right? Just like they used this never used authority to deport non-American citizens on the ground that the Secretary of State determines them to be, right,

potentially adverse to foreign policy. And they just happen to select one of the lead protesters over the protests involving Gaza and the Biden administration's support for Israel's military campaign, they were hoping that people would say, like, we don't agree with the protests, and we find the speech distasteful and not push back for that reason. So too here.

The administration has not bothered to make any finding or showing that all of these individuals are members of Tren D'Urragua. And their are members of Trenda Ragua. And their family members are saying they are not. And again, the idea that the president just gets to unilaterally determine who is dangerous and gets to be shipped off to a country they have never been to, to effectively like a prison labor camp,

is grotesque and appalling. There is no limiting principle, and this is just straight up authoritarianism. Leah Littman, thank you so much for joining me. Thanks for having me. That was my conversation with Leah Littman, co-host of Crooked's legal podcast, Strict Scrutiny. We'll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe,

leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. This show was sponsored by BetterHelp. Let's talk numbers. Traditional in-person therapy can cost anywhere from $100 to $250 per session, which can add up fast. But with BetterHelp online therapy,

you can get a free free trial of your own choice. And if you're interested in learning $250 per session, which can add up fast. But, with BetterHelp online therapy, you can save on average up to 50% per session. With BetterHelp, you pay a flat fee for weekly sessions, saving you big on cost and on time. Therapy should feel accessible, not like a luxury. With online therapy, you get quality care at a price that makes sense and can help you with anything from anxiety to everyday stress. Your mental health is worth it and now it's within reach. For example, it can be really helpful learning positive

coping skills and how to talk boundaries with the people who violate your boundaries. It empowers you to be the best version of yourself and it's not just for people who have experienced major trauma. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 5 million people globally. And it's convenient. You can join a session at the click of a button, helping you fit therapy into your busy life. Plus, you can switch therapists at any time.

Your well-being is worth it. Visit betterhelp.com slash wad to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelp, H-E-L-P dot com slash wad. Here's what else we're following today. Headlines. Today, the Federal Open Market Committee decided to leave our policy interest rate unchanged. The Federal Reserve Wednesday decided to keep interest rates flat. But officials also warned the Trump administration's tariffs have thrown the future of the economy

into question and could make it harder to curb inflation. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell gave a press briefing Wednesday after the bank's latest meeting. He told reporters the Fed still expects to lower interest rates twice this year, but it also expects economic growth to slow and inflation to rise amid Trump's trade war. I do think with the arrival of the tariff inflation, further progress may be delayed. But Powell calmed some fears of a recession. He said while some economists outside of the Fed have raised concerns, the Fed

doesn't think we're there yet. Thank you, Jerome. I'm still scared, but thank you for saying that. President Trump said he had a quote, very good telephone call with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy Wednesday. A statement from the White House said the two leaders quote, agreed on a partial ceasefire against energy.

It comes a day after Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed ending strikes on Ukraine's energy infrastructure in their own phone call. In a lengthy social media post, Zelensky said the agreement could be, quote, one of the first steps toward fully ending the war, and he's ready to do it. It's worth noting just how far Russia has been able to move the proverbial goalpost here in just 24 hours. Last week, Ukraine and the U.S. agreed to an unconditional 30-day ceasefire proposal.

But in his call with Trump Tuesday, Putin only agreed to a ceasefire on energy infrastructure targets, all while the Kremlin continued launching drone strikes on Ukraine. Russia also accused Ukraine of launching strikes, but now it's seemingly on Zelensky to agree to this far more limited ceasefire Russia wants, even though it was his country that was invaded. The art of the deal, folks. They're targeting Tesla dealerships. They're targeting Elon Musk, who is out there trying to save our country, and it will not be tolerated.

Attorney General Pam Bondi says she's getting the Justice Department involved to help out Elon Musk. In a statement Tuesday, she called a recent string of vandalism attacks on Tesla dealerships quote, nothing short of domestic terrorism. The attorney general added the DOJ has already charged several suspects quote, with that in mind and that investigations are ongoing. The attacks come in apparent protest against billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiencies efforts

to slash the federal workforce. Bondi elaborated on her statement on Fox News Wednesday with a warning. We are coming after you. We will find you. And if you are an organized group who is funding this, we're going to find you too. You better look out and you better stop it.

While some peaceful rallies have been held outside Tesla stores, other showrooms, lots and charging stations have been the targets of vandalism. Most recently, Las Vegas police said cars at a Tesla facility were damaged after someone set them on fire and shot bullets at them. Officials called it a, quote, targeted attack. They said the word resist was also painted on the store's windows.

Musk told Sean Hannity on Fox News Tuesday there's, quote, some kind of mental illness thing going on. It's really come as quite a shock to me that there is this level of really hatred and violence from the left. I always thought the left, you know, Democrats were supposed to be the party of empathy, the party of caring and yet they're burning down cars, they're firebombing dealerships, they're firing bullets into dealerships, they're just, you know, smashing up Teslas. Tesla is a peaceful company. We've never done anything awful. I've never done anything awful. I know Elon lives in a world where he's just a nice space guy, and not a guy who accused a diver trying to save a bunch of kids trapped in a cave of being a pedophile and Who will accept any conspiracy theory he sees?

But I would like Elon Musk to look a fired federal worker or a recipient of foreign federal aid right in the eyes and tell them Point-blank. I've never done anything harmful. I'll wait And on that note in fucked up things Doge is doing at the behest of an unelected billionaire who may or may not actually be in charge of it, the Department published a list Wednesday of nearly 800 federal real estate leases it says it wants to cancel. Among them are dozens of Social Security Administration offices across nearly 20 states. The agency also announced this week it will be rolling out a tougher identity verification process.

Starting at the end of the month, it will no longer allow people to verify their identities over the phone. Meaning, if any of the more than 70 million social security recipients and applicants can't verify online, they'll have to do it in person. At a social security office. Hopefully not one that's maybe going to be closed. Oh, and did I mention the Trump administration also plans to lay off thousands of agency staff too? This is absolutely going to end well. And that's the news. One more thing. The Environmental Protection Agency says it may get rid of its science research division

and lay off more than a thousand of the agency's scientists. In case you were wondering, that's, um, bad. But to tell us exactly why it's bad, I spoke with Anja Zolodzowski. She's Crooked's climate correspondent. Anja Zylojowsky, welcome back to What A Day. Hello, good to be here. Anja, there's a lot happening right now, so much that it's hard to keep track. To start, can you briefly summarize what the hell is going on at the EPA this week? Absolutely, yes, it's a lot. So Democrats on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology reviewed documents that revealed that the EPA is now planning on eliminating its scientific research arms. So that's the Office of Research and Development, up to

75% of its staff. So more than 1,100 scientists, chemists, biologists and more could be on the chopping block. And so to put this into perspective, we're talking about scientists who independently test what we're exposed to, to keep us safe. So they look at wildfire smoke and how bad it is for health, forever chemicals in water, risks associated with toxic chemicals that are emitted from big industry facilities.

They provide the foundational science that then informs policy and regulations that keep us safe. What has the response been? Yeah, I mean, the EPA is going through a pretty major overhaul, it seems, you know, with Lee Zeldin's plans for deregulation and threats of sweeping cuts. The latest news is a really big deal. I spoke with two staffers from the Democratic wing on the House Committee on Science, and they

said that they were expecting a tax on science under Trump, but nothing like this. So here's what the committee's top Democrat, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren said. to use the best science available without the Office of Research and Development. And that's the point. Donald Trump and Elon Musk are putting their polluter buddies' bottom lines over the health and safety of Americans. So she also said that cutting the Office of Research and Development is illegal without congressional backing. You know, an EPA spokesperson told me that no decisions have been made yet,

and that they're, and I quote, actively listening to employees at all levels to gather ideas on how to better fulfill agency statutory obligations. But several sources have told me that they haven't heard from, you know, any career staff or anyone at the Office of Research and Development that's been consulted. Something that we ask a lot on the show is, can he actually do that? And something that's really scary about this administration is so far they don't really seem to care if they can or they can't, they just do it anyway. When you say it's illegal, does that even matter? What are the different outcomes here?

Yeah, you know, for now, I don't want to speculate with what will happen, but I would take everything that the EPA is saying as of late very seriously. You know, the agency has traditionally been the frontline defense for communities against big industry. And if the EPA does everything that Lee Zeldin says he wants to do, we're looking at huge environmental protection rollbacks, less oversight, and a clear path for big industries to forge ahead with fewer guardrails. With this news specifically, we're risking the science

that has enabled the agency to push for protections. So we'll see what happens concretely in the weeks and months to come, but it does seem like the EPA is in for a major makeover. And yeah, as always, thank you so much for joining me. Thanks so much for having me. That was my conversation with Crooked Climate correspondent Anya Zulajewski.

This segment was supported by our nonprofit partner, Crooked Ideas. The Crooked Ideas Before we go, turns out government shutdown doesn't mean they stop making bad ideas. On the newest episode of Inside 2025, Dan Pfeiffer and Alyssa Mastromonico break down what a government shutdown actually is, who's affected, the political fallout, and what really went down behind the scenes. To access this exclusive subscriber series and more, subscribe now at crooked.com slash

friends. That's all for today. exclusive subscriber series and more, subscribe now at Krugge.com slash friends. That's all for today. If you liked the show, make sure you subscribe. Leave a review. Contemplate how the Department of Defense believes you can discuss Major League Baseball pioneer Jackie Robinson without mentioning race and tell your friends to listen. And if you are into reading, and not just about how seriously, the Department of Defense

says it deleted websites about the Navajo Code Talkers and Jackie Robinson because, quote, "...we do not view or highlight them through the prism of immutable characteristics such as race, ethnicity, or sex, like me." What a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at Cricket.com slash subscribe. I'm Jane Coaston, and when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball, can the Department of Defense tell me what that color was? Water Day is a production of Crooked Media. It's recorded and mixed by Desmond

Taylor. Our associate producers are Raven Yamamoto and Emily Four. Our producer is Michelle Eloy. We had production help today from Tyler Hill, Johanna Case, Joseph Dutra, Greg Walters, and Julia Clare. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison, and our executive producer is Adrian Hill. Our theme music is by Colin, Gileard, and Kashaka. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.