How President Trump is trying to change elections

In March, President Trump signed an executive order that promises to preserve and protect the integrity of American elections. The data shows the integrity of our election system is intact despite the claims of many politicians and the perception of many voters. So what is the president trying to change about a system that isn't broken? Who will it affect and how much will it cost them? Finally, while Congress and the States are constitutionally-empowered to make election law, the president is not. So... can he?

Our guide to this executive order is Jason Carter of the Carter Center.

---

Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:01] Hannah McCarthy here.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:03] Nick Capodice there.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:05] Civics 101 everywhere. We've [00:00:10] got an executive order episode for you today, my friends. This is not the first. Probably won't be the last. And I'll tell you what. This one is a real "can [00:00:20] the president do that" doozy.

President Trump: [00:00:22] Election fraud. You've heard the term. We'll end it. Hopefully. At least this [00:00:30] will go a long way toward ending it. There are other steps that we will be taking in the next in the coming weeks, and we think we'll be able to end up getting fair elections. [00:00:40]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:40] This order Preserving and Protecting the integrity of American elections was issued March 25th.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:46] I'm just going to jump in here and say, you should go back and listen [00:00:50] to our episode on the save act, if you haven't already. It's called fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:56] It sure is. Before we get into the details of this executive order, I'd like [00:01:00] to introduce or reintroduce you to Jason Carter?

Jason Carter: [00:01:03] Sure. So my name is Jason Carter. I am a lawyer in Atlanta, and I'm also the chair of the Carter Center [00:01:10] Board of Trustees.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:11] For those of you who don't know or didn't listen to our Save Act episode, Jason Carter, is that Carter? Late President Jimmy Carter's grandson. [00:01:20] The Carter Center does a lot of international humanitarian work, including observing and offering feedback on democratic elections. And recently [00:01:30] they started to look at our country's election system. Two.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:33] Yeah. Speaking of integrity, that is something that Jason says the Carter Center is working on. Not so much the integrity of American [00:01:40] elections, which he says we already have more like the integrity of our democracy. Democracy requires trust. So they're working on that.

Jason Carter: [00:01:49] One of the [00:01:50] things that we have found is you have to have trusted messengers on all sides, right? And so one of the things that the Carter Center has spent some real time doing is building [00:02:00] out Its network of individuals from across Partizan lines, from across geographic lines, to talk to folks in their communities. Right. One of [00:02:10] the things that the Carter Center has always been good at, and that my grandparents believed in their hearts, is that neighbors talking to neighbors is going to be more effective than folks [00:02:20] talking on TV or elsewise, right? I mean, that's where trust really comes from, is these communities of care that we all exist in, in our normal lives.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:28] Hang on, what does Jason [00:02:30] mean when he says building a network of people talking in communities?

Jason Carter: [00:02:34] Sometimes they're politicians, but sometimes they're not, right? Sometimes they are just individual community [00:02:40] leaders. You know, there's a good reason, as a former politician myself, that that people don't trust politicians because they feel like they're in the system and in the system in [00:02:50] order to win. Um, but there's a lot of other people who care about that system and have the ability to convey messages that don't necessarily have to be that some of them are journalists. We've done a lot with [00:03:00] lawyers to make sure that they understand what people's rights are and how to approach these things in court without sort of, you know, damning the system and continuing to build trust. And so [00:03:10] that's that's where we are. There's a large network of people out there that have the ability to really affect this and, and to rebuild the trust that we're missing.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:18] So Jason calls these democracy [00:03:20] resilience networks.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:22] Hannah, you must know what this reminds me of.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:25] Actually I do. I told Jason about it.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:28] Well, I'm gonna just open this mindmeld [00:03:30] up to the listener. Uh, everyone, what I'm reminded of here are the four Minutemen during World War One, the CPI, the Committee on Public Information.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:39] Aka the government's [00:03:40] wartime propaganda office.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:41] Right. The CPI organized volunteers in states across the country to stand up at movie theaters, churches, labor [00:03:50] union meetings, you name it, to give short speeches encouraging their fellow Americans to get behind the war effort.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:57] Right. You know, there were people in the community. They were trusted. [00:04:00] They were speaking on behalf of America. The difference here being, of course, that this is an attempt to get people behind democracy itself, get them to believe in it, trust [00:04:10] it by hearing from the people who know it well or even work within it. Okay, so that is in part what the Carter Center is doing. Why are they doing that? [00:04:20] Because trust in the system has eroded, due in part to people suggesting it cannot be trusted in its current state. And this brings me to the subject of our episode [00:04:30] President Trump's new executive order preserving and protecting the integrity of American elections.

Jason Carter: [00:04:41] In [00:04:40] this instance, you have the president of the United States making his own view and taking his own power to say, this is how I want this election [00:04:50] run. That is a problem, isn't that?

Nick Capodice: [00:04:53] I mean, Hannah, the Constitution leaves elections up to the states and a little bit to Congress, [00:05:00] not the president.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:02] Yeah, we're gonna get to that. So this executive order comes with a pretty long preamble, if you will. It starts off with, quote, [00:05:10] despite pioneering self-government, the United States now fails to enforce basic and necessary election protections employed by modern developed nations as well [00:05:20] as those still developing.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:22] If I may translate.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:23] Sure.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:24] Pioneering self-government. So that's basically saying we did democracy earlier [00:05:30] than other countries. The United States now fails. And this one is interesting because, he says now, implying that in the past we were not failing to enforce basic [00:05:40] and necessary election protections. That kind of feels like he's saying this should be obvious and easy. People employed by modern developed nations as [00:05:50] well as those still developing. So basically other people are doing it and we're not. And that's bad. I am also glad to see the president use the term developing [00:06:00] nations as opposed to other ones he's used in the past because we do not swear on this show.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:05] Yeah, so I did think it was interesting, to say the least, that this order references [00:06:10] other countries and it does so by name. Trump brings up election protocol in India, Germany, Sweden and a handful of other nations. [00:06:20] I asked Jason about this. Like why kick it off this way?

Jason Carter: [00:06:25] It says to me that the president was nervous about what he was doing. [00:06:30] It says to me that the president didn't feel comfortable just saying, I can do this. And so he he cited Sweden, he cited Germany. And what he did is he picked the most restrictive aspects [00:06:40] of those those democracies ability to to count votes and what they do right, to make it the most restrictive possible.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:48] Wait, like what?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:49] Aspects like [00:06:50] how India uses a centralized biometric database to verify voter registration eligibility.

Speaker5: [00:06:56] Whoa. Wait. What?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:59] Fingerprints and [00:07:00] iris scans.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:01] To prove you are who you say you are.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:04] Yeah. Trump references how Sweden limits mail in voting to people who are abroad or aboard [00:07:10] a ship in foreign waters. And in either case, you need two witnesses.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:14] Witnesses to watch you vote.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:16] Yes.

Jason Carter: [00:07:17] And really, the scary thing about that is that we're not [00:07:20] looking at Sweden in terms of a balance of how the election is run.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:25] So in other words, we're not looking at Sweden for ideas on how to make elections more fair, for example, [00:07:30] or more democratic.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:32] Right. And to be clear, Sweden regularly rates among the most democratic nations on the planet [00:07:40] for everything from civil liberties to political rights. Its elections are considered broadly free and fair. To cite Sweden for a voting [00:07:50] restriction, as opposed to what makes it a healthier democracy than the United States might just be telling. Jason sees this executive [00:08:00] orders references to things like this as a way to justify what's coming next.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:06] I almost don't want to ask this. Hanna, what is [00:08:10] coming next?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:10] All right. This executive order says the following. Ready?

Nick Capodice: [00:08:15] Almost never. But this is my job.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:19] One major [00:08:20] thing is that this order is trying to change the federal voting form to require documentary proof of citizenship.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:27] Huh? Isn't that what the Save [00:08:30] act is trying to do?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:31] Yes and no. The save act again. Listen to our episode on it to learn more. Would require proof of citizenship to register [00:08:40] to vote. Full stop. It's Congress's attempt to change an election rule in the US, which they are constitutionally empowered to do. This executive order is [00:08:50] commanding an independent federal agency called the EAC, the Election Assistance Commission, to change a mail voter registration form. The big difference [00:09:00] here is that the president is not explicitly constitutionally empowered to do that, which is part of the reason. A federal judge blocked this part of the [00:09:10] order. That same judge blocked another part of the order that tells the federal voter registration agencies to assess the citizenship of people enrolled in public assistance [00:09:20] programs before they give them a registration form. That judge's reasoning was that this is an overreach of presidential powers. Now, [00:09:30] this order packs in a lot more than that, so I'm going to keep going. It orders the EAC to re certify voting systems.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:38] And what does that mean?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:40] Okay. [00:09:40] In some states and some listeners will be very familiar with this. You vote using a touch screen and then get a paper printout of your vote. Now that piece of paper has a [00:09:50] QR code or a barcode on it. And that code is then scanned and your vote is counted.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:56] And Trump wants the machines that do this to be recertified. [00:10:00] So is he just telling the EAC to give them all a checkup.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:04] Nope. We have voluntary voting system guidelines in the US. Keep [00:10:10] voluntary in mind. We are going to come back to that. Trump is ordering the EAC to change those guidelines, specifically to say that states cannot use [00:10:20] the barcode thing anymore, except for accessibility purposes.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:24] Then how can the EAC recertify those machines?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:27] They can't. Not as they are right [00:10:30] now.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:30] Aha! What am I missing here?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:33] The states or counties that use barcodes either have to update their machines or replace them. In Georgia, [00:10:40] for example, where Jason Carter is from, and I promise we will hear from him again soon. The whole state uses this system. The cost to change that system is estimated at around $66 [00:10:50] million. Georgia's Senate, by the way, had already voted to ban their QR code system, but they did not allocate money for it.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:59] But why exactly? [00:11:00] Like, what is wrong with the barcodes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:03] This barcode system has had naysayers across the political spectrum. But in 2020, conspiracy [00:11:10] theorists claimed without evidence, that these barcodes had been manipulated. The idea is that the machine itself is hacked and the vote will go [00:11:20] to another candidate.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:21] You know, you could have just said 2020 and left it at that.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:23] Anna, election officials say that the system is secure, accurate and they regularly test it. But [00:11:30] a lot of those same officials want the barcodes gone because so many voters don't trust them.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:36] And this executive order forces that action. [00:11:40]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:40] Forces that action. And in no way indicates that the federal government will help pay for it.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:44] And reinforces the idea that this system is not secure.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:49] Yes. There's [00:11:50] more. This order does not say the government will help pay for these changes. Election stuff is expensive for states. They often [00:12:00] rely on grants from the federal government to help them pay for it. And this order. Nick tells the government to prioritize states who comply when they're passing [00:12:10] out grants. In other words, no money to help you comply and the threat of no money if you don't.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:16] So states don't absolutely have to comply.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:19] This is more [00:12:20] like a guidelines than an actual rule situation. It's voluntary remember. And how do you get states to do something voluntarily?

Nick Capodice: [00:12:28] Anna you asked them if they [00:12:30] want all that pretty, pretty money.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:32] Yeah. I'm going to bring Jason back in for a moment here.

Jason Carter: [00:12:35] There's only a certain number of ways that the president has to enforce that [00:12:40] executive order. And so what the president is saying is I'm actually intent on executing on this order. The power that he has is the power of the purse [00:12:50] at this point. And so he wants to use that power and bring it to bear to get to change the rules of the game.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:55] But the president doesn't have the power of the purse.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:58] That's what I said. And [00:13:00] Jason knows that. He's more referencing the fact that this order firmly suggests withholding federal funds for states that do not comply with it. Now, [00:13:10] is the president allowed to say who does or does not get money?

Jason Carter: [00:13:14] So, I mean, that's a good question, right? I mean, constitutionally speaking, the Supreme Court has to say whether the president [00:13:20] can do this or not. So, you know, in my view, the Constitution requires the elections to be run by the states. There is some role for the federal government, as we've already discussed, because the federal [00:13:30] government stepped in, for example, with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Nvra other other rules that the federal government has helped to expand and make it easier for people [00:13:40] to vote. Can the president do this without Congress? I don't think so. Because of what you described in terms of whether Congress has the ability to Congress, [00:13:50] in fact, to your point, holds the purse strings under the Constitution.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:53] So basically we'll see. All right. Moving on. This order tells the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Government [00:14:00] Efficiency, aka Doge administrator, aka Elon Musk, to review voter files and voter list maintenance records alongside immigration databases.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:10] Is [00:14:10] it boring if I keep asking why it isn't?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:13] But I am going to give us all a quick break just in case it is.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:19] Before that [00:14:20] break, unless the listeners think me capable of a single boring act can never happen. A reminder that Hannah and I wrote a book, and that book is there to tell you all [00:14:30] about how things are supposed to happen. It is called A User's Guide to Democracy How America Works, and it is a reminder of what democracy is. Isn't that something? [00:14:40] You can get it wherever books are sold.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:56] We're [00:14:50] back. Nick, before the break, you were asking why? [00:15:00] Why would Trump want Homeland Security and Elon Musk to review voter lists and immigration databases.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:06] I mean, I can guess Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:08] Together with the attorney general, [00:15:10] it is all about finding and stopping noncitizen registration and voting. Listen to the Save Act episode for more on that. I'm not going to get into it all now. All right. [00:15:20] Moving on. The order says states that count ballots received after Election Day will be penalized. Basically, we'll have funds withheld.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:28] Isn't this something that happens all the [00:15:30] time? Hannah, this is why we can't know the final ballot tally on election Day. Mail in ballots have to be postmarked by Election day, but it takes the Postal Service a while [00:15:40] to deliver them because they haven't invented teleportation yet.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:43] 18 states currently allow for counting mail in ballots if they arrive after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked [00:15:50] by Election Day. Now, the order says, quote, this is like allowing persons who arrive three days after Election Day, perhaps after a winner has been declared [00:16:00] to vote in person at a former voting precinct, which would be absurd, Served, unquote.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:05] Well, that would be absurd. Uh, but mail in ballots aren't like that at [00:16:10] all.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:10] They are not at all. All right, here we go. The order asks the attorney general to create information [00:16:20] sharing agreements with state election officials. The idea is to alert the DOJ to all suspected violations of election laws.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:29] If I've learned one [00:16:30] thing from police procedurals, it's that state law enforcement tends to say something snarky when the feds show up.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:36] I'll be honest, I am nowhere near an expert on the machinations and legality [00:16:40] of state federal information sharing, especially when it comes to criminal investigations. But I do know that this kind of information sharing is often largely voluntary, especially if [00:16:50] we are talking about quote unquote, suspected violations before we know whether a federal crime has actually been committed. I also know that states push back against this kind of thing on [00:17:00] the grounds of privacy concerns and resisting government coercion.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:04] It's federalism, baby.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:05] Yeah, and this is another one where Trump tells the AG to consider withholding funds. If [00:17:10] a state says no way, no how. Okay. The order also bans non-citizens from being involved in administering federal elections.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:18] To non-citizens [00:17:20] administer elections.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:21] Most states already have laws prohibiting anyone who isn't a qualified, aka citizen voter from being involved. This part of the order [00:17:30] says that non-citizens cannot access election equipment, ballots, or any other relevant materials used in the conduct of any federal election. So on its face, that means [00:17:40] non-citizens cannot be poll workers or work for election agencies. But pro-democracy groups are already raising concerns about non-citizens who, for example, [00:17:50] work at companies that make election materials or who work in buildings that become polling places on election day. We're talking schools or city halls. Does [00:18:00] physical proximity to polling places count? Unclear. Last thing the [00:18:10] order tells the AG and the Treasury to prioritize prosecuting foreign nationals who donate to campaigns.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:16] Isn't that already illegal?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:18] Yep.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:18] All right.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:19] All right, [00:18:20] back to Jason Carter. So Jason looks at the save act again. Go check out that episode to understand what I'm talking about. And then he looks at this executive order and he's thinking about [00:18:30] democracy. And here is how he sees it.

Jason Carter: [00:18:33] It's one thing to have the federal government do a power grab over our election system. It is an entirely different [00:18:40] thing to have a single human being who's the current leader of the country, making a direct power grab around the elections when the president of the United States, and this is [00:18:50] true in any country, when they start to say I, as the president, have the right to change or address these rules without the input from Congress, without taking [00:19:00] it to the states, that's very scary.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:02] Now, Hannah, I'm curious about whether this has happened before. Have any other presidents signed executive orders on elections [00:19:10] before?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:10] I did a little research on this one in recent history. Bill Clinton signed an order to help with the implementation of the National Voter Registration Act. That is the act [00:19:20] that lets us register to vote when we get our license and tell states they have to accept mail in ballots. Barack Obama had an order establishing the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. [00:19:30] It was temporary. It assessed our then system and made recommendations to improve online registration, poll access, outdated machines. Biden had [00:19:40] an order. Trump got rid of it to facilitate voter registration and education.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:44] Did you find anything like this, though?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:47] It did not. So [00:19:50] look, I already told you that a judge blocked some parts of this order, but many parts of it remain [00:20:00] up in the air. Can the president order all these executive agencies to target non-citizens, withhold federal funding, decertify voting [00:20:10] machines, create new standards and high costs for states. Well he did. Will election officials comply? That remains [00:20:20] to be seen. What I do know is that we have an elections clause in the Constitution. I know it leaves the time, place and [00:20:30] manner of elections up to the states. I know it gives Congress the power to make and change federal elections regulations. And I know [00:20:40] that the president is not in the elections clause at all.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:45] I'm an executive order, and I pretty much just happen. [00:20:50]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:50] All the more reason to pay attention.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:52] Is that it, Hannah?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:53] Till it isn't. That [00:21:10] does it for this episode. It was made by me. Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Rebecca LaVoie is our executive producer, Christina Phillips is our [00:21:20] senior producer, and Marina Henke is our producer. Special thanks to Taylor Quimby for his edits on this episode. He is the executive producer of another NPR podcast. It's wonderful. It's called [00:21:30] Outside/In. Go check it out. Music in this episode from Epidemic Sound. You can find everything we have ever made at our website, civics101podcast.org. And while you're there, [00:21:40] you can ask us a question. We might just make an episode in reply. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Fixing a problem that doesn't exist

The SAVE Act passed the House in April, 2025. As it awaits consideration in Congress, we spoke with Jason Carter from the Carter Center. Yes, like that Carter. Jason is asking why Congress is working on a vanishingly rare problem: noncitizen voting. The SAVE Act, if it becomes law, will require additional proof of citizenship for all Americans seeking to register -- or reregister -- to vote. The goal? To stop all noncitizens from voting -- which rarely happens.

---

Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:00] This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:02] I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:03] Nick, you know what i've been singing to myself a lot lately?

Nick Capodice: [00:00:11] Oh, [00:00:10] well, uh, it could be any number of things. Hannah. Uh, is it Stephen Sondheim?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:17] It's not always Sondheim, Nick.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:19] It usually [00:00:20] is.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:20] What I have been singing a lot lately is I have confidence from The Sound of Music, and I'm not sure if I'm allowed to sing it here for copyright reasons. However, [00:00:30] the line that keeps coming to me is, uh, all I trust I leave my heart to all I trust becomes my own. I have confidence [00:00:40] in confidence alone.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:43] I wish you could sing it. I really do, uh, that Julie Andrews is a treasure.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:48] She is. Uh. But you know what [00:00:50] I think it is for me, Nick, we know that a lot of people say they have lost trust. They have lost confidence in the whole lot [00:01:00] of it. The whole system, all the people, be they sitting on Capitol Hill or down the street from us. And to that I say phooey. Where did you get that one from?

Nick Capodice: [00:01:09] Experience? [00:01:10]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:10] Yeah. Well, sure. Um. But, Nick, what if that experience isn't what we think it is? What if that mistrust is misplaced? [00:01:20] What if. Nick, we had confidence that spring will come again? Maybe it's even spring right now.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:28] It's literally spring right now, Hannah. [00:01:30]

Maria: [00:01:30] Oh, let's see if I can make it easier.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:37] Here's Jason Carter.

Jason Carter: [00:01:38] In the United States [00:01:40] and everywhere around the world. Democracy depends on trust.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:42] Jason Carter, as in Carter. Carter.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:46] As in Carter. Carter, the grandson of the late President [00:01:50] Jimmy Carter. Jason is a lawyer and the chair of the Carter Center.

Jason Carter: [00:01:54] Since it was founded, the Carter Center has done work in over 80 countries. And that work has been both [00:02:00] in terms of peace building, a lot of which is democracy and human rights, rule of law, conflict resolution, and also in health, which is a disease eradication [00:02:10] health system, strengthening, doing the work on the ground in these places that we believe builds up people, alleviates human suffering and and draws [00:02:20] people closer together. We've also observed over 120 elections in more than 40 countries.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:27] Okay. The disease eradication thing is pretty straightforward. [00:02:30] I mean, it's a gargantuan goal, but I understand it. I'm not sure what observing elections means.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:37] Right. Okay. So observing elections, [00:02:40] people from the Carter Center get invited to watch the election process in other countries. The idea is they will check out voter registration, election law, the [00:02:50] election itself. And then they offer feedback for nations that are trying to do democracy. Right. Why? Because the Carter Center can be neutral about it. [00:03:00] Basically, they are not invested in the results, but in the process. And because they come from the United States, a successful democracy. [00:03:10]

Nick Capodice: [00:03:10] Uh.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:11] Way ahead of you.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:12] All right.

Jason Carter: [00:03:13] We realized that as we go out and talk about democracy as an American organization, um, we have to do [00:03:20] that with real credibility. And we were looking around both at the way the world was looking at American democracy, the way that American democracy was projecting itself [00:03:30] out into the world. And we realized that both we needed to get involved. For the Carter Center's own credibility.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:38] The Carter Center spends a lot of its time observing [00:03:40] other countries elections, not observing the United States elections until now. We started with trust, right? [00:03:50] That is what I am thinking about right now. So is Jason.

Jason Carter: [00:03:54] There's a variety of things that have happened over the course of the last several decades in the United States [00:04:00] that have eroded that trust in the election system. And democracy depends on trust.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:08] Right. I mean, when you're living in a country [00:04:10] where there is a nationwide call to stop the steal, a belief that elections are fraudulent, full of bad actors and lawbreakers, not actually [00:04:20] the democratic process they purport to be.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:23] And we are living in that country.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:24] We are. This is a big part of the reason people say democracy is in trouble because [00:04:30] people don't believe in it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:32] Yeah. Here's how I'm looking at it. America is never Neverland. Democracy is fairies. And every time you say you don't [00:04:40] believe in fairies, a fairy dies. Where did we get the idea that fairies don't exist? A whole bunch of Captain Hook's who grew up stopped believing in [00:04:50] the thing that makes this world beautiful, and want to convince all of us to stop believing in it, to start clapping.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:56] I do believe in fairies. I do, I do.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:59] Belief [00:05:00] shapes reality, right? So the Carter Center is looking for ways to bring trust and confidence back. I'm mixing metaphors, a mix of movies, but I don't [00:05:10] care.

Jason Carter: [00:05:10] And so we are looking at a variety of different ways to to both reach out to people that are alienated from the system and also use the leaders that exist now to help increase [00:05:20] that trust. And that's our focus. What is it that we have? What are the principles for trusted elections, and what are the ways that we can get those principles out into the United States to to make sure [00:05:30] that we're doing things right, you have to do things correctly, and you also have to be seen to do them correctly. Right? The fact that we have a strong election system, the fact that [00:05:40] we have a very decentralized election system in the United States, essentially run by the 50 states and some territories, you know, the fact that in Georgia, for example, [00:05:50] where I live, you know, we have a county election boards, it makes it very difficult, very difficult to steal an election, for election, for example, it makes it almost impossible [00:06:00] to have any significant fraud that can affect the outcome of an election, right? That can thwart the will of the people.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:07] One useful tactic in making sure that [00:06:10] we do not believe in democracy can actually be pretending that what you are doing is protecting democracy. Like Captain Hook double crossing Peter Pan, for [00:06:20] example, you write a law that you say will make our elections safer.

Archival: [00:06:25] I rise in support of the Save act. The [00:06:30] American people are done messing around with a weak kneed system.

Archival: [00:06:34] The Save act would cripple American election.

Archival: [00:06:36] The Save act is required if we're going to have election integrity. [00:06:40]

Archival: [00:06:40] I rise today in strong opposition.

Archival: [00:06:42] I rise in support of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

Jason Carter: [00:06:46] You know, an election law like the Save act will come in. [00:06:50] And the purpose of it is from the beginning is based on something that that is solving a problem that doesn't really exist.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:58] All right, the save act. I have heard [00:07:00] about this one. This is the thing that passed the house in April.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:03] Yeah. And it's now waiting on Senate consideration. We're recording this episode in May 2025, and it was about a month [00:07:10] ago that the House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

Jason Carter: [00:07:16] The Save act, in essence, is something that purports [00:07:20] to address, uh, different types of election fraud, most particularly fraud by voting by non-citizens.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:27] I'll tell you what the Save act will require of voters in [00:07:30] just a moment. We will also have a whole episode on President Trump's executive order about elections. But first, a reminder that noncitizen voting in American elections is already illegal. [00:07:40] It is also incredibly rare. I decided to look at the data published by one of the think tanks that has actively lobbied for the Save act, the Heritage Foundation.

Donald Trump: [00:07:49] Thank [00:07:50] you to the Heritage Foundation.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:52] They say their database contains many confirmed instances of noncitizen non-citizen voters. It contains 79 [00:08:00] people who have done so, 79 people over four decades, in everything from school board elections to presidential. And [00:08:10] I know this because I read every report.

Jason Carter: [00:08:14] Those people get prosecuted. There it is. It is. You know, they're punished with both crimes and imprisonment. And [00:08:20] so it is we have a very robust system of laws that address what happens when someone is caught with voter fraud. And we also have an enormous [00:08:30] number of people who are out there looking to find this type of voter fraud, right? I mean, folks are out in a variety of contexts. You [00:08:40] know, we have very, very good surveillance.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:42] We should also point out here that if you're caught voting as a non-citizen, you could face deportation.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:48] Yes. So I was trying to [00:08:50] think of something comparable to this. Like, what's another federal crime that is nonviolent? But if it's committed by many people, can have a serious impact on the democratic system. [00:09:00] So a thought about the tens of billions of dollars we miss out on every year because of tax evasion.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:06] How many people commit that crime?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:08] That data was a little more elusive. [00:09:10] But the IRS estimates about a million people.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:13] A million per year.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:16] Per year. So we have laws about taxes [00:09:20] and tax evasion. We prosecute people for tax evasion. Not nearly as many, relatively speaking, as we do for noncitizen voting. Collecting taxes is absolutely essential [00:09:30] to a functioning government that sustains a functioning democracy. And look, I'm not naive. The current Congress has expressed more interest in weakening the Internal Revenue Service, [00:09:40] the agency that monitors tax evasion, than it has in strengthening it. They've rescinded tens of billions of dollars in funding. There's even a proposed bill to abolish it, [00:09:50] along with income taxes.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:52] Yeah. The current Congress doesn't seem to be such a big fan of taxes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:56] But my point is, there is a federal crime that is way [00:10:00] more widespread than noncitizen voting, and it's the kind that could be addressed in a law. But a law like that one that beefs up the IRS, for example, is incredibly [00:10:10] difficult to pass. So how and why did the House manage to pass a law about something that barely happens?

Jason Carter: [00:10:19] One of the [00:10:20] keys that we look at when we're talking about, does this election law help or hurt? Does this election law build trust or or undermine trust? You know, an election law [00:10:30] like the Save act will come in. And the purpose of it is from the beginning is based on something that that is solving a problem that doesn't really exist. [00:10:40] So you have very little of this type of voter fraud at all and is currently being addressed in significant ways. And so when you pass [00:10:50] a law that purports to fix a problem that doesn't exist, it Increases the, uh, sort of the idea that this, that this is necessary, [00:11:00] um, when it's not. And so that's a, that's a significant problem right off the bat.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:04] All right. But what exactly, Hannah, does the save act say? Like, if it becomes a law, what's [00:11:10] going to happen?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:11] I'll get into all that after a quick break.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:15] But before that break, a loving reminder that we wrote a book. We did, [00:11:20] uh, it's called A User's Guide to Democracy How America Works. And it is your friend. It is your companion. It is your warm and reassuring hug when you need it. It is [00:11:30] a reminder of how far you've come and how powerful you are. And if that sounds nice, you can get it wherever books are sold.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:57] We're [00:11:50] back. We're talking with Jason Carter from the Carter Center, [00:12:00] a nonprofit that does a lot of work in the world, including globally, supporting democratic elections and human rights. And before the break, Nick, you asked me what the Save act says [00:12:10] and what will happen if it becomes law. So if it does, you will need a valid US passport or birth certificate in order to register or reregister to [00:12:20] vote. And there are a bunch of other accepted documents for certain people, certain classifications, but for most voters, we're talking passport or birth [00:12:30] certificate. Some states already do this, by the way.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:33] Yeah. New Hampshire does this.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:34] Yep. The state where Nick votes rolled this out this year, 2025. Now, here's [00:12:40] one big concern that opponents of this bill keep bringing up.

Jason Carter: [00:12:43] If you are a married woman whose name no longer matches the name on her birth certificate, um, then you may [00:12:50] have a problem getting registered to vote.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:52] Now, I've heard about this, Hannah. If you took your spouse's name when you got married, then your legal name doesn't match what's on your birth certificate. [00:13:00]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:00] Yeah. In that case, you would need a passport or one of the many other documents listed for people who are, for example, tribal citizens or military personnel. Now, Save [00:13:10] act supporters say don't worry about it, because the Save act requires states to decide what they are going to do about that. Like what kinds of documents they will ask [00:13:20] for for extra proof of citizenship.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:22] What kinds of documents will they ask for?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:25] That is up to the states. A marriage certificate, maybe, if you can find it. But [00:13:30] you brought up New Hampshire, Nick, where married women did get turned away this year, sometimes multiple times because of this issue. Some of them came back, some of them didn't. There [00:13:40] was one story of a woman who had been married three times, but still had her first husband's last name. Her first marriage certificate had been lost to history for a while [00:13:50] at that point. And you can always order a copy for a fee, but that doesn't help when it comes to same day registration.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:57] Okay, so if this act passes [00:14:00] and becomes a nationwide thing, there are going to be people who need to do some serious administrative work.

Jason Carter: [00:14:07] There's some estimates that it would be 20 something million [00:14:10] Americans who would have a hard time finding the documents that they need in order to register or reregister to vote under this act.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:18] So you heard Jason ask some questions [00:14:20] about this proposed law. Number one, does it help or hurt? What do you think about that one, Nick?

Nick Capodice: [00:14:28] Oh, well, uh, it [00:14:30] was proposed to prevent a very rare form of voter fraud that we already have laws for. And because laws tend not to be 100% effective, I suppose [00:14:40] the Save act could get the numbers down a little more.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:44] The numbers I have seen are between 0.0001 [00:14:50] and 0.0008% of votes are from non-citizens.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:56] Maybe they're just going after another zero after that decimal, I guess.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:59] Okay, [00:15:00] so that is the help. Here's where Jason sees a hurt.

Jason Carter: [00:15:04] When you look at a change in election laws, if there are winners and losers, you have to assess who [00:15:10] it is that's benefiting from this law. Right. And when you say you have to have a passport in order to vote, the kinds of people who have passports are the ones that take foreign trips, right? And so [00:15:20] you're talking about a group of people that are going to be per se, wealthier. You're going to the kind of folks who have all of the documents that they need for a variety of other things. [00:15:30] You know, the folks that are least likely to have these documents are folks that are that are poorer, frankly, and don't have that that kind of access to things like a birth certificate, [00:15:40] they have to go. And a lot of states you have to pay to to get one right or to get a copy of it. And so you're talking about increasing burdens on people's right to vote that make [00:15:50] it more difficult for people to vote. If you create an undue burden on the right to vote. Then there's going to be the people who feel that burden and the folks who are least likely to handle that. Um, [00:16:00] you know, tend to be less able to to, you know, you know, they're the ones who don't have the kind of resources that others have. And so when you're burdening the right to vote, you're basically burdening the right to vote of poor people [00:16:10] more than you are of rich people.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:14] Now, the other question Jason asked is, does this law build trust or undermine trust? [00:16:20] Now, I can tell you that proponents of the Save act say it will restore trust in American elections. Here's what Jason says.

Jason Carter: [00:16:28] It's an act that does a variety of things, but [00:16:30] it is also one that fundamentally, I think, sort of continues this idea that undermines the trust in the system rather than increases the trust.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:39] All right. I [00:16:40] want to go a little deeper on this one. How would this change make us trust the system less?

Jason Carter: [00:16:46] Number one, you know, you're telling people that the federal government should have a [00:16:50] bigger role. Uh, and that, I think, undermines some of the trust that people have in the system today. I think, number two, it because there is that [00:17:00] is solving, quote, purporting to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. You're perpetuating this idea that we have major, major problems in our election system when we don't. And I think that [00:17:10] continues to build this mistrust.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:12] So we do have this decentralized system in the United States today. The Constitution tells us that states are in charge [00:17:20] of the place and manner of elections, which is why some states have already passed what is essentially their own version of the Save act. But if the federal government [00:17:30] steps in and passes federal legislation, it's basically overriding states that chose not to.

Jason Carter: [00:17:37] By the way, this is not just a Republican versus Democratic issue. [00:17:40] The Democrats have made a variety of efforts to take over some election aspects from the states and give them to the federal government. And I think in general, when [00:17:50] we do that, we have to really assess everything through that lens of is this increasing trust or is this reducing trust in the system? And I think that people generally tend [00:18:00] to to like their local election officials more than they like the federal government. They tend to have more trust. And so I think when you move election rules and regulations away [00:18:10] from the trusted locals and the trusted states to the federal government, it's a it's a downgrade.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:15] The federal government has, by the way, in the past, done some sweeping intervention when it comes [00:18:20] to elections and voters in modern history. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed to stop race based disenfranchisement in states across the country. Prior [00:18:30] to that, there were amendments to the constitution to allow women and people of color to vote and changes to laws that prevented tribal people, or even, in one case, pretty much any nonwhite [00:18:40] person at all from voting. But these changes were about expanding rights. Jason says the Save act is not that.

Jason Carter: [00:18:49] Why [00:18:50] do you want to make it harder for people to vote. And the answer, I think in this instance cannot be that there is some fraud issue. It has to be there's some Partizan power grab. [00:19:00] And so there are good reasons, and there are bad reasons for the federal government to get involved. But what our job is as as observers of the process, is to figure out how we can bring people [00:19:10] together to do things to solve the real problems in our system without making this partizan enough that it that it again, continues to undermine that valuable trust. [00:19:20]

Nick Capodice: [00:19:20] So, Hannah, I'm thinking about the way you started this conversation, that you have confidence. You have faith. But Jason started this conversation by telling us [00:19:30] that several decades worth of stuff has eroded trust. And I know that studies and polls are showing a frightening lack of trust [00:19:40] in the system and in other people in general. And without that confidence, democracy cannot exist. So where'd [00:19:50] you get it? Huh? Hannah, what makes you so special?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:53] Okay. When I don't think that I am all that special, I think that there are a lot of others like me. But [00:20:00] to answer your question, research and second opinions.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:03] Half of our listeners just tuned out.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:06] All right, let me put it another way. A [00:20:10] mechanic walks by my car and is like, whoa, big problem. Your car is supposed to have five wheels. This is an emergency. You need to pay me to fix [00:20:20] it right now. Now, the first thing I'm going to think to myself is. Wait a minute. That has never been a problem before. My car is running great. The second thing I'm going to [00:20:30] do is check my manual, which will tell me four wheels are the correct number of wheels. The third thing I'm going to do is talk to my regular mechanic, who I trust, and ask him [00:20:40] if this is really a problem. He will tell me no. I will go on with my life.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:44] So are you saying that everyone who lost their trust got scammed by the government version of the old five [00:20:50] wheel myth?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:51] What I'm trying to get at is that it's pretty freaky when someone who is supposed to know things tells you something is broken when you thought it was okay. [00:21:00] Now, my car might not be the smoothest ride in town. It could probably be better. It requires maintenance. I have to file paperwork, but it does what [00:21:10] it is supposed to do. Scammers nick cause extra work for all of us. They make us doubt. They make us check the manual. They make [00:21:20] us double check with people we do trust. This is an extremely annoying thing, not to mention extremely time consuming.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:28] Yeah, but if you didn't do it, [00:21:30] you'd get hit with a $1,000 wheel mod bill that you didn't need.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:33] Or I would always wonder. I would start to doubt. I'd worry. There were other things wrong with my car. I'd think the car designers [00:21:40] were maybe wrong all along. Maybe they're the ones scamming me. Every small inconvenience, every oil change would start to feel like proof that this car is a lemon. [00:21:50] I would spiral. It is hard to get yourself out of a spiral.

Jason Carter: [00:21:56] One of the things that we have learned across the world in many, many dozens [00:22:00] and dozens of countries, more than 100 elections, is that once people lose faith in the system, it's hard to build it back, because it's always easy to point out there was [00:22:10] this problem or there was that problem. And and I think the key is that students and everyone else need to get the facts about what the law is, right? It is dramatically [00:22:20] illegal to commit voter fraud. It is dramatically illegal to vote as a non-citizen. And we enforce those laws really well in this country. And so if we are [00:22:30] doing that, and if people hear an anecdote or a story about a problem here or a problem there, make sure that people are putting it into context and saying, you know, maybe you [00:22:40] don't like the outcome of this election, but really it's not because the system is broken, it's because, you know, we've we've done a variety of things to to lose an election.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:50] Wow. [00:22:50] Yeah. You know, we don't say that enough, Hannah. People lose elections, right? For a lot of reasons. They just do.

Jason Carter: [00:22:59] Lots [00:23:00] of people have lost elections in a variety of contexts. And the key to me is just make sure that people understand the facts. Make sure that people understand what we have and what safeguards [00:23:10] are in place, and then not be sore losers. I have won elections and I have lost elections, right? I've served in the state legislature in [00:23:20] my state. I ran for governor ten years ago, 11 years ago now, and I lost. Now I just feel like we all have [00:23:30] to understand that something has happened in our country where there's folks who can't talk to their parents because of Partizan politics. There's folks who have uncles [00:23:40] that they used to love that they can't talk to anymore because of Partizan politics. And we have to figure out a way to break that down. We have to figure out a way to [00:23:50] have people be opponents without being enemies. And if we can't do that in our own families, then how are we going to ask people to do that more broadly? And I just think the polarization [00:24:00] has become alienation in some ways. And so for me, the great thing about being out of Partizan politics in some ways and I still support folks, [00:24:10] I still campaign for folks, I still do the things that I want to do within my political party, but I no longer say that the other side is like an enemy, just per se. [00:24:20] We can't do that. We have to find ways to come back together and to say, hey, I listen to you. I want you to listen to me. Let's have this conversation. And I frankly think [00:24:30] that we're getting back to that, that that pendulum is swinging a little bit, even if it doesn't seem like it out there in the in the realm of the hecklers.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:48] We [00:24:40] do not have to let [00:24:50] myths and scams drive us apart. We do not have to be miserable. We do not have to stew in paranoia. We do [00:25:00] have to ask who is making us miserable and why. Who is telling us that people with different opinions are our enemies? [00:25:10] Who is telling us that gentle breeze is a hurricane? Confidence is hard. Anyone who has been a teenager can [00:25:20] tell you that. And I am working really, really hard at it. If democracy is stressed is confidence, then [00:25:30] I have confidence in confidence alone. This is my system. This is your system. And it is not the system that is broken. [00:25:40] I can tell you that much. So I am giving my whole heart to it.

Nick Capodice: [00:25:44] When you wake up, wake up. It's healthy.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:01] That [00:26:00] does it for this episode. It was made by me. Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice Marina Henke is our producer. Christina Phillips is our senior producer. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive [00:26:10] producer. Music in this episode comes from Epidemic Sound. The Carter Center is doing a lot of work on democracy and trust building. We did not have time to get to it all in this episode, but if you want to learn more, [00:26:20] which is totally up to you, you can check out their website Cartercenter.org. Ask us questions if you've got them at our website civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is [00:26:30] a production of NPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

How can Congress check the president?

Checks and balances are at the absolute core of our governmental workings. 

The framers designed a system that was directly opposed to one person or one group of people having all the power, and we see that through the myriad ways Congress can check the president. So what are those checks? How have they waned over the last few decades? And finally, why would Congress opt to use (or not use) them?

Joining us today is Eric Schickler, professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley and author of Investigating the President: Congressional Checks on Presidential Power.

Referenced in this episode:

Our Starter Kit series.

Our episode on impeachment from 2019.

---

Transcript

C101_Congress check presideent.mp3

Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: And just as a quick aside, we had a team meeting this week at Civics 101, and we asked, what do we do, you know.

Hannah McCarthy: I do know I was there. Our listeners were not. So you might want to elaborate.

Nick Capodice: So our show explains the basics of how our democracy works. That's our tagline. But sometimes things don't work the way they have before.

Archival: That executive order he signed [00:00:30] that ended the practice purported to end the practice enshrined in the constitution of birthright citizenship.

Archival: For more presidents proposal to halt all federal grant and loan disbursement, a move federal judges are blocking, was illegal and an assault on the Constitution.

Archival: A South Bay man said that he got an email from the Department of Homeland Security saying he had to leave the United States, even though he's an American citizen.

Hannah McCarthy: And to that point, in recent interviews in [00:01:00] particular, we have had guests say things like, well, you know, here is how this or that worked for the last 200 years or so, and here's how it's working in 2025.

Nick Capodice: Exactly. And that's going to kind of be a theme for this entire episode, because today we are talking about a classic old school 101 topic checks and balances. One check in particular, how Congress checks the power of the president or doesn't. And [00:01:30] it's worth laying out right at the top what our guest today, a scholar who has written multiple books on Congress and congressional power, specifically thinks about Congress's powers.

Eric Schickler: I believe the framers set up this system of government that has many flaws, and is not the system I would have designed. If it were me, I would have designed a very different system.

Nick Capodice: This is Eric Schickler, a professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. He studies political parties, polarization [00:02:00] and the US Congress.

Eric Schickler: But they set up this system of checks and balances and separation of powers and federalism. Over 200 years ago, you know, while it had many weaknesses, one of the virtues of it was that these separated institutions had the power and the incentive to defend their power, their own power. In this system, preventing any one branch, any one set of actors from getting too much power.

Hannah McCarthy: We do, by [00:02:30] the way, have an entire series on core civics concepts like checks and balances and the powers of each branch. It is called starter Kit. We'll put a link to that in the show notes, but we should do a little 101 on this episode first. Nick, what are the specific mechanisms Congress uses to check the president?

Nick Capodice: All right. There are four. I'm going to talk about today and I'm going to do them one by one. So number one, the first way Congress checks the chief the power of the purse.

Eric Schickler: Probably [00:03:00] first and foremost is the power of spending. That no money can be spent without Congress approving it. And, uh. And so that gives them the power of the purse. You also can't lay taxes without Congress approving them.

Nick Capodice: Number two, political appointments.

Eric Schickler: Control over the staffing of the executive branch. So executive branch officials have to be confirmed by the US Senate, which gives them the Senate a lever to influence the executive branch. [00:03:30]

Nick Capodice: Number three is investigations.

Eric Schickler: Congress has the power to supervise the executive grants, to investigate the executive branch and and sort of look around and see if there are problems with what it's doing. Are they ignoring what Congress wants? Well, you hold an investigation, you expose that and then you can take action.

Nick Capodice: And number four is that action one we've talked about many times on the show. Do you want to say it, Hannah?

Hannah McCarthy: Uh, you mean impeachment?

Nick Capodice: Sure do.

Eric Schickler: And then, of course, the final kind of club is impeachment. [00:04:00] The power of the House by a simple majority to impeach the president. And then the Senate would hold a trial and by two thirds vote has the power to convict the president, which then removes the president from office.

Hannah McCarthy: We'll also put a link to our impeachment episode in the show notes. Please give it a listen if you haven't already. Quick history aside, three presidents have been impeached in the United States so far Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. But [00:04:30] as of the recording of this episode, none have been removed from office following their trial in the Senate.

Nick Capodice: Thank you. Hannah. And going back to how we started this episode, we're going to talk about how one check in particular used to work and how it works now. And in just this instance, when I say now, I do not mean 2025. I'm talking about the last few decades after a marked increase in something we hear about so often, it almost has lost all meaning. And [00:05:00] that is polarization.

Archival: And our poll shows voters are both energized and polarized right now, with voters in both parties seeing the other side as an existential threat to the country.

Archival: How will the next president unite a nation that has become so incredibly polarized? Joining me now to talk about it, 1 in.

Archival: 6 Americans have actually stopped talking to a family member or a close friend because of politics since the 2016 election.

Hannah McCarthy: And, you know, these days, we do hear a lot that people think [00:05:30] America is more polarized today than it was at any other time in modern history. We did have a civil war. But, Nick, how is polarization tied to Congress checking the president?

Nick Capodice: Basically, if you put party above all else, party above the institution, in this instance, Congress, the checks that institution wields get weaker.

Eric Schickler: Paul Pearson and I just finished a book, Partisan Nation, and the core argument [00:06:00] of that book is that our constitutional system of separation of powers was premised on this idea from James Madison, that people who are in a given office, say, a member of Congress or a president or a Supreme Court justice are going to look out for the power of their office. You know, the famous phrase is the ambition of the of the man needs to be tied to the power of their office, ambition to counter [00:06:30] ambition. And that was kind of what underwrote our constitutional system for about 200 years.

Nick Capodice: However, things started to shift in the 1970s, and then there was a big shift in the 1990s, and polarization has continued to rise. We are now at a point where some politicians care more about protecting the party than they do about protecting, in essence, the purpose of their job, their [00:07:00] powers. What the Constitution says they can and can't do.

Eric Schickler: When members of an institution, in particular members of Congress, care only about their party and their ideology and don't care about the power of their branch. Then that undercuts that system. That gives them an incentive to just side with the president of their own party and ignore the power of their institution. Right. The [00:07:30] development of nationalized polarization, where the two parties are essentially these two armies fighting it out, where the stakes are seen as existential, has diminished the extent to which officeholders in other positions, members of Congress and also Supreme Court justices, show primary allegiance to their office and instead leads them to behave like members of a team. A Partisan team. And that just entirely [00:08:00] undercuts the this madisonian system, and is what gives rise to the danger of a president who's essentially unchecked by anyone.

Hannah McCarthy: Does Eric have any recent examples of Congress not acting like this?

Nick Capodice: Yeah he did. He had one specific example. I was barely alive when this happened. You certainly were not. Hannah, do you know about the Iran-Contra affair?

Archival: A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. [00:08:30] My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true. But the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.

Hannah McCarthy: I do definitely not enough. I believe it was during the Reagan administration. People were selling arms illegally.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, and it was a many year, many twists and turns. Scandal. Higher ups in the Reagan administration sold weapons to Iran. Iran was under a weapons embargo at the time, and the contra part is that they used money from this sale to support [00:09:00] the Contras, which was a rebel group in Nicaragua.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. Congress passed the arms embargo, and Reagan's office went around it and sold stuff anyway.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. So if you're a ride or die Reagan fan who happens to also be in Congress, what are you going to do?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, I know he had them. So what did they do?

Eric Schickler: While many Republicans stuck with Ronald Reagan, there were key Senate Republicans who were really [00:09:30] concerned about what happened about about laws passed by Congress being circumvented. And they worked on the Iran-Contra Committee to uncover what happened. And, you know, several of them signed a report by the Democratic majority that was highly critical of the Reagan administration. So you can, in a sense, think of that as an almost last hurrah for how Congress used to work.

Nick Capodice: But then, Hanna, along comes 1994 Shawshank Redemption, [00:10:00] Beanie Babies and the Republican Party takes control of the Senate and the House, where they'd been out of power for 40 years.

Archival: Conventional wisdom holds the party of a sitting president loses seats in the midterm elections. But this was a political earthquake with the fault line running right through Capitol Hill. When the dust had settled and the debris.

Eric Schickler: And you get the rise of Newt Gingrich and Gingrich's entire theory in in rising to power was the way to win control of the House [00:10:30] is to destroy the House's credibility, to argue that the Democratic House was fundamentally corrupt, unethical, and hostile to the American people.

Archival: It tells you something about how out of touch they are with the American people that every item in our contract is supported by 60% or more of the American people. Some of the items are supported as much as 80% of the American people and outside Washington. This [00:11:00] is a contract with Americans for America.

Eric Schickler: And so he made that the centerpiece of their campaign and brought in a generation of Republicans who came there basically campaigning on the idea that the system is fundamentally corrupt. And the House is a kind of enemy. Starting in the mid 1990s, you get a new kind of member of Congress who doesn't see themselves as there for a career and therefore doesn't [00:11:30] have the kind of stake in Congress's power that previous generations had.

Nick Capodice: All right. So we got the then and the now. We have laid out how things work for most of us, history, and how they've started to shift in the last couple of decades. And now I'm going to get to the now. Now, what does it look like when Congress uses or doesn't use their powers that check the president in 2025 at a time of an extreme us versus them mentality? But first we got to take a quick break.

Hannah McCarthy: And [00:12:00] before that break, just a reminder. You can check out any of our hundreds of episodes as well as some snazzy Civics 101 swag at our website civics101podcast.org. We're back. We're talking about the relationship between Congress and the president. And, Nick, you just set us up for the then versus now breakdown of the ways that Congress checks the president.

Nick Capodice: Absolutely. And I'm going to focus on one of those. And [00:12:30] it's the one with the name that I've always loved. It sounds like something you'd hear at the Ren Faire. The power of the purse. Here again is Eric Schickler, professor of political science at UC Berkeley.

Eric Schickler: So traditionally, you know had. The understanding essentially has been that, you know, Congress writes appropriations bills. Those bills say this amount of money is going to be spent on this program. And the president is obligated, with very narrow [00:13:00] exceptions, to spend that money.

Nick Capodice: An appropriations bill simply is a bill that appropriates money.

Hannah McCarthy: As in the bill that says where the money is going to go.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, the government can't pay for a ham sandwich or a water treatment plant or an interstate high speed rail program, unless it is through an appropriations bill. And the Constitution is pretty blunt about this. Like hands on its hips in the doorway with a stern expression. Article one, section nine. It says, quote, no money shall [00:13:30] be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law.

Hannah McCarthy: Congress is also in charge of bringing money in the tried and true way in this nation, of course, is taxes.

Nick Capodice: It is indeed so a little bit more of our very to the point Constitution here. Quote. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

Hannah McCarthy: And can you just get to why the House specifically?

Nick Capodice: Because [00:14:00] it is the People's Chamber. The number of people in your state determines how many reps you have in the house, and they have short two year terms. They are on the hook to listen to their constituents. James Madison wrote about this in Federalist 58. He even dropped the expression in there. He said, quote, this power over the purse may in fact be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people. End [00:14:30] quote.

Hannah McCarthy: So Congress says this is how we're spending money. What if, hypothetically, a president in turn said, no, not going to do it?

Archival: President Trump signing an executive order to cut funding to public broadcasting. We're taking a look at funding that includes NPR, PBS, what they receive, the salaries, executive talent, their pay. Joining us now to discuss is Rachel.

Nick Capodice: Look, I'm not even going to dance around the word hypothetically today, Hannah. A very recent example of something [00:15:00] directly tied to this just happened. May 1st, law Day. By the way, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to, quote, cease federal funding for NPR and PBS. End quote. And that funding was the result of a congressional appropriation.

Archival: Federal funding notably accounts for about 15% of PBS and 1% of NPR's budget, with the rest largely coming from outside donations.

Nick Capodice: Now, the amount of money the CPB [00:15:30] gets isn't terribly relevant here, because we're talking about who has the power to spend and not spend, not how much, but I'm going to put it in anyways. It is $535 million, 0.001% of the federal budget.

Hannah McCarthy: We made an episode on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting a while ago, by the way, and we dropped it in the feed last week for people who maybe missed it or wanted a little reminder. So check that out if you want. So Congress approved that funding for the CPB. They put that in their budget. [00:16:00] And that was two years ago, right?

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Their funding happens in two year cycles. This is by design to protect public media from being affected by political pressures.

Eric Schickler: If the president in the past were to refuse to do that. Well, a couple of consequences would follow. One is, you know, the potential for legal action from those who are supposed to receive the money. But another is, and probably the more powerful one just came from Congress itself. Well, if the president [00:16:30] wants appropriations for other things that the president cares about, we're not going to give you those appropriations unless you spend abide by our preferences, by the laws we passed jointly with you. And so that was a tremendous lever, because, you know, it's been clear, essentially, that the president cannot spend money that has not been appropriated. And so that, in a sense gives Congress a veto. And so, you know, if the president is, you know, arbitrarily [00:17:00] refusing to spend money that Congress has approved, well, Congress has a pretty powerful lever. It could, for example, threaten not to fund the white House and the executive branch itself.

Nick Capodice: Like many of our episodes, this one is about how things change. And I think it's important to note here that a fundamental shift in the way the executive branch views its power versus Congress did not begin with President Donald Trump, but with another president, Richard Milhous [00:17:30] Nixon.

Eric Schickler: So what Nixon did is something called impoundments, where he simply refused to spend billions of dollars that Congress had appropriated, targeting programs that the Democrats were in the majority in Congress really liked. Especially, you know, uh, programs in health and Human Services. And so Nixon disapproved of those programs, and he and simply withheld billions of dollars in spending. [00:18:00]

Hannah McCarthy: Now, how did Nixon justify withholding funds? The Constitution could not be clearer on this.

Nick Capodice: Well, Nixon argued it had been done in the past. It was a tried and true presidential tradition, and he cited other presidents who had done this. But the problem here is in all of those instances, that was money that everyone agreed should not be spent in these situations. It was more like Congress appropriates money to fight a war. Okay. War [00:18:30] ends. So the president says, let's spend that money somewhere else because after all that war is over. Both parties in Congress say that makes a lot of sense.

Eric Schickler: The president not spending that money is not really violating the will of Congress. Whereas here, Nixon was taking money that Congress had self-consciously approved for particular purposes and refusing to spend it. So that's set up a big showdown. There were court challenges. Um, it seemed [00:19:00] pretty clear the courts were going to rule against Nixon.

Nick Capodice: And in the meantime, Congress passed a new law called the Impoundment Control Act. This law said that a president can withhold funds if and only if a majority in both the House and the Senate agree. Impoundment, by the way, is when a president seeks to delay or cancel funding that is already approved by Congress. So this act was Congress pushing back more tightly, gripping its hold on the power of the purse? [00:19:30]

Eric Schickler: This law passed the House with an overwhelming majority, passed the Senate unanimously. Honestly? Uh, well, yes, a different world. We lived in a very different world back then, a Republican president. And yet this bipartisan bill passes overwhelmingly.

Hannah McCarthy: But, Nick, the act, the law that Eric is talking about, it isn't having its intended effect today.

Archival: President Trump promises more job cuts. Elon Musk leading the DOJ's efforts to downsize the [00:20:00] government. And The Washington Post reports Trump is preparing to dissolve the leadership of the U.S. Postal Service and absorb the independent mail agency into his administration.

Hannah McCarthy: Billions and billions of dollars. About $430 billion dollars appropriated by Congress have been blocked, stalled or frozen by Donald Trump with the help of Elon Musk and Doge. And agencies and organizations are going to court over this. They're filing suit saying this [00:20:30] money was appropriated to us and we are not getting this money, and that is unconstitutional. Constitutional. And we're going to see how these lawsuits play out. But in the meantime, does Congress have the power to do anything here? I mean, assuming they want to. It is their power that's being overridden.

Nick Capodice: Well, there's a difference between what they can do and what they will do. They recently passed a government funding bill, and that bill could have had language in it that stopped this impoundment entirely. [00:21:00]

Eric Schickler: Congress could have very easily included explicit provisions saying, you know, all of these appropriated monies must be spent, right? Period. It spelled that out. And it could have also said to the president, we're not going to, you know, say there's some program the president really cares about. We're not going to appropriate money for that until we see that you're carrying out the other appropriations we have are free, right? That's entirely in Congress's power. They could [00:21:30] say the zero out key programs that the president cares about and say, you know, we're happy to fund these. We're not going to do it unless you show you're going to follow the law. Nothing to stop Congress from doing that in principle.

Hannah McCarthy: But they didn't.

Nick Capodice: They didn't.

Hannah McCarthy: So what stopped them?

Eric Schickler: What stops them is a lack of political will, in particular, that there are zero Republicans in Congress right now who would support that kind of action? Zero. [00:22:00] Even the ones who are critical about particular cuts. Susan Collins, chair of Senate Appropriations, says she's concerned about what's going on. Was chair of appropriations. She could exert real influence and say, we're not going to support a funding bill unless it includes these real restrictions with teeth that forced the president to follow the law. She has done nothing like that. And, you know, and that that's because she's being [00:22:30] a good team player, a good player for her party.

Nick Capodice: Congress has a whole arsenal of tools to act on this, but so too does the president. It's a two way street because the more we age and grow as a nation, the more acts we create. And with acts come exceptions to almost every rule. Now here's how it could go. Congress could say you can't spend or withhold money, Mr. President. And the president could respond by saying, well, I can, because I'm declaring an emergency and I can spend as I please. And Congress [00:23:00] could respond saying, well, we're removing emergency powers and the president could come back and say, nope, I'm going to veto that. And then two thirds of both chambers could override the veto. These Hannah, these are the checks in place, not theoretically actually in place, enacted by Congress itself. But none of those checks are going to happen. If there isn't, as Eric said, the political will to do so.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay. But [00:23:30] why? I mean, I understand that Congress can check the president that they are choosing not to, and that the reason is they don't have the political will to do so. But why? Why do they lack the political will?

Nick Capodice: Well, it might be because Congress itself is being checked by quite possibly the most powerful check you can have in a [00:24:00] democracy. Us. The people.

Eric Schickler: So I think the public.

Eric Schickler: Tends not to be very focused on these balance of power questions and interbranch relation questions and and worrying about it in terms of, you know, defending Congress's power per se. I think that's especially the case when Congress itself is not giving a clear articulation of that interest. Right. And, uh, you know, maybe if you [00:24:30] had members of both parties saying Trump is is violating the Constitution is taking action. That's against the intentions of the framers, which I think is right. That might get the public's attention. But in the absence of that, and I don't think there's that much public pressure on the institutional question. Um, I think there may well be public pressure if, for example, these cuts damage programs that the public really counts on, right. And so they'll [00:25:00] be concerned, you know, for example, if there the cuts to the Social Security Administration continue to lead the long wait times for, for uh, customer service. I mean, that will that kind of thing generates pressure. But but unfortunately, I don't think that the public is is concerned for Congress's role per se. And I don't think Congress itself has done a good job of trying to make that salient to voters.

Nick Capodice: So the purpose [00:25:30] of this episode, now that we're at the end of it, is to just create a better understanding of what one check could and should look like, that the president is not the be all, end all of exerting the people's will. And Congress is our most direct line to governmental power and action. And maybe one thing that could aid in that understanding is what we try to do here each and every week, Anna, to help people understand their right to make change, to understand [00:26:00] how the government was built to function and why it was built that way. So as I feel I'm going to say a lot at the end of these episodes in the months to come, if you don't like something, complain loudly. It's your check, so use it.

Nick Capodice: Well, that is it for today on Congress. Check. And the president I was gonna say, like, check, please. That [00:26:30] felt a bit foolish. This episode is made by me. Nick Capodice with you, Hannah McCarthy and Christina Phillips. Our senior producer. Marina Henke is our producer. And Rebecca LaVoi, our executive producer. And boy howdy, do we check that executive pretty much every day. Thank you. Rebecca. Music. In this episode from Epidemic Sound, Telecinco, kilo, Kaz, Scott Grattan, Chris Zabriskie. You, beauty and wait for it. Moby. Yeah. Write that Moby. Moby is offering hundreds [00:27:00] of free music tracks to nonprofits for creative projects. This isn't like a paid advertisement here for Moby. I, I, I had play in my Discman in the early aughts until it pretty much broke in half. So thank you, Moby. Good on you. Sat next to you a bar on Avenue B in 2003. Do you remember that? Anyways, Civics 101 is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Why pays for public media?

Public media funding makes up less than 0.001% of the federal budget, and calls to defund it have existed essentially since the creation of the CBP in 1967. However, the history of public media is much longer, and more complicated, than the creation of Sesame Street or NPR. 

We revisit our episode from last year about how the government funds public media, through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and how that money is spent. We also talk about free press, and the firewall that prevents politicians and the government from controlling the flow of public information and educational programming. 

---

Transcript

Christina Phillips: Hi, Christina from Civics 101 here - I just wanted to drop in to give you a little about this episode, which is about the Corporation of Public Broadcasting - specifically, we wanted to answer the questions “Why does the federal government set aside taxpayer dollars for public media, and what is public media, in the first place?”Here’s what has changed since that episode came out: President Trump has re-entered office, and has taken a number of steps to discredit and disassemble the free press, including public media. Now, calls to defund public media are nothing new, and they’ve been around since practically the creation of a funding model to direct taxpayer dollars to public media through the CPB more than four decades ago. However, I want to mention a few things that President Trump is doing that are new and that we do not address specifically in that episode. First,  Trump has called for the FCC, that’s the federal communications commission, to investigate NPR and other public media organizations for their use of corporate support. He also recently announced that he had fired three members of the CPB’s five-member board, something the CPB has said he does not have the authority to do, in a lawsuit they filed against his administration. And finally, alongside calling for Congress to defund the CPB, he issued an executive order telling the CPB to halt all funding to public media, which, as you’ll learn more about in the episode, is the kind of political directive that the CPB was created to prevent in the first place.Thanks for listening.

Christina Phillips: Go for it.

Hannah McCarthy: This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy, I'm.

Nick Capodice: I'm Nick Capodice

Rebecca Lavoie: I am Rebecca Lavoie.

Christina Phillips: And I'm Christina Phillips.

Hannah McCarthy: And we're doing something a little different today instead of Hannah Mansplains senior producer Christina Phillips is going to explain stuff to us today.

Rebecca Lavoie: A Philaplain.

Nick Capodice: A what Splain,

Rebecca Lavoie: Philaplain, Christina Phillips. She's gonna Philsplain Splain.

Christina Phillips: I don't know how I feel about that. Doesn't work. Mhm.

Hannah McCarthy: We'll keep working. We'll work it out.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. It sounds like something like a waterway. Like a spill. Get it by the Phil Splain.

Hannah McCarthy: Uh, Christina, why did you gather all of us here today?

Christina Phillips: Um, well, as you remember, we were recently in Washington, DC, and while we were there, I decided to go talk to some people who are, I would say, our closest connection to the federal government. And I say our meaning, this podcast, the radio station we work at, which is to say that I went to the offices of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Yes, they distribute government funding to public media organizations like ours. And there are several reasons I did this interview. One, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created by the federal government, which naturally makes it a civics topic. Two its history and function are embedded in this very democratic idea of a free press that, to quote the Supreme Court in 1971, serves the governed, not the governors. And three, because the idea of the government using taxpayer dollars to fund public media is a political issue.

Hannah McCarthy: It is. Yeah, it's super political. I mean, there are plenty of politicians and voters alike who do not necessarily think that the government should give taxpayer dollars to public media organizations, especially if those organizations are not covering certain issues the way that perhaps they feel those issues should be covered.

Christina Phillips: Usually with an episode that I work on, I'll interview people, I'll write a script for you to record. And this time I wanted to break the format, because I feel like it's worth talking through this as a group because unlike other topics, we're going to be talking about ourselves. And I think that it would be weird to do a traditional episode where we explain a subject that is essentially about our work without acknowledging that.

Nick Capodice: To that end, can we start with just sort of a big old disclaimer? Christina. Okay, everybody. Hi, I'm Nick. Uh Civics 101 is a show made at a public media organization, NPR, New Hampshire Public Radio. And to be clear, NHPR gets money from the federal government through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Rebecca Lavoie: A small amount of money.

Hannah McCarthy: So basically, like what Nick is saying is that some tax dollars go to helping our station run, and we receive those dollars in the form of a grant.

Nick Capodice: And to be very clear, when Civics 101 first started way back in 2017, we got an additional grant on top of, like NHPR's station grant from the CPB to fund the creation of this, this show. And then we got another grant, I think a year later or two years later to continue funding the show. But that was a while back.

Rebecca Lavoie: And we're no longer running on CPB money with this show as of today. So we're no longer a grant-funded show from the CPB, to be clear. Except for the grant that our station gets - the tiny portion of our budget.

Hannah McCarthy: And we're here to talk about the government's role in public media, specifically in relation to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Right. I think it would be disingenuous to imply that we do not have some professional stake in government policies having to do with public media, like, do all of us here love and value public media and want to keep our jobs and want our work to be trusted and useful for our listeners? Yes we do. Like so that is our perspective.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. And and also the perspective of the person I talked to for this episode from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Anne Brachman: Maybe one day with technology.

Christina Phillips: This is Anne Brachman. She's the senior vice president of external affairs at the CPB. And basically her job is to spend every day on the Hill talking to legislators about how public media works and why it matters.

Anne Brachman: We try to get to the Hill every single day to talk to members or their staff, and we really bring in a couple pieces of paper. One is the amount of money from CPB to all the stations in their state or district. And then we have what we call a state story. So here's all the things that CPB support enables services wise or content creation in the state. So they can really see the value of the appropriation locally serving their constituents. Okay.

Christina Phillips: So I'm wondering, um, does this sound like any other kind of job that you're familiar with?

Nick Capodice: Yeah. So my question was, is she registered as a lobbyist or is that is it not lobbying? What she's doing?

Christina Phillips: Yeah. Do you want to just define what a lobbyist is? And then I can tell you why she's not.

Nick Capodice: Oh, fascinating. Of course. So a lobbyist is somebody who spends a certain amount of time, and I think also a certain amount of money talking to people in Washington, DC, talking to politicians to not necessarily convince them to do what they want, but just to provide them with as much information as possible to benefit their industry that they represent. One thing that kind of shocked me from another episode that I did is that lobbyists don't change your mind. They just provide information. They help you write a bill. They help you get something through legislation that usually never happens. So a lot of members of Congress really depend on lobbyists. And lobbyists will tell you that they are right to lobby is enshrined in the Constitution in the First Amendment. Yeah. So lobbyists are fascinating, but I'm desperate to know why she's not a lobbyist even though that's what she's doing.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. So the difference here is that so her salary and the salary of her colleague who go to the Hill that comes out of CPB funding and that funding comes from the government, they are not paid by any sort of outside interest. They, like our station, couldn't donate a bunch of money to the CPB to help the CPB advocate on our behalf or on behalf of public media.

Anne Brachman: Sometimes we'll go up and we'll host briefings with congressional caucuses. There's a Congressional Public Broadcasting Caucus, the Congressional Rural Caucus, the Congressional Fire Fighting Caucus, public safety caucuses, because public media touches all these different aspects of our nation. And so it's a lot of educating. We are allowed to do technical advice. So sometimes a committee, when they're writing or drafting legislation, they will reach out to CPB and say, how would this impact public broadcasting or CPB. And in that regard, we do have a statutory recognized role to engage with and provide feedback.

Christina Phillips: And I do feel like we've been saying this phrase, public media, public broadcasting a lot. And that definition didn't really come from nowhere. And so we're going to talk about all the things a station would have to do to get the CPB funding later. But is there any sort of definition, like how would you guys define the difference between public media and, say, commercial media?

Rebecca Lavoie: Well, for one, public media is, generally speaking, a not-for-profit organization that isn't funded by commercial interests, nor does it exist to make a profit at the end of the year on its balance sheet. So that's a big, important component of it. And public media has to abide by certain federal communications guidelines in order to retain its status as, quote, public media. So those are those are some of the fundamentals. Yeah.

Christina Phillips: I think the the key thing here is that public media is not serving any sort of investors or stakeholders. I think there are three words that I see kind of all over government regulation that I want you to keep in mind when we talk about public media. And those are noncommercial, informational and educational. And that you see a lot, especially in regulations from the FCC, which is the Federal Communications Commission, which is the agency that regulates radio, television, wire, satellite and now cable communications. And despite the fact that the FCC was created in the 1930s, Congress didn't actually establish the CPB until 1967, which I think is kind of interesting. And I want to talk a little bit about the history of how we got from there to here. And so I think the first thing that stood out to me is that the FCC decided back in the 1940s to reserve certain frequencies on radio broadcast for this public programming. So specifically, you're listening to an FM radio, you know, you can usually find a public radio station in like the lower end.

Rebecca Lavoie: Or down at the top.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. Yeah, exactly.

Hannah McCarthy: Most people who are listening to this are going to hear ads.

Christina Phillips: Yeah.

Rebecca Lavoie: Right. Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: So we I think we have to talk about why Civics 101 and tons of other public media podcasts do run commercial ads. We have to talk about it.

Rebecca Lavoie: Not all public radio podcasts run ads. To be clear, it's a choice that we've made here at New Hampshire Public Radio as part of our business model. What you hear on public radio stations, when you hear companies mentioned, those are not advertisements. It's called corporate underwriting. And essentially the difference between those messages and advertisements is that they are not allowed to have, quote, calls to action, and they're not allowed to have value statements in them, such as so and so. Law firm is the very best law firm at doing wills and estates or whatever. They're not allowed to have those kinds of value statements, and they're not allowed to say things like, go to our website in order to get a sale on blank. So those that would be a call to action. Those ads are not allowed to do that. Well, you hear instead is so and so. Law firm is proud to support this public radio station and its journalism since 1985. Uh, for more information go to so and so law firm.com.

Nick Capodice: That is if you want - you know you don't have to.

Rebecca Lavoie: It's not a value statement and it's not a call to action. So that is what is allowed. And it's basically um, it's being sold to the company as you are supporting our work and your brand is associated with our work. So it's sort of being sold like an ad, but it does not present like an ad. That's an FCC rule on demand. Audio made by public radio stations is not bound by the same FCC rules as our broadcast. So we are allowed to monetize our on-demand or podcast audio with ads. We're allowed to and it does not fall within those guidelines. So here at NPR and at some other stations, we have made the decision that in order to be able to do what we do, we are operating in a commercial podcast space, that we should participate in an economy that allows us to make a little bit of money just to fund some of what we do through commercial advertisements. So that's why you hear ads on our podcast.

Christina Phillips: Okay, so that's commercials not okay on public radio or television broadcast unless they're following those rules you just laid out, Rebecca. And one other thing I'll mention is that on broadcast and on-demand, we do not endorse political candidates or run any political advertising of any kind. Now, back to the history the FCC has codified into law the difference between public broadcasting and commercial media, and it has set aside space on the radio dial for public broadcasting, specifically that noncommercial, educational informational programming. And then a little thing called television came along.

Archive: The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson.

Christina Phillips: By the 1950s, more than half of Americans have TVs in their home. We've got I Love Lucy, Bonanza, The Tonight Show. We've got commercials.

Archive: Salads tastes so much better with Best Foods, real mayonnaise because of best foods, superb ingredients.

Christina Phillips: And we've got the chair of the FCC, Newton Minow, calling the television landscape a vast wasteland.

Archive: Keep your eyes blue to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland. You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder.

Christina Phillips: Then in 1952, the FCC sets aside certain television channels for noncommercial educational television. And one thing that Anne talked a lot about was the idea was to have television channels that children could watch, that families could watch, like there's something that you can kind of set on and not worry about it.

Anne Brachman: And Chairman Minow at the time was instrumental in really pushing and advocating for educational television. In 1962, Congress recognized educational television. But we're still five years before the Public Broadcasting Act came along. But they said, yeah, there should be this thing for expanding educational television. So they set aside about $32 million in matching funds to really help construct these new stations across America. They more than doubled the number of educational stations from about 80 to about 190.

Christina Phillips: And this is when we start seeing the kind of programming that defines public media. Today. We've got the documentaries, the national educational shows, including the first American broadcasting of Mister Rogers Neighborhood, the kind of programs that you think of when you think of PBS nowadays.

Rebecca Lavoie: These are a lot of local programming, a ton of local like puppet programming and like local hosts doing like interactive stuff with kids and stuff like that. Right?

Christina Phillips: Yeah, yeah. And I'm actually this is just a random trivia question. Do any of, you know, the longest continually running television show in America? It is not public media, is it?

Rebecca Lavoie: General Hospital?

Nick Capodice: Is it a soap opera or is it like.

Christina Phillips: It's not a soap opera? It's not.

Nick Capodice: But it's not public media.

Christina Phillips: No, it's not public media.

Hannah McCarthy: Is it that weird show?

Christina Phillips: Probably not.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay. Never mind. Okay.

Nick Capodice: A news show, like 60 minutes.

Christina Phillips: It's Meet the Press. It's not C-Span, it's. It's Meet the Press on NBC.

Archive: Welcome to Sunday. It's Meet the Press. From NBC News in Washington, the longest-running show in television history. This is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.

Christina Phillips: That was started in 1947, and CBS Evening News was a close second in 1948. But that has like over 16,000 episodes, whereas Meet the Press only has 3600. So eventually we get to 1967. This is when the federal government passed the Public Broadcasting Act, which establishes this government appropriation for public broadcasting.

Anne Brachman: So specifically, the Public Broadcasting Act authorized the creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And we are a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation. And our purpose really is to facilitate the development of a public telecommunications system, providing universal access to programs of high quality diversity, creativity, excellence, innovation, um, but also with a really strict adherence to objectivity and balance.

Christina Phillips: And shortly after the CPB was created, it established NPR and PBS, National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service. These are independent nonprofit media organizations that are not in any way owned or operated by the government. Um, they have their own newsrooms. They make their own national programming that then can be purchased and distributed by local public media stations. And NPR and PBS are not the only nationally focused public media organizations that do this. But I do think of this as kind of like the consolidation and rebranding of some of those big existing national public media institutions that were already in place before the CPB was created.

Rebecca Lavoie: But they don't exclusively get their funding from the CPB anymore, right? No. They also raise money through philanthropy, other grants. Yes.

Christina Phillips: NPR, for example, they say that they get less than 1% of their operational funding from CPB. It's a little bit more complicated. We'll talk about that. So I asked Anne how much money the CPB gets and how that money is spent, how it's distributed among stations. And this is what she said.

Anne Brachman: Currently in fiscal year 2024, our appropriation is $525 million. CPB is capped at 5% for our administrative costs, which is our building rent or salaries. Um, just basic, you know, operational expenses. Uh, Congress says we have to spend at least 6% on system support, and in that we pay for all the music, royalties, copyright, licensing fees, research on behalf of the system. Most of our funding, more than 70% of our funds go right out the door to all the stations across the country 1500 locally owned and operated, and so stations can decide how best to use them to support their community. Um, that could be local content creation, educational outreach, local journalism and news, or to buy national content as well. Congress does provide CPB with a separate appropriation $60 million each year to provide for the satellites, the fiber and the ground to distribute all this content. Our stations also most people don't know are part of our nation's public alert and warning system. Um, and so when a alert, you know, we think about it, we get it on our cell phones today. But how did that alert get to your cell phone? And it's through public media's, um, satellites in the sky and the transmitters on the ground as well, sending that to your local service provider. We've also been major investors in early childhood education programs, both for the broadcast, but all the streaming and the games and where kids are these days and those shows, I would say they're not inexpensive to make.

Christina Phillips: I think this is something that's really important. There was a lot of debate about the government's role in this media that it was now funding. There's a difference between government run media and public media, which we alluded to earlier. There's there's this idea that like, if you're funding this media, like will you have ownership of it? Um, so I'm wondering, can can someone give me a definition of government-run media?

Hannah McCarthy: So government-run media, I think pretty broadly, you could say is considered any media that is owned and operated by or extraordinarily influenced and controlled by the federal government. I think that the sort of insidious, scary embedded element of that is government run media is almost de facto propaganda. Government-run media is basically a government arm, right. And the government's going to represent itself within its best interests. Right?

Nick Capodice: So when we did our episode on Is America the freest, you know, the freest country in the world? We talked about the freedom of the press. I learned about some countries that do have state-controlled or government-controlled media. And what's interesting is it's always the radio. The radio is the form of media that the government always tries to control, because it's free and because it's cheap and it's most accessible. Like you can be working and listening to a radio. You can't be working maybe in watching a TV at the same time.

Anne Brachman: CPB has no role in content or editorial decision making. And Congress was very clear, and it was a big, intense debate during the making of the Public Broadcasting Act. You know, someone asked during the 67 debate, how can the federal government provide a source of funds to pay part of the cost of educational broadcasting and not control the final product? And their answer to that was CPB. Congress said that one of the fundamental reasons for establishing the corporation is to remove the programming activity from governmental supervision. So CPB was set up to be that heat shield, that firewall. We do have the objectivity and balance requirements within the act, but at the same time, we are told we cannot get involved in any editorial decision-making or control of stations or content. So there's tension between those two requirements.

Christina Phillips: Now, just because CPB does not get involved in any editorial decision-making, that doesn't mean it has no oversight on what kind of programming IT funds at all. The CPB is required to maintain this objectivity and balance requirement that Anne referenced, which basically means that it sets strategic goals for public media and lays out the kind of projects it will fund, and keeps an eye on how public media organizations that get funding are living up to those goals. And those goals are set and overseen by CPB management and a board of nine people appointed by the president, approved by Congress. That's required to have no more than five people from the same political party. They're made up of people who work in public media or have some sort of media background. And Anne gave me a summary of some of those strategic goals right now.

Anne Brachman: They came up working with CPB management with the Three D's Digital Diversity and Dialog, and the Three D's Guide. CPB's investments in all of our grant-making and digital is the innovation, making sure we're reaching Americans on every platform and how they want to consume content and, um, just being more cutting edge, diversity, age, geographic viewpoint, gender, ability, disability, race, ethnicity and then dialog. How are we engaging with our community?

Christina Phillips: Thoughts?

Nick Capodice: Can I relate to you all? You know, the process from which our show got started? Absolutely. I would love that. Yeah. So I was one of three people who went to Washington, D.C. to talk about Civics 101. And this was in order to like, secure further funding to make sure the show could exist. The people from the CPB that I met with and two others met with, they did say, you know, this is the kind of thing that would get support. You know, this is the kind of program, but you have to defend it. You have to like, say what you're going to do as a show, and then we will decide whether or not that meets all our criteria. But initially you can say there's no, you know, editorial process. But we were advised like, this is what's going to fly and this is what's not. But once that was done to a much broader point, since I've started working on the show, I have not once for a second had anybody communicate with me to be like, hey, you're still doing X, y, Z, or like, you know, are you following up with blah blah blah? Like, it's our show, we make it and nobody tells us anything, right?

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. And I like I want to talk about this a little bit if I may like. So this idea of okay, so the CPB is being described as like this firewall between the government and the public radio station. And I think also like there is a firewall between the CPB and the radio station itself. Right. So the like the driving force of that is the understanding that the proliferation of information to the American people is a very powerful thing, and that if the government is allowed to control that, that is not the free flow of information, truth and the press. Right. And so what I think is kind of remarkable about the creation of the CPB is that it's one of these instances of American history in which it's like there's something very ideological about it, writing down a law that, yes, we're going to support the free press because the free flow of information that is not influenced by the government, by anyone in charge is really, really important. Because, Nick, you know, you're describing this experience of not being influenced, not being told what to say and what not to say.

Hannah McCarthy: The whole democratic project. Right? Like what keeps happening in America is that the government tells us we have something. And so we say we have this, this is ours, right? You told us we have it. And like I defy you to show me a journalist who does not firmly believe in that. Right. Like there's nobody on staff here. There's no like. And I know Rebecca, our executive producer, stands behind this very much like the protection that the media yields over the ability to find the truth and report the truth without anyone telling them they can't. That's right, is so vital to us that the stink that we would make, right? Yeah. Like, yeah. Like the you would hear about it because we're reporters. Like it would be in the news and you do on occasion come across a story where reporters like, I didn't like this and I'm going to put it in the news, you know, like I'm going to make sure the American people know if anyone tries to influence me.

Christina Phillips: This is a conversation that's literally happening around us right now. We have an NPR media reporter who shared, like recently, David Folkenflik, about an experience he had with an executive at The Washington Post who was trying to pressure him to not do a story that would make him look bad. And David Folkenflik is like, okay, no, this happened to me. This is an experience I had, um, where this person was compromising the ethics of journalism, and I'm not okay with it.

Archive: So you're saying that in a conversation that wasn't off the record, he made a quid pro quo offer to you. Drop your story that I don't like, and I will give you a story, an exclusive interview that I do like. Is that it?

Archive: To misquote The Godfather, he gave me an offer I had to refuse. Okay.

Archive: And you did refuse this. You went ahead with the...

Nick Capodice: Can you even imagine if any journalist that we know and work with, like, got an email from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was like, hey, can you make sure to cover this story? Like, it would be like Watergate? Like nobody would shut up about it.

Christina Phillips: Well, actually, I do have an example of a time when the CPB did try to weaken that firewall or sort of stepped over that firewall. Is anyone familiar with this? It was in the early 2000.

Rebecca Lavoie: Rang a bell. Keep going.

Christina Phillips: Okay, so Kenneth Tomlinson was the chairman of the CPB board in the early 2000. He was appointed in 2003 by George W Bush. And he was pretty outspoken about the fact that he found certain programming on NPR and PBS, uh, to be too liberal. And so without permission, he used over $10,000 in CPB funds to commission a conservative consultant to write reports about Partizan bias on public media programs, including a show called now with Bill Moyers on PBS and The Diane Rehm Show, which was a public radio program. And one thing that this consultant was doing was tracking things like how often the president was criticized on the show, for example. And then the other thing he did is that he pushed for Counter-programming to Bill Moyers on PBS in the form of a talk show with conservative columnists from The Wall Street Journal. So two big problems here. He used CPB funds without permission to hire a consultant with a political agenda to study programs to determine whether or not they had political agendas. And then he tried to have an editorial role in PBS by telling them what kind of programs they should have, down to the specific hosts he wanted in the seats. And he did end up resigning from the board after he was investigated by CPB's inspector general. So that is one example of how the idea of nonpartisanship and a strict firewall isn't always impervious to political influence, and then how that played out. And after a quick break, we're going to talk about what stations like ours must do to get funding from the federal government and how that money is used. We'll also talk about the difference between us and NPR, because yes, we are different.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, we're back. This is Civics 101 from New Hampshire Public Radio. I am Hannah McCarthy. I'm here in the studio today with Nick Capodice, Rebecca Lavoie, Christina Phillips, of course, and Catherine Hurley, who is joining us for the summer. And we are delighted to have. And Christina, you are walking us right now through how public media works, and you're going to tell us what a place like us, like NPR needs to do to receive government money.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. And first, I want to answer one of the biggest questions any of us gets at any time. Um, when we say we work at NPR, which is are we NPR? Do you work for NPR? Do you know Terry Gross?

Rebecca Lavoie: Terry Gross doesn't work for NPR?

Nick Capodice: No, no, WHYY.

Christina Phillips: Another member station, is anyone does anyone want to take a crack at the like what is NHPR compared to NPR? How are we connected?

Rebecca Lavoie: Yeah, I answer this question all the time. Okay. Uh, so NPR is essentially a big vendor of ours. I mean, that's the best way to describe it. They're not like a parent company. We are an independent nonprofit. We buy programming from NPR to license and play on our airwaves. So basically we are buying programming from NPR, All Things Considered, uh, Morning Edition, you know, other programs, and we sort of have a co-branding agreement with them, a licensing co-branding agreement, but we pay them for that. Like we pay them a big pile of change for that. So they're basically like a giant vendor for us. It's sort of how it works. And we have a like a loose relationship with them. And, you know, station leadership, our station leader is not at this point in this position, but station heads like ours are actually on the board of NPR. So they actually have a little bit of control of like how NPR operates and so forth. But yeah, now we're actually independent but associated with buy content. Yeah.

Christina Phillips: And I will say that the big thing there is that we have our own newsroom, we've got our own journalists, we make our own stuff, and we can also purchase programming from other affiliate stations like ours. They're called member stations.

Rebecca Lavoie: And other networks. We purchase programming from APM, PRX, which is another independent nonprofit. There's other organizations like that from which you can buy programming. Wdiy distributes Fresh Air. There's other distributors, other networks that actually sell stuff to stations like ours as well.

Rebecca Lavoie: Music swell. Next topic.

Christina Phillips: I want to talk through some of the things that you need to do in order to qualify for CPB funding. So you could be a public media organization and still not qualify for CPB funding. There's like an additional layer of things you need to do in order to like get that money. And so there are half a dozen big ones. We already set a couple, which you have to be a nonprofit or affiliated with a university school or even a local government. And then another thing that we alluded to is that we cannot run political advertisements or endorse political candidates. So unlike, you know, The New York Times being like, we have endorsed whoever for president, none of that. And we will never run like a political ad, right?

Nick Capodice: It's so weird when I listen to other radio stations, you just driving around and all of a sudden it's like a presidential candidate being like, vote for me, Donald Trump. Like what? This doesn't happen on the radio. Yeah sure does.

Christina Phillips: It says a lot about your listening habits that you're like, wait a minute.

Anne Brachman: You also have to have a certain number of employees. You have to have for certain stations, a community advisory board in your community.

Christina Phillips: It has to report its finances transparently to the public, in our case, our nonprofit 990. Like there's other forms that we share basically saying like, here's where all our money is going. You can look at those all the time. I love looking at nonprofit 990. So like one of my favorite things, um, it has to be overseen by a board of directors that are invested in the community that the programming is serving and don't own or profit from their board service. So NPR's board has a mix of people who are living in New Hampshire. The board is beholden to the public that this station is serving. And then the other thing that I thought was interesting is that in order to get CPB funding, you have to have money in the bank already.

Panel: Hmm mhm hmm hmm hmm hmm.

Anne Brachman: For a public television station, for example, you have to have at least $800,000 in private, non, um, federal support, which means viewers like you, it means local foundations, local businesses, maybe state support, because CPB is determined over the years that you need at least $800,000 to offer a really strong public broadcasting service for public television, um, public radio. We also have certain minimums you have to have financially. So the most is $300,000 if you're a larger station, if you're a rural station minority station, it's $100,000.

Christina Phillips: The CPB is not just going to go out and be like, I think there should be a public radio station here. We're just going to dump a bunch of money and hire people. Like, there has to be somebody in a place with some capital saying, we want to start a station or we're already a station. We're doing all these things you need us to do.

Nick Capodice: That makes sense. You know, you don't want to back a bad pony. That's right, that's right. Yeah, yeah.

Christina Phillips: As I had mentioned earlier, NPR has reported that it only gets about 1% of its budget from the CPB. But that's also acknowledging that NPR, a lot of its budget comes from money that stations like ours spend to purchase NPR programming. So NPR would not get a lot of its money if there weren't stations like us who get funding from the government to buy NPR. programming is sort of the circle. And it's also worth pointing out that there are a lot of incentives and tax breaks on the federal, state and local level for public broadcasting, public media. I say that because the idea of public media only existing because of this government funding through the CPB, it's not a complete picture. And the idea of the government creating a space for public broadcasting has existed for a really long time, way before the government was like, okay, we're allocating this money to these stations, right?

Rebecca Lavoie: Can I just clarify something? So what you just basically said is NPR claims don't get less than 1% of its funding from the CPB. However, a station like ours that gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to NPR every year, no small portion of that is from the grant we get from the CPB. So we're essentially giving the money we got from the CPB back to NPR. So they actually get a lot of CPB funding just from other stations.

Christina Phillips: Yes. And this I think, is relevant when we talk about some of the legislation that has been proposed to defund CPB or defund NPR.

Rebecca Lavoie: Got it.

Nick Capodice: Let me just ask. A station like ours. NHPR. What percentage of our budget is money that comes from the CPB?

Christina Phillips: Do you guys have a guess?

Hannah McCarthy: I've looked it up.

Christina Phillips: Okay, so it's 6.3% for the fiscal year of 2023.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, it's like surprisingly low.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. And if you wanted to by the way, go to Nhpr.org. Or you can just Google NHPR 990. You can look at our 990 and it will break down how much money we got from federal grants.

Rebecca Lavoie: So it's it's more than half a million dollars. And I know that that's about what we pay NPR for our programming?

Christina Phillips: Yeah. Yeah. I mean I could look it up and do a it's a pretty close match. Like it's it's a lot.

Christina Phillips: Hello Christina from the future breaking in here. So listen I went back and looked this up. And in the last fiscal year that's July 2022 through June 2023, we actually spent more money buying content from NPR than we got from the CPB. I'm rounding here for simplicity's sake, but we got $580,000 from the CPB. That's money from taxpayers, the federal government through the CPB, and we spent around $739,000 on NPR programming. Overall, we spent about $900,000 on what's called affiliate program acquisition fees. That includes the NPR programming and then also programming we purchased from other public media organizations. But yeah, most of the money we spent acquiring national programming went directly to NPR, and it was more money than we got from the CPB. And that programming includes national and international news that you hear in the morning, in the evening, throughout the day, from shows like Morning Edition, All Things Considered and Weekend Edition.

Christina Phillips: The other thing is, I'll say is I asked Anne. The average public television station gets 18% of its funding from the CPB. The average public radio station gets about 8%, but rural stations, including tribal stations, might get 80, 90, 100% of their budget from the CPB. In the last thing is that a public media organization does not have to be affiliated with NPR or PBS in order to get funding from the CPB.

Anne Brachman: You know, people think that to get CPB money, you have to be a PBS member. You have to be a PBS NPR member. And that's not the case. There's nothing in the Public Broadcasting Act that says CPB can only give dollars to those stations who belong. We have about a handful of public television stations. I call them hyperlocal, meaning they're not PBS members, but they do independent programming, local programming. And on the NPR side, about a third of our stations are not, you know, NPR member stations, but they're doing music and content, you know, music programming and jazz and classical and local talk. Some tribal stations are keeping their local native languages alive. We have one tribal station that's 100%, and it's also a soul soul service station, meaning there's no other broadcaster within a 50 mile radius of that station. And so rural stations, typically, um, are about 19% of a rural station's budget and more than half of all of our rural grantees, which is about 135 stations, rely on CPB for at least 25% of their revenue. And we have 50 rural stations, many on Native American reservations, who rely on CPB funding for at least 50% of their revenue. And rural stations have more challenges as well. I mean, they have more infrastructure to maintain and operate over a larger geographic area with fewer viewers or listeners there to help financially support the station. And if it weren't for CPB and the federal investment, those Americans would not have access to news or informational educational content or even cultural programming.

Christina Phillips: So now we need to get to the thing. The political thing. Are you ready for the political thing? Yeah. Okay.

Archive: From 480 million to 0, that's the Trump administration's budget proposal for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the organization behind the GOP.

Archive: Sponsor of the bill says a government trillions of dollars in debt should not pay for non-essential services. Indiana Congressman Jim Banks, among a growing list of conservative lawmakers to push to defund NPR with a new bill that would outright block federal funding for the news organization, accusing Congress of spending taxpayer money on, quote, low-grade propaganda.

Christina Phillips: So there was a piece of legislation that was introduced from Representative Jim Banks. He's a Republican from Indiana called the defund NPR act. And.

Rebecca Lavoie: Okay.

Christina Phillips: And so this is, I think, interesting because it gets back to that idea of like NPR only getting quote unquote, 1% or less from the CPB, but then actually getting a lot of money from stations like ours that use the money that we earn and get in grants to buy their programming. The demand in that bil is that no federal funds may directly or indirectly be made available to use or support an organization named in subsection B. In subsection B, it was NPR, um, including the payment of dues or the purchase of programming from such an organization by a public broadcast station using federal funds received by such station. So that's a little bit confusing. Essentially, what they're saying is that NPR cannot get funding from the federal government, and anyone that gets money from the federal government is not allowed to use federal funds to buy NPR programming.

Rebecca Lavoie: Wow.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. You know what's interesting, I've heard in my whole life, ever since I was a kid, this call to defund NPR and PBS, too, at times, what I think is kind of funny is that everybody who is in the camp of let's defund it always says the same thing, which is, well, we can't because they're just going to say, you're going after Cookie Monster and Big Bird and wow, we can't do that. You know that some people look at the acquisition and creation of Sesame Street as like, a nefarious way to make sure that you never lose funding from the government.

Archive: Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay, Dennis Kozlowski, criminals, gluttons of greed, and the evil genius who towered over them. One man has the guts to speak his name. Big bird. Big bird, big bird. It's me, big bird. Big yellow, a menace to our economy. Mitt Romney knows it's not Wall Street you have to worry about. It's Sesame Street. I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. Mitt Romney taking on our enemies no matter where they nest.

Christina Phillips: And I will say, I did go and look through the funding history of the CPB, like over years. And there are certainly years where you see the funding appropriation, like, not go up for a while or maybe go down a little bit and it is apportioned. Is that the word like appropriated appropriated um two years in advance. So CPB funding for, you know, 2026 I guess would be decided in the 2024 year. The CPB has never been defunded, but there have been fluctuations that you can kind of trace across eras of Congress, most typically when there is a Republican-led Congress. That just seems to be how it is.

Rebecca Lavoie: So one thing that I've always heard is that one of the reasons why these bills ultimately fail is that even conservative lawmakers ultimately, who come from very rural districts, know that their constituency would be very upset if public media were to go away, because in some places that's the media, like public media is the TV because there's no broadband, there's no other stuff. That's the media. So that that's something that I have heard every time this conversation happens.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, I don't have a straight answer on that. But one thing I will say I think is interesting and maybe it's just my gut instinct, um, is that public media is sort of super entrenched already. Uh, for example, the CPB works with FEMA and has received funding from FEMA to help implement emergency broadcast infrastructure across the United States, which, if you've seen the news lately, about 911 systems going down for several hours in Massachusetts or patchy emergency service communications all over the country in the past few years, this is an essential service, and the CPB is essential in helping to build and maintain that kind of infrastructure. Now, that bill that Jim Banks proposed wouldn't necessarily impact that kind of funding, but it's still a good reminder that federal funding for public broadcasting goes far beyond funding individual media organizations like NPR and all of those individual public stations. The 1500 plus out there, with the exception of just a few, don't get most or even half or even a quarter of their money from the federal government.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay. But very, very importantly, right. If we go back to the reason that NPR exists, if we think about the original idea behind the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, behind National Public Radio, the idea is to bring in that firewalled like closest thing to the truth that you can national news to all of these communities around the country. Right. And so if you say you can no longer acquire and not only can you no longer acquire, but like the institution does not exist, that has the most money, has bureaus all around the world, is able to pay for reporters absolutely everywhere and gather national and international news in a way that a local radio station is not capable of doing. What that would mean is that these communities no longer have access to this noncommercial, national and international news. You know, I know that there are a lot of people out there who want something different, right? And who are in total support of that. I'm just saying that that's what it means, right? Like that you lose that access.

Rebecca Lavoie: Hmm.

Nick Capodice: Quick question, Christina, how much money does the CPB get every year? Like how much of my taxes are going towards the CPB?

Anne Brachman: Funding for CPB each year is less than a cup of black, a large cup of black coffee at McDonald's per person per year. And I think a lot of Americans, they will say, oh my gosh, we're paying so much money for our nation's public media service. I'm like, actually, if you go to McDonald's, you get a better bargain with all the services you're getting from CPB.

Nick Capodice: I have final thoughts, but I've talked too much lately, so I'll let someone else talk.

Christina Phillips: So I don't have any final...you can.

Rebecca Lavoie: You can sum it up.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, yeah. Let me just say to anybody out there we, you know, the five of us in this room work at a public radio station. So trust me when I say this in terms of, like, what is objective? Christina, before you worked with us, what show did you work on?

Christina Phillips: The Exchange.

Nick Capodice: What's the Exchange?

Christina Phillips: It was a live call-in news talk program.

Nick Capodice: Okay. And you worked on that show for a while, and you helped book guests on that show? Um, let me just give you a hypothetical. Let's say you had a guest on in the morning who was going to talk about climate change and how, like, a glacier is melting and people are going to what, someone's going to come up to you and say, who should the other guest be on the show?

Christina Phillips: Yeah. If we were, it would be, you know, well, what other perspectives do we need to bring in? And if it's not going to be the expert in the room, we have open phones.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. So we at public radio stations, more than anyone self-police to try to find objectivity, to make sure that we're giving it a fair shake. I think sometimes to a fault.

Rebecca Lavoie: That's right. And I will say working with the two of you, sometimes you worry too much about the perception of bias when you're just telling the truth.

Nick Capodice: Yeah.

Rebecca Lavoie: And this is a kind of editorial conversation we have all the time. And I'm like, guys, just let your truth flag fly.

Nick Capodice: Oh, did you have to use a flag?

Hannah McCarthy: And I also I just want to say really quick because like this conversation about like objectivity versus subjectivity. And I will just I am speaking only for myself. Hannah McCarthy, the individual, not for Civics 101 and like not for this station. Objectivity does not exist like no human being is capable of it. Like that would be so interesting if we were like, I would love to do a story about. I'll just say for me, what I am doing on a daily basis is genuinely trying to find the closest thing to the truth, which, by the way, is a lot harder than it seems because we talked to a lot of people who have different perspectives, who are scholars, who are politicians, etc., who are like either intentionally or not, representing their own bias, their own subjectivity. And so sometimes we try to triangulate or sometimes we just like, read everything we possibly can. Often the closest thing we can get to the truth is like finding the law and like saying like, okay, so like the law says this, and if that person says this and it conflicts with the law, then we like we know which one is true because one thing is like written down, right? Um, by Congress. But my point is just like it's it's less that we believe that we are like, like wholly capable of presenting objectivity. I don't think it's possible, but every single day of our lives is committed fully to trying not to listen to the parts of ourselves that are subjective, and trying to seek out the closest thing to the truth and give that to people. Because, like, my subjectivity doesn't help you. Like my personal perspective does not help you at all. The truth will help you do what you will with the truth. Apply your subjectivity to the to the truth. I will just try to find it and give it to you.

Rebecca Lavoie: I think it's important to understand too, that you don't always like the truth, right?

Hannah McCarthy: No you don't.

Rebecca Lavoie: And I would say we love getting part of our funding from an organization that, you know, doesn't interfere, but we also would do what we would do without it. Let's be real.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. And to Hannah's point about trying every day to get as close to the truth as we possibly can, um, I'll just say there's absolutely an argument that the federal government should not give money to public media organizations. You listener may feel that way. You may have felt that way before you listened to this episode. And whether you come down on the side of yes, the federal government should pay for public media or no, it shouldn't. If this episode helped you feel more informed in that opinion. If you learn something, then I've kind of done my job right.

Hannah McCarthy: That is it, right?

Rebecca Lavoie: That's it, that's it.

Christina Phillips: Hey, it's me again. Just me and this good 'ol microphone alone by myself. Here are our credits.

Christina Phillips: This episode was produced by me, Christina Phillips, and edited by our executive producer Rebecca Lavoie, with help from our host Nick Capodice and Hannah McCarthy and our summer intern, Catherine Hurley. Catherine, we are so happy to have you here. And, uh, by the way, since we recorded this episode, originally, there has been more legislation introduced to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. You can find links to more information about all of this legislation in our show. Notes. Music in this episode from Epidemic Sound and Chris Zabriskie Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public radio.

---

What happens when we don't trust democracy?

Generations of Americans were not taught how to live in a democracy. That, ultimately, is what civic education is about. So what happens when we lose that knowledge? Where are we today and why should we care? Where do we go from here?

In partnership with iCivics we're bringing you conversations with the people who are paying attention and doing something about it. Civics can have a future in this democracy -- in fact, civics is how this democracy will have a future.

---

Transcript

whathappenswhenwedonttrustdemocracy.mp3

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, I have a confession to make.

Nick Capodice: I knew you ate those plums, Hannah. No, I was saving them for breakfast.

Hannah McCarthy: You know it's not the plums. It is worse than the plums.

Nick Capodice: Worse than the plums.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, here we go. Before I was a journalist, I never, and I mean never did any research before [00:00:30] I voted.

Nick Capodice: All right. Grand scheme of things, Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: There's more.

Nick Capodice: Uh oh.

Hannah McCarthy: The chances of my knowing who my congressional representatives were at any given time was quite slim. I could not have told you the real difference between the House and the Senate. If the president was writing executive orders. I wouldn't have known, Nick. I probably could have told you two out of the 27 amendments. The amendments. [00:01:00] Nick.

Nick Capodice: It's a grim picture, Hannah I'm not gonna lie, but we, as in, you know, you and I, we do have an outsized investment in these things. You're a different person now.

Hannah McCarthy: I am. And, Nick, the reason I call this a confession, it's not just because I'm the host of a civics podcast. I feel genuinely vulnerable, admitting how vulnerable I once was, because now I've got my armor. I [00:01:30] know what is going on around here. I know when something goes wrong around here, I know what I can do about it. That is protection. That's strength. And why should I be safer and stronger than other people? Why should I know where I am, what I am capable of, what I have the power to do while other people don't?

Nick Capodice: Yeah, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Hannah McCarthy: Mccarthy I agree, The stuff that I know. Nick, that isn't an [00:02:00] indulgence. It's the safety and security and strength that we all need. And I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Brandice Canes-Wrone: We need to commit to every American citizen, starting at a young age, to understand our system of democracy.

Josh Ober: Give them a sense of what is the positive value of democracy, and then what is the alternative? We need to teach you about what it is to live under a tyrant.

Mya Baker: You need to have an informed [00:02:30] group of citizens so that they can actually contribute to their democracy. Right? And so that way they can make decisions about what policies and what type of leaders they want to represent them.

Emma Humphries: We need state legislatures to prioritize civic education, to pass laws and course requirements for more instructional time.

Spencer Cox: We need an educated public, and it has to start young, and we haven't done a great job of that over the past 30 or 40 years.

Kristen Campbell: I think we need to do more to help people realize that democracy is larger than politics, and politics [00:03:00] is larger than our partisanship.

Aaron Dorfman: We need to teach the practice of civics and the practice of democracy anew to every generation.

Raj Vinnakota: We need your voice. We need your engagement. We need your willingness to work across difference to empathize and understand different perspectives.

Louise Dube: We need more people on this boat, and we need to be organized. We need to be all in one direction, and we need to elevate the power of this movement.

Hannah McCarthy: So who are all of these people, you may be wondering?

Nick Capodice: And [00:03:30] that's not even all the people, by the way.

Hannah McCarthy: It is not. In March, Nick and I went to California, specifically to Stanford University, where the Civic Learning Week National forum was on the West Coast for the first time.

Nick Capodice: A bunch of educators and policy makers and leaders from all these organizations, all there to talk about civics education, all these people agreeing on one Thing, and that thing is that we need it and we need more of it.

Hannah McCarthy: And Nick and I [00:04:00] sat upstairs in a small conference room waiting.

Ambient: Is that better or worse?

Nick Capodice: It's better, but it just needs a touch more because it's not really having any effect all the way over there. And we weren't alone. We were there with our friends from Icivics, partnering up with a pretty simple goal to ask government leaders, heads of foundations, teachers, even a former secretary of state what they thought, what they believed needed to be done. We interviewed over 30 people.

Hannah McCarthy: We did. And you will not be hearing from [00:04:30] all of them today because that would be a little much. And the thing is, everyone we spoke to said versions of the same thing. We need civics education. We don't have enough of it. And very troubling things are happening because of that.

Nick Capodice: Despite the best efforts of teachers across the country.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh yeah. The fact that I was a sorry excuse for a civic student. That was not the fault of my teachers. I had spectacular teachers throughout my years in school, but [00:05:00] that armor that I have now, knowing what this country is, how it works, what I can do and have in it. It just wasn't on the curriculum docket in the way that it could have been.

Donna Phillips: The challenge we're facing now is that we now have more than a generation of people who did not get strong civic education.

Hannah McCarthy: This is Donna Phillips.

Donna Phillips: I'm the president and CEO at the center for Civic Education.

Hannah McCarthy: The center for Civic Education, by the way, is there to help students learn the [00:05:30] skills they need to be meaningful members of our citizenry.

Nick Capodice: The exact thing Donna is saying a lot of adults never learned.

Donna Phillips: The first thing that I think gets lost is our empathy and our our caring about our civic health. If you don't understand your country, your government and your role in it, you can't care about it, nor can you understand when things could be better or how to make things better.

Hannah McCarthy: I love this point because this was me. [00:06:00] You know, I might have said, yeah, of course I care about my country, but did I? You have to understand something to really care about it. There was a time when I didn't know where and when I needed to show up. What I could have done if I did show up, how I could talk about what matters with other people. It's one thing to say you care. It's quite another to understand what you care about and how you can safeguard it.

Donna Phillips: If [00:06:30] you don't have civic education, then you don't have that empathy. Democracy is active, so you don't have that knowledge for how to continue to be part of the active process of democracy.

Brandice Canes-Wrone: So here's where we are in the United States.

Hannah McCarthy: This is Brandice Canes-Wrone

Brandice Canes-Wrone: I'm the director of the center for Revitalizing American Institutions at the Hoover Institution. I'm a senior fellow here at the Hoover Institution. I'm also a professor of political science here at Stanford.

Nick Capodice: The [00:07:00] Hoover Institution, by the way, is where we were doing all these interviews. But to be clear, we were not partnered with them.

Hannah McCarthy: Right. They are a public policy think tank. And, you know, every time I say the words think tank on this show, I am reminded that we need to make an episode explaining what they are. But for now, all you got to know is they do research and make policy recommendations. So back to where we are in the United States.

Brandice Canes-Wrone: We have very low trust in the federal government. It's very hard to trust something you don't understand and [00:07:30] you don't know that much about. We have higher and higher what you might call affective polarization, which is a term that scholars use, but basically just means what you think of the other party of members of the other party. And basically, we Americans think less and less. So it's not simply that they just disagree. They actually have very negative feelings towards those individuals, which is quite a different thing than simply saying I like that individual, but [00:08:00] we disagree on some things. Um, and in fact we have, I think, even the most disturbing, although those are disturbing enough, we have an increasing number of people who do not have trust in the system of democracy itself. And that's particularly the case among younger adults, which is the most concerning trend. So it's this sort of lack of trust is increasing with generations.

Hannah McCarthy: You know what's really tricky, Nick telling [00:08:30] people they should trust something that they already do not trust, and not just that, that it is vitally important. They trust the thing they do not trust.

Nick Capodice: Because then they might be like, well, now I don't trust you either, you toady.

Hannah McCarthy: So let's zoom out. The path here is education to understanding, to care, to trust. So, Nick, what's trust? [00:09:00]

Nick Capodice: Oh. Ah. I feel that trust means you believe in other person will do what they say they're going to do. It means they care about you. They have your interests at heart. They will protect you.

Hannah McCarthy: I would take that even further. I would say trust is all of those things. I agree with that. I think it's also about reliance, relying on the faithfulness of something, relying on the fact that [00:09:30] it cares for you. So when we trust in a system, when we trust in democracy itself, it means we will do what we can and in fact, what we are empowered to do by that system, to keep that system functioning. Why? Because that system is designed to keep us in power to ensure that we have choices. That system lets us make our own lives better [00:10:00] if we so choose.

Brandice Canes-Wrone: Well, then you're going to have citizens who are able to hold their leaders accountable, who aren't going to be as susceptible to the claims of the sorts of people who would be tyrants. You're going to have citizens who are more engaged. Right. And who are participating. And you're also going to have citizens who understand how government functions.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Real quick, while we're all here, I wonder if we could just remind everyone how this all started.

Brandice Canes-Wrone: Okay. [00:10:30]

Brandice Canes-Wrone: The framers saw civic education as essential for a well-functioning democracy, and particularly as a protection against tyranny. So if you think what was the big risk that the founders were worried about? Well, they were worried that very quickly we'd go back to having some form of, if not a monarchy, some sort of dictatorial system, because that was the system that was the natural system. And, you know, to most societies around the world or if not natural, the, the in [00:11:00] fact, system by force. They were also worried about populism, which you could consider a twin threat, but they were most worried about tyranny. And so I'm going to not have it exactly verbatim. But James Madison, for instance, quoted in a letter around the time of the founding and of course, he's the architect of our Constitution, that having that one needed to arm oneself. And he uses that word arm. That is a direct quote with knowledge that this is what [00:11:30] a democracy needed, and that if you had popular government but not popular knowledge, you were at risk of a farce or tragedy, or perhaps both. First three words we.

Kimberly Huffman: The people, we are the ones who are responsible. So if you don't know what's in the Constitution, you are not doing your due diligence to being a safeguard to our constitutional duty to prolong our country's democratic spirit.

Hannah McCarthy: This is Kimberly Huffman.

Kimberly Huffman: I am a government teacher at the Wayne County Schools Career Center. Um, it is a county career tech [00:12:00] school that feeds from ten public schools, three private home schooled students. I am also the social Studies department chair. I also teach political science for a local community college. I'm the student leadership advisor, and I had there's about 120 students that I serve yearly.

Hannah McCarthy: Kimberly, also, by the way, belongs to a bunch of civics and teacher organizations.

Nick Capodice: You know, the next time I think I don't have time to do something, I shall think of Kimberly.

Kimberly Huffman: In my beginning years of teaching, [00:12:30] they came with a certain knowledge base. They knew the three branches of government, the four levels of government. I think everybody would understand that. That is a need to know. I am finding that since they've removed in Ohio testing for social studies out of the elementary, that is no longer the case. So the last time that they've had a civic class is probably eighth grade. They take American history their freshman year, and they take world history their sophomore year. And they have basically forgotten the period of the constitutional framework time zone. And so it's like starting [00:13:00] over. And they don't they come to me without that basic knowledge.

Hannah McCarthy: For Kimberley, civics is way more than the basics.

Kimberly Huffman: So it starts with having citizens who read, who understand, who can think, who can be activated into good causes and in community as well, not just for your individual own vice or your ego or what it would profit you, but it's a virtue that is for the betterment of your entire community. So if you have a nation that is thriving, you have a state that is thriving, and then your [00:13:30] communities can thrive. And then the people, if you're eating, you know, basic nutritional, you're thinking you're sleeping, then you can concentrate on how to expand that and how to make your neighbors make sure that they're fed. Make sure that they're safe, and make sure that they're educated, that they can read and they can think, um, and all those things help you reflect on what you want in your government, and then that helps promote democracy and keeps our country growing the way it's supposed to.

Nick Capodice: You know, I really appreciated this, Hannah, because I think [00:14:00] a lot of people hear the words civics or curriculum and they maybe just tune out.

Hannah McCarthy: Education department community engagement standards. It reminds me of that episode of Parks and Recreation, where they're trying to get fluoride in the drinking water, so they rebrand fluoride to dazzle, and it works. Maybe we need that to talk to civics people.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, like maybe call it National Guard or something. [00:14:30] Well, okay. Not that. But anyway, Kimberly's point about people who are fed safe, who can read, who can think that that that is what leads to helping other people and then to asking our government to take care of us. So you talked about civics knowledge as a kind of armor, Hanna, a safety and a strength. And it literally is when you think about how that leads to physical and emotional safety [00:15:00] and strength.

Kimberly Huffman: One of the things why I'm so passionate about teaching students about the Constitution, about what the Constitution says, I believe that if they know what the Constitution says, like we can agree what we want the government to do, but we should be able to focus on what the Constitution says they can do. And there's a lot of misinformation and there's a lot of information that is just false, that is out there, and people no longer look to the truth, or the truth is in our Constitution. And I always tell my students, you have to know this [00:15:30] stuff because you don't know your rights are being violated if you don't know where your rights are listed. You don't know if the president has the power to do it, unless you see the power to do it in the Constitution. And if you allow the government to do these things in which they don't have the power to do, and you let them do it, they continue to do it. And before long, it's like the frog in the boiling water. It is dead. And you look back and you're like, how did that happen? Well, you incrementally let it happen.

Hannah McCarthy: You know, Nick, I [00:16:00] do not see this as a depressing sentiment. I see it as an empowering one. What a wonderful thing it is to know that democracy will only die on our watch, or lack thereof. So we need to keep our eyes open and stay in charge of the water temperature.

Nick Capodice: Democracy only takes a break if we let it. Speaking of, we're going to take a quick break.

Hannah McCarthy: Nice transition. We'll be right back. We're [00:16:30] back. We're talking about the state of things in the United States. We're talking about what makes us a United States, what is straining those United States, and what we need to do to keep us strong. And we have not come up with the t dazzle version of civics. So civics [00:17:00] is the word.

Dame Louise Richardson: There has been a complete collapse in civic education in this country, and the polling is frankly frightening students, um, a lack of knowledge, but b lack of trust in our institutions and in our democracy is something we we worry about.

Hannah McCarthy: This is Dame Louise Richardson.

Dame Louise Richardson: I'm the president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Nick Capodice: I do believe. Hannah, this is the first time we have ever interviewed a dame.

Hannah McCarthy: Did you know that only [00:17:30] knights get dubbed with the sword? Like the sword tap on their shoulders. Dames do not get the sword. Tap.

Nick Capodice: I wish we had asked Louise what she thought about that.

Hannah McCarthy: Well, we had other things to talk about.

Dame Louise Richardson: And now we're looking around us and see that this decline of trust in institutions has got to be linked to the decline in knowledge. So it is part of our general approach to trying to mitigate the political polarization of this country, that we want to invest in civic education in our schools. I would add that I'm [00:18:00] a naturalized American, so I had to take a citizenship test in order to become an American. So I would have thought at an absolute minimum, to graduate from high school, one should have to pass the same test as we require our immigrants to pass. But there's so much more to it than than simply passing a test. It's about understanding community, participating in one's community. Understanding how democracy works and what the alternatives are [00:18:30] and how ideally how it is such a better system than the alternatives, but that it only works if people participate in it.

Nick Capodice: And we should add that about a third of high school students in the United States do have to pass the citizenship test to graduate. And, you know, I've read a lot of criticism about that test. People who say, well, that's just memorization. It doesn't mean anything. But to Louise's [00:19:00] point, she's looking at a test as the absolute bare minimum. Pass the test, sure, but also genuinely understand what it means to be in this country.

Dame Louise Richardson: The democracy at the moment is is under severe strain. And when you look at polling for trust in institutions and democracy depends on functioning institutions, that's really quite frightening. So our interest in civics education is part of a broader interest in trying to redress [00:19:30] this polarization. So we're also very keen on national service initiatives, for example, and we see those as being quite closely linked to civics. I mean, a kid who understands their community is more likely to want to contribute to it. Somebody who has contributed to their community is more likely to want to engage in in making it better, engage in, in the politics that are required to, to make this country work.

Hannah McCarthy: You know what kept coming up [00:20:00] in so many conversations we had that day? Younger people who are not invested in democracy one way or another. And Louise, as she said, is an immigrant herself. And she basically said, you know, think about all of the people who are trying to get in to this country. Why do you think that is?

Dame Louise Richardson: Well, the first thing is that students have to understand what democracy is and what the alternatives are and what the great benefits, individual benefits in terms of one's [00:20:30] rights are as a citizen of a democracy as opposed to any of the alternatives. That's why it's so enormously attractive. That's why we have so many people from around the world wanting to be here, wanting to escape the autocracies, monarchies and assorted other forms of of government under which they live.

Nick Capodice: You know what really stood out to me in the conversation we had with Louise was that she said, even if we do have that understanding, even if we do know, there [00:21:00] are still going to be people who are dissatisfied with this country, and rightfully so.

Dame Louise Richardson: You know, our young people are not stupid. It isn't just because they're uneducated that they don't like democracy. They have seen the spiraling growth of inequality. They have seen they've witnessed the inadequacies of, um, of our government and how it has failed many, many parts of this country. And that, I think, is what's breeding their cynicism. They see [00:21:30] the the devastation wrought by the financial crisis and how the cost of that was disproportionately borne by those by the most vulnerable. They've seen how how globalization was welcomed and celebrated by elites like me. And yet people in various parts of this country paid a heavy cost for that globalization, because those benefiting from it didn't think through what the broader implications were. So there's a reason for the distrust of democracy. And [00:22:00] it's not just that they need to be better educated.

Raj Vinnakota: If you think about the age group that I work with, which is 10 to 24 year olds, what have they experienced all their life? What they are seeing is fundamental existential issues in front of them, right from climate change to gun control to what does even the economy look like in the future?

Hannah McCarthy: This is Raj Vinnakota. If you're a Civics 101 regular, then you already [00:22:30] know him.

Raj Vinnakota: I'm president at the Institute for Citizens and Scholars.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, so the path to we the people, the path to our strength, to our safety, to having choices requires trust. Raj says we need to look at what, beyond lack of civics education is contributing to mistrust.

Raj Vinnakota: And what they see is a government that is unwilling and unable to be able to actually develop solutions for these existential problems [00:23:00] that are hanging over their head. And so we shouldn't be surprised when young people say, do you believe in democracy? And every example that they look at is demonstrating a democracy that doesn't actually solve the problems that they see.

Nick Capodice: It really is a grim picture, Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, but we won't get anywhere if we just stand here and look at it.

Raj Vinnakota: Now, the translation of that to me, is to then turn to young people and say, come on in. It's now your responsibility along with us to actually make sure that democracy [00:23:30] works effectively. We need your voice. We need your engagement. We need your willingness to work across difference, to empathize and understand different perspectives and help us solve these common existential problems. Now, that's an easy thing to say. It's hard to do because what you're asking is people to take that first step and trust us. And so that's where working locally becomes so important, right. So start doing the work in your school, in your college, in your communities, [00:24:00] with your family. Start working in very simple ways that demonstrate, yes, this can work. And that'll start to build up the trust and get people to engage in bigger and bigger issues.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, I want to end this episode with the conversation we had with Louise Dubé, who is the CEO of Icivics. And again, we partnered with Icivics to try to get some answers. Where are [00:24:30] we now? Are we strong? Are we capable? Are we protected? How do we ensure that there is a we the people now and for generations to come?

Louise Dube: We have to recognize that it's a two way street. If we are to teach civics in a competent way and try to explain how this system has delivered for 250 years, we also have to acknowledge that the system itself needs to be revitalized [00:25:00] so that it is responsive to young people, but also to every American in this country, so that when there are problems to solve, common problems to solve, we have institutions that actually do something, because I think that's why people are frustrated, right?

Nick Capodice: The idea is to teach civics while acknowledging that things don't necessarily work the way they're supposed to, which is all the more reason for people to understand these systems [00:25:30] and join together to repair them.

Hannah McCarthy: So you and I know, Nick, that civics education and the need for it, you know, it's not just a nonpartisan issue. It is something that tons of people actually agree on. And yet here we are in a world where even someone with a great education with committed teachers may still be disengaged from or disinterested in the remarkable system they exist within. [00:26:00] And we know that it is because of a lack of the very thing so many of us agree on.

Louise Dube: Adults overwhelmingly They agree. We have done polling ourselves. You've never seen numbers like this 70, 80, 90% support across political partizan views. That's unusual. The problem with civics is that it's a long term investment.

Nick Capodice: It's not an easy pitch, Hannah. I think that's the thing. Long [00:26:30] term means money. It means plans. It means consistency. And not just in schools like we've been talking about, but out there in the world. We need to wake up every day and keep learning, keep talking, show respect, engage in our communities. This is not a problem that can be solved with a magic bullet.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, but you know what, Nick? Anyone who promises a magic bullet is lying to you, including politicians. [00:27:00] And if you know how your government works, you know that. And if you know that, you know not to elect those politicians, you know, to elect the person who says this will take time and effort, and I'm going to give you that time and that effort because that is how this country works. That is the only way it works.

Louise Dube: It's impossible to do this work if [00:27:30] we don't have the conditions in K-12 classroom, in higher ed, in civil society to actually teach. So if educators are not trained. So we have a simple policy menu that talks about first we need time in the classroom. We need requirements at the middle and high school level. We need a civil society to pick up the same pluralistic message, to teach adults, to teach young children, [00:28:00] to teach in boys and girls clubs everywhere, pre-K to grade. So we need that and we need a recognition program. We need civic seals, and we need educators that are trained to do this work. So we have a plan. So we need more people on this boat, and we need to be organized, and we need to be all in one direction. And we need to elevate the power of this movement at this particular time. As I said this morning, this is a fluorescent civic moment. It [00:28:30] is absolutely our duty to use the crisis to make a lot of progress. Now.

Hannah McCarthy: That [00:29:00] does it for this episode, but that most certainly does not do it for civics or democracy. If you want to learn more about our nation itself and what you can do to strengthen your armor and the armor of those around you, head to Civics101podcast.org to find everything we have ever made or visions for everything they make, including their plans to make civics strong in the US. This episode was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick [00:29:30] Capodice. Rebecca LaVoy is our executive producer. Kristina Phillips is our senior producer. Music. In this episode by Alex Laine, Pharrell Wooten, Tommy Tsunami, gridded Kakeru, just normal, Jon Runefelt and Bambi Hayes. Civics 101 is a production of NPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

What happens when we don't trust democracy?

Generations of Americans were not taught how to live in a democracy. That, ultimately, is what civic education is about. So what happens when we lose that knowledge? Where are we today and why should we care? Where do we go from here?

In partnership with iCivics we're bringing you conversations with the people who are paying attention and doing something about it. Civics can have a future in this democracy -- in fact, civics is how this democracy will have a future.

Transcript

Note: this transcript is AI-generated and may contain errors

---

What is the Rule of Law?

What is the rule of law? It's certainly not the same as the rule of men. 

This episode was recorded live at the John J. Moakley Courthouse in Boston. It features the voices of Justice Patricia Alverez and Justice Gustavo A. Gelpí.

To learn more about Law Day and ways you can celebrate the rule of law, click here.

Transcript

Note: this transcript is AI-generated and may contain errors

Nick Capodice: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Nick Capodice. I'm Hannah McCarthy, and we are here today for a very special edition of Civics 101 live. For those out there who are listening, who are not in the room, we are at the Stephen G. Breyer Community Learning Center at the Moakley Courthouse in merry old Boston. Hold on. Before we start, I've always wanted to say this. Um, this episode of civics 101 was recorded in front of a live studio audience.

Hannah McCarthy: Uh, Nick, was that everything that you have always dreamed of?

Nick Capodice: It absolutely was. Did you ever watch lost the show? Lost?

Hannah McCarthy: I did, I believe that I stopped watching around the fourth season.

Nick Capodice: Did you all did many of you watch lost when it came out? Thank you heavens. Yeah. Of course. Right. That's the correct answer to that. And you know, in the show where the guy goes. Previously on lost.

Archive: Previously on lost.

Hannah McCarthy: Yes.

Nick Capodice: Okay. The guy who did that voice was a chairman at ABC who quit, who forcibly kind of resigned just before the show came out. And then they brought him in secretly to say previously on lost. So he's like, he's like kind of doing a secret perpetually in the lost canon.

Hannah McCarthy: Was that like a Last Jabs thing? Sort of like. All right, well, I'm taking this with me.

Nick Capodice: I'm gonna be on the show forever.

Nick Capodice: So, Hannah, we are not here today, though, to talk about hatches and polar bears.

Hannah McCarthy: We are not the. We have mentioned John Locke quite a bit on the show, so. But let's get to it. Nick, what are we doing here today?

Nick Capodice: So today on civics 101, we are talking about one of the most frequently used and infrequently defined expressions in the world of civics, the rule of law.

Archive: You know, Trey, what we know is that this administration is anti the rule of law.

Archive: Activist judges, liberal judges with a political bent. It's a threat to the rule of law.

Archive: The president himself has led a full frontal assault on the Constitution, the rule of law.

Archive: Donald Trump believes that following the rule of law and this is crucial, is for suckers.

Nick Capodice: And it's no coincidence this episode is coming out just before May 1st. For anyone out there, May 1st is Law Day. It's not a federal holiday or anything, but since 1958, we have recognized Law Day as an occasion to reflect upon and celebrate law. And also, Hannah, I don't know if. Did you know that May 1st is International Workers Day, aka may day, and there's a whole story there about May Day and Law Day. We are not going to get into it.

Hannah McCarthy: We also don't have time to get into the ancient Spring Festival or Maypoles or anything like that. But Nick, did you know why pilots say May day in the case of an emergency?

Nick Capodice: I thought we said we were going to stop all the factoids because it's just.

Hannah McCarthy: This is a really this is a really good one. All right. It comes from the French May day for help me.

Nick Capodice: I did not I actually did not. Did any of you know that? Of course, the whole room nodded and said, of course. So more fool me 80% of the room. But we have been goofing around just to get started. But seriously, for one second, I would love everyone here in this room just to think to yourself for one little bit. What to you is the rule of law?

Justice Alverez: I think that the way to explain the rule of law is by talking about what the rule of law is not, so the rule of law, it is not a law, and it's not a set of rules enacted by a country. It is not the rule of men.

Justice Gelpi: Well, the rule of law in very, very basic terms means that all persons are treated equally under the law.

Justice Alverez: My name is Patricia Alvarez. I'm a senior justice in the Fourth Appellate District of Texas, and I am very happy to be here.

Justice Gelpi: My name is Judge Gustavo, a Gelpi. I'm. I am a United States Circuit judge for the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which sits in Boston. And the jurisdictions within the First Circuit are Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Maine and Puerto Rico, where it's much warmer during the winter. And it's a story for another day as to why Puerto Rico is part of this first circuit, but I'm proud that it is.

Nick Capodice: We have two uniquely qualified guests to lead us through this one today, and I'm going to leave the next step up to you, Hannah. Judge Alvarez started with what the rule of law is not. And Judge Gelpi started with what the rule of law is. Which of those would you want to go through first?

Hannah McCarthy: So you know what they say about drawing a face so it can be incredibly difficult to get the nose correct. Drawing a human nose is a really difficult task. So the advice that a lot of new artists are given is don't draw the nose at all. Draw the rest of the face and the nose sort of emerges. You draw everything else. You draw what the nose is not. So let's start with what the rule of law is not. And maybe the rule of law will emerge.

Nick Capodice: I'm glad you opted to go. With what? It's not because the term rule of law. It's kind of difficult because the word rule is kind of complicated. It means a lot of different things. Rule can mean like, you know, I am ruled by a lord or a liege or a king or something. Rule can be a rule like, you've got to do this. You've got to do your homework before you can play video games. Or rule can be a guideline, right? You know, rule of X, rule of thumb, the rule of thirds in photography and writing, the rule of three, which is that things are better in threes. I just did it there.

Nick Capodice: But the rule of law. As Judge Alvarez said, it is not a rule like you've got to do this. It is certainly not a guideline. It is a system. All of us, we all of us in this country, are ruled by the law, and we are not ruled by men.

Justice Alverez: The rule of men is what a group of leaders want the law to be for their benefit only, not for the benefit of everyone else, but for their benefit. It could be not a group of men. It could be a political party. It could be, you know, a group of people. It could be a society, or it could be one person. The rule of men is so important to understand because it only satisfies the desire, the the rights of the very few or of one person. And the rule law is totally different than that.

Nick Capodice: I actually have a very good quote by Thomas Paine about this, and I wrote it down. Would you mind reading a slightly expedited version of it?

Hannah McCarthy: But where, say, some is the King of America? I'll tell you, friend, he reigns above and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute of Great Britain. In America the law is king. For as in absolute government, the king is law. So in free countries the law ought to be king, and there ought to be no other.

Nick Capodice: Thank you. That was well done.

Hannah McCarthy: So thinking about this Thomas Paine quote, Nick, freedom is inextricably linked with rule of law. And as it so happens, that's how I see it too. So now I would love to focus on what Judge Gelpi said the rule of law is we talked about what it's not what it is that all people are treated equally under the law. And I'd also like to come back to that later, because I do think that deserves a little more interrogation.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. The notion that all people are treated equally under the law does deserve interrogating.

Hannah McCarthy: But he did say, in addition, that everyone has the same obligation under the rule of law. What is that obligation?

Justice Gelpi: Well, for example, no one can be discriminated in employment on the basis of race, ethnic origin, sex. That's how the law protects everybody equally. Now, the obligation is that an employer, for example, has an obligation not to discriminate. So individuals have the rule of law that applies to them. The law guarantees that they will not be discriminated against, but if they aren't, they will go to court. Same thing. An employer has to follow the law and guarantee that he is not discriminating against any individual.

Nick Capodice: All right. This is our agreement. If we are under the rule of law, it is a two way street and its best form. It is not unlike a healthy relationship. We are protected by the law, and in that protection is the recognition that we are accountable as well. Everyone else is protected from us, and if you don't have that basic agreement, you're going to have a bad time.

Justice Gelpi: You go to the days of the Old West. Who's right? Who's wrong? You draw your gun and you shoot. Uh, that's not the way we resolve things in this country. You go to the courts, the courts resolve the controversies civilly. And that's the important thing about our rule of law in our country.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay. I am very glad that we're getting to the courts here. Um, because they do seem to me to be the necessary facilitator of the rule of law. Uh, and because I'm fairly sure that I am currently in a room with more judges than I've ever been in a room with before, to my knowledge.

Nick Capodice: Right, right. To your point, Hannah. Absolutely necessary. But in order for courts to play a role in order to facilitate the rule of law, they have to maintain five immutable ironclad characteristics. Laws do as well. Now, I found this quintet, this little group of five immutable characteristics from the Rule of Law Education Center, not in the United States, from our neighbor and friend, our democratic ally. This is the country that gave us the secret ballot. This is the country that champions democracy. Sausage at the polls. This is the country that enforces mandatory ranked choice voting.

Hannah McCarthy: I have a feeling you have Waltzing Matilda queued up right now.

Nick Capodice: I think I might. Let me see. Our gentle neighbor to the far, far, far south, southwest or east, depending on which you go. Uh, Australia. Thank you. Australia. The five rules for the rule of law to exist, laws must be one. Fair laws have to apply to everyone, regardless of of status. Two. They have to be rational. Laws cannot be arbitrary. You can't have a law against something or someone because you don't like them. Number three. Laws must be predictable. The punishments for breaking the law must be clear. Nobody should be thrown in jail for something they had no idea would result in that. Number four. Laws must be consistent. Similar circumstances for similar people are dealt with in the same way. And finally, laws must be impartial. The judicial branch which makes decisions on laws must be independent.

Hannah McCarthy: It's a helpful list.

Nick Capodice: List. Thank you, I like it.

Hannah McCarthy: I do want to get into that last one though. An impartial and independent judiciary. We've talked about this many times on this show. You know, judges are humans. They're not empty vessels through which the Constitution flows.

Nick Capodice: No, they are not. They are humans. Justice wears a blindfold, but behind that blindfold is a thinking considering human head.

Hannah McCarthy: So how do we define an independent judiciary?

Nick Capodice: Here is Justice Alvarez.

Justice Alverez: So what is an independent judge? Well, the independent judge is that judge that acts within his or her authority, number one. And number two is a judge that can rule, that can give an opinion if it's at the appellate level, give an opinion without the fear of being harassed, without the fear of being placed in jail. Okay. So that's what it means to be independent. To be independent also means that the executive and the legislators set forth our salaries and set forth, you know, our benefits and so forth. Despite that, we as judges can act, can rule without fear of the legislators or the executive taking away our salaries. So that's what it means to be independent, not to do whatever you want to do, but not to fear.

Hannah McCarthy: I appreciate so deeply a judge actually explaining that, you know, I think that's the first time that we've asked a judge directly what that really means. That was incredibly helpful. And as we're working through these principles, these five principles that you laid out, Nick, these rules for the rule of law, there's the ideal, right? There's the thing, there's the shining ideal, and then there's the practice. We can strive for a perfect democratic republic under a flawless rule of law. But I don't think we are that.

Nick Capodice: We sure are not.

Hannah McCarthy: And I do not want to make this episode moot. But, you know, if I asked, a room full of random people. Are all people in America treated exactly equally under the law? I don't know if everyone would say yes. Absolutely.

Nick Capodice: Do you want to try?

Hannah McCarthy: I'm a little nervous, but yes, I do. Let me ask this room. Does everyone here in this room believe that all people in this country are treated equally under the law?

Speaker11: No, no, no.

Nick Capodice: That's pretty much what I expected. Yeah, we're going to get into that. But first we've got to take a quick break.

Hannah McCarthy: We're back.

Hannah McCarthy: You're listening to civics 101 live from the Stephen J. Breyer Community Learning Center at the Moakley courthouse in good Ole Boston.

Nick Capodice: Here's to good old Boston.

Nick Capodice: The home of the bean.

Speaker4: And the cod.

Nick Capodice: Where the Lowells speak only to Cabots and the Cabots speak only to God.

Hannah McCarthy: On a little ditty that I have known since a young child. I grew up in Braintree, Massachusetts, so I've known that for a while.

Nick Capodice: That's right. You and John Adams coming up in Braintree?

Hannah McCarthy: Not at the same time, but. Yeah.

Nick Capodice: Right. We are in this courthouse today with a John Adams quote chiseled on the side of it, by the way, because we're talking about the rule of law.

Hannah McCarthy: So let's get back to the law, applying equally to everyone. Because Nick, as we gestured to earlier and as we polled the room, it does not seem to. Right.

Nick Capodice: So for this, I would like to begin with sort of a broad 30,000 foot look at this and then sort of hone in on obvious inequalities in our justice system. If that's okay.

Hannah McCarthy: That's okay.

Nick Capodice: So let's take something like stealing, right? Stealing. Writ large. It's against the law. But stealing a car is not the same as stealing a pack of gum. And that's one of the reasons we have different categories of things, like violations and misdemeanors and felonies and felonies in different classes and degrees.

Hannah McCarthy: Do you remember that commercial from the 90s about piracy? Internet piracy?

Speaker4: You wouldn't download a car?

Hannah McCarthy: Yes. That commercial pained me every time I saw it. I could neither confirm nor deny that Napster played a part of my childhood, but it hurt to watch that.

Nick Capodice: I have to tell you, I didn't know. I don't know if I would or not, but when I was 13, I might have downloaded a car if I could have. But let's say it's two people who stole the same thing, or three people who stole the same thing. Let us go with the good old literary chestnut. A loaf of bread.

Hannah McCarthy: And we're not going to get into the broken window panes. And the attempted theft of the silver candlesticks.

Nick Capodice: We're not gonna. Javert. But seriously, one person steals a loaf of bread to feed a hungry family. Another steals it as a prank, and a third steals it. Not because they needed it, but just because nobody was looking and they felt like it. Should all three people get the same punishment?

Hannah McCarthy: Fortunately, that's not for me to decide. Right. That is the job of judges and juries. Lawyers play a role in that, you know, to explore the context of a crime. Um, judges, maybe with a recommendation of the jury, determine the sentence. I know that is rare, but it happens.

Nick Capodice: And sometimes that last step, determining the sentence is much more complicated than I had imagined. And again, here is US Court of Appeals Circuit Judge Gustavo Gelpi.

Justice Gelpi: And I would say sometimes sentencing is the most difficult aspect of the rule of law, because sometimes we have what are known as mandatory minimums. For example, in drug cases involving large quantities of drugs or when you have firearms involved. You have to apply that mandatory minimum. But sometimes it is tough from the judges perspective, because you will see an individual who otherwise should not be serving that much time. But for the rule of law, you have to apply it equally to everybody.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay. So the difficulty that judge help is describing here is feeling that perhaps a sentence is unfair. Maybe. Right. Um, but there's a law at the state or federal level saying that certain offenses have to be punished in a certain way. So this is an instance of the rule of law being upheld, even if perhaps to that individual judge, it might not feel fair.

Nick Capodice: To take it a step further. If a defendant has a really good reason. They broke the law, and this law has a mandatory minimum sentence. But this person had really special circumstances and the judge gives them a lighter sentence. That may be fair, but it is not upholding the rule of law. Now it is time for us to get into things that are not fair, not the rule of law, and that are definitely happening in the United States of America. The law should, but does not apply equally to everyone.

Hannah McCarthy: I'm glad that we're talking about this, because to me, it gets at the very many steps that have to occur for the law to be applied. Inequitably. Right. Where and how you grew up, how you're perceived by others, how you're perceived by law enforcement, even the laws that guide your city or state. Has your legislature crafted them in a way that might put you in scrutinize way more than somebody else? And we know, based on the stats, that race and money play a huge part in this. We know that an innocent black person is seven times more likely to be wrongfully convicted of murder than an innocent white person, that black Americans are incarcerated at five times that of the rate of white Americans. There's so much data on this. So, Nick, this makes me wonder what role a democracy could or should play in ensuring its citizens are set up to succeed under the rule of law. And then, you know, the money element. Wealthy people, they can pay fines. They can pay their bail. They can hire the best lawyers.

Nick Capodice: You said the best lawyers. You said the the most powerful law firms, right? And it's fitting that you said those words. Listeners to our show know we have talked in many episodes about unequal treatment of historically marginalized communities, past and present. But we are in a unique time frame right now. When we talk about fractures in the rule of law.

Speaker13: Since his inauguration, President Trump has taken 145 executive actions. And many of them, as we've reported here on the Daily Report, have involved immigration, the shrinking of government, but some have also targeted law firms. The president has attacked those in the legal community who, in his opinion, engaged in, quote, frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States.

Nick Capodice: As we are taping this, President Trump has used executive orders to target six law firms, large wealthy law firms, preventing them from entering federal buildings, ending current federal contracts with them, or removing them as potential firms for future government work. A partner in one firm, Paul Weiss. Now that is the name of the firm. It's not one person. It stands for. Um, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison. This firm did pro bono work in a suit against people who participated in the January 6th insurrection. And there was an executive order, uh, Executive Order 14237 titled Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss. This executive order stripped them of their ability to continue to operate. That executive order was lifted after Paul Weiss agreed to do $40 million of pro bono work that supported the agenda of the Trump administration. There are several lawyers and judges in this room tonight. There are other legal professionals in this room tonight as well. And I do not know if they are willing or able to comment on it. So I can and I will say, if we go back to our list of five things that make the rule of law work. Ask yourself, is this fair? Is it rational? Is it predictable? Is it consistent? And is it impartial? And I'm going to leave that to you to decide.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. Nick, so we have talked about ideal versus reality. Did the judges you spoke with have anything to say about cracks, so to speak, in the rule of law? You know, Payne talked about freedom and rule of law going hand in hand. What happens if and when rule of law falters?

Justice Alverez: And it's called the democratic erosion. And that's a title that a lot of the great legal thinkers have labeled this this phenomenon. So erosion occurs when the captain of one soccer team buys one of the referees. The rules of soccer can be changed now because the referees, you know, they won't pay attention to the rules and they'll do whatever. And one team benefits from those rules and the other team does not. It's occurred in Venezuela. It's occurred in Turkey, by the way. It's just occurred in 2010, in Hungary and shortly thereafter in Poland.

Nick Capodice: Judge Alvarez wrote a paper on this, and I have a link in the show notes to anybody who wants to read it, it's tremendously written. She explains how the breakdown in the rule of law is inextricably tied to the breakdown of democracy. And she started with the example of Nazi Germany.

Justice Alverez: Well, you have Hitler coming into power in a very democratic, you know, oriented way. It was voted in. And as he became powerful, as did the Nazi Party, they started stripping the government and they started stripping not only the government, but also the judiciary and the press. And all of a sudden, you had the government of a few government of men, the rule of men versus the rule of law versus a democracy. And it was what Hitler and his people wanted. And that's what everyone, uh, was submissive to.

Nick Capodice: And then she moved on. She said things can happen differently, like in Peru or Argentina when it happened suddenly, overnight, like in a coup d'état.

Justice Alverez: And it happens really fast and everyone is just shocked. But, you know, democracy is just finito. Terminado totally in one day and with guns and with the military if you want to.

Nick Capodice: And finally, there is one more way.

Justice Alverez: There's another way. And that's the Hungarian way. And the Hungarian way is, uh, Viktor Orban, who is very charming and, uh, and his party, the Fidesz party, and they come into power, they're voted in and, uh, they just swept everything, you know, they're the majority party in Parliament. They're the majority, everything. So what do they do? Well, we got all this power. Let's do something about it. They began very slowly dismantling all the checks and balances. And they started, by the way, with the Constitution.

Nick Capodice: Viktor Orban and his party made drastic changes to Hungary's constitution. They also appointed loyalists to key judicial positions, and he lowered the retirement age of judges, forcing hundreds of them into early retirement in one night.

Justice Alverez: And they started enacting all these laws that benefited only a few, not everyone. The other problem was that they violated laws. And guess what? They were not held accountable. Why? Because the judiciary wasn't there. They Initiated the judiciary. They totally destroyed it. And so now they're doing what they want to do. So what do you have there? You have very charming people coming into power, destroying the rules or enacting new rules that give them more power. The rulers start ruling with the rule of the few men and displacing the rule of law by setting aside the judiciary. So that's what happens with the democratic erosion.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, so, Nick, as you know, something that is very important to me right now, in particular, is the emphasis that we live in a democracy wherein people do have the power, and it is the role of the media, I think to help people understand things and to not exaggerate things and to not scare them, right? That is part of our job. That's part of our responsibility. And so many guests who I've spoken to recently have said to me, you know, the important thing about this nation is that all of us, we the people, we are still here. This is still a democracy. We still have power. And that is the most important thing.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. And I have one more guest to add to your list, Hannah. We talk a lot about the pillars of democracy on this show, and the rule of law stands amongst them. Having now made this episode, if you asked me what is the rule of law, I might say it is the thing that stops erosion. It stops anarchy. It stops tyranny, and it keeps our democratic republic. Now, I don't believe Judge Alvarez or Judge Help or any of the people in this room, for that matter, want to see that pillar crack or want to see democracy A road. And fortunately for some good news. Judge Alvarez had some advice for the people. Democracy is still in their hands, but only if they are politically active.

Justice Alverez: But I don't say go, you know, become a Democrat always, or a Republican, you know. It doesn't matter you what you believe in. You become active politically, always watching that. There's no erosion of democracy, that there is no rule of men in our country, and that only the rule of law exists and that people don't. They don't take the rule of law lightly. Honor it, live it. I think that we can prevent things like what happened to Hungary and what happened to Venezuela and Argentina and and Germany. Everyone is accountable. No one is above the law. And I think That our children need to know that.

Nick Capodice: Well, that is our episode on the rule of law. I've got some massive thanks here. First, a huge thank you to Allison Gaertner for helping to organize all of this. She works at the Stephen Breyer Community Learning Center on Courts and the Constitution at the Moakley courthouse. After the taping of the episode, we had a wonderful talk with three judges, and since the microphones are off, everybody could be really candid. And it was phenomenal. So thank you, Judge Ireland, Judge Ponsor and Judge Ephraim. If you want to find out more about Law Day, May 1st I encourage you to check it out. Go to law. Org you can see the stuff that the American Bar Association has put together. And thanks to them too. Thank you American Bar Association. I'm looking at you, Frank Valadez. You're a star. This episode was made by me. Nick Capodice with Hannah McCarthy. Our staff includes Christina Phillips as a senior producer, Marina Henke as a producer. And Rebecca Lavoie is everything to all things. We Say executive producer, but she is technically the director of on demand audio. But she's so much more than that. Music in this episode from Hanu Dixit. Epidemic sound and the inimitable Chris Zabriskie. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

Nick Capodice: Great time. Great time. But the break is a lie.

Hannah McCarthy: It is a lie.

Nick Capodice: Did anybody get that joke? The break is a lie. Yeah, I got it. Hannah and I had a little bet about who would get that joke in the room. Uh, it's a portal joke. Are you ready to go?

Hannah McCarthy: I'm ready.

Nick Capodice: Here we go.

---

Efficiency v. Democracy

Today we were going to explore how "big tech" has woven itself into the fabric of the Trump administration. But after a conversation with Allison Stanger, professor at Middlebury College, we decided to focus exclusively on Elon Musk and his relationship with Donald Trump. 

What is DOGE, the "Department of Governmental Efficiency?" And while we're at it, what is efficiency anyways? Has DOGE saved Americans any money? What information of ours are they trying to access? And is there any chance they've already succeeded?

Transcript

Note: this transcript is AI-generated and may contain errors

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:01] Hannah.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:01] Nick.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:02] Civics 101.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:03] It sure is.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:04] It sure is. Uh. And today, uh, well, I have a 101 of a different color. Nick.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:12] A different color, like. Like a horse of a different color.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:15] Yes. Which, by the way, is an idiom that I thought came exclusively from The Wizard of Oz until I fact checked it for this episode.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:23] Hannah, we just don't know what we don't know.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:27] Which actually leads nicely into today's episode [00:00:30] talking about what we don't know, because the original goal of this episode today was to talk about the tech industry and the executive branch.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:40] So big tech, right? Like the fact that there were a bunch of tech giants at the inauguration, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos sitting with the president's family or former presidents usually sit.

Archival: [00:00:53] Sitting with Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Google's Sundar Pichai, the billionaires seated in [00:01:00] the first row in front of some cabinet nominees.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:05] And a bunch of executive orders that have to do with AI and social media and tech regulations.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:11] Right. And the idea here was, you know, like, how did Big Tech get all involved with this administration, if indeed they are? But here's the thing.

Allison Stanger: [00:01:21] It's not the involvement of big tech per se, but it is the involvement of one particular tech [00:01:30] superstar. Elon Musk.

Archival: [00:01:32] Elon Musk, Elon Musk, Elon Musk.

Archival: [00:01:35] Elon Musk.

Allison Stanger: [00:01:36] Elon Musk.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:41] Are we doing this?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:43] Oh, we're doing this. This is Allison Stanger.

Allison Stanger: [00:01:46] I'm Middlebury Distinguished Endowed Professor, but I also have a whole range of other titles.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:52] Allison's other titles, by the way, include.

Allison Stanger: [00:01:54] Co-director of the Getting Plurality Research Network, faculty affiliate of the Berkman Klein Center, visiting fellow [00:02:00] at Stanford's Human-centered AI Institute, distinguished senior fellow at the center for Nonproliferation Studies. And what am I leaving out? Oh, I'm an external professor at the Santa Fe Institute.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:10] Oh, Hanna, who has the time?

Allison Stanger: [00:02:12] I just am interested in everything. And that's a great thing to be at this moment, because things are happening so quickly. It allows you to put things together, maybe in a way other people cannot.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:22] And today, Nick Allison puts things together.

Allison Stanger: [00:02:27] And it's all being done in plain sight. Truly [00:02:30] unprecedented. It's interesting because a lot of people would say, like, maybe I'm like an ideologue, but I just want to stress here, I'm speaking out because I have tenure and I feel like I'm obligated to tell the truth. And so everything I'm saying to you is true to the best of my knowledge. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but I think it's really important in a highly partizan age to just focus on facts and the truth. And that's what I'm trying to do with my work. And if I'm [00:03:00] wrong, I'm happy to be corrected.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:03] Okay, so Allison said she is speaking out because she has tenure. Like literally, as in she is a professor with a permanent job.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:13] Exactly. I once had a college professor, Nick, who said to the class, class, I have tenure. And what does that mean? Everything. Uh, now, what does that actually mean? It means that the school where you teach is basically giving you a kind of academic freedom. [00:03:30] It means you can research or teach without fear of repercussion or political whims.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:34] So it's kind of like the Supreme Court lifetime appointment.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:38] Well, it's kind of like what the Supreme Court lifetime appointment is supposed to be. So Allison feels like she can safely say, this is what I think is going on with the government and say it without losing her job. And before we get into this episode, here is what Allison thinks about sharing your perspective as a teacher, because today we're [00:04:00] going to learn some things.

Allison Stanger: [00:04:01] I believe a classroom should be a place where people are struggling to understand what's true. You know, you can't get to what you believe is true unless you're allowed to speak your mind and not be told what's true. You need to own it. You need to own it for yourself, you know? And, uh, it is true that there are a lot of ideological, uh, classrooms where faculties were encouraging students to do certain things politically. It's fine if you present it as this is what I believe, and you're free to disagree. It's [00:04:30] not fine if you're not presenting it that way. Because. Because then the student, you know, what are they supposed to do? You have power over them. You're grading them. That's not what a classroom should be, though.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:40] It sounds like Allison understands the power of power.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:45] That she does. So this is what she knows, some of what she believes. And you are free to disagree. Because, by the way, Allison has concerns based on what she's seeing and what she knows about power and information, and [00:05:00] we're going to share those today. But keep in mind that there is a lot that we don't know, in part because we are talking about something and someone that isn't super clear about what it or they is are doing.

Allison Stanger: [00:05:15] I wrote a book called One Nation Under Contract on the privatization of American Power, and that was all about how increasingly things we thought of as government functions were in the hands of the private sector. And I talked about some of the potential, um, problems with [00:05:30] that trend. Well, this is like privatization in overdrive. You now have both the president and Elon Musk in an unprecedented position, where the the boundary between the public and the private is blurred. And I think that's intentional for a variety of reasons that benefit both Mr. Musk and President Trump. So it's not like it's some kind of brand new thing. It's just a trend in motion that has gone into overdrive and [00:06:00] in my view, has taken us into dangerous territory.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:02] So, Hannah, the reason this is a Civics 101 of a different color is because we are talking about specific people. Two specific people.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:12] Yeah. And we're talking about what Allison Stanger, as someone who studies this from many, many angles, thinks is going on.

Allison Stanger: [00:06:20] This isn't about tech. It's about power. And technology has increasingly, over time, come to have an impressive [00:06:30] amount of power vis a vis the US government. That's another trend in motion. The book I'm currently writing is called Who Elected Big Tech? And again, you know, these trends were in motion, which is why we're not responding as dramatically as we might otherwise, because in some sense, Americans have worshiped technology that we're really proud of our tech companies, the companies, innovation they inspire. But these innovations also have an impact on how our government works, basically.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:58] Americans might be more [00:07:00] concerned about how technology influences our government if we just didn't love technology so much.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:07] Well, technology is amazing. Most of us carry mini computers in our pockets. We can be in constant communication with each other, get a ride anywhere with the tap of a screen. Show billions of people. The video we took of a beach get practically any commodity delivered to our door. But there's a lot more to it. And Allison is asking how that [00:07:30] impacts our government.

Allison Stanger: [00:07:32] And in some way, I would say what's really going on here is we have a struggle between our kind of 18th, 19th century political institutions and how you bring them into the digital age. And Musk and Trump are showing you one version of that. I personally think it's a dangerous version. If you think democracy is the public good and you think the voice of the people matters, but it's one version.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:55] Yeah, the framers probably didn't envision us all having computers in our pockets, though they [00:08:00] did have their own self-driving cars in a way. Hannah. They were called horses.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:04] Okay.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:05] All right. Um, anyways, Allison says Musk and President Donald Trump are showing us one version of bringing this 250 year old democracy into the digital age. So what version is that?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:20] Well, Allison focused on this idea of efficiency.

Allison Stanger: [00:08:24] People have this illusion that automating everything is so awesome. This comes out of Silicon [00:08:30] Valley because, you know, it's not going to be biased. It's going to be so fast, it's going to be so efficient. And the fact of the matter is, you can also kind of create this Kafkaesque world that we've all been in when you're like trying to talk to a human being and you're just going around in circles with these chatbots. That, to me is the future feature I envision when everything's been automated. It's one in which, you know, I'm increasingly feeling like a character in severance, you know, just isolated from everything going on around me. Um, [00:09:00] and we don't want to see that. Uh, we're so much better than that.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:05] We're talking about efficiency, of course, because we currently have a government department dedicated to it.

Allison Stanger: [00:09:11] As the Department of Government Efficiency proudly proclaims, it's efficient, but efficient is not democratic. Uh, efficient isn't humane. Efficient isn't about the things that bind us one to another. The things that really [00:09:30] matter.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:30] Wow. Um, okay, first, before we get to the Department of Government Efficiency, aka Doge, can we dig into this a little more? Efficiency isn't about what binds us together.

Allison Stanger: [00:09:48] Most of the things in life that are truly meaningful have nothing to do with efficiency. You know, if we operated the world the way the tech bros think we should operate it, there would be no mothers. There [00:10:00] would be no caregivers. You know, if they celebrate Ayn Rand, you know, the the libertarian. The most amazing thing to me about her novels is there's not a single mother in them. The world just keeps reproducing itself, and children are taken care of and they grow up without anybody doing it. I happen to believe that there's a lot of human beings who are empathetic and value care for others over efficiency. And that's what makes [00:10:30] our life meaningful, you know.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:32] All right. Care over efficiency. I can see what Alison means here. That efficiency isn't democratic. You know, it makes me think of what Aziz Huq said about democracy in your episode about constitutional crises, that it's like being a parent. You know, it sure isn't fast or clean, and it doesn't always go so great, but you show up every day and you keep doing it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:57] True. It's also frustrating, and it can often [00:11:00] feel like you're not getting what you want. And we want to get what we want. And to be fair here, there are a lot of people who believe that shaking up the government is the way to do it, to get what we want. Stripping it down, cleaning it out, making it more efficient. That's where Doge comes in. So, Nick, do you know how Trump created Doge?

Nick Capodice: [00:11:25] I'm gonna guess in executive order. Uh, it pretty much just [00:11:30] happens.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:31] It does. So Doge, which, by the way, is also the name of Elon Musk's cryptocurrency derived from a famous dog internet meme. It was born when President Donald Trump renamed the existing United States Digital Service established by Obama to provide digital consulting to federal agencies to the United States Doge service. The USGS is not a particularly well-known service in the government when it comes to the public [00:12:00] at least, but their job has been to make digital government stuff easier for the public to use, like they recently simplified the Social Security Administration website and customer satisfaction went up.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:11] People hate a complicated website.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:15] They do. Obama created the United States Digital Service after the healthcare.gov rollout. You remember that massive flop?

Nick Capodice: [00:12:24] Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:24] So in that same order where Trump renamed the digital service the Doge service, [00:12:30] he established the US Doge Service temporary organization. The thing that Musk is the head of.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:38] So the US Department of Government Efficiency service temporary organization is within the United States Department of Government Efficiency Service. I also think it's interesting that a department devoted to efficiency has a redundant name.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:55] That is correct. Uh, we've got a little more of that coming up. Uh, so then the president [00:13:00] told us what Doge was going to be all about.

Allison Stanger: [00:13:04] Musk and President Trump say Doge's mission is to root out fraud, waste and abuse.

Archival: [00:13:08] A new executive order directs government agencies to pursue large scale cuts, saying they now need hiring. Approval from Doge.

Archival: [00:13:15] Has moved to slash programs and the workforce throughout the federal government. Since Donald Trump took office, more than 100,000 federal employees, mostly probationary, have lost their jobs.

Archival: [00:13:25] Massive cuts also announced that the Department of Education, slashing 89 independent [00:13:30] research contracts worth nearly $900 million.

Nick Capodice: [00:13:34] All right, so Trump establishes a Doge within a Doge, and the umbrella Doge is about making federal tech better, and the Musk doge is about firing people and canceling government contracts.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:47] That's probably an oversimplification, but it is also not always super clear what the Musk Doge is doing. So I am gonna go with that. I do want to say both the white House and Elon Musk claim that Doge [00:14:00] does not have the authority to fire people, that only department heads have that authority.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:06] Even though Musk has posted about people losing their jobs if they don't answer an email.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:11] Even though that we know that Trump has issued presidential actions for workplace optimization and cost efficiency.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:19] Which means what exactly?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:20] Telling agencies to get rid of employees and government contracts, all under the guidance of Doge.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:26] All right. So even if Doge isn't doing the actual firing itself, [00:14:30] it sounds like they're a major collaborator.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:32] It feels a little to me, like those two guys in Office space who are finding people to fire.

Office Space: [00:14:38] Looks like you've been missing a lot of work lately.

Office Space: [00:14:40] I would say I've been missing it, Bob.

Office Space: [00:14:44] Good one.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:45] Those are business consultants. They are there to help the company downsize. Are they formally in charge of signing the papers that lay people off? Probably not, but they're getting people out the door. By the way, there are tons of lawsuits about these firings, and judges [00:15:00] are scrutinizing the whole thing and ordering people to be reinstated or to not be laid off at all. But also, yeah, layoffs are still happening.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:09] And the contract thing. What is that?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:12] We're going to get to that Nick after a quick break.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:16] But before that break, a reminder that Hannah and I wrote a book that tells you all about how the government supposedly works. And if you know that, you'll know when it's not working like that. It's called A User's Guide to Democracy How America Works, and you can get it wherever books [00:15:30] are sold.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:42] All right, we're back before the break. Nick, you asked me about the quote unquote contract thing because Doge has been terminating government contracts across the administration, something they were empowered to do by a presidential action.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:57] Government contracts, meaning the government goes to a private company [00:16:00] and pays them for something.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:02] Exactly. Doge has unilateral authority to cancel contracts for all but law and immigration enforcement, Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, aka Ice and the uniformed services.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:15] And it has. Right. It's canceled a ton of them.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:17] Well, Doge says it has saved us about $25 billion in canceled or renegotiated contracts. This was as of March 30th, and they have the receipts to prove it. Do you know about the [00:16:30] wall of receipts, Nick?

Allison Stanger: [00:16:31] I just wrote a piece about the wall of receipts.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:34] Alison, does.

Allison Stanger: [00:16:35] You just type in Doge? Gov. It pops up. It's supposed to chronicle all the amazing things they're finding out and the money they're saving. Well, this has been deconstructed in particular by the New York Times as being riddled with errors, as misrepresenting what's actually going on.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:52] The purpose of Doge is to find and eliminate fraud and waste in order to save us money. The purpose of the Doge website is [00:17:00] to tell us what the government is spending money on, and what Doge decided to eliminate to save us that money, right?

Nick Capodice: [00:17:06] It is supposed to uncover, expose and eliminate.

Allison Stanger: [00:17:10] You know, I've written about this a bunch. I'm familiar with how government functions. And I said, this is really weird because this information is available publicly already.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:19] All the information on the Doge website.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:21] Well, the receipts, the wall of receipts, the list of government payments to outside companies. Nick, we have been able to see that all in one place [00:17:30] since 2006.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:32] So the Department of Government Efficiency is doing something the government is already doing.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:37] Yeah. It's not lost on me.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:39] Are they doing anything different?

Allison Stanger: [00:17:41] They don't understand how government payment systems work.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:44] Let's talk about the savings receipts. The page on the website that tells America how much money our government is spending on contracts.

Allison Stanger: [00:17:52] He makes mistakes with the data because it's a live data stream.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:56] So Allison gives this example. If you don't understand how contracts [00:18:00] and reporting about contracts work, you might get suspicious of a vague seeming payout.

Allison Stanger: [00:18:06] So you can go into it at one point in time and it'll say contract for $7 million. And if you look at it at that point in time, they'll say, wow, $7 million awarded, no receipts. What's going on? But it's it's time bound. So if you would go into the same thing a month later, you might see it perfectly reconciled.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:25] So someone who understands contracts would know that it's not clear that the Doge [00:18:30] staff does sort of like being mad that a Dalmatian puppy is all white because you don't know that Dalmatians are born without spots.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:38] Are you? Are you making a 101 Dalmatians reference there, Hannah?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:42] I am indeed. It was the only Disney movie I knew growing up. So the wall of receipts, Nick. There's a wall of spending. As in a list of government contracts and awards. And a wall of saving, as in a list of contracts Doge claims to have canceled and money they claim to have saved. [00:19:00]

Nick Capodice: [00:19:00] Claim to have.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:01] All right, let's try it this way. Nick, I need soup. Over the next three years, I would like to contract you to make me that soup. I will pay you as I receive the soup. By the end of the three years, you will have made $1,000.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:17] I don't know if that's worth it. Hannah. What kind of soup?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:19] But if I tell people today that I've spent $1,000 on soup. That's not true.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:25] It may not be, but I still have not agreed to this.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:27] And if I cancel our deal. 100 [00:19:30] soups in. It's not like I'm getting my 100 bucks back. So if I tell people that I've saved $1,000, that isn't true either.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:38] A dollar per soup is this stone soup.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:42] It is an example of how people might misunderstand how contracts work. And then, you know, publish them on an official government website. Doge has also claimed to have canceled contracts that have already been canceled, and not by them, or that have long since been fully paid out. The [00:20:00] biggest one on their wall of receipts, 1.9 billion bucks in savings that was actually canceled by the Biden administration.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:09] Wait, so you.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:09] Said earlier that this information has been public for a while. So what is the other website that we can all go to to learn about government contracts?

Allison Stanger: [00:20:19] Usaspending.gov. It shows you where your taxpayer money is going.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:23] All right.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:28] Elon Musk, by the way, is a major [00:20:30] beneficiary of government contracts, loans and subsidies.

Allison Stanger: [00:20:33] He's received about $38 billion from the US government for his companies. He's a very large scale provider of government services, be it, you know, launching rocket ships or a whole range of different things.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:47] Has he canceled any of those?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:49] No. Okay. So what else is up with Musk and the federal government on March 20th? Trump signed an executive order ordering agencies to give access to all unclassified data [00:21:00] and records to federal officials, quote, designated by the president or agency heads.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:07] On all unclassified data.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:09] All unclassified data, as in private information about just about everyone in the country. And the exception is pretty much national security secrets.

Allison Stanger: [00:21:20] Think about it. You know, when you fill out your tax return, think about the information that's on that, you know, what can you get from that? You can get the charities you donate to. You can get [00:21:30] what your children's names are. You can get your Social Security number. All these things.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:35] Not just your tax forms, by the way. Doge has been trying to access, sometimes successfully, often with legal challenges, databases that have our medical car, financial education, employment, immigration, adoption and marriage information to name a few categories. This is an order that grants access to anyone [00:22:00] Trump quote unquote designates. Trump also ordered agency heads to facilitate the quote unquote, consolidation of that information.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:10] Consolidation, as in putting all that information into one place, like a single database with practically everything the government knows about us.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:19] We are not entirely clear on what it will look like. But Musk has said it's that siloed information that leads to fraud, waste and abuse.

Archival: [00:22:29] The ways that [00:22:30] the government has defrauded is that the computer systems don't talk to each other. So if the computer systems don't talk to each other, then you can you can exploit that gap. And fraudsters exploit that, exploit that gap to take advantage.

Allison Stanger: [00:22:44] If you want to be like Communist China, you should be applauding this wonderful effort to centralize everything in one place under one tech oligarch who has very close ties to the president, who stands to benefit financially as well. There's just enormous [00:23:00] conflicts of interest involved.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:02] How would this make us like Communist China?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:04] Well, it is literally the system that China uses to surveil its citizens, Russia to. But I do want to be clear. While the word consolidate is in there, the white House has not said whether it plans to create a central database or not. Like we said, they say it's about information access and sharing across agencies to crack down on, again, waste, fraud and abuse. But they have not said how they're specifically going to use that [00:23:30] information or how they are going to keep it secure.

Allison Stanger: [00:23:33] So if they would leak out in any sort of way, that could be potentially damaging for identity theft reasons. So there's a privacy violation, but then there's also it being used in ways to automate all these services that used to have human beings involved, which on the one hand you could say, oh, isn't that great? We're becoming more efficient. We're, um, delivering services in a better way. [00:24:00] But it's really true that data, when it's that abstract, can often, often be biased. It can re reify or reinforce existing socio economic inequalities that are represented in the data. There's all sorts of ways it works against the individual, basically.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:18] Allison is wondering how this data might be used as part of the bigger efficiency project of it all. Ai is already being rolled out and tested within agencies at the federal level, and [00:24:30] we don't know how or whether our data is going to be used in ways that affect our privacy or access to care or safety.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:42] On that subject, Hannah, don't we have privacy laws? I mean, in terms of all this information about us being shared across agencies being consolidated, whatever that means. Are we protected somehow already?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:24:57] Actually, the 1974 Privacy [00:25:00] Act was designed to do just that. Congress saw how information was used and abused in the Watergate scandal. They knew the government was increasingly using computers to collect and store data. And they passed a law to protect our privacy. Agencies have to disclose when they release our information. They have restrictions about sharing it across the government, and Trump's information sharing executive order might violate [00:25:30] this act. Or, you know, it might clarify who is allowed to access and share that information.

Nick Capodice: [00:25:38] Aka whomever he or agency heads designate.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:41] Uh, if the lawsuits thus far are any indication, we will be hearing what a judge has to say about this in the future.

Nick Capodice: [00:25:48] All right. Hannah, this truly is quite the civics 101 of a different color. Actually, the Wizard of Oz reference really works here because that horse keeps changing color, and this Civics 101 [00:26:00] subject does as well. But here is my question. You said that Trump established Doge as a temporary organization. So does that mean Elon Musk is only temporarily in this position of power?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:15] Okay, so yes, the executive order says the Doge within the Doge will be terminated on July 4th, 2026. And Musk is classified as a special government employee who is only allowed to work 130 [00:26:30] days out of the year. However, there is no cap on how many years he can work in this administration. Donald Trump recently said that Musk will have to leave at some point to focus on running his many companies. We just don't know when that will be. But I did ask Allison what she's paying attention to when it comes to Musk's future, and whether that has anything to do with our government's future.

Allison Stanger: [00:26:55] You know, Musk has publicly stated that he would like X to become the everything app. [00:27:00]

Nick Capodice: [00:27:00] The everything app. What is that?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:27:03] So it's, um, it's like it's everything. It's the thing you use to communicate. So texting, voice video calls, the thing you use to pay for stuff, the thing you use to shop for stuff to call a car or order food. Turn the heat on in your house. Play games, watch movies. Make doctor's appointments, even access government services. There already is an everything app, just not [00:27:30] in this country.

Allison Stanger: [00:27:31] We have an example of an everything app. It's called WeChat and it is something that goes hand in hand with a very authoritarian regime. Because when you centralize power in that kind of way, it's just ripe for abuse.

Nick Capodice: [00:27:47] So please allow me to play the fool here, Hannah, because I think I can guess. But aside from sounding like some kind of uncharted monopoly, how is an app like this tied specifically [00:28:00] to authoritarianism?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:02] Well, in China's case, it is a one stop shop for government surveillance. It's a central location for user information and activity across a lot, lot, lot of things. We have different laws here in terms of privacy and surveillance and all of that. But Allison's point is that an everything app is a risky proposition, especially when the guy who wants to make it and the employees who would help him do that have access to so much [00:28:30] of our information right now.

Nick Capodice: [00:28:32] But they're not allowed to use that information to make an everything app, right? I've got to be right on that one.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:39] Oh, there are a bunch of laws that would make that almost certainly super illegal. And the white House press secretary has firmly denied that that is happening, as did Musk's AI chatbot grok two.

Nick Capodice: [00:28:51] Wait, what?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:28:52] Politico asked grok two if it was trained on federal government data obtained by Doge, and grok two said no. No [00:29:00] data obtained from the federal government at all.

Nick Capodice: [00:29:02] Well problem solved. All right. Uh, wait, can I lie?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:09] It is capable of deception. Yeah, but grok two was really clear. But, Nick, do you know what was less clear?

Nick Capodice: [00:29:17] What?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:18] Grok three the new grok.

Nick Capodice: [00:29:21] Oh, come on, this feels like a joke.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:23] Politico asked grok three the same question, and grok three replied that it was quote unquote plausible. [00:29:30] Right. Like plausible that either it or other AI had been trained on federal information obtained by Doge, but that it, quote unquote, probably wasn't primarily trained that way. Nick, when I asked it, it said, quote, it seems likely that I was not.

Nick Capodice: [00:29:49] All right. That's that's a little less wishy washy.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:52] Although I suppose it depends on how you define wishy washy.

Nick Capodice: [00:29:55] Yeah. Come to think of it, I mean, even the term wishy washy feels a little wishy [00:30:00] washy. All right, Hannah. I think there is really just one last thing we need to cover here.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:30:06] Okay.

Nick Capodice: [00:30:07] We've learned a lot. We've learned that there's a lot we don't know. We've learned what one person who does know a lot is thinking about right now. But given all the unknowns, what does Allison think we should be doing right now? You know, us regular people who don't or can't have a finger on the pulse the way she does. [00:30:30]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:30:30] All right, so for those who, you know, maybe don't like what they just learned about.

Allison Stanger: [00:30:35] I think the things we can meaningfully do are also the things that give us meaning. Just stay engaged. Don't run away. Don't hide even if it's scary. Stay engaged because your government belongs to you. And if there's a clear signal that the majority of the American people are not happy with the current state of affairs, it will change. It exists the way it is because we allow it to be that way. So connect [00:31:00] with your friends form. Uh, there's not, like, this one silver bullet. It just takes a lot of people doing what they can to make their voice heard. And people know how to do that. It's best done in community. And it's also highly meaningful to engage with our fellow Americans in that way. So get out there and be a joiner.

Nick Capodice: [00:31:19] You know, Hannah, this is maybe like the fourth or fifth guest who has emphasized that point. Do stuff with other people and talk to them.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:31:28] Oh, yeah, talk to them. Um, [00:31:30] and this next point, I think, is for everybody, whether you love what you've just heard or really don't. Um, actually, two types of people who really should be talking to each other.

Allison Stanger: [00:31:40] The most important thing you do is the thing that makes life fun. Be curious about other people. Instead of recoiling when someone disagrees with you, just ask them why they think that. And listen. I mean genuinely listen to them and think about whether there's some things in your view that might change as a result.

Nick Capodice: [00:31:58] Just maybe, maybe if enough [00:32:00] people keep saying that to Civics 101 listeners, it'll start a movement.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:32:04] The listeners who listen, yeah.

Nick Capodice: [00:32:07] Make it happen, listeners. Listen up.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:32:10] Actually, you can go try it right now because, uh, this portion of your listening is done for the day. This [00:32:30] episode was produced by me. Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Christina Phillips is our senior producer. Rebecca Lavoie is director of on Demand audio. Music. In this episode by oat segmental, Ryan, James Carr, Arthur Benson, Duke Harrington, and Ava Low. You can find everything else we have ever made here at Civics 101 at our website, civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is a production of New [00:33:00] Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Why do we have the National Weather Service?

Most Americans get their weather forecast from their phones -  or the local news broadcast. But those weather forecasts aren’t actually coming from the weather app or your favorite meteorologist. They’re coming from the National Weather Service - a so-called child agency of NOAA - the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

NOAA - and the weather service - have been the target of deep cuts and significant changes by President Donald Trump and DOGE.

Staff have been hastily fired - and then attempts have been made to rehire them. There have been cuts to weather forecasting operations and the cancelation and lapsing of contracts. And this week it was revealed that the NWS is no longer translating its products for non-English speakers, potentially putting millions of Americans at risk of missing warnings about life-endandering weather. 

So, what is the National Weather Service - and how does its work affect public safety, food production, even national security…in addition to showing up on our phones? When and why was this agency created? 

Transcript

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:05] Nick I never knew I was afraid of tornadoes until I was in Alabama one night and the tornado radio started making noises.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:14] The tornado radio. Hannah, was this produced by Michael Crichton?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:17] They're called weather alert radios, which is the sort of thing that you have in your possession. If you live in a place where weather could otherwise interrupt all communication, and also your power could go out. So it comes with a hand-crank. But the point [00:00:30] is that I lay there on a perfectly still night, listening to the occasional, and frankly, to me, terrifying sound. Now, for.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:37] Our listeners who are curious out there, we will not be playing that sound here despite the audio medium, because it is in fact, prohibited. That is.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:45] Right. People think that that applies only to the emergency alert sound, but actually it is any sound that mimics or even sounds similar to that sound. And you know, we don't need to find we are listener supported public radio. Anyway, through that sleepless alabamian night, [00:01:00] I realized, okay, one thing I am totally terrified of tornadoes. Who knew? And simultaneously, isn't it weird and special that I live in a time and place where this free alert happens to let me know that I could be whisked away to Oz at any moment? So how did this time and place come to be? The sort where a terrifying noise pierces the radio waves when troubles come in? It's time to talk about every [00:01:30] news outlets favorite excuse for hyperbole. Whether this is Civics 101, I'm Hannah McCarthy, I'm Nick Capodice. And to get specific here, I want to talk about the federal government's role in the weather, or at the very least, in how the government shares weather data with the public and uses it to give guidance about all manner of things. Today, we are talking about the National Weather Service, how it came to be and later what it is like to actually work there.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:57] Out of curiosity, Hannah, did you actually experience [00:02:00] or see a tornado?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:01] I did not, and I acknowledge that there are bolder souls out there who might find my East Coast exceptionalism toward columns of decimating wind to be a little, you know, soft handed.

Kris Harper: [00:02:21] Okay, so I'm Kris Harper, I'm professor of history and philosophy of earth sciences at the Department of Science Education at the University [00:02:30] of Copenhagen. And I was a Navy officer, a meteorologist and oceanographer for 21 years. I'm a retired commander. And then, as my meteorology friends would say, I went to the dark side and became a historian of science. And now I study the history of the atmospheric science.

Nick Capodice: [00:02:48] The dark side.

Kris Harper: [00:02:49] Oh, well, because, you know, we look at archives and we're not out looking at the weather and forecasting and doing that kind of thing. It's all kind of fuzzy and not as [00:03:00] solid science as my science buddies would like it to be.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:05] While we're on the subject of Kris's science buddies and the weather, there seemed to be a lot of people out there who suggest that weather prediction is not as hard of a science as, say, biology or something like that. So what is with that? Is there any truth to that?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:19] All right. So let's get into this for a sec.

Kris Harper: [00:03:21] Many people didn't consider meteorology to be a real science. Or as one physicist put it, it was a guessing [00:03:30] science. I mean, you know, be still my heart. I mean, that's just I mean, really.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:35] All right. Good to know.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:36] So is meteorology a real science? Yes. And every time I open my NOAA app to check the weather, that is confirmed by me through a combination of translated physics, statistics, geography and chemistry.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:51] All right. You brought up Noah Hannah, and I think I've got this one. Noah is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:58] Very well done. Thank you.

Nick Capodice: [00:03:59] Is that the same [00:04:00] thing, though, as the National Weather Service?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:02] Actually, the National Weather Service is what you call a child agency of NOAA, which, by the way, shapes policies around climate, oceans, fisheries, coastal restorations. Basically, the National Weather Service sits under the NOAA umbrella, and they have a more focused mission.

Kris Harper: [00:04:20] So the National Weather Service, which has had a variety of names over its lifetime, its mission is to provide weather services [00:04:30] to the public to keep the public safe, to provide forecasts that help agriculture and industry.

Nick Capodice: [00:04:37] Now, that last part, agriculture and industry. That is something that I was not expecting. Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:41] And this ties into where the National Weather Service actually fits in the organization of the government. While many of the Earth science, research and policy groups are housed under the Department of the interior because of the origin story of the government's interest in weather data, the service part is part of the Department of Commerce. [00:05:00]

Nick Capodice: [00:05:00] Okay, so there's that industry tie in. So what exactly was the National Weather Service doing when it was originally founded?

Kris Harper: [00:05:08] So we first see the United States get involved in collecting weather information in the early part of the 19th century.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:19] Now, hold on a moment. I happen to know something about that. A little almanac by Mr. Benjamin Franklin, but that was published way back in the middle of the 18th century. [00:05:30]

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:30] That is right. Almanacs were a very popular publication in North America, and Ben Franklin did in fact publish one called Poor Richard's Almanac, and it, like other almanacs at the time, did contain weather predictions. They also had puzzles and witticisms. Poor Richard's was wildly popular. Now the Farmer's Almanac is still in publication today, but that particular publication started out in 1818. There is also another almanac called The Old Farmer's Almanac. [00:06:00] Two different things, by the way, the Farmer's Almanac claims to have an 80 to 85% accuracy rate and claims the bragging rights of having been predicting the weather since before the National Weather Service existed, and having been right about a number of major weather events, which is true. However, their accuracy has been analyzed and it has been found to be closer to 50%.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:23] Still not that bad.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:24] So farmers had been predicting the weather for basically as long as they'd been working the land and observing [00:06:30] the weather. But in the early 19th century, things really started to pick up.

Kris Harper: [00:06:35] So people started to specialize. And at that point you see more people taking weather measurements and keeping track of them in a systematic way, often related to astronomical observatories. Because, of course, if you're trying to look at the planets and the stars, it's a real bummer if it's cloudy and raining, right? So those people were taking weather [00:07:00] observations. So so the initial weather observations were often coming from astronomical observatories, and then they would share that information. And slowly over time, by the middle of the 19th century, they were figuring out how. How to use that information in a way that made sense.

Nick Capodice: [00:07:20] Sharing that information, as in beyond the publication of an almanac.

Kris Harper: [00:07:28] We see the rise of teletype [00:07:30] so you can send the information more quickly. You can have great weather information, but if you can't get it to anybody. Oh well, I mean, that doesn't do you a whole lot of good. Right? So we see the Smithsonian was involved. We see observatories that were involved. There were universities that were involved. So you had this loosely knit collection of people who were putting observations together and trying to make sense of them. [00:08:00] Meteorology isn't so much a science at this point. It's it's more of a collection activity.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:06] Oh, wow. So this is like crowdsourcing before there was such a thing as crowdsourcing, but with weather data.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:11] Yes. And the network grew in the mid 1800s. The Smithsonian supplied telegraph offices with basic weather instruments, and in turn, those telegraph offices would submit their observations to the Smithsonian, which would make weather maps. By the end of 1949, there were 150 volunteers [00:08:30] making observations. By 1860, there were 500 stations nationwide submitting reports to the Washington Evening Star.

Kris Harper: [00:08:46] And then by 1870, we see the formation of sort of the first National Weather Service without that being its name, under the auspices of the US Army Signal Corps.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:00] And [00:09:00] what exactly is the Army Signal Corps? So it's.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:03] Still around. It was created just before the Civil War, as the branch of the army that was in charge of communications. And by the way, the guy who came up with the Signal Corps ended up being the same guy who ran the weather service about a decade later. And while his real name was Albert J. Myer, his nickname was Old Probabilities.

Speaker4: [00:09:23] Old probabilities.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:24] As in this will probably happen today, and this probably won't.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:28] This probably [00:09:30] didn't help the reputation of meteorology as a hard science.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:33] Nicknames aside, the data was important, especially prior to the widespread use of electricity. Being able to predict the weather was pretty essential, and.

Kris Harper: [00:09:42] Originally the observations were taken by the Medical Corps in the Army because they considered it important for people's health. And the army outposts mean we're talking forts and that kind of thing right out, out west. They had teletype [00:10:00] and so they can send those reports in. And then by 1890, Congress passed a resolution that formed the US Weather Bureau as an entity and assigned it to, you know, make forecasts for agriculture, to make forecasts for industry, to keep people safe to to do near-shore kinds of forecasting, even included volcanology, you know, volcano things were part of their original [00:10:30] mandate. So by 1890, you're seeing the professionalization of meteorology.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:38] The early 1900s saw the explosion of weather, useful technology. The weather bureau was using airplanes and weather balloons. They were able to do things like tell farmers in the West how much water would be available for irrigation in the coming season, after the Titanic disaster in 1912. The Coast Guard began an international ice patrol that [00:11:00] same year had the first fire weather forecast. Natural disasters like floods and hurricanes were always spurring new weather innovations, and I'm jumping ahead a bit here. But the Hoover Dam, completed in 1935, that could not have happened without rain and flood predictions, which allowed for a relatively or compared to the alternative, safe construction.

Archival: [00:11:25] Within 24 hours. The Colorado River, under control for the first time in its history, [00:11:30] was flowing around and past the dam site through the huge divergent tubes.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:36] Also, with this lickety split progress, you saw the first ever meteorology program crop up at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:44] Just in case anyone out there was still wondering if it was a real science.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:47] Just in case. All right. Now finally, in 1940, a year before the US entered World War Two, the Weather Bureau was assigned to the Department of Commerce.

Kris Harper: [00:11:58] President Roosevelt said, [00:12:00] we need to build 60,000 aircraft for the war effort, which also means you need at least 60,000 pilots to go in them. And you also need weather forecasts for those pilots.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:13] A pretty famously in World War Two, the decision to invade Normandy in 1944 was based on a weather forecast. D-day was delayed by 24 hours, big risk to allow for a break in rough weather, a break that the axis forces did [00:12:30] not predict. It is.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:31] Amazing to think that something is massive and world defining, as D-Day was in part about the weather, it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:38] Was very much about the weather, and the US had a more robust weather operation going than Germany did at the time. But back to the Department of Commerce thing. National security is certainly bound up with wargames, but it is also pretty bound up with the economy. That's why the Weather Bureau ended up in commerce instead of defense or agriculture. [00:13:00] But it's not like the agricultural part of the government's interest in weather data went away.

Kris Harper: [00:13:04] There were still crop forecasts. I mean, there were still fruit frost warnings and, you know, fire weather warnings and all those kinds of agricultural related things. But aviation was huge. And so it left agriculture and was moved into commerce.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:19] There's this other element that I found pretty fascinating. After World War Two, you had all of these people who had been studying the weather on behalf of the government. That was their wartime job. [00:13:30]

Kris Harper: [00:13:30] We have these thousands of people, men, almost all men trained to be meteorologists during the war. And in the war is over. What are they going to do with all of these meteorologists? Well, some of them decided to do other things. Some of them went to graduate school, and some of them decided to become consulting meteorologists that they would provide tailored forecasts for a given customer. Now, that's not something [00:14:00] that the National Weather Service does because that's not their job. Their job is to keep the nation safe and the people within the nation safe. That's their job. So what consulting meteorologists did was they provided specialized forecasts to construction people, to people who were who were growing certain kinds of crops, to engineers who were working on projects, to people who grew certain kinds of crops [00:14:30] and needed to figure out how to get them safely. Some place, sometimes to sports teams. Where are they going to be able to play on the weekends or not?

Nick Capodice: [00:14:41] Wow. Private meteorology.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:43] That is how it happened. And today there's a multibillion dollar commercial weather industry. It wasn't the role of the Weather Bureau to provide small scale predictions for for profit interests. And it is not the role of the National Weather Service to do predictions for profit. But today [00:15:00] they do provide data that helps to drive nearly every weather product used by businesses and consumers alike.

Kris Harper: [00:15:06] That's the difference between the National Weather Service. They're the ones that collect the massive amounts of data for the most part, which is very expensive. I mean, the infrastructure for that is really, really expensive. That's why the government does that.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:20] By the way. Hannah predicting the weather. It it can't just be about what's happening within our own borders. Right. Like I get maybe keeping her weather predictions out of the hands of enemies back [00:15:30] in the day. But today we have a global interest in sharing weather data, don't we? Hurricanes and tsunamis don't care about borders and conflicts.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:39] That's right. The UN who else established the World Meteorological Organization in 1950? They also set the standard for monitoring the weather, because if we weren't all doing it the same way, we would have no real way of knowing what was really going on or coming our way. In the 1961 state of the Union, President Kennedy actually [00:16:00] invited the world to join the United States in developing an international weather prediction program.

Archival: [00:16:06] Finally, this administration intends to explore promptly all possible areas of cooperation with the Soviet Union and other nations to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Specifically, I now invite all nations, including the Soviet Union, to join with us in developing a weather prediction program.

[00:16:27] In a new communication.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:33] Now. [00:16:30] Today there are big weather data centers where international weather agencies like the National Weather Service share their data with everyone.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:40] When did the Weather Bureau actually get that name? The National Weather Service?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:44] That was not until 1970. And what's important to keep in mind is that all along the way, the public was able to access this weather information as they are now. And it was thanks in large part to the media which discovered how much we love [00:17:00] weather forecasts.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:02] Actually, I do want to ask about the public thing here, Hanna, because for one thing, I check my weather app every single day. And I think a lot of people out there do. And also like probably a lot of people, I am guilty of the classic well, they didn't say it was going to rain. You know, there's often this sense of, well, the meteorologists got it wrong again, which I think is where this idea that it's an art and not a science might come from. So how inconsiderate [00:17:30] are we being exactly when we get vaguely annoyed at the weather service?

Kris Harper: [00:17:34] I think it's important for people to know that, that the forecasts that come from the National Weather Service have over an 85% verification rate.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:47] Well, that's pretty good.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:48] Yeah, it's pretty good for something that tells you what the future is going to look like.

Kris Harper: [00:17:53] So people think, oh man, you know, like they never get it right. But I can tell you, having been a meteorologist [00:18:00] myself and been on the forecasting end and been on the end of phone calls from people who were not happy with what was going on outside their door, is that we tend to remember weather that interfered with what we were planning to do, whether that was a smart thing to do or not. And we don't remember all of the days when the weather was good for us. And so we really weren't paying attention to what the forecast [00:18:30] was because we didn't need to, because it was really nice outside and by really nice outside. For most people, that means the sun's out. The wind's not strong and it's not too hot. And if you've planned to be garden party and it rains on you and you weren't expecting that rain, or as I call it, two feet of partly cloudy sitting on your front stoop that has to be shoveled off, then you're not going to be really happy about that. And it may have been forecast for you, [00:19:00] but you're still not happy about it because it interfered with what your plan was.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:06] Oh, wow. It sounds like meteorologists can't really win, can they?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:10] I mean, I keep thinking about that thing of being a child and expecting a blizzard and a snow day and then not getting either, even if a meteorologist told you it was going to happen. But we really need to remind ourselves that that is not the National Weather Service's fault. All right, Nick, I want to take a quick break here, but when we're [00:19:30] back, you and I are going to hear from someone who probably deserves a bashful apology from a lot of Americans who raised a fist to the unexpectedly rainy heavens.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:48] But before that break, just a quick reminder that it is now our Civics 101 annual fund drive. When we give gifts back to you, the listeners, for supporting our show. And we have a hat. It'll keep your head dry. [00:20:00] It is a snazzy vintage black Civics 101 baseball cap and it can be yours. Just click the link in the show notes or head on over to our website, civics101podcast.org. And thank you so much. It means everything. All right. We're back. We're talking about the National Weather Service. And, Hannah, just [00:20:30] before the break, you hinted that we might be meeting someone inside the National Weather Service.

Felecia Bowser: [00:20:35] My name is Felecia Bowser, and I am the meteorologist in charge at the National Weather Service in Tallahassee, Florida.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:44] I feel like when it comes to weather, the stakes are pretty high. Down in Florida.

Felecia Bowser: [00:20:48] In a typical weather forecast office, we are in charge of pushing out a seven day forecast. We don't go beyond seven days because it can. The [00:21:00] computer models can get a bit fuzzy, a little bit dicey, a little bit beyond that, let alone as we enter the sixth and seventh day. So we don't go beyond seven days. And of course, people will see that forecast is if it's going to rain, is it going to be sunny, what's the temperature, that type of thing. So we do issue that basic forecast.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:21] Felecia says that the National Weather Service in Tallahassee also does things like work with health departments and the Red cross and the state Department of Emergency Management, [00:21:30] all to let them know whether it's going to be rain or shine. They send out what Felecia calls weather packages via email to help entities around the state be prepared.

Felecia Bowser: [00:21:41] As a result. Because of that, our footprint is is pretty active in the sense that we get a lot of requests to do what's called decision support services, or DSF for short. And what that is, is a good example would be, [00:22:00] let's say there is the governor's inauguration, which is what we helped with as far as providing what the forecast is going to be leading up to the inauguration earlier this year, and of course, the day of. And so if I recall correctly, it was looking like there was going to be some chances for some rain. And there's a lot of moving parts that they had to get in order because there was going to be a helicopter flight. And of course that's important [00:22:30] to know if it's going to rain and whatnot. Okay.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:32] So the governor's office is doing a little bit more than just checking their weather app and booking a helicopter based on what they see there. Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:38] So that's a common part of the everyday of being a National Weather Service meteorologist in the US. And in Felecia's case, communicating with these various parts of the government and private entities in Florida. Felecia refers to them as partners, by the way. But then there are the millions of others who are dependent on that information to.

Felecia Bowser: [00:22:57] So communicate with the public. We would do things such [00:23:00] as Facebook posts. We would put out videos just letting people know what's what's what to prepare for, how they need to get their hurricane plans in place, and things of that nature just to make sure that they get prepared for their homes and their families. So there's that aspect.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:19] Okay. Yeah. And hurricanes. Now we're talking about Florida here. What does it look like when a state like Florida has to predict and prepare for a major storm?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:29] All right. So [00:23:30] let's take for example, Hurricane Dahlia. When it comes to a major storm, the National Weather Service looks inward. They get on phone calls with the National Hurricane Center, which is a division of the National Weather Service that just so happens to be headquartered in Florida.

Felecia Bowser: [00:23:50] So a lot of times they talk to the officers. That's going to be most impacted, of course, when it comes to a hurricane. But [00:24:00] they also have what's called a pre call. So you have the main call where any office can can can log in and listen in on what the hurricane center has to say about a particular storm. But there is a call prior to that where they're just speaking to the offices that are most directly impacted. And of course, during that storm, we were directly impacted because it made landfall in our area of responsibility.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:27] Okay, but what are these meteorologists actually [00:24:30] talking about on these calls?

Felecia Bowser: [00:24:31] If they're seeing a little bit of a track shift or is it still in line? Has anything changed when the the reconnaissance aircraft went through? It has strengthened okay. It's strengthened. How much has it strengthened to. And so they're telling us this information prior to telling it to everybody else, just so that we can be prepared to, to make any changes on our end. And that would be conveying [00:25:00] that information about why the forecast has changed, why the track has changed, why the intensity has changed, being able to then translate that information to our partners and the public in a scientifically way, and also in a way that they understand. So it's not overly scientific because we want to be able to prepare them as well.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:21] Basically, many members of the public will have no idea what to do with the scientific data the National Weather Service is collecting. We need it translated for [00:25:30] us. I should say, though, not all members of the public, you know how the National Weather Service started off with people scattered across the country volunteering observations that could be sent to the Smithsonian in DC? Well, the volunteer thing is very much alive.

Felecia Bowser: [00:25:45] It's basically called Cocorahs. Cocorahs basically is a public volunteer service where people will have their rain gauges at their office, [00:26:00] at their homes, excuse me. And they will tell us how much rainfall has fallen. There's a there's a website that they all can go to and input this information. They'll tell us what their temperature was, their high and low temperature. This is purely volunteer. They don't get paid for this. So this is definitely out of the kindness of their heart to do this. But yeah, any anybody can do this. If somebody was to Google Cocorahs, they can go in there and see what the [00:26:30] type of equipment that they need to purchase to do it.

Nick Capodice: [00:26:32] Cocorahs so in lieu of Googling Hannah, what does it mean?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:26:36] It means the community Collaborative Rain, hail and Snow network. And I really love that it exists because I love civic participation, and having a small scale weather monitoring station in your backyard is commitment to the cause. So one last thing that's pretty important here. If you go to the National Weather Service website, you're going to find a [00:27:00] truly detailed like more detailed than I have yet to discover on any other federal website timeline. Someone at the National Weather Service really appreciates their history, and in the most recent history, you're going to see words like record breaking, increasingly vulnerable, deadliest billions in damages. Now, whether you're a member of Cocorahs or not, the weather is going to be pretty in-your-face in years to come. So I want to go back to Kris Harper [00:27:30] for a minute here, because she addressed that new challenge with those big, ominous vocab words and what that means for the meteorologists behind our weather information.

Kris Harper: [00:27:39] It's a lot trickier than it used to be, because what we're seeing is storms that are carrying more moisture. We're seeing sea surface temperatures that are really, really warm, which is basically providing the engine that's keeping hurricanes going. And they they spin up faster [00:28:00] than they used to. So like this last one went from like almost nothing to a category three like overnight. I can tell you as a forecaster, if I'm seeing something like that while I was still doing weather forecast, I would have thought, oh my, we're we're in trouble here. You know, this is this is just not acting like a normal kind of system, which should take days, days to do. So it will get trickier. It will get trickier to [00:28:30] do. It's not that the models can't handle it. The models can handle it. But people need to be ready to pay attention and realize that when a storm's coming in, it may be a lot more severe than it's been in the past.

Nick Capodice: [00:28:42] What I think is pretty interesting about the National Weather Service, Hannah, is that despite our griping about when the data doesn't match our hopes and expectations or even the politicization of weather, which has become a thing, one major and clear goal of this agency is just keep people from being swept [00:29:00] away in a tornado, because we can all agree that would be bad.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:29:04] Yeah. I mean, if you look at the US as an organism with many parts that need to be kept healthy from the economy to national security to the safety of its inhabitants, the National Weather Service is like the doctor you mostly forget about until you get sick, and then really need to be told what to do. The National Weather Service quite literally works to keep the US alive.

Kris Harper: [00:29:26] So the National Weather Service, you know, their mission is to keep people [00:29:30] safe and to provide people with the best forecasts they can based on the data that they have and the expertise of their meteorologists, who are really dedicated folks who are looking out specifically for the people who are in their forecast area. Big hand to all the National Weather Service forecasters, the observers, everybody who were on their team. Because, you know, it's one thing when it's a string of nice days, but when the weather [00:30:00] turns bad, they have a really tough job just trying to get the information out to make sure that people don't inadvertently put themselves in harm's way because the weather, the weather is not going in a way that people might expect.

Nick Capodice: This episode was produced by Hannah McCarthy and me, Nick Capodice. It was edited by our Executive Producer Rebecca Lavoie. Our staff also includes Senior Producer Christina Phillips and Producer Marina Hehnke. Music in this episode from Epidemic Sound. For more on the government agencies and departments that affect the way we live and work, check out our many episodes at civics 101 podcast dot org, or on your favorite podcast app. 

Civics 101 is a production of NHPR - New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Who decides what politicians should say?

Today we explore the nebulous world of political consultants. 

These are the people who run political campaigns. They use a mixture of science and gut-feeling to determine what a candidate should say and do, and in one particular instance, what they should NOT say and do. 

How do they do it? How effective are they? What actually moves the needle in a campaign? Talking to us today are two campaign experts; David Karpf from the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University, and Rasheida Smith, political consultant at Dunton Consulting. 

Transcript

Note: this transcript is AI-generated and may contain errors

Consultants final d1.mp3

Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: And today we're talking about something that's a little weird.

Archival: Democrats have kind of organically settled on a new attack line against Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. Basically, these guys are just plain weird.

Archival: Well, it's true. These guys are just weird. And, you know, they're running for He-Man women Hater's club or something.

Archival: It's not just a weird style that he brings. It's that this leads to weird policies. [00:00:30]

Nick Capodice: Do you know what I'm talking about here, McCarthy?

Hannah McCarthy: I think I do. This was the quote unquote GOP is weird talking point slash strategy. I guess that the Harris Wallace campaign started to use in the 2024 election.

Nick Capodice: It was. And while I will be talking about how that word was used in the campaign a little bit later, that is not what this episode is about. But when it started happening, I thought, wow, this is a bit odd. It's kind of [00:01:00] a unique attack. And then like that, it's gone. And it got me thinking. Hannah, who decided that did the so-called weird thing come out unprompted from Governor Tim Walz's mouth? Does that even happen in politics anymore? And who decided to stop saying it? And come to think of it. Who decides anything in political campaigns? Who decides? We're gonna have two town halls, 92nd opens, but the moderators can't fact check. [00:01:30] And the candidate should wear a blue tie until at least one story about hearing their parents talk about money at the kitchen table.

Archival: At kitchen tables across our country, there is a concern about our economic future.

Archival: Somewhere in America. A mother sits at her kitchen table, his kitchen table.

Archival: I learned a lot of basic lessons.

Hannah McCarthy: Yet, like, who is the first person to say that a candidate had to slow down right at the end of their sentence to make everyone applaud?

Nick Capodice: Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: I [00:02:00] gotta say, Nick, I'm the biggest softy in the world for this trope in movies and television. You know, the person who knows the score and tells the candidate exactly what to do or say, like West Wing.

Archival: I think we'd lose.

Archival: Not in new Jersey.

Archival: It's never been shown that racial profiling works, and I'm against it.

Archival: That answer is pretty simple, isn't it?

Hannah McCarthy: Wag the dog.

Speaker12: Lord willing and Jesus tarries. Eight days from now, I'm going to be taking you folks into the second term. Wait till you hear the speech tonight.

Nick Capodice: Veep.

Hannah McCarthy: Yep. But, I mean, I guess in Veep, it's [00:02:30] always an utter disaster.

Archival: I will work on putting forward a new, streamlined family's first bill before Congress in the near future.

Archival: She sounds like an underwater Bob Dylan.

Nick Capodice: It is always an utter disaster, Hannah. And, as we often say, lauded as extremely accurate.

Hannah McCarthy: That is true.

Nick Capodice: So today we are talking about the nebulous world of political campaign consultants. Who are they? What do they do when they run campaigns? And how do they know what [00:03:00] will help a candidate actually get elected?

Hannah McCarthy: All right, Nick, can we start with the who before the how? Who gets to run a campaign?

David Karpf: The people who run campaigns are mostly the people who helped to win a previous campaign.

Nick Capodice: This is David Karpf. He's a professor of strategic political communication at George Washington University.

David Karpf: Because of what we call superstitious learning, essentially. Once a team wins an election, you assume that they know what they're talking about, and that leads to a whole career. And you mentioned James Carville. [00:03:30]

Hannah McCarthy: Did you mention James Carville?

Nick Capodice: I didn't today in this episode so far, but I did when I spoke to David. James Carville is quite possibly the most famous political consultant. Am I allowed to do? James Carville.

Hannah McCarthy: Hannah, I'm going to leave that up to you, man.

Nick Capodice: The Democrats have got to come down from the persimmon tree. It's pretty much like that.

Speaker16: Those are the things that that that if I'm a Democrat, I'm much more care about that than than some word in a dictionary.

David Karpf: James Carville is the classic example of this, right? He helps Bill Clinton [00:04:00] win in 1992. It is not entirely clear whether Carville's advice was material to that, win or not. It's possible that Clinton would have won without James Carville. But having been the guy who advised Clinton, he then is able to set up shop and spend decades opining on what it takes to win because he won one. So he must know something. So it's kind of you're a staffer on a campaign that wins. That means you get hailed as a genius, and that means you get to be a staffer on other things. And [00:04:30] all the time you're bringing on people who will test out messages, test out new techniques to try to find anything that seems to make the line go up.

Hannah McCarthy: Carville advised Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton won. And while we might not be able to say whether Carville's advice had any material effect there, I do know that campaign advisers do a lot. Right?

Nick Capodice: Right. In terms of carville's material effect. We can't know because we don't live in multiple timelines. We're not salvadorians. [00:05:00] That cat is going to have to be both alive and dead at the same time. But yes, as you said, Hannah, they do a ton. And I wanted to talk to somebody about all of the massive complexities involved in running a campaign.

Rasheida Smith: I always say that, um, you know, campaigns are like orchestras, right?

Nick Capodice: This is Rashida Smith.

Rasheida Smith: My name is Rashida Smith, and I'm the owner of Dutton Consulting LLC, which is a data and field [00:05:30] firm. And we are political consultants. As a consultant, you have your very specific section. You know, I say the field is like the percussions and media. You know, TV may be the horns or the brass and digital, the winds, the flutes. Right. And mail could be like the strings. So all of this is about understanding your particular role, your expertise, and how you meld into the greater organization. Um, to bring your part [00:06:00] forward.

Nick Capodice: We are going to hear from Rasheeda a little bit later on strategies and processes she and her team use in campaigns. But before moving on, I wanted to share one tidbit from her. When you're trying to get someone elected, everything. No matter how long your campaign has been going on, everything revolves around the last 30 days.

Rasheida Smith: 30 days out and everything's happening right. You're probably in the middle of preparing for GOtv, but now, in this day and age, vote by mail is live. So [00:06:30] people are voting every day. In some places you're getting ready for early vote. So people are voting one way, and now you're going to open up a second way for people to start voting before Election Day. You're also looking to close your arguments, your final persuasion arguments, And make sure that either you're doing a compare and contrast, or you're bringing your positive message home, or you're making sure that you are reconfirming the votes that you already have [00:07:00] and what that looks like. And so right now, you're really focused on how do you end. You know, we have the saying, we say we open to close and we close to open campaigns are the only corporation that is built to close. And so 30 days out you're thinking about how you close.

Nick Capodice: Abc Hanna. Always be closing.

Speaker18: Always be closing. Always be closing.

Nick Capodice: And yes, I am quoting Glengarry Glen Ross here. And that's relevant [00:07:30] today because campaign consultants are salespeople. Sort of. It's about branding and messaging. They are selling America a candidate. But the problem is you don't really have a chance to try out something new like Crystal Pepsi or the Arch Deluxe because the stakes are so high.

David Karpf: A critical thing to keep in mind here is messaging in electoral campaigns is like the worst place in the world to develop new communication techniques. [00:08:00] And the reason for that is the outcome you care most about is winning on Election Day. That happens once every two years or four years. If we're doing presidential, it's once every four years, and every four years you have a different media environment, different candidates, different everything else. So once every four years you get the actual outcome you care about. That makes testing kind of guesswork.

Nick Capodice: So one of David's favorite examples of how political campaigns are different than ad campaigns is to compare them to [00:08:30] selling gym memberships.

David Karpf: Selling gym memberships is an amazing place in the abstract to develop new communication techniques, because every week you can try out a new message or try out new targeting.

Nick Capodice: Now you have bought a gym membership or two in your time, right?

Hannah McCarthy: Hannah I have.

Nick Capodice: So what made you pick that gym in particular out of all the ones in town?

Hannah McCarthy: Uh, it was close to my apartment. They had a massive discount. It was, like, really inexpensive for the first year, [00:09:00] and it was big.

Nick Capodice: All right, so the people who run that gym can say, all right, so, you know, we doubled our size, we added a bunch of ellipticals or whatever. Let's see how that affected membership in January. Oh look, we got this huge boost in late May. That must have been in response to our six months free trial that we promoted on the radio station, the gym. People have a ton of data that they can measure and directly tie to stuff like their ad campaigns or their promotions. Not so in the world of [00:09:30] political campaigns.

David Karpf: Electoral campaigns, the only things that they can measure, they can measure engagement online. They can measure signups to your list. They can measure fundraising. Um, they can do some experiments where like they'll a B test exposure to a message and then see how people respond to that. But it's still mostly like like focus groups. You know, you were putting people in a room, exposing them to a communication and then seeing what they think. Or you're watching in the wild to see on social media [00:10:00] how people are reacting to something. And all of that is really coarse, because what that's telling is how are people reacting to a message when they're exposed to it? It's not actually telling you about the behavior you care about, which is will they vote for a candidate who they weren't otherwise going to vote for on Election Day?

Hannah McCarthy: Did David say whether or not there was anything similar out there, like something to hang our hat on, something that people sell that at least rhymes with the world of political campaigns.

Nick Capodice: He did offer one example that's a little bit closer. A famed advertising [00:10:30] rivalry.

Speaker19: You got the right one, baby.

Speaker20: Coca cola.

David Karpf: Right. Because part of what's going on here in American presidential elections Is we only have the two parties and people have a lifelong association with those two parties. And once every four years they vote for a president. So it's kind of like a Coke versus Pepsi situation where they have deep familiarity, familiarity with the brand, but they only get to buy one soda every four [00:11:00] years. Right. Like Pepsi can try out some really fascinating ads there, but convincing the Coke drinkers that this once every four years I'm going to go with the product that I don't haven't always gone with is just incredibly hard.

Nick Capodice: So we got Jim's, we got Cola, and I got one more. Hannah, can I do one more?

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, please.

David Karpf: Uh, Quidditch in Harry Potter.

Archival: It's wicked fast and damn near impossible to see. You catch this, the game is over, and we win.

David Karpf: Now let me [00:11:30] grant. I didn't read the books. I only watched the movies. I was going to read the books with my kids once. They were old enough. And now I'm less of a J.K. Rowling fan, so I'm going to go there. But my understanding of credits from the movies is that there are all of these people playing this game, and then there's two dudes running around trying to catch the snitch. And actually, whoever catches the snitch wins. Right. Like the entire rest of the normal game has no material impact on who wins. It's just those two dudes flying around trying to catch that outside other thing. Right. [00:12:00] Like the stakes of presidential elections are so high that we spend billions of dollars on communications trying to shape the outcome. And they are close enough that this stuff probably does matter at the margins, but also the vast majority of what you're doing is not going to affect the outcome at all.

Nick Capodice: Real quick, before I get Avada Kedavra the heck out of here, there are two times in the Harry Potter universe with the team that got the snitch didn't win the game. But that is not the point here.

Hannah McCarthy: You know, I didn't realize [00:12:30] until now that Avada Kedavra is like basically Abracadabra.

Nick Capodice: It really is Harry Potter. Jay. Gatsby. Both victims of the green light.

Hannah McCarthy: But, Nick, is there anything like. Is there anything that we know moves the needle to get people to vote one way or another? Did David say whether anything actually affects campaigns?

David Karpf: The depressing finding from most of political science research on this over the decades is [00:13:00] that the impact of campaigns on election outcomes is so small that it's almost impossible to measure. Now, that doesn't mean that campaigns don't matter at all, because campaigns do. Like, what a campaign is usually doing is reminding and bringing home the voters who would have voted for you anyway. So like if one side ran a campaign and the other side just didn't, we would probably expect that to have impacts. We've never had a case of it, so we can't really measure it. But the the depressing thing is it's not like the candidate with the most money always wins, or the candidate [00:13:30] with the best comms always wins. They're kind of responding to external factors that are beyond their control.

Nick Capodice: So David used a barely offensive swear word here that I'm not going to put on the radio, but I'll summarize for everyone due to external factors. Incumbents, the people who are running to keep the office they already hold. They have been getting their backsides kicked and the last few elections internationally.

David Karpf: But it seems like a big part of what's going on is we know that elections tend [00:14:00] to be just broadly retrospective, that people tend to vote based on. How do we think of the state of the country and the world right now? And if it's going great, then you tend to vote in favor of the incumbent party. It's not going so well. If you're not happy with it, you vote against the incumbent. That tends to be the broad trend in elections and every stable democracy post-Covid. The electorate, when they had a chance was like, yeah, life sucks right now and we're going to blame the people in power. That's been happening everywhere. Like a better come strategy doesn't change [00:14:30] that. Like it's a bad. It turns out in the past few years have been bad years to be incumbents. You do everything you can with a calm strategy to try to minimize that or turn it around, but there's no magic words that are actually going to fix it.

Nick Capodice: All right, so that is one side of the coin. After a quick break, we're going to get to the other side and all the things campaign consultants do to get those votes, as well as a quick dive into the world of weird in [00:15:00] 2024.

Hannah McCarthy: But before that break, if you want the literary version of what Nick and I do, we wrote a book breaking down every gear and winch in the governmental machine. It's fun. It's got cartoons. It's called A User's Guide to Democracy How America works. Check it out.

Nick Capodice: And there is no billboard of T.J. Eckleburg.

Hannah McCarthy: We're back. We're talking about the nebulous world of political consulting. [00:15:30] And, Nick, you were about to say what kinds of things consultants do before the break.

Nick Capodice: I was so I am bringing back Rashida Smith. Rashida runs Dutton Consulting LLC. Her specific focus is on something called field operations consulting. That is basically ensuring that campaigns have enough direct contact with voters. But Rashida has worked in just about every level of campaign consulting. She started by telling us how consultants determine [00:16:00] messaging.

Hannah McCarthy: So this is deciding what a candidate should say, what they should focus on when they're going around talking to voters.

Nick Capodice: Precisely.

Rasheida Smith: A lot of this is based on science, and there's some parts of it that's just really sheer gut, right. And so understanding the local landscape and then you do polling. And so you're testing your messages and you're seeing what messages work with what constituencies, right. Or subsets [00:16:30] of voters. And so you may have some messages that say, you know, jobs are most important versus immigration. You may have someone that says quality of life and parks are more important than taxes. Maybe taxes aren't the issue for a local space. It just really depends on what's happening locally. And when you find that subject that really moves the needle, when you find that talking point or that message point, that's when you drive it home.

Hannah McCarthy: And [00:17:00] how do they do that? How do they see if the needle is moved?

Rasheida Smith: We take polls, you know, we poll likely voters and then we ask them questions. A battery of questions on issues so we can have one subject, for instance housing and have seven different message batteries. And so we'll test the messaging different ways and see would this make you more likely to vote for an individual who had this stance less likely or didn't matter. And so we weigh [00:17:30] that. Not only do we weigh it across all the voters and say everyone who participated in this poll said X, but then we look at what we call crosstabs, which is subsets of those voters. Now we're grouping them. We're grouping them by age. We're grouping them by gender, we're grouping them by geography, we're grouping them by socioeconomic status. And so that is how we understand that women who make up 54% of the electorate in a particular race feel [00:18:00] this way about this housing issue or child care. And so this is the issue that we should hone in on, because this is what moves the majority of the voters that we're going after.

Nick Capodice: And once they've chosen a message and they have polled to ensure it's the right message, they go to town with it. And it's got to be snappy.

Rasheida Smith: Years ago, you could have something that might have been two minutes and it would have kept someone's attention span. And then today we're doing seven second videos, right? But [00:18:30] at the same time, there has to be that overall message that we know that works. So how many different ways can you say, um, the rent is too high?

Archival: Once again, why? You said it. The rent is too damn high.

Rasheida Smith: How many different ways can you say lock her up? How many different ways can you say all of the campaign slogans, you know, gas, guns and groceries, right. That have won campaigns now for a couple of years? How many ways can you say this and [00:19:00] how many ways can you depict this so that your message is being heard and you're being remembered or associated with the message that works? And it's really about repetition. How many times are you in front of that voter with that message? How many times do they get a chance to see you? You know, they say, you know, you need something like 25 times in front of a voter before something sinks in.

Hannah McCarthy: Wow. I mean, repetition actually works. I should have guessed that.

Nick Capodice: Yep, repetition actually [00:19:30] works. You should have guessed that.

Hannah McCarthy: I want to step back a second and ask if consultants have anything to do with the very first step of a campaign. Not just what a candidate says, but who they are, how they present themselves. You haven't seen She's all that, have you?

Nick Capodice: I haven't, Hannah, but I will, I promise.

Hannah McCarthy: No, you really, really do not have to, Nick. It's a terrible movie, Lainey.

Archival: No offense, but when was the last time you tweezed. What?

Hannah McCarthy: Um. It is one of the many [00:20:00] movies where the protagonist takes off their glasses, lets their hair down, and suddenly they went from being someone you barely noticed to the most attractive human being on the planet.

Nick Capodice: That is an old chestnut. I gotta say, though, as fun as it is to imagine a consultant putting Walter Mondale in a leather jacket and giving him a snazzy haircut, Rashida says that is not how it actually works.

Rasheida Smith: Well, you have to know that a candidate has already been shaped by their life experiences and who they are and what they stand for. And [00:20:30] so, as much as other political consultants are seen as the puppet masters, right, in many ways the candidate has already done that. And what you are doing is amplifying who that candidate is and what they stand for. Now, there are pieces that you do help mold and shape a candidate based on experience and based on the science part of campaigning and what needs to happen. But if that stuff isn't innately in that candidate, [00:21:00] it usually doesn't work.

Hannah McCarthy: Can we go back to something that David said? Um, the fact that we're a two party system and it is really hard to get people to switch from Coke to Pepsi, but that's what consultants are hired to do, right? So how do they know if they're succeeding before the day of the election? How do they test for it?

Nick Capodice: So they have a bunch of metrics, one of which is called modeling.

Rasheida Smith: Where you assign a support score to either issues or the candidate. And [00:21:30] so you'll have a score from 0 to 100. So the people who are let's say 80 to 100 are definitely with you, definitely leaning your way. And I don't care what party you're in, the people who are below 50 are probably not coming your way, probably not coming out. And so maybe you want them to think the election day is the day after. And so that's that's slither. That's right in the middle. Those [00:22:00] are the folks who your persuasions and those are the folks who you're really looking to touch and get in front of and see if you can get them on your side.

Hannah McCarthy: Last thing, Nick, I would just love to know what, if anything, we know about the weird thing.

Archival: There's the childish nicknames, the crazy conspiracy theories, this weird obsession with crowd sizes.

Nick Capodice: So I have to start with a massive [00:22:30] caveat here. Hannah. We did not speak to anyone involved in the Harris campaign, so this is pure conjecture, albeit conjecture, from people who work in this field or study this field so as to why it stopped so suddenly, Rashida said. That sort of abrupt cessation of a message comes from testing.

Rasheida Smith: That's it. It's testing. Right? And especially when you have larger campaigns, you're testing more often. You're testing weekly. Like if you're playing [00:23:00] on a national level, you're testing all the time, right. Or tracking polls.

Nick Capodice: But David Karp, the professor at George Washington University, who we heard from earlier, he went a little further.

David Karpf: So I have a hunch. Um, again, I wasn't in the campaign. I don't know exactly who was talking, who was being listened to and what data they had. But the thing that was very clear about the you're being weird line that Kamala Harris had used before, then Tim Walz picked up, used extraordinarily well, [00:23:30] and suddenly everyone on blue Sky was cackling over. It is. Well, it depends on which numbers you're going to look at, because amongst the party base that clearly resonates and is very powerful. Um, I particularly liked it not just because the party base liked it, but also because of the I believe that the action is in the reaction. And you could see Donald Trump, JD Vance, Ben Shapiro, like the entire conservative media and political apparatus, was visibly uncomfortable with getting called weird. [00:24:00] And in general, in politics, if you've got a line that is making the other side get flustered and make mistakes, keep on saying that line. So I really liked what I was seeing there.

Hannah McCarthy: The action is the reaction.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, and I think that's an interesting way to think about it.

David Karpf: It's a line from Saul Alinsky's Rules for radicals, which I still teach in my class. But yeah, it's a classic Alinsky ism is the action is in the reaction. The thing that I wasn't seeing and didn't have insight into was there was this slice of the of the potential electorate [00:24:30] who were probably suburban. I don't like I don't know exactly where they are, but they are Republicans who voted for Nikki Haley in the primary, felt deeply uncomfortable with Donald Trump and at least on paper, seemed gettable. And my guess is that the weird line that works really well for the blue sky crowd and produces reactions from conservative elites. It's very possible that in focus groups, that target segment was like, no, don't know. And [00:25:00] that then becomes sort of an internal fight amongst the advisers of should we be targeting our comms at animating our base and getting the other side to make mistakes, or should we be targeting our comms at getting people who wouldn't always vote for us, but it's a tiny segment who might to feel real comfortable voting for us.

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, can you explain what Kalms is? Is it communications?

Nick Capodice: Yeah. David said comms. A lot of times, comms is everything [00:25:30] you do to communicate in a campaign. So it's your messages on social media. It's your ads, it's all of your candidate speeches, etc..

Hannah McCarthy: All right. So which does David think is a better strategy to get your base really excited and riled up and go negative on the other side, or to be gentler, to try to convince people on the other side to come over to yours. Grass is greener. [00:26:00]

David Karpf: Um, there isn't a right answer there. And one of the things that I always tell my students is that the curse of social sciences in general is that you can't run history twice. You have different advisors saying we should focus our messaging at different constituencies. All of them are kind of guessing because while there's data we can measure, the thing that we really care about is election outcomes. And that will only happen once in November. The fight here is less party versus party left versus right than it is. Uh, [00:26:30] a broader story of the world is very simple versus the world is very complicated. Right? Like the authoritarian message from Donald Trump is and like we call it authoritarianism, we can also call it populism. But the basic message is the reason the world isn't the way you want it to be, is that the world is being run by crooks and idiots. Put me in charge. I will fire them and arrest them and then everything will be better. And the message that the Democratic Party has, or the message of progressive technocracy is the [00:27:00] world is very complicated. Uh, elect us, and we will have well-meaning people try their best to make things better at the margins. And when they make mistakes, they'll keep on trying to make things incrementally better. The worse the objective world gets, the less appealing that latter.

Nick Capodice: I'm Nick Capodice and I am coming to you today to tell you that I made this episode. With Hannah McCarthy and Marina Henke. I am proud of the work I do here at Civics 101 with Christina Phillips our Senior Producer and Rebecca Lavoie our Executive Producer. Somewhere out there a family is sitting at their kitchen table, and they're wondering, who did the music in this episode? I am here to tell them that their names are on the way. they need to know that the music in this episode was by Scott Holmes, Jesse Gallagher, Epidemic Sound, HoliznaCCO, Blue Dot Sessions and Chris Zabriskie who makes the best. Podcast. Music. Ever. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR NHPR

---

April Fools: Politicians, the press, and more

Pranks are a staple of April Fools' Day - even when it comes to politics and the press. 

On this special edition of Civics 101, Senior Producer Christina Phillips tests our April Fools knowledge with some surprising trivia, and a whole lot more!

Transcript

Note: this transcript is AI-generated and may contain errors

Civics 101 April Fools

Music: We've only just begun. Doo dee doo dee doo. Doo doo doo doo doo.

Christina Phillips: This is civics 101. April Fools trivia special. I am Christina Phillips, a senior producer, and I am here today with. Do you want to introduce yourselves? We'll start with Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: Yes. I am Hannah McCarthy, co-host of Civics 101.

Nick Capodice: I'm Nick Capodice, also co-host of Civics 101.

Rebecca Lavoie: I'm Rebecca Lavoie and I work with this team at Nhpr.

Christina Phillips: Okay, so this is the day April Fools, where people come together and play pranks on each other. And by that I mean there are the people who are good at a poker face and they thrive on this day. And then there are the rest of us, like me, who feel constantly on edge. Which one are you on edge?

Nick Capodice: I love this day. I have a great many, uh, pranks that I've played in the years. Not as many as Nhpr, because it's kind of like I get nervous, I'm going to get in trouble. But I used to. At my old workplace, I would do an April Fool's prank every single year. A big one.

Hannah McCarthy: Wow.

Christina Phillips: Give us your best. Your most successful.

Nick Capodice: Oh, God. Well, the thing is, they're all contextual. Christina. It was always about, like, fake tour content for this museum I worked at. And I always say there's this massive discovery, this huge mystery was solved, and I would photoshop very strange photos of people who currently worked at the museum onto old photographs and make them think I had discovered it. Another classic is the cheddar cheese in the shower. Never gets old. Just carve a piece of cheddar cheese like a bar of soap and carve into it. It's a joy.

Rebecca Lavoie: Nice.

Nick Capodice: Oh, the other one. My other favorite one is the, um, saying that the photocopier is voice control. Now, you write like a thing on the photocopier, and it's like they copy and say the number of copies you want completely voice controlled, and you hold the next and be like, copy seven.

Nick Capodice: Copy.

Christina Phillips: I've never heard that. I love that.

Hannah McCarthy: You are quite the pranker.

Nick Capodice: I'm a little bit of a merry prankster.

Hannah McCarthy: As someone who chronically forgets what day it is, I don't do April Fools. I have a lot of disdain for it, which is not earned.

Rebecca Lavoie: Back in the day, public radio itself used to do pranks. There was a famous NPR story about an inland whale, a nursery.

Archive: Hundreds of acres of wide pools as far as the eye can see, spread over the landscape. It is here that the nation's first farm raised whales are being grown and harvested.

Hannah McCarthy: That's so funny.

Nick Capodice: Fantastic.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, well, I'm so glad you mentioned that, Rebecca, because we have a whole section dedicated to media hoaxes. Perhaps you will do really well in that section. Today I have gathered you here and compiled some political April Fools jokes. They are from politicians, they are from government agencies and some from the media. Is everybody ready? Yes. For our first set of questions.

Nick Capodice: Absolutely ready.

Christina Phillips: Okay, so this is called come visit the Walmart Supercenter Statue of Liberty. Corporations doing business with the federal government is a grand tradition in the United States. But there's something different about a company claiming they've bought an iconic historic monument to help with the national debt. I'm going to read you this question. You get two points if you're right. One point if you're wrong, but you make a good argument for your choice.

Rebecca Lavoie: Okay.

Christina Phillips: So here's your question. In 1996, this company took out a full page ad in major newspapers that said the following in an effort to help the national debt. Blank is pleased to announce that we have agreed to purchase the Liberty Bell, one of our country's most historic treasures. We will start with Hannah. What is your guess for the company that pretended to buy the Liberty Bell Mutual Liberty? So give us your argument.

Hannah McCarthy: Because liberty is in the name.

Christina Phillips: Okay, so the mutual Liberty Bell, if you will.

Hannah McCarthy: And it's a mutual helping, right? They get something. The country gets something. Help them out of debt. They're all about helping people.

Christina Phillips: All right, I like it. I'm not going to tell you guys the answer until I've heard everyone. So, Nick, go ahead and give me your guess.

Nick Capodice: I guess, uh, Taco Bell.

Christina Phillips: Oh, okay.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh. That's good.

Rebecca Lavoie: That's a good guess.

Christina Phillips: And give us your argument for Taco Bell.

Nick Capodice: The bell ringing is, like their copyright. The dong.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah.

Nick Capodice: And they're also they're always kind of jokesters at Taco Bell. They have like a pretty, a pretty fire like, Twitter account and stuff like that. So I think that's the sort of thing they would do in the 90s. That's around the time of the gordita and the chalupa. Like there was like there was like their shining moment.

Christina Phillips: Okay. So, so the, uh, Liberty Taco Bell or the Taco Liberty Bell, if you will.

Hannah McCarthy: There's a bell in their logo.

Speaker8: That's right. It's the Taco Bell.

Hannah McCarthy: But don't count that toward Nick's argument I gave it. That's me.

Christina Phillips: Got it.

Nick Capodice: It's also because the bells ringing for dinner. It's like the dinner bell. It's just that the whole thing.

Rebecca Lavoie: We got it. We think you're right. Go ahead.

Christina Phillips: Okay. Rebecca, what is your guess?

Rebecca Lavoie: I guessed Velveeta because Velveeta is the iconic topping for the streetside Philly cheesesteak. And I. And this is like what you put on a Philly cheesesteak. Everyone says a properly made Philly cheesesteak is made with Velveeta. And it is sort of an iconic cheese like condiment in in Philadelphia.

Nick Capodice: I would say, Rebecca, you didn't just make a strong case, you made a strong case.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, oh.

Christina Phillips: Rebecca, I do have to fact check you. In fact, the Philly cheesesteak is cheese whiz.

Rebecca Lavoie: Oh, sorry.

Christina Phillips: But I really liked your argument. So you got a point. Yes. Hannah, I really liked your argument. So you got a point. Hey, Nick, you got two points because you were correct.

Hannah McCarthy: And you knew it instantly.

Christina Phillips: Also, that's additional free marketing for them. On top of the estimated $25 million in free publicity they got for this stunt, but they spent about $300,000 to run the ad, and they estimated it earned about $25 million in free publicity. One other thing I just wanted to point out. So in 1996, the entire budget for the National Park Service was around 1.1 billion. And that's money that's divided among over 400 parks and monuments. And the national debt in 1996 was over $5 trillion. So, you know, really digging into that national debt by buying the Liberty Bell. And there were a lot of people who were very upset about it, understandably imagining a company buying a monument. They did change their logo that day for that ad. So it had the little crack in the bell. So continuing with this theme, the rest of this round is questions about corporate food partnerships with the US military. So I have questions for each of you, starting with Rebecca.

Rebecca Lavoie: Oh, no.

Christina Phillips: During World War Two, Hormel Foods shipped 133 million cans of what meat product to U.S. troops overseas. Ingredients include chopped pork shoulder meat with ham meat added.

Rebecca Lavoie: It's spam.

Christina Phillips: It is spam.

Rebecca Lavoie: I don't want to hear any more of the ingredients of spam. Okay.

Christina Phillips: Oh, they're not so bad.

Nick Capodice: A lot of them have mechanically separated chicken. I always thought about the pork mechanically separated.

Christina Phillips: Well, the meat does not. There's no chicken meat. There's pork shoulder meat, ham meat, salt, sugar, sodium nitrate, water and flavoring.

Rebecca Lavoie: Flavoring.

Christina Phillips: At least in the 40s.

Nick Capodice: It's a fun little side note, but do you guys know why? Spam. We say spam email or like I'm getting spammed on my phone text messages. It's all from the Monty Python sketch where the waiter is going.

Nick Capodice: Spam, spam, spam, spam and baked beans and more. Spam.

Archive: Egg, sausage and bacon. Egg and spam. Egg, bacon and spam. Egg, bacon, sausage and spam.

Nick Capodice: So it's like they're like something that you get all the time, even though you don't want it.

Christina Phillips: It's extremely popular in Hawaii, which was not a state at the time. It was still a territory, but it continues to be a staple of Hawaiian culinary history and cuisine. Hannah. Also during World War two, this food company created something known as Field Ration D, which was described as being 600 calories, virtually indestructible and deliberately bad tasting so it wouldn't have a high value as currency to trade for non-food items like cigarettes, because it was supposed to be used in emergencies for nutrition. Name the company.

Hannah McCarthy: Name the company.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Who makes really bad food?

Hannah McCarthy: 600 calories. It's a single item.

Christina Phillips: Do you want a hint?

Hannah McCarthy: I do, I didn't know that was allowed. Yeah.

Christina Phillips: So the headquarters of this company are in Pennsylvania.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, Hershey.

Christina Phillips: Yes.

Rebecca Lavoie: You would know that if you watched The Foods That Built America on the History Channel. By the way.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. So they they really wanted it to not be traded for anything else. And so they made it taste really, really bad. And it was also so dense that soldiers would sometimes chip their teeth trying to eat it, and they would shave like use their knives, which I just imagine the, the hygiene of that doesn't matter. World War two, they would have to shave it down. And then they created when they were really like heavy military presence in the Pacific. They created an alternative that I think is called like Tropical Ration D, which was like extra unmelted so that it wouldn't melt in the hot weather. All right. So you got a point for that. Hanna.

Hannah McCarthy: Yay.

Christina Phillips: Nick, this last question is for you, but I've got a little bit of an open. It's, uh, kind of bleak. So after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the United States subsequent entry into World War Two, Germany lost access to the ingredients that make Coca Cola, even though the company was still operating in Germany through the war. So in order to make up for the fact that they couldn't actually make Coca Cola, what beverage did Germany start producing that was flavored with apple pulp, whey byproduct from cheese and beet sugar? It still exists today in a different form.

Nick Capodice: Oh, I need the brand name or the kind of drink.

Christina Phillips: So it's a Coca Cola soda.

Nick Capodice: Okay. And it's made with apple pulp.

Christina Phillips: It was made with apple pulp, whey byproduct from cheese and beet sugar.

Nick Capodice: You know, when you go to a restaurant and you're like, what do you have? And they're like, we have Pepsi products. I'm like, I don't know what that means. Oh, man.

Christina Phillips: Think of commercials like old school commercials for a certain kind of drink.

Nick Capodice: It's like I'm trying to decide if it's going to be like sprite or 7Up or like Fanta. I'm going to say 7Up.

Christina Phillips: It's Fanta.

Rebecca Lavoie: I think the fact that he even thought Fanta gets him a point.

Christina Phillips: Okay. All right. Fair enough.

Nick Capodice: That's very fantastic of you. Thank you.

Christina Phillips: So it's actually a shortening of the word fantastic Germans, correct me. Which it is. Um, the German word for fantastic, in case you didn't know. And the color originally was murky brown and slightly cheese flavored, and it became a global smash anyway, so they still make Fanta. But it started as a drink for the Germans during World War two. Alrighty. The scores are as follows. Nick, you have three points. Hannah. You have two points. Rebecca you have two points. Ready? Um.

Rebecca Lavoie: Yeah.

Christina Phillips: Next category is media pranks. As we've already heard, NPR, the BBC and other publications tend to have fun with April Fool's Day by releasing faux stories that are supposed to be obvious enough to be pranks, but believable enough to make you stop and think. Sometimes they succeed, and sometimes they don't. For example, the BBC once ran a story in 1957 about a family in Switzerland that was harvesting spaghetti from spaghetti trees, and they said that the reason it was so populous was because the spaghetti weevil had been eradicated, and it became really popular. A lot of people called in asking if they could get spaghetti trees, because spaghetti was still considered a delicacy in Britain at that time.

Rebecca Lavoie: There's an incredible video for that story, by the way. I recommend looking it up after picking.

Archive: The spaghetti is laid out to dry in the warm alpine sun. Many people are often puzzled by the fact that spaghetti is produced at such uniform length, but this is the result of many years of patient endeavor by plant breeders who've succeeded in producing the perfect spaghetti.

Rebecca Lavoie: You can see trees covered with spaghetti, and these women are up in the trees, like taking the spaghetti gently down from the tree.

Christina Phillips: Is it cooked or is it raw?

Rebecca Lavoie: Cooked?

Christina Phillips: Nick.

Nick Capodice: Hello.

Christina Phillips: One NPR, April Fool's story announced the creation of a surgical procedure that would allow people to more deeply enjoy a new kind of media technology. I'm not telling you the year because I would probably give it away. Was it a a Bluetooth chip installed behind the ear that allowed you to have your own portable Bluetooth that could connect to devices around you? B finger extensions to give your fingers more reach on a computer keyboard. See 3D eye surgery to allow you to enjoy 3D movies without the glasses or D under the skin. Battery magnets that use your own energy to charge your electronic devices.

Nick Capodice: All right, this is really tricky. You said it's NPR.

Christina Phillips: None of these are real, for what it's worth. But one of them was a real fake story.

Nick Capodice: I know people do get magnets put under their skin. A lot of times it's a thing. It's like a whole movement of people who get technology implanted in there.

Christina Phillips: But does it charge your phone with your own metabolism?

Nick Capodice: It doesn't charge your phone, but there probably is somebody out there with a phone charging magnet.

Rebecca Lavoie: Is that transhumanism that you're referring to? I believe that's what it's called.

Nick Capodice: It's gently tied to the transhumanists. Yeah. Oh, man. If it was like the, like the finger extensions. So you can type easier sounds. So NPR I'm going to go with the Bluetooth chip in your ear.

Christina Phillips: No, unfortunately it was 3D eye surgery to allow you to enjoy 3D movies without the glasses, but thank you for believing the three other ones I made up.

Rebecca Lavoie: Nicely done.

Christina Phillips: Yes. Okay. Hannah?

Hannah McCarthy: Yes.

Christina Phillips: In 2008, the IRS sent tax rebate checks to the American people for anywhere from 600 to $1200 to help stimulate the economy. That was real. However, according to an April Fool's marketplace story, the IRS was worried that people wouldn't actually spend that money, so they decided to do what? Instead, the IRS decided to do what? Instead, send people visa gift cards that expired in two months to make sure they spent them. Send people all of their rebate in $1 bills to help encourage people to spend them in small dollar amounts that would spread the stimulus more widely. Send people their rebate checks worth of national park visitor passes so they could trade like currency to get to the parks they wanted. Or d send people toasters, air conditioners and snow blowers that equaled the amount of their checks based on their regions and what the IRS thought they might want.

Hannah McCarthy: These are all good.

Christina Phillips: Well thank you.

Hannah McCarthy: So the visa gift card is not as funny as the dollar bills. And then of course, like the appliances is very funny. I'm gonna go with a just because of how much people get weird about gift cards.

Christina Phillips: Unfortunately, no, it was not the visa gift cards. So the story said that the IRS was going to send people toasters, air conditioners and snow blowers and they would decide based on where they lived and what they thought they might like. And they had, like fake interviews with people who were like, I mean, I didn't really need a toaster. I kind of wanted a snow blower.

Rebecca Lavoie: Hmm.

Christina Phillips: Rebecca.

Rebecca Lavoie: Yes.

Christina Phillips: In 2016, National Geographic announced on April Fools that they would no longer publish photographs of what a naked animals. B domesticated animals. C cars, trains, planes, or any modern transportation equipment or d anything indoors.

Rebecca Lavoie: Okay, so when I was a kid, National Geographic was sort of like known for publishing pictures of naked people. Like, that was a whole thing. Yeah. And like, you know, let's just say kids were stealing their parents National Geographic sometimes. So for that reason, I'm going to pick a naked animals.

Christina Phillips: You are correct. This is the hardest one for me to come up with alternatives because it was just really good. So this is a quote from them. The media group says it will no longer degrade animals by showing photos of them without clothes. And so they actually published a series of photos with animals that have like clothes on to to demonstrate how they would do this.

Rebecca Lavoie: A zebra in a bikini.

Christina Phillips: We'll be right back after a quick break. Our next set of questions are about the zip code. Because NPR once aired a story on All Things Considered that announced that the US Postal Service was starting a program called Portable ZIP Codes, which allowed people to keep their current ZIP code even if they moved into a new one.

Archive: I'm pleased to announce this afternoon a new feature of our Go Postal campaign. Starting next month, the National Portable ZIP Codes Program will commence with it. American citizens can keep their present ZIP codes wherever they choose to live across the country or across town.

Archive: Crandall said that while the plan would at first.

Christina Phillips: So the next couple of questions are about zip codes. But first, does anyone know what Z stands for?

Hannah McCarthy: O zone?

Christina Phillips: So zone is correct. It's zone improvement plan. That's what ZIP stands for. And of course, it's also helpful because ZIP zippy, you know, makes the mail zipper essentially. So here are a couple of facts about zip codes before we start. The first number of the standard five number code determines a large region. So mail sorting systems look at that first from east to west east coast. New England starts at zero. And then as you move south and west to California, Washington and Oregon, those all start with nine and Alaska and Hawaii and some states have just one set of first couple of numbers, like Utah is only 84, and then the three after the remaining numbers further break down by county or region. And then in 1983 they introduced the ZIP plus four, which is four extra numbers that further divide mail locally. So I have a question for each of you. Hanna. There are three individuals who have their own zip codes.

Rebecca Lavoie: Hey, Christina, I know the president and the first lady are the first two, but I have no idea who else has their own zip code.

Christina Phillips: The third is an animal mascot created in 1944, and is part of the longest running public service campaign in US history to date.

Hannah McCarthy: Smokey the bear.

Christina Phillips: It is Smokey the Bear.

Rebecca Lavoie: It's actually just Smokey Bear.

Hannah McCarthy: Guys, I'm glad you.

Nick Capodice: Did it, Rebecca. Because if I did it, it would have been a disaster.

Hannah McCarthy: Did I still get the point? Oh, I'm giving you the point.

Nick Capodice: It's just the most butt, actually, I've ever heard from everybody. Like, it's actually Smokey Bear. Smokey the bear was my father.

Archive: Don't let forest fires be your fault. Make sure your fire is dead out. Remember, only you can prevent forest fires.

Christina Phillips: So his zip code is 20252. Santa Claus. Many people think he should have his own zip code. Or would. He doesn't. But he does have his own Canadian postal code, which is H0 zero zero. Nick, this question is for you.

Nick Capodice: Hello. Okay.

Christina Phillips: Before Smokey Bear, the US Forest Service partnered with Disney, who agreed to let them use animated creatures from, what, 1942 movie for just a year as mascots for forest fire prevention?

Nick Capodice: Huh? Well, you know, maybe Bambi.

Christina Phillips: Bambi is correct.

Nick Capodice: Oh, hooray! Never seen Bambi. Really?

Rebecca Lavoie: Yeah. Don't. It's so sad. It's.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, it's absolutely devastating. But also, Disney only let them do it for a year. And then they were like, we're taking Bambi and all of his friends back. And so they were like, we must create a new mascot. So they came up with Smokey Bear. And there's various origin stories as to Smokey Bear, whether it was named after a bear or named after a man. You know, there's a whole Wikipedia page on it. Rebecca, the next question is for you. Several corporate headquarters also have their own individual ZIP codes, including the headquarters for Walmart and General Electric, and for two weeks a year, Blackrock city, Nevada gets its own ZIP code in order to accommodate which festival, which began as a summer solstice festival in the 1980s and in 2023 was the site of major flooding.

Rebecca Lavoie: Well, I believe what you're talking about is the biggest gathering annually of like, jerks in the United States. And that would be Burning Man.

Christina Phillips: Hot take from Rebecca. You are correct.

Rebecca Lavoie: People say it's just all jerks now, right? That's why I was here. It's like tech bro kind of situation, right?

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, I used to be that.

Nick Capodice: It used to be like a really kind of holistic, beautiful artist thing. And now it's like Fyre Festival. Yeah. So we all felt good when the flesh eating crabs crawled out of the ground.

Christina Phillips: That was 20, 23. That was, I think, one of those. Yeah, it did make it obvious which celebrities who were not smart enough to stream on their phones, getting rescued by helicopters, and then everyone else is just stuck in the mud. Burning man, you are correct. Okay. We've reached the end of this round. Currently, the scores stand at Nick. Four points, Hannah three points. Rebecca four points. The next category is called Bogus policy. So elected and appointed officials love to introduce fake policies or bills on April Fools. For example, in 1985, Congressman Thomas Downey put forth a proposal to lower the minimum age you could be elected to Congress to 15 to get, quote, new blood in Congress. For what it's worth, the median age in the House in 1985 was 49, and the median age in the Senate was 53.7. Do you want to guess the median ages in 2023?

Rebecca Lavoie: The median, not the average. Right. Median for the Senate I'm going to say 60.

Christina Phillips: Higher.

Rebecca Lavoie: What?

Hannah McCarthy: 65.

Christina Phillips: 65 is right. You're right on that.

Nick Capodice: But the house is maybe lower. So I guess the house is 46.

Christina Phillips: It hasn't gone down. It's gone up.

Nick Capodice: Oh, it's gone up.

Christina Phillips: Yes.

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, they don't leave 55 up.

Rebecca Lavoie: Oh my gosh.

Christina Phillips: This is a little bit higher than 55.

Rebecca Lavoie: 57.

Christina Phillips: Yeah 57.8. So technically 58. Almost 58. I also am fairly certain that a lot of the people who were in the house in 1985 are still in the House today, so they probably remember that bill. I want to use another joke policy as our jumping off point for this round, which is about font, also known as typeface. Okay. In 2015, Texas Land Commissioner George P Bush, son of Jeb Bush, announced that there was an agency wide ban on which font.

Rebecca Lavoie: My guess is Comic Sans.

Christina Phillips: Okay, what's your guess, Nick?

Nick Capodice: My guess is Comic Sans.

Rebecca Lavoie: Okay.

Christina Phillips: Hannah, what's your guess?

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, I have a reason. Can I tell my reason? Yes. We're talking about a political family and like a, what do you call it, a dynasty, right? Family like, known to be God fearing Christians. Right. Appealing to other God fearing Christians, I think so I picked Helvetica.

Rebecca Lavoie: Oh.

Christina Phillips: Okay. So the answer is Comic Sans. Hannah, do we give Hannah a point for effort? Heck yeah. Okay.

Nick Capodice: Really fast Comic Sans story. It was my first week at NPR. I wrote a funny Thing for the newsletter. Extra credit for our show. And I made a joke about how I hated Comic Sans. And I got a scathing email from a listener saying that I was being ableist because Comic Sans. She said it was quite useful for people who have dyslexia, and she was like, so you should never make fun of Comic Sans and you should be ashamed of yourself. And I was like, heartbroken for a month. And then I found out a month later that that's actually been disproven.

Rebecca Lavoie: Yes.

Christina Phillips: Dear listener, I'm actually I'm actually.

Christina Phillips: You're wrong.

Christina Phillips: You're totally right that there have been studies that have shown that Comic Sans is actually harder to read. And so sometimes in school, it'll be used to increase retention because you have to work harder to understand the words. But there are still plenty of people who say that it is easier to read.

Rebecca Lavoie: I thought it was just ugly and that's why we don't like it.

Christina Phillips: I mean, that's why I don't like it. These questions are all going to be about fonts.

Nick Capodice: I love fonts, I'm ready.

Christina Phillips: All right. In 2023, the State Department announced it was moving away from using Times New Roman as its default font on websites, on publications, etc., and would instead use this sans serif font with a name that derives from a word for instrument of measurement.

Rebecca Lavoie: I know this isn't right, but I'm gonna say it anyway, because it's the only sans font I could think of right now. And that's Ariel.

Christina Phillips: No, it's Calibri for Calibri. Yes.

Rebecca Lavoie: Yeah.

Christina Phillips: Caliber. Caliber.

Nick Capodice: So this is also an access issue. So serif fonts are more difficult for people with various learning disabilities to read than sans serif. So they're like, we can't have Times New Roman as our default anymore. So that's why schools suddenly are like, no more Times New Roman. And for your term paper, it's got to be Calibri.

Christina Phillips: Do you want to explain what a serif is?

Nick Capodice: So interestingly, they're called serifs, I believe. And I could be wrong because serifs and cherubim were often used to the angels, and illuminations were used to decorate words in old medieval manuscripts. So I don't know if that's true or not, but I've heard that before. But so serifs are the sort of chunky lines at the ends of all the lines of a letter. So the R has two serifs on its bottom feet, so sans serif eliminates those entirely. And it's a little bit easier to read.

Rebecca Lavoie: The eye is just a stick.

Nick Capodice: Yeah.

Nick Capodice: An eye is.

Nick Capodice: Stick instead of uh, an eye, which I love. The serif tie.

Christina Phillips: Nick. This question is for you.

Nick Capodice: Hello.

Christina Phillips: So the US Web Design system, which is part of the US Digital Service, which is a thing I learned about. They create standards for designing and maintaining government websites, recommends several typefaces for digital publications, including this font, which shares its name with the first name of one of our famous Western Expansionists.

Nick Capodice: Oh my God. And by a famous westward expansionist.

Christina Phillips: The first name of a westward expansionist, a famous westward expansionist.

Hannah McCarthy: The.

Nick Capodice: First name. So who's the guy who said, let me give me a second. The guy who said, Go West, young man, was that guy.

Christina Phillips: I think you're a little niche here. I don't know who this is.

Nick Capodice: Go west, young man. It's probably not even him. Um.

Rebecca Lavoie: Can I give you a clue?

Hannah McCarthy: Yes.

Rebecca Lavoie: This is a pair of westward Expansionists that we talked a lot about in grade school.

Nick Capodice: Good. Thank you. Rebecca.

Hannah McCarthy: I would not.

Nick Capodice: Meriwether.

Hannah McCarthy: Meriwether.

Nick Capodice: Thank you for the clue. Did you know that Lewis and Clark. They had to because they had such horrible constipation from being on the trail. They, like, didn't know how to eat the food. They were eating bad rations that they had to take this mercury pill for as a laxative, which they called thunder clappers. Give me a couple more thunder clappers. Good. Yeah. And you can track their trail because of mercury in the ground.

Rebecca Lavoie: Wow.

Nick Capodice: How much do you not believe the second part? All of it.

Hannah McCarthy: I don't believe that. Their excrement. First of all, I don't believe that we know exactly where they poop. And I don't believe that it then leached into the soil. Also, it would be about this big, right?

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Not from a thunderclap or. Well, we're gonna look it up after this listeners out there. You decide if the thunder clappers are real.

Rebecca Lavoie: I'm just gonna say the historical significance of Thunder clappers is the high mercury content has been used by archeologists to help verify locations.

Christina Phillips: Oh.

Rebecca Lavoie: And thunder clapping.

Nick Capodice: I'm not in anybody's graces any better after being right.

Nick Capodice: About the thunder clap. I'm in more trouble.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay. 97% of the time when I ask you to please fact check that you're like, oh, it's not true. You gotta give me that.

Rebecca Lavoie: But actually.

Christina Phillips: Hannah, this question is for you.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah.

Christina Phillips: Times New Roman was created. For which newspaper? In 1931.

Hannah McCarthy: I mean, I guess the New York Times.

Christina Phillips: No.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay.

Christina Phillips: Times New Roman was used by the New York Times, for sure.

Rebecca Lavoie: But who was it created for?

Christina Phillips: It was created for the Times of Britain. Oh.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay.

Christina Phillips: But the New York Times used it until 2007, when they switched to a little font called Georgia.

Hannah McCarthy: Mhm.

Rebecca Lavoie: The fat one.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah.

Christina Phillips: Okay. So at the end of this round, Nick, you have six. Hannah you've got four. Rebecca you've got five.

Rebecca Lavoie: Yay! Not last.

Christina Phillips: This last and final round is called what's in a name?

Nick Capodice: Oh, what's in a name?

Christina Phillips: In 2015, representative Mike Honda, a Democrat from California, introduced a fake bill for April Fools. He did not actually introduce it into Congress, but he wrote a press release about it. And that bill was against verbose legislation names. It was called the Accountability and Congressional Responsibility on Naming Your Motions Act, aka the Acronyms Act. Here's a quote from his press release which again was fake. The last straw was the pension and Social Security measuring equivalence. Permanent linking of everyone's actual savings environment. Please pass me Act, which only corrected a typo on page 346 of the tax code. So the reason I said so many times that this was fake was because so many news sources referenced this as if it were a real bill that was introduced. The Hill, the Atlantic, Votesmart.org, The New Republic. They all refer to it as though it's a real piece of legislation, and use it as a jumping off point to talk about ridiculous acronym legislation. I just want to say this is like when a teacher gives out a quiz that it says at the top, read every question before you begin this quiz. And at the bottom it says, just write your name and turn it in. The bottom of the HuffPost article that covered this piece of legislation says, this is an April Fools joke.

Christina Phillips: This is not real. It's literally right there. So anyway, I thought that this would be a good excuse To create trivia questions about times. Legislators really did try their hardest to create an acronym out of the title of their legislation. So I'm going to give you actual pieces of legislation that were introduced. I will tell you how many letters there are in the acronym, and then I will start reading the title of the bill. When you think you have a guess, say stop. If you get it right, you get a point, and then you get to answer a couple of follow up questions about the legislation. Oh, also, I feel like I should say just because it's an acronym doesn't mean they follow the rules of acronyms. So sometimes the actual title is like 12 letters long, but the acronym is only seven. So first question. This piece of legislation was proposed by Senator Michael Bennett, a Democrat from Colorado. The acronym is one word and it is six letters long. Zeroing out money for zombie. Yes. Zeroing out money for buying influence after elections act. Oh, zombie. So, Nick, follow up question. What was this act for?

Nick Capodice: Zero. Money for buying influence after elections. Was it a bill to, like, overturn Citizens United?

Christina Phillips: No. Not quite.

Rebecca Lavoie: Is it a bill to keep people from donating to campaigns of other people who are running for office after they are running for office?

Christina Phillips: I think that's close. It required candidates to disperse unused funds after the election.

Rebecca Lavoie: Oh, they had to disperse them. Okay.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. So basically you had to give up your money and it set a way to do it. So, Nick, you get the first go at this. What year was this introduced?

Nick Capodice: Oh, the zombie act. I'm going to say the old zombie act. I'm going to say 2016.

Christina Phillips: No, it's 2021 now. The next piece of legislation, the following legislation, was introduced by Mike Quigley, a Democrat from Illinois. The acronym is one word and it is seven letters long. Communications over various feeds electronically.

Nick Capodice: Coffee.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh. That's so funny.

Nick Capodice: That's hilarious.

Christina Phillips: So the whole title is communications over various Feeds electronically for Engagement Act or the Coffee Act. I cannot look at this tweet from President Trump that inspired this without laughing. It's like Donald Trump was president at the time, tweeted something at 12:06 a.m. on a Wednesday that said, despite the constant negative press, coffee and tweet.

Rebecca Lavoie: And.

Christina Phillips: It was like the next six hours overnight, people just lost it. And then six hours later, to his credit, he had a really good follow up. Who can figure out the true meaning of coffee and enjoy. And it's still up there. So, Nick, what was this act for? What did it purport to do?

Nick Capodice: Can you read the bill one last time? The name. And then I'll get it.

Christina Phillips: Communications over various feeds electronically for Engagement act.

Nick Capodice: This is monitoring the usage of politicians on social media.

Christina Phillips: Ah. I'm going to go ahead and say close enough. Rebecca, do you have a guess?

Rebecca Lavoie: It codified that the president's tweets are actually, like archivable material.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, that's exactly it. So you are going to get the point for that. Yeah.

Nick Capodice: Well done.

Christina Phillips: So it basically some of the language in here is that the bill amends provisions governing presidential records to revise the definition of presidential records to include any personal and official social media account. Nick, what year was this bill introduced? Do you have a guess?

Nick Capodice: Uh. 2020.

Christina Phillips: No. Someone else have a guess?

Rebecca Lavoie: 2018?

Christina Phillips: No, it was 2017.

Rebecca Lavoie: Ah.

Christina Phillips: This was like three months into his new administration when this happened, did it pass?

Nick Capodice: I'm going to say no because it's an acronym.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. You're correct. It did not. It did not pass. But it's worth pointing out that in 2014. So before this bill was introduced, there was an amendment to the Presidential Records Act that specified that electronic content was considered presidential records and must be preserved. So a lot of legal experts already assumed that included social media. But President Trump did come under fire for deleting tweets during his presidency. Nick, I believe you got two points for that one. Are you ready?

Rebecca Lavoie: Yes.

Christina Phillips: This piece of legislation was introduced by Democrat Gary Ackerman from New York. The acronym is one word. It is eight letters long, but the word is not spelled correctly.

Rebecca Lavoie: Oh.

Christina Phillips: The health insurance protects America. Can't HIPAA can't repeal it. Act.

Hannah McCarthy: Hypocrite.

Christina Phillips: Yes.

Nick Capodice: Oh well done.

Christina Phillips: Yes. So yeah it is spelled HIPAA like HIPAA. And then can't repeal it crit. Okay. So Hannah you got a point for that. I'm going to ask you what you think it was for.

Hannah McCarthy: Can you say it again.

Christina Phillips: The health insurance protects America can't repeal it. Act.

Hannah McCarthy: So I think it was to stop the repealing of the Affordable Care Act, stop going after Obamacare, like something like that.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. So I'm going to give you points because that is the intention of the act. It was kind of like a dare. So Democrat Gary Ackerman from New York introduced a series of bills that would repeal some of the most popular parts of the Affordable Care Act, including the one that said that companies couldn't deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, and another that said that insurance companies couldn't just end your coverage. And here's what he said, quote, these are great safeguards to improve coverage for all Americans. Republicans wouldn't dare vote to do away with them, despite their campaign pledge to do so. But I'm calling them out on it and dare the GOP to vote for these bills. So basically saying that, like you keep claiming you want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, well, if you really want to do that, do it. Do it on these specific provisions that everybody really likes.

Rebecca Lavoie: What about the death panels, though? Do they do they put those in the list.

Christina Phillips: Death panels. What's that?

Rebecca Lavoie: You don't remember when the Affordable Care Act was being sold to the people? That was the opposition to it was that it would create so-called death panels, where a panel of people would get to decide if you lived or died. That was the Sarah Palin talking point around the ACA.

Archive: President Obama stood before a joint session of Congress and said, there is no such thing as a death panel. Is he a liar?

Archive: He's not lying in that. Those two words will not be found in any of those thousands of pages of different variations of the health care bill. No death panel isn't there.

Christina Phillips: Okay, so, Hannah, you get first guess. What year do you think that this was introduced?

Hannah McCarthy: 2017?

Nick Capodice: Nope. 2012?

Christina Phillips: Nope.

Christina Phillips: Um, so it was 2010. Did it pass? Hannah? No, no. That is all of the trivia that I have for you today.

Nick Capodice: Oh.

Hannah McCarthy: Wow.

Christina Phillips: So I'm going to reveal our final scores. Um, Nick, you received ten points. Hannah, you have seven points.

Hannah McCarthy: Huzzah!

Christina Phillips: And, Rebecca, you have six points.

Rebecca Lavoie: See, I don't always win.

Christina Phillips: Your winning streak is over.

Rebecca Lavoie: That's right, that's right.

Christina Phillips: Congratulations, Nick.

Nick Capodice: Well. Thank you. It's. I haven't won one in a good long while. It feels.

Hannah McCarthy: Pretty.

Nick Capodice: True. Yeah. Oh, yeah. There was no categories about, like, Twilight this time.

Rebecca Lavoie: That was our favorite category of all time.

Christina Phillips: I'm glad.

Hannah McCarthy: I'm glad this was so fun. It was so fun, Christina.

Nick Capodice: It was so fun.

Christina Phillips: Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you everybody.

Rebecca Lavoie: Thanks for having us.

Christina Phillips: This episode was produced by me, Christina Phillips, with a lot of wonderful help from our hosts, Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice and our executive producer, Rebecca Lavoie, who also edited this episode. Our team includes producer Marina Henke. Music from this episode is from Epidemic Sound and the Taco Bell. Civics 101 is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

The Politics Behind Your Taxes

Taxes on wages make up the bulk of federal revenue every year. Where does that money go, and who decides how much you should pay?

The process is extremely complicated - and deeply political - which is why it's important for everyday taxpayers to understand how the people they elected choose to spend the money voters give out of their paychecks every year. 

We talk with tax policy expert Beverly Moran, a Paulus fellow at Boston College Law School and professor emerita at Vanderbilt, about how budget reconciliation works. We also talk about how those decisions affect the vast majority of taxpayers, who earn most of their wealth from salary or wages... and how it looks different for the wealthiest Americans. Find Beverly's research on the impact of the 2017 TCJA here. 

Listen to the episode:

Related reading and listening:

Listen to our episodes on the history of the income tax in the United States, and how the tax return process works. 

We used a number of sources in this episode. Here are some, in order of appearance: 

How much revenue has the US  government collected this year? from the US Treasury Department. 

Reconciliation explainer from the Congressional Budget Office.

Budget Reconciliation: Tracking the 2025 Trump Tax Cuts from the Tax Foundation. 

What are itemized deductions and who claims them? from the Tax Policy Center. 

How did the TCJA change taxes of families with children? from the Tax Policy Center. 

The 2017 Tax Law Was Skewed to the Rich, Expensive, and Failed to Deliver on Its Promises from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 

Lifting the SALT Cap: Estimated Budgetary Effects, 2024 and Beyond from Penn Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business. 

Differences between the traditional CPI and Chained CPI from the Congressional Budget Office. 

Republicans say Medicaid cuts won't happen. But does their budget work without them? from NPR. 

Republicans want to lower taxes. The hard part is choosing what to cut. from the New York Times. 

Transcript:

Note: This transcript is AI-generated and may contain errors

Christina Phillips: I feel like I've had the income tax song stuck in my head for a solid week.

Hannah McCarthy: What's that song? What is that?

Christina Phillips: Oh, you don't know the income tax song?

Hannah McCarthy: No. Am I gonna hear it?

Christina Phillips: I paid my income tax today. No no no no no no.

Archive: I paid my income tax today. I'm only one of millions more whose income never was taxed before. Art tax. I'm very.

Christina Phillips: Tax. I'm very glad to pay. Is it.

Hannah McCarthy: Just propaganda?

Christina Phillips: Yes, it is a 1942 propaganda song. Are you telling me you don't have this in your, like, Spotify playlist? Because. Because I do.

Archive: The sky Rockefeller helped to build them, so did I. I paid my income tax today.

Archive: I paid my income tax today.

Christina Phillips: This is the first time I think it's just the two of us.

Hannah McCarthy: I know. Hello.

Christina Phillips: Hello.

Hannah McCarthy: It's a whole new environment in here.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, it's a huge studio in just two people.

Hannah McCarthy: Just two people.

Christina Phillips: And we're talking about taxes.

Hannah McCarthy: What could be more thrilling than that?

Christina Phillips: Uh, do you want to introduce yourself and set us up?

Hannah McCarthy: Yes. Hello. I am Hannah McCarthy. I'm the co-host of Civics 101. I am here with Kristina Phillips, senior producer of Civics 101. And I am told that today. Kristina, you're going to explain income taxes to me.

Christina Phillips: Yes, well, sort of.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay.

Christina Phillips: So we're going to talk about income taxes, but we're not talking about how you pay them.

Hannah McCarthy: Right.

Christina Phillips: Or the history of the income tax because we've already done that.

Hannah McCarthy: We sure have.

Christina Phillips: We did that a couple of years ago. I'm going to put the links to those two episodes in the show notes. So we are going to talk about the politics of taxes.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, this is actually great because every single election and then every single presidential term or congressional term or what have you, it's always like taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes, taxes. But, you know, it's like a chief thing at the top of everyone's mind. Yes. Because people don't want to pay him, or sometimes they want to pay more. But like it's.

Christina Phillips: Or sometimes they want to pay less, I feel like is the normal.

Hannah McCarthy: Yes. Yeah. I mean, I just don't want to say, like, every person in America wants to pay fewer taxes. Maybe some want to pay more, you know. Mhm. Um, but I don't think I really have ever closely followed any political debate about it or you know, I'll know when there's a vote or something and I'll know what someone's policies are, but that's it.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. We're going to talk about how politicians come up with and then pass legislation on collecting taxes. And these are taxes that fund the federal government. And how they do that while keeping major donors and voters happy, but still meeting that bottom line.

Hannah McCarthy: That's the thing.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, yeah. And I say major donors, because the biggest lobbying groups in the country are the National Association of Realtors and the US Chamber of Commerce, which represent people who own assets like houses and then businesses and business owners. So we are talking about keeping the people that have a lot of money happy. And then also, you know, the voters like you and me. So why are we talking about this now, other than the fact that it's tax season? Well, one, Congress is currently haggling over a major budget overhaul because huge chunks of Trump's last big tax bill, the 1 in 2017, are going to expire at the end of 2025. So our Republican Congress is trying to figure out how to keep Trump's tax cut legacy alive, and then also meet the demands that he has for shrinking the federal government and dealing with the national debt. And I want to be clear, we cannot and will not possibly talk about everything. I tried to pick examples that bubble up when people talk about wealth and inequity and taxes. And then I've got one super fascinating example that I knew nothing about, but really got me thinking that I learned about when I was doing my interviews.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay.

Beverly Moran: I mean, it's purposefully complicated so that no one will understand it. I'm thinking about people who go to law school for three years and they're not really up on it. Right? It's deliberately made so that you have to have an Encyclopedia Britannica and just be going through it constantly, you know?

Christina Phillips: That's Beverly Moran. She is a tax policy expert and professor emeritus at Vanderbilt and a policy fellow at Boston College Law School. And she's going to help walk us through this. Okay. I want to do super 101 here for just a second.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, please.

Christina Phillips: The kind of taxes we're talking about today, for the most part, are the ones that come out of your paycheck. So when you look at your pay stub, you can see several categories of taxes that are withheld. Can you think of one.

Hannah McCarthy: Categories like Medicare?

Christina Phillips: Yes, Medicare.

Hannah McCarthy: Categories like Social Security.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. So Medicare and Social Security are both those are flat taxes. So that just comes right out of your paycheck.

Hannah McCarthy: And then I know that there are in some states, not in New Hampshire. State taxes that are withheld from your paycheck.

Christina Phillips: That's one. And then we've got one other big one.

Hannah McCarthy: Just income tax. Right. Okay.

Christina Phillips: Yep. Federal income tax. More than half of federal revenue. That's money that the federal government makes every year is from income and payroll taxes. Now here's another question. Do you know where most of that money goes.

Hannah McCarthy: To the defense budget?

Christina Phillips: No, actually this is fascinating. So the defense budget, I believe is only like 13%. More than half of all of the revenue, including revenue that's earned from business taxes, borrowing and interest goes directly into social programs.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, okay.

Christina Phillips: All right. So we're talking Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, veterans benefits and economic benefits like Snap, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. So this is kind of the essence of paying taxes in this country, right? You take care of your government and your government takes care of you. Your taxes pay for the programs that are supposed to help you raise your kids. If you lose your job, if you get sick, if you are or become disabled, if you served in the military, and if you're supporting someone else, or when you reach retirement age.

Hannah McCarthy: So this is not just like the federal income tax. It's all of the categories we talked about. It's also okay. Got it.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. So most of revenue comes from income and payroll taxes. And most of that money goes right back out the door for services that support people directly.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh. Which is why in countries that are famed for having just a great deal of social services at a very high level, you hear about incredibly high tax rates.

Christina Phillips: Exactly. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. And in the US, it's, you know, this is still the bulk of revenue and the bulk of the budget, but it is certainly not as simple and straightforward as it is in other countries where there's just a big tax that's taken out and lots of services from those tax. So the agency that collects all these taxes is the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service. Right now, Congress is attempting to pass a budget through a process known as budget reconciliation that's going to address many expiring tax provisions from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. And they also want to accomplish Trump's mission to cut spending, shrink the federal government, lower people's tax bills, etc., etc.. Now, one thing I do want to clarify we're not talking about the stopgap spending bill that Congress just passed to avert a government shutdown. So that's a spending bill that's just funding the government for the next seven months.

Hannah McCarthy: So budget reconciliation. Right. Like reconciling. Right. Making amends, making it all good. What is that process, Christina.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. So I sort of think of the reconciliation as two things. You have to reconcile what the House wants to do and what the Senate wants to do. And you also have to reconcile cuts you want to make to revenue with how you're going to earn revenue that both the House and Senate approve of. So it's going to be we're going to make tax cuts, or we're going to make cuts that are going to decrease revenue, but we're also going to either make cuts in spending or we're going to introduce new ways to raise revenue. To make it all balance out. It has to make sense. The math has to math basically to a certain degree in a way that's responsible, okay. As in 2017, what's happening now is that the House and Senate have drawn up proposals. They have their own proposals for spending and for tax cuts. And each chamber passes their version by a simple majority. But neither one is law yet. And the only way it becomes law is once the House and Senate work off of these proposals and create an identical budget. This is the reconciliation process. So that's where we're at now.

Hannah McCarthy: It sounds like a like so much work, I struggled to envision how even within the chambers themselves, these individuals are going to work it out, let alone between the two of them.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, I think that this is super interesting because I feel like what we hear politicians sell is we're going to stop taxing tips, for example, and we're also going to reduce wasteful spending. But when you ask how, it's sort of like when a kid asks you how money works and you're like, well, so money is money and you know, it's got value. So I actually I want to jump back to when I talked to Eric Toder, who's a tax policy expert who worked in the Clinton administration, I talked to him a couple years ago for our earlier tax episodes. He actually was right in the middle of some of these budget discussions with a different president.

Hannah McCarthy: So can I just ask, Christina, were these interviews the kind of thing where you were you would ask a question and these experts would be like, Well, you know, I've had that before with like, explain the two party system. Seriously?

Christina Phillips: Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: That's what you want. Do you have three hours? You know?

Christina Phillips: Yeah. I think with Eric, what I remember is he explained that the reconciliation process. And I was like, so can you give me an example of that? And he was like, yeah, okay. And so then this is what he said.

Eric Toder: I remember when I was in the Clinton administration and we decided for political reasons, we had to have a middle class tax cut. So if we lowered rates a little bit, it just cost too much money. You couldn't lower rates across the board. So that said, we had to give some kind of credits or some benefit. So people had talked about a child credit and the number that Republicans had raised was $500. So we said, well, we have to have $500. It can't be less than $500. Well, how do we save money if it's $500? Well, we have to phase it out if people's income is above a certain amount and maybe we want to limit it instead of with personal exemptions, which was 18, maybe we ought to limit it to people under 17. And you get the picture. You go through one contortion after another to hit these various targets for how you're changing the system. And those things just stay in there.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay. So he he said cutting the rate like the tax rate would be too expensive, right? They would lose too much money. Is that. Am I understanding.

Christina Phillips: That? I do want to stop you. I don't I don't think it's even worth it to try to make this make sense. I really, purely I think that this is just a good example of what these things look like. Yeah, it is so kind of like absolutely chaotic, right?

Hannah McCarthy: It's like the biggest butterfly flapping its wings. She's like, whoa, that changed a lot.

Christina Phillips: Right? So this is how we end up with tax policies that are like our tax code is thousands and thousands of pages long, and it's because politicians float an idea and then they have to figure out how to make that work. And it becomes this like as he said, contortion of, well, we try this and then we try that. But what if we do this? And what if we change that? And what if we like, set this limit? And then you and I, as taxpayers, we go to pay our taxes and we're like, I'm sorry, which form is this and also which credit? And do I need to fill out this and which papers do I need. And like, which deduction do I take? What happens is that the people who have the time and the money and the resources to go through all of this, or even to hire somebody who understands a very specific part, maybe like a couple hundred pages of this, thousands of pages of tax code and how they can help somebody benefit from that and lower their tax burden. That's how this ends up working right is that you have to have this level of knowledge to navigate it, and it just keeps getting more complicated.

Hannah McCarthy: I use it in accountant very briefly thinking that would be a good idea. And then they fired me. They were like, no, you don't have enough money, we can't deal with you anymore. We're like too busy and you are not worth it.

Christina Phillips: I love that you're fired by your accountant.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, yeah, your taxes are out.

Christina Phillips: You're not complicated enough here. Oh my goodness. We'll be right back with more Civics 101 after a quick break. So now that we've established what this looks like, whether or not it makes any sense, I want to talk about what this looked like in the 2017 tax bill. And I'm going to pick out the major things that were cut, the tax cuts that happened in the 2017 tax bill. And then we're going to look at a couple of ways that Congress tried to make those tax cuts make sense.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay.

Christina Phillips: So are you ready?

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah.

Christina Phillips: We can do this. Okay. So the federal income tax rate went down.

Hannah McCarthy: This is 2017.

Christina Phillips: This is 2017.

Hannah McCarthy: So I'm with you.

Christina Phillips: The tax cuts it's called the Trump tax cuts by a lot of people. It's the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The federal income tax rate went down. The old brackets used to start at like the highest earners owed 39% and now ends at 37%. So that's set to expire if they don't pass a new tax bill. The standard deduction, which is a deduction that is supposed to be a simpler substitution for the itemized deductions you can get for investing in retirement and paying off loans and donating to charity. That went up, which meant that more people would say, okay, so I could itemize my deductions, but the standard deduction is pretty high and I might just take that instead. So it's simplified taxes for a lot of people. A lot more people took the standard deduction. And that standard deduction is dependent on your status. So if you're single head of household married etc. also if you're 65 or older, if you're blind or supporting a dependent. So it's a standard deduction. That sort of depends on you as a taxpayer. And I should just say that for the most part, people who use itemized deductions, it's disproportionately the top 10% of earners who go through and use the itemized deductions.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, that makes sense, because every now and then I've tried to do it and I'll go through the itemized and then I'm like, this is so not worth it. There's I'm not complicated enough. Right. Like I don't have like all of the, the questions that I would have to not not even questions is like, do you qualify for this, this this, this. I'm like, I don't qualify for any of this. Yeah, I'm a very simple entity, you know?

Christina Phillips: Yeah. I think going through the itemized deductions make you realize all the ways that people can make money that like, yeah, you I'm like, I, I can't imagine owning enough stock.

Hannah McCarthy: It never would have occurred to me to pursue that lifestyle.

Christina Phillips: I'm sorry. Estate taxes. What's going on? Like. Yeah, it makes it obvious how many different ways you can get incentives. If you have the money and you have the know how to invest your wealth in different ways, which is relevant, and we'll talk about it in a little bit. Okay. So then the other like big thing that was felt for most taxpayers I think was the child tax credit. So it used to be a $1,000 per child. It went up to $2,000 per child. Also, the bill raised the maximum income you could earn and still get that credit, meaning that people with higher incomes might still qualify for that $2,000 tax credit per child. Okay. So there is another deduction that I think is it mostly only applies to wealthier earners. But I think we should talk about it which is the pass through income. Do you know anything about that.

Hannah McCarthy: No.

Christina Phillips: Okay.

Hannah McCarthy: Does that surprise you? I probably don't qualify for it.

Christina Phillips: Okay. So this is a way that self-employed people and small business owners could deduct up to 20% of their business income from their individual tax burden. I'm not going to try to explain it with any depth, because I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to simplify it into a paragraph or less, but I do just want to talk about who this is for.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. Is it for like, I'm thinking of my dearest, dearest friend who runs a single person photography business? It's just it's their business. Right. So, like, would they qualify for that?

Christina Phillips: Yeah. So so this is really specifically for people who are self-employed or they have a business that is a partnership, a sole proprietorship, and I don't think he's even worth it to go like how this works. What I will say is this deduction in 2024 results in about $60 billion in savings in people's individual taxes. Okay, so put another way, $60 billion that used to go to the government stayed in people's pockets. But almost all of that went to people who made over $100,000. And the most savings went to people who made over $1 million.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay.

Christina Phillips: So this pass through deduction is mostly being used by people at the upper end of the tax bracket.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay.

Christina Phillips: This is one really good example of when you hear that the 2017 tax bill resulted in tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest Americans directly. This is one of the ones they're talking about. So those are some of the things that are supposed to expire. Republicans really want to keep them in. There is one other big thing that's not going to expire that happened in 2017 and that was the business tax cut.

Hannah McCarthy: We're talking like business versus individual. Yeah. Okay.

Christina Phillips: So businesses have to pay taxes right. The old business tax rate was 35%. Trump lowered it to 21%. That rate is not going anywhere.

Hannah McCarthy: That's a huge cut. Yes. I did not realize it was that significant. That's it's a massive difference.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, yeah. And do you remember like when you hear business tax cuts. How is that sold. Do you remember how that was sold to people.

Hannah McCarthy: That it will it will support businesses essentially. Right. And that's a very American idea. It might be a political American idea, but it's it's in the water. It's talked about all the time. And often you hear about the small business owner or the entrepreneur who will benefit from this. And if those businesses are strong, then the American economy will be strong.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. And a big part of that is that if those businesses have more income, they will put that income back into their businesses, they'll grow their businesses, they'll grow their wages that the worker will benefit from this growth. So did this happen?

Hannah McCarthy: You tell me.

Christina Phillips: No, the answer is no. The answer, Hannah, is it did not. So at one point, Trump had promised that these kinds of tax cuts would conservatively increase household wealth for most Americans, at least by $4,000 over the first few years.

Hannah McCarthy: I remember that.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, that was his conservative estimate.

Archive: Along with a lower business tax rate, would likely give the typical American household around a $4,000 pay raise. And that's money that will be spent in our economy.

Christina Phillips: There are multiple studies that looked at how salary and wages changed across workers, in companies that found that this did not happen.

Beverly Moran: And the thing is that people who have high wages, like really high wages, have enough power within their organizations to restructure how they're paid in order to take advantage of whatever is left remaining.

Hannah McCarthy: The people in charge of how much people get paid, paid themselves. Right?

Christina Phillips: Yeah, yeah.

Beverly Moran: Those corporate tax changes had a big effect on people who are in the top 10% of the income in the United States. Those are the people who own stocks. I mean, it's all this idea that, oh, if you have a pension, you own stocks, if you have a 401 K, you own stocks, but pension accounts and 401 S and 403 B's and all those pension, you know, retirement accounts are actually taxed differently Then the way that just an individual stop is taxed. So first of all, whatever happens within the account, the retirement account is not taxed at all. So all you're buying and selling is not taxed. But then when you pull the money out of the account, you are paying taxes as though you earned that money from wages. So you're paying at the highest rates for that money. But if you just an individual who has stocks, which is very few people, now, you're in a whole different situation because if you pull money out of that stock, in other words, if you sell it, your tax rate is remarkably low.

Hannah McCarthy: So, Christina, you were telling me about the reconciliation process, the fact that, you know, the numbers kind of have to work out when Congress passes one of these budget bills. How did Congress in 2017 justify all of these cuts?

Christina Phillips: Yeah. So I have to say, even in 2017, many economists said that this bill overpromised on revenue and it under promised on how much it would help the average taxpayer. The thing is, though, you do have to factor in the fact that, like they are pricing this out for a decade and there's no way to account for things like the pandemic or other policies, but there were still things that they said we're going to do in order to make these tax cuts work. The first has to do with that mandate to have health insurance. Do you know what I'm talking about there?

Hannah McCarthy: I do know that when I pay my taxes now, I have to essentially certify that I have viable health insurance, right? Like, I have to prove that I have health insurance. And, you know, if you don't get health insurance through your company, you have to get it through through the marketplace, which can be complicated and expensive. But it's part of the tax process to prove that you have health insurance.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. So the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2014, created a way for people to purchase their own health insurance on the marketplace, like you said. And you could get a penalty if you didn't have some kind of health insurance for longer than a few months. And so that's where that process was introduced, where you have to prove you have health insurance. Well, in 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminated the penalty. So the mandate is still there, but there is no penalty now. And so how does this save money? Well, this is what Beverly said.

Beverly Moran: So it used to be that if you didn't have employer provided insurance, you had to get your own insurance. And so you went into the marketplace. And in order to make sure that you were able to afford the insurance. There were all sorts of federal subsidies, so the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act got rid of the individual mandate and then counted that people would not go to the marketplace and therefore there would be less demand for federal subsidies.

Christina Phillips: So basically what happened was with the mandate, the federal government was like, if we're making you buy health insurance, we have to make sure that you can pay for it. And some people are not going to be able to afford it unless they get a subsidy from the government. So the government will subsidize you buying your health insurance because it's good overall for people to have health insurance. Now, if we zero out the mandate and there's no longer a penalty, then the expectation was that less people would apply for health insurance, which means that the government would be spending less money on subsidies.

Hannah McCarthy: Got it. Okay. Yeah. So because nothing happens to you if you do not abide by this mandate, which is so interesting. And as a rule follower, there's a point at which I just glitch and I can't like, well, I'm going to do it anyway. I have to. They told me to. Um, okay. Got it. So really, I mean, it's, it's they're banking on the fact that tons of people are just going to say like, well, nothing's going to happen to me, so. No.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. And and specifically it's a certain demographic of people. So even with the subsidies, when that mandate still had a penalty, the vast majority of people who paid the penalty were making under $75,000 a year.

Beverly Moran: The theory was, and it turned out to be true, that if you take away the penalty, the poorer you are, the more every penny counts, right? So even though it might have been nice to have insurance, if you're saying, okay for the year, I'm going to have to put in $500 for insurance or $500 for groceries. I'm not going to get the insurance. So the number of people who are covered by health insurance dropped when the individual mandate was taken away, and those people who dropped out no longer were eligible for federal subsidies to buy insurance because they weren't buying insurance. So the federal government saved money because people were no longer buying insurance. Right. And the Republican Congress used that as a way to meet the the deficit targets for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Hannah McCarthy: So they took a gamble and it paid out.

Christina Phillips: No. So it didn't really work. So initially it did. In the first couple of years, the number of people who enrolled in the marketplace dropped, which did save the government some money in subsidies. But then the pandemic hit and the Biden administration started offering even more subsidies. And on top of that, you know, people really want insurance because there's a pandemic and more people lost their jobs, so they're going for insurance on the marketplace. So in short, the marketplace enrollment went way up. But these subsidies are set to expire at the end of this year. I think this is a really good example of how you can the budget in some ways is a little futile, because you have to demonstrate how you're going to affect the budget over the next ten years, but there's no possible way to account for things like a pandemic. But also it's hard to account for what the next president might do or policymakers might do. I want to talk about another way that they tried to sell this, that another part of the reconciliation. And this is the salt cap. Do you know anything about the salt cap?

Hannah McCarthy: No.

Christina Phillips: Okay. So this stands for state and local taxes cap, which it basically limits how much of your local tax burden you can deduct from your federal tax burden to $10,000. So before this, there wasn't really a limit on how much state taxes you could deduct from federal taxes, which meant that there was a lot of lost tax revenue on the federal level from people who lived in states with high state and local taxes. Essentially, if if you paid like $25,000 in state taxes, you could then say, well, I'm taking that off my tax burden on the federal level because I'm paying these state taxes and I'm not going to, again, on top of that, pay the federal taxes. So they set the cap at $10,000 in an attempt to sort of recapture that money that people might normally deduct. And 91% of the people affected by this cap made over $100,000. And it disproportionately impacted people in high tax states. So the top ones are California, New York, new Jersey, Illinois, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Now, what I think is interesting about this is looking ahead to this current budget proposal. There's a lot of different ideas about what to do with this salt cap, because a lot of high income earners in these high tax states do not like it, because it does limit how much they can take off their federal taxes. Right. And so there have been proposals like, okay, so maybe we lift the cap, we eliminate the cap, or maybe we lift the cap. So maybe now it's a $50,000 cap. The main takeaway was this is one way to recapture lost revenue that was most affecting people who were making over $100,000 in these high tax states. This blew my mind a little bit. Hannah, this is my favorite one. It has to do with tax brackets.

Hannah McCarthy: I always think I know something about tax brackets, and then I'll say it really confidently to someone who actually understands them and they're like, no dummy.

Christina Phillips: Okay, so tax brackets is basically like basically the IRS sets a bracket. And if your income is between this and this, you pay that rate of tax. Right. And one of the ways that they adjust those tax brackets over time is by adjusting for inflation. Right. So costs are going up. But then also wages are going up. So you have to raise the brackets in order to continue to adjust for how people's wages are going up. So in 2002, a single person who had $6,000 or less in income got a 10% tax rate. In 2024, if you had $11,600 or less in income, you had that 10% tax rate. So that's adjusting for inflation that that tax bracket got higher and higher. Well, the inflation adjustment, which also is sometimes called a cost of living adjustment, that also applies to some of the credits people get, in particular the earned income tax credit, which is a tax credit that is specifically targeted at people who have some income but not very much income. Okay. Especially like working families. So that's a credit that will go up a lot if you have kids, if you are a single earner, if you're a couple and you've got children, but you're earning some income, but you're not earning very much income. So that incentive rate is also adjusted based on inflation. What if, in order to collect more taxes to compensate for the tax cuts, you change the inflation formula. So inflation seems to go up more slowly, meaning the IRS cost of living adjustment goes up more slowly, meaning more people's incomes are getting taxed at a higher rate proportionally over time, and more people are being priced out of credits like the Earned Income Tax credit.

Hannah McCarthy: It's so interesting, right? Like here I am just breezing along, thinking that the calculation that determines the rate of inflation is like a mathematical formula. That's absolute or something, right? Like this is what inflation is. This is how you determine inflation. But they're just saying like we're going to change what formula is the inflation rate. Right.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. When it comes specifically to the IRS.

Beverly Moran: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act changed how inflation adjustments were made. And they changed it so that they could show that they were bringing in revenues. Right. So now how are they bringing in revenues? Because they went from one calculation that would peg inflation, you know, at this level. And they changed it to a different calculation that would peg inflation at this level, so that the inflation adjustments would go up more slowly, right. But that means that people who are right on the edge. Right. For things like the earned income tax credit, they could get inflation out of those credits.

Christina Phillips: There are different ways to calculate inflation. They were using one system and they changed to a different system.

Hannah McCarthy: In order to tax people at a higher rate.

Christina Phillips: So the effect is that the tax brackets are being adjusted more slowly over time. This does not change prices. Right. It doesn't change how much things cost. And it doesn't necessarily change how much you get paid to pay for those things. The old way that the IRS measured inflation was based on what's called the CPI You the consumer price index for all urban workers. So for what it's worth, most public and private organizations use this to calculate inflation and do inflation adjustments. That's across the government on many, many businesses use the CPI You the one.

Beverly Moran: The original one was based on a basket of goods. So like they would always check on orange juice they would always check on eggs.

Hannah McCarthy: Can't do that anymore. I tell you that much. Yeah.

Christina Phillips: So this basket of goods is more like thousands of goods. But the whole point is that you're tracking how much the price changes on a set of things that an average consumer is buying over time. So in 2018, as a result of the 2017 tax bill, the IRS began using a different rule to measure inflation. And this was called the chained CPI. So the chained consumer price Index, which to me sounds like blockchain. It sounds like crypto.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah.

Beverly Moran: It's based on the idea that if prices go up, you'll switch. So eggs are expensive. You'll buy tuna fish instead. Or orange juice is expensive. You'll buy apple juice instead.

Hannah McCarthy: I don't think that works. Like, I think you need a human behavioral analyst to come in and say, like, based on all this data, and maybe they are basing it on data that in actual fact, when people can't buy eggs, they buy tuna fish. But the idea that you can say like this is the swap. Good, right? This is the good you're going to buy instead. And if you can't get that, you'll get this instead. How on earth are you able to say like, this is the good you're going to swap out another good for? Like, sometimes if I'm at the store and I see that something's really expensive, I go and buy a frozen pizza instead. You know, like instead of buying a bunch of ingredients for salad, you know? So it's like, it's gonna be different for a woman in her 30s with no children. Then it's gonna be for any number of other people, right?

Christina Phillips: Yeah. So so what you're pointing to is one of the major critiques of this chained CPI, which is that it does assume a certain level of flexibility. Now, many people who like this formula, there are a lot of economists who say that this is actually a better way to adjust inflation, and that the CPI is like over exaggerating inflation, and that this is actually more of a moderated approach, because they argue that the old formula doesn't account for the fact that people will change up their basket of goods if the prices of certain things go up. But to your point, what Beverly says is that it's more complicated and inequitable to think of it that way.

Hannah McCarthy: You know, it's like that line from sex and the city where Carrie is like, some nights instead of dinner, I would buy myself a Cosmo. I felt it fed me more. There are people who will, like, pivot to a luxury item when they're frustrated that they can't get the simple item right.

Christina Phillips: Girl. Dinner versus Cosmo? Yeah. Okay, so here's what Beverly said.

Beverly Moran: Well, the poorer you are, the less likely it's going to be that you could make those sort of choices, because core people live in supermarket desert where they can't just say, oh, I'm not going to have eggs today. I'm going to get this other thing.

Hannah McCarthy: It's a far more equitable way of putting it than my reference to sex in the city and my frozen pizza.

Christina Phillips: So I am not an economist, and I am not able to say, like I have my feelings about chained CPI just like you, that that was one of my first questions as well, is like, I don't understand how you would calculate those things, but it does seem like it's less likely that people can make substitutions like this in certain places and with certain situations. So maybe that means that inflation feels different for different people. And this is going to raise the inflation rate as far as these tax brackets more slowly, when people might be feeling the pain of inflation more deeply in certain situations. I do think like if we're going to think about, okay, so what have politicians said about chained CPI before in the Obama administration? There was this idea that maybe chained CPI would be a good way to calculate Social Security payments. So this was something that was floated. Was that like we're using the CPI for Social Security payments and like thresholds for those payments. Maybe we switch to chained CPI instead because it will make those adjustments slower. They'll be putting less money out in Social Security over time. So people who wanted to switch to chained CPI for Social Security estimated that it would save the government over $300 billion back then. But if you think about what that savings looks like, it's savings because Social Security checks get proportionately smaller over time. And so even though this calculation doesn't apply to things like Social Security. When you apply it to tax brackets, the price of things keeps going up. The inflation calculators don't change the price of things, but the change is that the rate at which the government adjusts for those rising prices and rising wages.

Beverly Moran: So just the people who are really going to be hit by the highest inflation because they can't dip and dodge, right, are the people who are then going to get hurt on their eligibility for the earned income tax credit, which might help them buy the food that's in the basket, that's going higher and higher in price. And it was changed deliberately to make the Trump tax cuts hit the goals that they had to hit in order to make it legal to make that change. Right. Because of that, the reconciliation process and all of this, that you have to show that within ten years you have to show what the effect will be on the budget and you can't have that effect be too high.

Christina Phillips: So those were some ways that the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was reconciled.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay.

Christina Phillips: And with that, we are going to take a quick break. Listeners, if you support this work, which is always free to get but not free to make, consider becoming a sustaining member by donating at Civics101podcast.org. And while you're there, you'll find our entire back catalog. We've got over 300 episodes with transcripts and teaching materials. You can find all of that on our website.

Hannah McCarthy: I believe it's tax deductible. That donation.

Christina Phillips: I think you're right. I think it is a tax deductible donation.

Hannah McCarthy: It's got to be we're a nonprofit, right?

Christina Phillips: Yeah. Yeah. No, it totally is. Yeah. You can deduct it from your taxes, folks. We're back. This is Civics 101, and today we're talking about the wheeling and dealing of tax policy. So now I want to talk about the new bill. So essentially, Republicans in Congress are pushing, for the most part, to extend all of those expiring tax cuts that we talked about that were enacted in 2017, which would lead to an even greater deficit. And Trump also wants to introduce a couple of new tax cuts. Do you know what some of those are?

Hannah McCarthy: I did like a month ago. That's fair. I don't remember now.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. So he doesn't want to tax Social Security. And he also wants to eliminate taxes on tips and overtime. So all of these things will cost money, right? Congress has said that it will allow $4.5 trillion in lost revenue over the next almost ten years to 2034. So they're saying we're allowing ourselves to make $4.5 trillion worth of tax cuts that will cut into revenue in order to pay for that. One of the solutions in the reconciliation is to reduce mandatory spending by $2 trillion.

Hannah McCarthy: What's mandatory spending versus another kind of spending.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. So mandatory spending is spending that's automatically allocated every year by law. So no matter what this amount of money needs to go to these things. And then there's discretionary spending, which is where most of the like usual every year, political haggling over where money is going happens because Congress designates that money through appropriations. So mandatory spending is more secure and stable. Source of funding. In 2023, it was at least $3.8 trillion. So a $2 trillion dollar cut to mandatory spending is like more than half right now. Do you know where most of that mandatory spending goes?

Hannah McCarthy: That's what I was just going to ask you.

Christina Phillips: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, economic assistance, veteran benefits and defense. Okay. So here's what's interesting. Republicans in Congress and the president have all promised that cuts to mandatory spending won't touch things like Medicare or Social Security. That's what they've said. And some have even said it won't cut into Medicaid and it won't touch veterans benefits, because these are all extremely popular across the political spectrum. But many policy experts say that it is virtually impossible to cut that much funding without touching these programs. And also these are programs that many people have been paying taxes on for years with the expectation that we will get to use them, right. So we have been paying into Social Security. If we've had jobs, if we've been working and paying our income taxes and payroll taxes, we've been paying into Social Security, unemployment, Medicaid, Medicare for years sometimes. And the idea is that, okay, I've been paying for this so that I can use it when I need to. So that's why it is so unpopular to try to cut that. But the call to cut that much mandatory spending is going to be really difficult without making some of these cuts.

Christina Phillips: So in the House proposal, there was a line in there that says if they don't meet the $2 trillion tax cuts, they'll lower the revenue loss proportionally. So like if we don't hit 2 trillion, we've got to like make it up in the 4.5 trillion worth of tax cuts. But that does kind of open the door up for which things they'll give up in order to make that proportional cut. Right. So that's what we should be paying attention to over the next couple of months. House speaker Mike Johnson has said that he really wants to get this budget through and on the president's desk by summer. This is what people are talking about. Now, how do we reconcile these things? And the Senate has said that they would like to pass two separate bills, right. So they want to do spending first and then do tax cuts later. And the House is like, we want to lump it all into one, and they need to somehow meet in the middle. And Johnson really wants to get that done as soon as possible. So that's what's being haggled over right now.

Hannah McCarthy: When it comes to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. Somebody who is budgeting very closely around their Social Security check if the numbers on that check change. I mean, for someone who is truly dependent on those checks to make ends meet every month, that's going to instantly change the calculations they have to make and how viable their living choices are.

Christina Phillips: Right. And that's, you know, another reason why, when we go back to that inflation calculator, when there was the idea of maybe changing how inflation adjustments affect how much you get in Social Security in order to save the government a lot of money. It was extremely unpopular because so many people who rely on that Social Security money are really living on that margin, like that Social Security money. If that changes, it's going to cause a lot of recalculations. And it might be the difference between whether or not they can afford housing or food or a lot of other really essential things. It's not about how much they have in savings. It becomes really like the everyday costs that you have to think about are going to change pretty quickly. So I did at one point ask Beverly, I'm like, you study tax policy and you've studied tax policies in different countries. Like what do you think is the like simplest solution to fund these programs that people rely on in a way that feels fair? So, you know, I am paying into my government because I know my government will take care of me. Like, how could that be done in a way that doesn't feel like these programs are at risk, and it feels like you're kind of like putting in and then getting back. And this is what she said.

Beverly Moran: The real fact of the matter is, if they got rid of itemized deductions and kept the high standard deduction, almost all of the pain would go to high income people. People under 50% would see like no difference. And almost all the pain would be in the people in the top 10%. You know, who could afford it. So why aren't they doing that? Because that's not really what they're trying to do, but they're just trying to do is sort of bargain back and forth to see how much they can give to the wealthy and take from the poor to cover.

Christina Phillips: I then was like, okay, so how long have we had the standard deduction? Which is like it seems like a very obvious question that I just never thought about. So I went back and looked so itemized. Deductions have been around since 1913 when the federal income tax was established, but only the top 10% of people even paid income taxes back then. It was like a very limited wealth tax, but we already were building incentives to lower your tax burden in from the very beginning. Right? So if we're going to charge you taxes, we're going to give you ways that like if you invest it in this way, then you can lower your tax burden. The standard deduction was introduced in 1944 when the income tax became a mass tax, meaning that it expanded to basically all working Americans because the idea of introducing this tax for all people, and then all of those people then trying to itemize like it just is absolute chaos.

Hannah McCarthy: They don't have business offices, right?

Christina Phillips: Yeah. And over time, what's happened is the tax code has added more itemized deduction possibilities like this is a thing that happens. It's like you find another thing that you want to itemize, another thing you want to incentivize people to do. And so there are more and more itemized deductions being added over time. But that standard deduction is what most people take.

Hannah McCarthy: I will also like just to reiterate, when I have personally been like, let me mess around with the itemized, it mostly doesn't benefit me because most of the options on there just do not apply to me at all. It's like it's a $0 change if I do the itemized deduction, so it's pointless. For me.

Christina Phillips: The very pessimistic idea of the American dream is that you have enough wealth that your itemized deduction is higher than your standard deduction. Like yeah, that's basically it. Right.

Hannah McCarthy: So clinical.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. It's not that you can just pick yourself up by your bootstraps. It's that you make enough money in creative enough ways that your itemized deductions are bigger than your standard deduction. I think where we are today is that a lot of the itemized deductions are more beneficial to people with more money to play around with.

Hannah McCarthy: Because they're doing more things with that money.

Christina Phillips: Exactly.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah.

Beverly Moran: The Trump tax cuts blew up the deficit, right. Just like the George Bush tax cuts blew up the deficit, just like the Reagan tax cuts blew up the deficit. Right. So if they want to keep from making it worse, they have to get revenue from somewhere, getting revenue from single mothers. There's there's not like really a constituent group. Single mothers. Right. But there's a constituent group, high income individuals. Absolutely.

Christina Phillips: So this gets to another thing that might come up in this reconciliation process, and that is phasing out certain tax benefits. One of the ones that I have seen talked about was removing the head of household filing status, which is a higher standard deduction because it's meant for someone bringing in the majority of the income for a household in which there are other people living there, and you're supporting them under certain specifications.

Beverly Moran: That's very anti-female, because virtually everybody who files as head of household is a female.

Christina Phillips: The latest estimate I could find from the 2007 census was that over 75% of people who filed as head of household are women, and 75%. Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. All right.

Christina Phillips: And there was even more recent Tax Policy Center data that said that most people who get a higher deduction this way make under $100,000. There were other ideas that I've seen floated by politicians, including getting rid of deductions for interest paid on student loans, eliminating the tax exempt status for healthcare organizations like nonprofit hospitals, charging taxes on scholarships and green vehicles, and removing credits for using renewable energy like battery powered vehicles. So these are ways that some of these deductions that some of us may actually use could go away. Right. Like you think about somebody who's going to get it not going to have to pay taxes on paying back student loans. It's probably somebody who wasn't able to pay back their student loans in a lump sum, like you and me. And we're just over here paying and chipping away little by little every single year. Right. And like.

Hannah McCarthy: Moving one grain of sand from the pile to the other pile.

Christina Phillips: I think that's like when I was doing my deduction, I tried to do the itemized again this year and it was like, so how much did you pay in student loan interest? And I was like, no, you're going to make me look.

Hannah McCarthy: I know.

Christina Phillips: I don't want to see this.

Hannah McCarthy: And it's in a compartment under a bed in my brain.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. And it's like I put the number in and then it's like, nah, that's not enough.

Hannah McCarthy: That doesn't exactly. That's the that's what I kept running up against. I was like, why don't bother hon. Yeah. Just go back to the standard.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. Yeah. That's actually going to do you a lot more than what you think you're doing. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. So here's what I want to leave us. If you're trying to prepare your taxes and you feel underwater, we've had several people on TikTok, which, by the way, we are on TikTok now and I love talking to people and comments. People and comments are amazing. There. There were people who said, hey, there are free resources at the state level that can help you file your taxes and help answer your questions for free, especially if you're somebody who's lower income. Or maybe you're over the age of 65, you have limited access to technology. Maybe you're a new American. Maybe you need some assistance in a different language. These are volunteer and nonprofit organizations that help people file their taxes. And my advice is to open up a search browser, if you can, and look up the term volunteer income tax assistance and then type the name of your state. I did that for New Hampshire, and a couple of the top results sent me directly to nonprofits that have information about who you can call and where you can go to get help, specifically on your state income taxes sometimes, but also just generally federal and state income taxes. If you don't have a computer or access to the internet, I recommend walking into your local library and saying, I'm trying to find this because librarians are great at research, and they also probably know a lot of this stuff already because they're always thinking about the community. So walk into your library and be like, I would like help finding free tax resources, maybe nearby. And they will, I'm sure be delighted to help you. So that's where we are.

Hannah McCarthy: I love that it also reminds me, Christina, I believe this was in your last tax episode, right? Where you were like, you don't have to pay to file your taxes. There is a free way to file your taxes and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. There's a free way. And this is just an extension of that. It's like, and even if the software people pay for it makes it seem easier. There's another way to do that for free. Yes, I love that. That's great.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, the free file stuff, by the way. Go to irs.gov and click on the Explore Free File options. It's right there. And this is software that they've contracted with the government, and they've promised to make it accessible to people who should file for free, which is anyone who made under $84,000 a year and has a relatively simple tax return. So there you go.

Hannah McCarthy: There you go.

Christina Phillips: Civics 101 facts.

Hannah McCarthy: This was fascinating.

Christina Phillips: Oh, good. I'm so glad.

Hannah McCarthy: This was vaccinating.

Christina Phillips: Well thank you Hannah. This episode was written by me, Christina Phillips, with help from Hannah McCarthy and edited by Rebecca Lavoie. Our team includes host Nick Capodice and producer Marina Henke. Music. In this episode by Epidemic Sound and Chris Zabriskie, Civics 101 is a production of NPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

The Kids Are Alright: A Civics Ed Update

Two years ago today, we attended Civic Learning Week and produced an episode on the state of civics education in the US. We heard some good things and some frustrating things. Today we're getting an update on civics education with Emma Humphries from iCivics, hearing some student audio submissions from our friends at the Youth Media Challenge, and getting advice on how students can make change with Cheryl Cook-Kallio.

Click here to livestream the National Forum for Civics Learning Week.

Click here to listen to our episodes on civics education in the US.

Click here to read the full State of Young People report published by America's Promise Alliance.

And finally, click here to check out the work students are producing (and submit your own!) for KQED's Youth Media Challenge.

Transcript

Note: this transcript is AI-generated and may contain errors

kids are alright for trans.mp3

Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: I'm going to start today with a little bit of a throwback. Hannah, do you remember this?

Danielle Allen: The good news is we've actually reversed that dynamic. Now we're up to $0.50 per kid on civic education. All right, so, hey, we're moving in the right direction now. But look, look, now we can say we hit bottom right because we've turned we've turned it. We turned the corner. We've gone up from $0.05 to $0.50. So that's better than a poke in the eye.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, I do remember [00:00:30] this. That's Danielle Allen from our episode on the State of civics Education. Danielle is currently the director of the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation at Harvard, by the way, also the director of the Democratic Knowledge Project. But in this case, she was telling us a piece of good news that funding for civics has increased tenfold.

Nick Capodice: So we interviewed Danielle at Civics Learning Week two years ago. And I do mean two years ago. This is an anniversary of sorts, because this is [00:01:00] Civic Learning Week right now. Hannah and I are going to the Hoover Institution at Stanford on Thursday. We're going to interview attendees. Any listeners out there can go themselves if they wish or they can live stream it. I've got a link down there in the show notes, but I bring all this up because today is an update on the state of civics education in the United States. And without falling into hyperbole here, I want to say that civics ed is in trouble.

Emma Humphries: Because [00:01:30] what we know when it comes to civic learning is we don't have nearly enough of it.

Nick Capodice: This is Emma Humphries. Emma is the chief education officer at Icivics. They organize Civics Learning Week every year, and if you don't know Icivics, you should. They are an organization that we've worked with and collaborated with ever since our show began.

Emma Humphries: There's a lot of support for it widespread, ideologically diverse support for more and better civic education. But we're still in a situation where students are not getting nearly enough, [00:02:00] especially when you compare social studies or civics instruction to instruction in Stem or Ela.

Nick Capodice: So, Hannah, I'm using this anniversary of Civics Learning Week as an excuse to do two things today. First, to tell our audience why civics education is both extremely important and in a rough spot right now. And secondly, I'm going to share what students themselves see as the most important issues in the country.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, Nick. So Emma said that there [00:02:30] is, you know, support for civics education, that people want it. How do we know that?

Nick Capodice: Right. So I've got anecdotal evidence and polling data on this. I'll get the anecdotal out of the way. First. In our seven years of making this show, I have not met a single person Republican, Democrat, diehard, libertarian, independent, whatever who heard about our show and said Civics 101. Well, that seems a bit unnecessary.

Nick Capodice: I think. Our kids study enough civics already. Never [00:03:00] happened. And I will add, if that person was born in the 1970s or earlier, they then say, you know, I remember being taught civics exhaustively when I went to school. What the heck happened?

Hannah McCarthy: My mother has said that to me.

Nick Capodice: She has. And I heard her say it. And then more often than not, they bring up schoolhouse Rock.

Bill: I know I'll be a law someday. At least I hope.

Nick Capodice: Anecdotal evidence. Nothing like it.

Bill: Oh yeah!

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, but let's have the data.

Emma Humphries: Yeah. So we've we've done the polling. Are some of our partners have [00:03:30] done the polling. So when it comes to the general public, it is more than bipartisan. Just striking overwhelming majority of Americans believe that civic education is one of the best things we can do to strengthen our constitutional democracy and enhance our our national cohesion, and to sort of push back against all the social divisiveness we're seeing. So recent reporting from the America's Promise Alliance. They recently released their State of Young People 2024 report, [00:04:00] which showed that 9 in 10 young people. So 91% believe that everyone should have access to civic education. However, just 4 in 10, 43% of young people feel even somewhat prepared. So we are failing them. They are asking for more and better and more engaging civic education, and they're not getting it. And as a result, they do not feel prepared to take up their important role as participants in our constitutional democracy.

Nick Capodice: So, Hannah, if I take a second and I try [00:04:30] to remember what I learned in grade school, the first things that leap out are things like Pemdas, you know.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh yeah, the mathematical order of operations that really saved me in math class.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Or like the mitochondria.Is the.Powerhouse of the cell or foil.

Hannah McCarthy: Keeping algebra fresh.

Nick Capodice: But if I'm thinking what school taught me, as in what resulted in me sitting in a chair right now in front of a microphone, being one of the happiest people I've met. It was, in essence, [00:05:00] civics. And I don't necessarily mean social studies class or knowing about the Teapot Dome scandal, or even how a bill becomes a law, which is super important. But in this instance, I mean, being a good citizen, a good classmate.

Hannah McCarthy: This is what we talked about in our live show about civics writ large, that it's not necessarily just about learning how the government works, it's about how you speak to other people in your class, how you relate to your teacher, [00:05:30] how you deal with conflict or advocate for what you want in a larger community.

Nick Capodice: Right. And learning to agree or disagree with someone to use evidence to back up an argument. You know, we do that in essays and other topics, but that is a really important piece of being a person and that is civics.

Emma Humphries: It's really interesting that, you know, for some time now you've seen increasing calls for more and better civic education. It's getting a lot of attention that hasn't fully translated into changes in state [00:06:00] legislation. There have been some wins. The we are going in the right direction. More states are providing more instructional time, more course requirements around civics. But still, all these years later, the vast majority of states only require one semester of civics or government, and they typically teach that in 12th grade. Another way to put it is we spend 13 years from kindergarten through 12th grade preparing students for careers, teaching them how to read, teaching them math and science. And then [00:06:30] we spend one semester, their senior year preparing them for the very thing that public schools were founded to prepare them for in the first place.

Nick Capodice: I have to jump in here and say that we are going to do a full episode on this sometime, but Emma's point is a valid and supported one. Madison. Jefferson. Washington. Myriad others. They believe the point in education of school was to prepare students to be good citizens.

Emma Humphries: If we saw literacy rates or math [00:07:00] rates the way we see civic rates, parents would be up in arms. If you found out that your kid was only getting ten minutes of math instruction a week, you would you would pull them out of the school. Yet that's exactly what's happening with civic education across this country, particularly at the elementary level. So that's what Civic Learning Week is about. It's about calling attention to this need for greater civic education and hopefully activating people to pay a little bit more attention and start demanding from their state legislatures that their students get [00:07:30] these learning opportunities.

Nick Capodice: And again, we are not talking about knowing the birth and death dates of presidents or what a discharge petition is.

Emma Humphries: I'm not so concerned that students can't rattle off the names of all nine Supreme Court justices, and even takes me a second to do it. I have to kind of picture them all in their official portrait and go through one by one in order to remember them all. It's not even that important to me that most people can't name the five freedoms of the First Amendment. I wish they could. But what matters is that if you were [00:08:00] to give them those five freedoms, they would say, yeah, yeah, those are important. I value those, that's what matters. It's the disposition towards democratic governance, towards the common good. I think that's what matters most. And so we need to stop focusing so much on, you know, just rote memorization. Although I am 100% here for for promoting civic knowledge and start thinking, how can we engage young people and all Americans to care, to care about [00:08:30] American democracy and to care that they live in a democracy because they want to live in a democracy?

Hannah McCarthy: You know what, Nick? This is for me bringing up that interview with Danielle Allen again. She told us that when people born before World War Two were polled about whether it was essential to live in a democracy. 70% of them said, yes, it is. But when people in their 40s or younger were polled, only 30% of them said it was essential.

Nick Capodice: Right. That statistic has [00:09:00] not left my back pocket in two years. And Emma continued on that vein. So to get back to the recent polling that America's Promise Alliance did, by the way, I've got a link to that full report in the show notes. Fair warning. There's going to be a lot of links to things in the show notes today. So if you're, like in a civic mood, just, you know, get a big cup of coffee and open them all up.

Emma Humphries: But here's the data point that stood out the most to me, which is that only 23% of young people trust the adults in their own [00:09:30] community. Put another way, 77% of young people do not trust the adults in their own community. That shocked me. It's the declining trust in institutions and the declining trust ultimately in democracy, in this belief that a democratic government, whether it is a republic or a free and open 100% pure democracy, which I know we do not have, but that declining trust in democracy is real. [00:10:00] It's getting worse. And to me that's the biggest fallout. Young people can't understand the value of living in a democratic country if they don't understand the alternative. So what they see is dysfunction and they come. They see, okay, dysfunction, democracy. Maybe they're not putting the alliteration together. But if all you know about American democracy or democracy in general is what you see on 24 hour cable news or [00:10:30] the very, uh, one sided news sources that a lot of us tend to run to, then you might think that a different form of government could be better. You might think it would be better to have just one person calling all the shots. It would certainly feel more efficient than our slow moving democracy. So I think if you were to ask this question of young people in the 80s and 90s, you would have had way higher percentages. So it's not that I'm shocked that there's declining trust. I [00:11:00] was just shocked at how bad it is.

Hannah McCarthy: So just to recap everything Emma has said, students do not trust our institutions. They have lost trust and faith in democracy and they do not feel prepared. But they want to.

Nick Capodice: Exactly.

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, it's a little bleak.

Nick Capodice: It is. Hannah. But I'm gonna bring you back from the void after the break, I promise.

Hannah McCarthy: Did Emma have any words of optimism [00:11:30] to share?

Nick Capodice: Of course she did.

Emma Humphries: What gives me hope is that young people care so much. Whenever anyone says, oh, kids these days, I'm like, they're amazing. Have you talked to any? Because if you think they're all terrible, then you should go spend some time in schools and you should try talking to them so they care a whole lot. They just care about different things. And we thus far haven't cared enough to give them the knowledge, skills and dispositions they need to feel that they can effectively [00:12:00] pursue change or advocacy, or just otherwise be engaged politically. That gives me hope. Another thing that gives me hope is our nation's civics teachers. These folks are patriots. They they love America. They love our form of government. They love our history and our founding documents. And they are so thirsty to share that with with students. And we just need to band together to support them and to come together as Americans and [00:12:30] say, we believe this is important. We know we are polarized. We know the parties are pushing us to the edges.

Nick Capodice: Too bad We are gonna hear exactly what some of the things kids these days care about and what they can do about it right after a quick break.

Hannah McCarthy: But before that break, if you're up for it, you can support our work and our only occasionally dampened optimism at our website, civics101podcast.org. We're [00:13:00] back. You're listening to Civics 101. It is Civic Learning Week, and we are talking about the state of civics education in the United States. And, Nick, you were gonna call this episode The Kids Are All Right at one point. Are you still going to call it that?

Nick Capodice: It's still in the air, Hannah. Only our listeners will know what we ended up calling it. I don't know if a reference to a song by The Who is spot on, but that is a sentiment I come back to year after year working here at Civics 101. We have done [00:13:30] student contests, we've had kids propose legislation, we had a high school freshman create an Arrested Development style radio mockumentary about the Constitutional convention. So yeah, the kids are all right. Gosh darn it. They care a lot. And that is something we as a nation want.

Cheryl Cook-Kallio: First of all, the founders believed that the purpose of public education was to create participatory citizens.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, Cheryl.

Nick Capodice: Always a delight to have her on the show. This [00:14:00] is Cheryl Cook-Kallio. She is currently the president of the Alameda County Board of Education. She's a constitutional scholar and a former teacher and so many other things.

Cheryl Cook-Kallio: And if you start right there, everything we do is to teach a young person how to be part of a community, whether that's their neighborhood, whether it's their city, whether it's their county. We want them to be connected to what happens to them. So in that sense, the reason this is important is it takes what they've learned in school and it forces [00:14:30] them to apply it to the world around them, which is what they're going to be doing as adults. So where some parents would look at this and say, well, this is an add on, no, no, this is the result of public education. It should be the result of all education is that you become a participatory citizen.

Hannah McCarthy: When Cheryl says participatory citizen, she doesn't just mean like running for office, right?

Nick Capodice: Right. I mean, like, it could be, you know, I mean, I hope somebody's listening to this episode will be the president [00:15:00] in 30 years, but most of us won't be president or senator. But maybe, maybe we will be on something like the PTA, the Parent Teachers Association. Or maybe you'll just be a parent who recognizes your kid is sprinting across the street in an unsafe place because there's no crosswalk.

Cheryl Cook-Kallio: So what do you do then? Who do you go to? You don't go to your congressman. You go to your local electeds, your your city council. You're having issues with your school because [00:15:30] the lights go off or the pipes don't work or the bathrooms are not clean. Where do you go? You go to your school district and you talk about it there. And so if you teach kids how to take care of problems at the very local level, then what you're teaching them is how to be adults in the real world and take care of their community.

Nick Capodice: And to that point, to show everyone out there how students do want to take care of their community. I wanted to share the work done by Rachel Roberson and her whole team at KQED.

Hannah McCarthy: Kqed, [00:16:00] by the way, is a member station, just like NPR. Our station is this one's out of San Francisco, and they run a program called the Youth Media Challenge, which is a massive collection of audio, video, and images made by students.

Nick Capodice: And any middle or high schooler in the country can submit one on a host of topics. There's a link in the show notes to their site. You can learn how to create your own project, or you can just look and listen to the other ones. And for today, I am sharing just [00:16:30] a few short clips of a few of these submissions, just to let you get a feel of what's on students minds. So first, this is Matthew from Edgemont Junior Senior High School in Scarsdale, New York.

Matthew: Did you know that in 2023 there have been more than 632 school shootings in the USA alone? That has almost two shootings a day. Crime rate has been on the rise, and with 10% of all violent crime being firearm related, it seems obvious that we must do something about guns. Untrustworthy [00:17:00] people have access to guns, which leads to violent crime and tragic loss of life. We should pass laws to ensure everyone who is in the possession of a firearm has taken a proper gun safety course to prevent accidental deaths, children obtaining access to guns and enforce background checks that restrict gun access to unstable individuals.

Nick Capodice: Matthew's piece was about gun violence in schools, and to that Cheryl said, yes, the law is important, but it's not the only thing.

Cheryl Cook-Kallio: The first thing [00:17:30] the knee jerk reaction is to go. We have should have a law, but a law is a paper barrier. It's not enforced. You can have a law on the books, but the police don't show up and enforce it. It doesn't do anything. Does that make you feel safe to wave this piece of paper in front of somebody's face and say, you're not supposed to have the gun while they're pointing it at you? No, it doesn't, but that is the the backup that, that that you need to do things within your school to make sure that you're safe.

Hannah McCarthy: So what should Matthew or any other [00:18:00] student who cares about this do? If a law isn't protection enough, what is?

Cheryl Cook-Kallio: So when you look at something to your point about what do you do with the kid that has this on their mind constantly, and these kids, this generation of kids that had this on their mind since they were in kindergarten, they have practiced hiding in corners and getting into closets and putting, you know, screens over the windows and putting interior locks on their doors. Teachers have lived in fear about what in the world are they going to do? [00:18:30] The You try to start as small as possible, depending on the age. And so if you're doing middle school kids, for example, you know, where do you feel the most safe? How do you how do you take care of yourself? What would you do in this circumstance? And then perhaps the school ASB would come up with some kind of plan in order to address safety concerns, because the kids will see it in a way that adults don't. Adults think, you know one way kids. Kids are seeing it totally differently. And so having kids have voice in that is extremely important, [00:19:00] if for no other reason that they feel like they're part of the solution. But the more important reason is that their voice is different because of their age and because of their experience. And so I think that that when you look at that, the larger you know, how do you help the kids feel like they have some efficacy. You break it down into parts.

Hannah McCarthy: I really appreciate that because we sometimes look at students Being active civic participants and say, you know, hey, this is great. They're going [00:19:30] to really change the world for the better when they're in charge. But this is different. This is the idea that a student has a unique view and they can help find a solution right now.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, they want to help fix the problem. And to echo that, here is hyphen from Lowell High School in San Francisco, whose submission gave advice to people on what they could do.

Hai Fen: It's important to understand the impact you can have on someone's life, and what you can do to help them if they are struggling. You can advocate by [00:20:00] supporting someone who needs help volunteering for a mental health organization, and by correcting those who use stigmatizing language. Be an advocate today and start raising awareness for mental health. Please go check in on your loved ones from time to time just to see how they're doing. You never know what someone can be going through, so make it your job to care.

Cheryl Cook-Kallio: You could do the same thing with mental health, right? The kids are worried about their own mental health, they're not really sure about what a crisis is and what a crisis [00:20:30] isn't. What they know is that we're in there when they're in distress. They need to have a plan. And, you know, since the pandemic that has, um, become more of an issue, uh, with kids. So, for example, in, in their internal school, it could be just being part of a plan. If it is something one step beyond that, it's going to the school district saying, we need more support in this area, that this is really a crisis, that, you know, that we need the mental health services. [00:21:00] Uh, on a a little bit broader level, for example, Alameda County, where I'm on the I'm a school board. We have a county wide plan that allows us to build Medi-Cal, which is our version of Medicaid for mental health services for students in school. So we've been able to provide help for, um, for the district's kids. Don't know that. And so part of going through the process of checking on what the mental health services are would be them saying, oh [00:21:30] wait, we have these services, so how do we access them? Right? Because part of the problem may already be solved and they may just not know how to access it.

Nick Capodice: And the last one, Raphael and Elijah from South Pasadena High School in California.

Raphael and Elijah: Between all the horrors, though, I saw people who needed help help getting back on their feet, help finding a job and functioning in society, help defeating their demons, I realized these aren't nameless people. They're human beings. Our brothers and sisters, our [00:22:00] mothers and fathers. I became convinced we could not, no matter what, abandon these people. The United States needs to adopt a harm reduction policy to address the opioid epidemic effectively. Evidence from Switzerland demonstrates the potential success of such an approach. After implementing harm reduction strategies like supervised injection sites and medication assisted treatment. Overdose deaths dropped by 50% and new heroin users declined by 80%, according to the Stanford Social Innovation Review. In the United [00:22:30] States, the need for similar measures is urgent.

Nick Capodice: I didn't have time to include the entire piece here, but in Indiana, they talked about actually working in a safe house in Alaska, caring for people suffering from opiate addiction.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, I've listened to the whole thing. It's actually incredibly striking listening to a personal story, but it's also a statement, right? It's it's saying this is a problem. And also here are some potential solutions that have been tried in other countries.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, it's a solid, powerful piece. [00:23:00] And maybe Raphael and Elijah aren't old enough to vote, but they definitely could ask an elected representative to visit their class.

Cheryl Cook-Kallio: There is not a politician alive who doesn't want that picture. With a classroom full of kids with a smile on their face, right? They're all like that. And and not only because that's a great photo op for whatever they're doing. I mean, they're not really supposed to use that for political purposes and that sort of thing, but it also is a way [00:23:30] for them to build community in an area that they can't touch otherwise. And I've said this to adults, I've said the same speech to adults. They go to the website, they do info at whatever dot whatever for a Congress member. They type up their little letter and hit the button, and it goes directly into a hole somewhere. That is not the way that you read as an elected official.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. You know, I feel like we haven't really been over this on the show in detail. How do you reach an elected official?

Nick Capodice: Excellent question. Hannah. Sheryl's advice is you [00:24:00] call them, you don't email them first. You call them. You are polite. When you call them, you say, quote. The purpose of my call is to ask you about, in this case, the opioid epidemic. Who on your staff deals with these issues and would you transfer me to their office?

Cheryl Cook-Kallio: Sometimes they pick up the phone. Hallelujah. Most times they don't. And you leave a very detailed message. You know, here is my email address. And just for convenience, I'm going to send you a follow up [00:24:30] email. Okay. There's two touches there. Right. You're still not going to get an answer most of the time right. So what do you do. You wait five days. You make another phone call, ask to be put to their voicemail, and then send another email. I know you're really busy. I know you get 200 emails a day, but I'm really anxious to talk to somebody in your office that can answer my questions, you know? And I'm putting this here, so it's at the top of your email. By the time you touch some 4 or 5 times, somebody's going to get back to you, you know? [00:25:00] And so when people call and say, well, they never answered me, chances are you didn't hit the right person. And these people get hundreds of calls a day. So you need to be persistent in a way that you're not used to being persistent.

Nick Capodice: And it may sound time consuming. It may sound difficult. I know some people who never call anybody on the phone ever, let alone five times.

Cheryl Cook-Kallio: It'd be great if we all could reach our federally elected officials [00:25:30] and have a mass amount of things done at one time, but you're also dealing with your congressman and your area, who also has to deal with the congressman in another area who may believe totally differently than you do. Like on the opposite end of the spectrum. And you're trying to figure out where the sweet spot is. So, you know, compromise is hard. I mean, people get upset. You know, I don't you know, they didn't do everything I wanted them to do. Well, that's what politics [00:26:00] is. It's the art of compromise, right? So I think that to get kids excited and to recognize that small victories are important. So you may have wanted to, um, solve the unhoused situation in your city, but instead you provided an opportunity for people to have a place to take a shower, get a hot meal, you know, maybe have some warm socks, or at least have access to those things. That's a big deal for those individuals. And, [00:26:30] you know, and it also affects individuals of whom you're unaware. So it's not a small thing to do that for a group of people.

Hannah McCarthy: Start locally. Focus on your own community. Make a plan. Be persistent.

Nick Capodice: I think that is the Magic quartet, Anna. And if enough students do it, it might be all of us, not just the kids who are all right. That's [00:27:00] it for today's show. Huge shout out to Rachel and the rest of the folks at KQED for their work on the Youth Media challenge. You really should go check their stuff out. Youth media@kqed.org. And also big thanks to Icivics, who we will see at the National Forum at the Hoover Institution in about 24 hours. Sheryl's going to be there. Emma's going to be there, I think 25%. I think 25% [00:27:30] of the guests we've had on the show are going to be there. This episode was made by Hannah McCarthy and me. Nick Capodice. Our executive producer is Rebecca LaVoy, and our senior producer is Christina Phillips. Music. In this episode from Epidemic Sound Helliniko and my own personal and my own personally elected member of my musical and my own personal elected member of my musical Congress, Chris Zabriskie, who he who actually emailed me back after one time. [00:28:00] I emailed him one time and he wrote me right back. What a guy. Chris, you have my vote. Civics 101 is a production of NPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Who's running the country? (Parts 1 and 2)

Meet your president's Cabinet! Who was appointed, by what margin, and a look at the backgrounds of the people filling these critical roles.

In other words, who is running our country? Let's find out. 

This is a two-part episode. You can hear both parts - and read both transcripts - below.

Part 1:

Part 2:

---

Transcript (Part 1)

Note: This trancript is AI-generated and may contain errors.

Who's running the country? (Part 1)

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, when this show was started way back in 2017, it was because people were writing emails to our radio station and asking a lot of questions about the government, and a lot of those questions were to the tune of, now wait a minute, what are we even talking about here?

Nick Capodice: Right. Stuff like I'm reading and hearing a lot about X, Y, or Z person and government and what they're up to. And there's a ton of headlines telling me this is a big deal, but why is this a big deal? Is this really a big deal?

Hannah McCarthy: And it's hard to know if it's a big deal, if you don't know who that person is that you're asking about or what they're supposed to be doing. And over the past couple of months, I have been reading a lot of stuff about the people who President Donald Trump picked to run the government.

Nick Capodice: Ah, yes, the cabinet.

Hannah McCarthy: The cabinet which you recently made a lovely episode about.

Nick Capodice: I did. Hannah. So what are we doing here, then.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. Relax. We're here to talk about who these people actually are and what they're actually supposed to be doing.

Nick Capodice: I'll allow it.

Hannah McCarthy: This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: And today, who's running the place? And what are they supposed to do?

Nick Capodice: All right, Hannah, let's just get something out of the way real quick.

Hannah McCarthy: Your opinions about the Lord of the rings film franchise, which, uh, Nick and I have been discussing civily lately.

Nick Capodice: Really civilly. Let's leave that for the other podcast. We're going to start where you expose my niche opinions for a niche audience.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, fair enough. Oh, by the way, everyone. Fun little challenge. See if you can spot a young Nick Capodice in Peter Jackson's 1992 movie braindead, aka Dead Alive. And please send us an email when you do. I will send a Civics 101 mug to the first listener who can tell us the time stamp. Bonus points for a screenshot, But I digress. Nick, what did you want to get out of the way?

Nick Capodice: You digress. Indeed. Hannah I look pretty much the same now as I did in that bathrobe in 1992. But anyways, here's my question. You're going to talk about who's running the government. You're not talking about the president. You are talking about the heads of the executive branch departments. Right?

Hannah McCarthy: Right. Plus a few others. But yeah, and.

Nick Capodice: These are the people who the president nominates. He wants to appoint them the heads of various super important, super powerful departments. And in order for them to actually get the job, they've got to be confirmed by the Senate.

Hannah McCarthy: That they do.

Nick Capodice: And it seems to be like I am seeing the word controversy a lot this year when it comes to this process. I mean, the.

Archive: Department of Defense is one of the most complex bureaucracies in human history, and the president is choosing its leader the same way I chose breakfast cereals as a kid.

Nick Capodice: Hey, there are a lot of articles and a and a lot of pundits and a lot of politicians questioning Trump's nominees on various counts. So I want to begin by asking, is this unusual? Or is that the sort of thing that happens every time?

Hannah McCarthy: That is a good place to start. My answer is yes and no. This year, you may have heard a lot about Trump's quote unquote controversial appointment nominees. Is that a new thing? No. Taking issue with an incoming administration's potential executive leaders is par for the course. I looked back as far as Jimmy Carter, and I could not find a single president whose nominees did not get pushback in one way or another. Also, plenty of nominees in the past have actually withdrawn before they ever get to the Senate confirmation part because often of controversy.

Nick Capodice: All right, so that's the no, this is not unusual. What about the yes.

Hannah McCarthy: The yes, this is unusual has to do with a few factors, one being the current political climate and how politicians are operating within it, or maybe manipulating it. Amping it up. Division, pushback and disagreement are the name of the game right now, and a friendly reminder. And I do mean friendly that you, dear listener, have the power to play a healthier and happier game. We are also talking about a president who promised a major shakeup in Washington, and has nominated people who appear to be in service of that promise.

Nick Capodice: So controversy was pretty likely from the get go.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. You know, like Ronald Reagan also came into office promising to cut the fat in Washington, and his appointees were also in service of that. The difference here, Nick, between that situation and this one is in the vote.

Nick Capodice: What do you mean, the vote?

Hannah McCarthy: The final hurdle in becoming an executive branch leader. The Senate takes a vote. Generally speaking, Nick, the Senate is pretty deferential to the president when it comes to nominees. Some people may have a harder time than others, but most of the time a nominee will get a significant majority of yes votes, of yes votes. And a lot of the time the Senate will just take a voice vote.

Nick Capodice: All right. That's when the presiding officer is like, here's the question to vote on. Who's in favor.

Archive: All in favor, say aye.

Nick Capodice: Aye. And then the officers, like all.

Archive: Opposed, say nay. The ayes have it.

Hannah McCarthy: That's about how it works. In other words, you know, it's already pretty clear how this vote is going to go. So we don't need everyone to vote individually. And there have only been three rejected nominations in the 20th century. So what does that tell you?

Nick Capodice: Uh, that generally the Senate just goes with it. When the president nominates someone.

Hannah McCarthy: This year looks a little different. In the past, nominees were generally not always less controversial. This year, the vote majorities are slimmer, the pushback and the resistance is pretty significant.

Nick Capodice: But so far as of this recording, February 25th, The Senate has not rejected any of Donald Trump's 2025 nominees so far.

Hannah McCarthy: So far, and this whole thing has happened pretty quickly, too. Also, nominees used to need a 3/5 supermajority 60% of the vote. But as of 2013, they only need a simple majority of senators to vote in favor of their appointment.

Nick Capodice: So they got to have at least half. And since over half of the current Senate is the same party as the current president, right.

Hannah McCarthy: Pretty good chances of getting those appointees into the job. But since we are talking about votes here, Nick, that is how I'm going to go about this from most yeas to least.

Nick Capodice: Hannah, the ghost of my father is forcing me to say fewest yeas.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, Nick, I have been editing your grammar on the fly for seven years, so I'm going to give myself some grace here. I'm trying to get through a lot. Anyway, who are our new government leaders? 22 of them have been nominated. 18 have been confirmed as of the writing of this episode. 15 of the 22 are department heads, six are not, but still have super important jobs. A lot of numbers there. Who are they? What are they supposed to do? Did they squeak by or breeze right in? This is part one because ears and eyes and time are precious human resources. So in this episode you're going to hear about nine. So let's start with the only unanimous confirmation so far. The one who got in with nary a nay nick.

Nick Capodice: Nary a neigh. Wait, can I guess first before you tell me? Secretary of the interior.

Hannah McCarthy: So close.

Nick Capodice: Ah, I just feel like people don't talk much about the Department of the interior. Like they're not worried about it.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, I mean, maybe they should think a little bit more about it, but the Secretary of the interior did get the second most votes. All right.

Nick Capodice: See, I knew it.

Hannah McCarthy: But we're going to start with the guy who got 99 votes. 99, by the way, because JD Vance was a senator before he hopped over to the white House. So his seat was vacant for a portion of these committee hearings and confirmations to promote.

Archive: Peace abroad and security and prosperity here at home. That is the promise that President Trump was elected to keep. And if I am confirmed, keeping that promise will be the core mission of the United States Department of State.

Hannah McCarthy: Our new secretary of State, Marco Rubio. The way this whole thing works is before the vote, the nominee has a hearing. They talk to whatever Senate committee pertains to the job they're applying for. So Rubio chatted with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. They talked for five hours, which might sound like a long time, but in this whole process is not necessarily that long. And it was a pretty friendly chat. And then the vote happened and Rubio was unanimously in.

Nick Capodice: Wait wait, wait. Marco Rubio is a senator.

Hannah McCarthy: Not anymore. Okay.

Nick Capodice: But I mean, did he get to vote for himself.

Hannah McCarthy: He did. And now he's in charge of foreign policy. Sounds easy. Marco Rubio will now be in charge of an absolute mountain of responsibility. He's in charge of negotiating our foreign affairs. We're talking treaties, agreements, protecting U.S. interests and people abroad, understanding and communicating the politics, economy, humanitarianism and culture of other countries, administering U.S. immigration law abroad, repping the US at international gatherings, and a lot more. It's a huge job. Marco Rubio himself once called it, quote, the second most important position in the US government, with all due respect to the vice president, unquote.

Nick Capodice: When did he say that?

Hannah McCarthy: During Rex Tillerson's confirmation hearing for the gig back in 2017, Rubio asked Tillerson if Vladimir Putin was a war criminal. Tillerson deflected. Rubio did not like that.

Archive: You are still not prepared to say that Vladimir Putin and his military have violated the rules of war and have conducted war crimes in Aleppo.

Hannah McCarthy: And now Rubio has been tasked with figuring out an end to Russia's war in Ukraine. Though President Trump has called Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky a dictator and suggested that Ukraine started the war, they did not. And Rubio is also charged with maybe negotiating an alliance with Russia that.

Nick Capodice: Feels like it's going to require a little bit of pivoting. Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: Rubio also ran against Trump in the 2016 presidential election, and has generally been in favor of U.S. aid abroad and soft power, though Donald Trump has almost entirely dismantled USAID, which does exactly that. So, yeah, Rubio is one of the more interesting appointees when you look at his politics versus serving at the pleasure of the president. All right, Nick, we got 17 others. Let's go.

Nick Capodice: Shall we go to the interior.

Hannah McCarthy: Secretary of the interior, Doug Burgum.

Archive: It's certainly an honor to have been nominated by President Trump to serve as the 55th Secretary of the interior.

Hannah McCarthy: Former governor of North Dakota. He got 80 yeas in 17 nays.

Nick Capodice: All right. That sounds like the Senate generally agreed on that one.

Hannah McCarthy: Burgum will now be in charge of the Department of the interior. Which is what? Nick?

Nick Capodice: Yeah. What is that thing? Hannah? I'm joking, everyone. I'm joking. The Department of the interior manages the stuff on the interior. You know, inside of the US public lands and waters.

Hannah McCarthy: Yes. Inside the Department of the interior is the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service and a bunch of other bureaus, including Indian Affairs and Ocean Energy Management. It is the Secretary's job to protect and manage natural resources and cultural heritage, and to honor treaties and agreements with tribal nations in the US.

Nick Capodice: And as far as this particular Secretary of the interior?

Hannah McCarthy: So he ran for president in 2023, dropped out of the race, became an energy policy adviser for Trump's campaign. He's a major promoter of gas and oil. Burgum says we are in an energy crisis. He also says that he supports conservation and will be a driving force in Trump's plans to ramp up gas, oil and mineral extraction. All right.

Nick Capodice: So Burgum is the drill baby drill arm of the executive branch.

Hannah McCarthy: In short, coming in at 77 years and 22 nays. Again, senators are sort of fluctuating right now. Is Sean Duffy, our new secretary of Transportation.

Archive: I'm honored to have the trust of President Trump and hopefully this body to lead such an important segment of our economy.

Hannah McCarthy: Duffy was a Wisconsin district attorney, then a US House rep for Wisconsin from 2011 to 2019. He then became a lobbyist on behalf of domestic airlines and then a Fox News co-host. And before that, Nick. He was on Real World Boston and a couple of other reality shows.

Archive: What? Here we go, Shawn. Rock n roll, baby.

Archive: Pack up all our gear. We're on our way now. Hahaha.

Nick Capodice: You, Hannah, are from Boston.

Hannah McCarthy: That I kind of am. If you want to know what Duffy is tasked with as Secretary of Transportation, I recommend listening to our recent episode with former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg. Basically, the Secretary of Transportation is in charge of transportation policies. Duffy has gotten some bipartisan praise. He said he'd focus on roadway safety and aviation. The big news item about him so far is that he is, as the secretary of transportation, investigating California's high speed rail project. All right, Nick, coming in next. We got Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins. That's at 77 yeas and 23 nays.

Archive: You know, America is the greatest nation on earth, and it's the greatest nation on earth. I believe because the men and women who serve.

Hannah McCarthy: It'll be his job to oversee the health, education, disability, funeral and financial benefits earned by veterans of the United States Armed Forces. Collins is a Baptist minister. He was a church pastor for 11 years, served as a chaplain for the US Navy and US Air Force Reserve. He's a colonel in the Air Force Reserve, and he was a Georgia state rep from oh 7 to 2013 and a United States rep from 2013 to 2021, also representing Georgia. He was also a major Trump defender, especially during Trump's first impeachment.

Nick Capodice: All right, what's his plan, man?

Hannah McCarthy: He plans to streamline the VA and cut regulations while making it easier for veterans to access medical care. He also wants to root out what he calls corruption. The VA fired 1000 employees shortly after Collins joined. He said that there could be more layoffs, and Collins said the money that they're saving will go to health care and benefits for vets. All right, next up, Nick, we have someone who is not a department head, but is someone who served in the previous Trump administration.

Nick Capodice: Oh, okay. I think I know this one. Is it Ratcliffe?

Hannah McCarthy: Right on the money. John Ratcliffe he was confirmed with a 7425 split.

Archive: Today we face what may be the most challenging national security environment in our nation's history.

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, can you tell the people who Ratcliffe is?

Nick Capodice: Uh, certainly. So he is now the director of the CIA, but he was the director of national intelligence in the last year of Trump's first presidency, which I believe is also a confirmation position.

Hannah McCarthy: It is indeed. And now back to the CIA. It is an independent government agency as opposed to an executive department. Now, the first time Ratcliffe was confirmed, he got zero votes from Democrats, and that was the first time a national intelligence director got confirmed without opposition party votes. Right. So, like they're of the party of the president, the opposition party is not the party of the president, but this is the first time that nobody in that opposition party made that confirmation in that role.

Nick Capodice: But this time around, it sounds like he's a little more popular, so to speak.

Hannah McCarthy: He is. He's actually now considered by people on both sides of the aisle, one of the more qualified appointees in this batch.

Nick Capodice: All right. And I know he was a US House representative from Texas. Yes.

Hannah McCarthy: And before that, he was mayor of Heath, Texas. Now, as far as his job goes today, Nick, the CIA, what do we know?

Nick Capodice: Can I quote the fog song? Hannah?

Hannah McCarthy: You can if you cut out the swears.

Nick Capodice: Who can kill a general in his bed? Overthrow dictators if they're red CIA man. But really sorry, everyone. When it comes to the CIA, we know as much as they want us to know. And maybe just a smidgen more than that. They are the spies.

Hannah McCarthy: They would probably say, you know, covert agents, covert Operations. But yeah, intelligence gathering and that takes many forms. And there are a lot of people who do a lot of things. It's now Ratcliffe's job to oversee intelligence collection analysis, covert action counterintelligence and liaison relationships with foreign services. Now that's from the CIA website, which I'm just going to admit here. Nick, I think of all of the government websites. It is the coolest looking one.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, like it looks like a spy website.

Hannah McCarthy: It kind of does. I don't think that's an accident, by the way, but that's just me. Anyway, the interesting thing about this confirmation hearing and what we know about this job to come, is that we don't know much because Ratcliffe won't or can't say spies. But what we do know is that Ratcliffe promises to make the CIA more aggressive. He says that it will be less risk averse and take more covert action when the president wants it to. On that note, Nick, we're gonna disappear into the night like a couple of covert agents ourselves. And when we get back, the new government gets just a little less popular.

Nick Capodice: But before that assignment, just a quick reminder that you can find deeper dives into many, many departments of our executive branch at our website, civics101podcast.org. Among every other thing we've ever made for years and years. All right, come on, Hannah, let's go pick some code names.

Hannah McCarthy: We're back. We're giving you an introduction to your new government and ours via the appointees to the executive branch. And we're going down the list from most yeas to fewest yeas. Up next, we have Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.

Archive: I want to thank and so overwhelmed at the honor to potentially serve the men and women who daily, without pause or complaint, provide our great nation and the world with the best food, fiber and fuel.

Hannah McCarthy: She got the gig with 72 yeas, 28 nays. She is the second female ag secretary ever, and her new job is a lot. Yeah.

Nick Capodice: Because the USDA is a lot. Listen to our episode on it if you want to know. Because first and foremost, the USDA is about food, which might sound simple, but it is also the stuff we use to stay alive at a basic level. So I know the secretary oversees food safety and inspection, but then they are also overseeing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program Snap, which used to be called food stamps. Oh, and school lunch as well. And there's trade, right, Hannah? Like, the USDA monitors a ton of stuff that we export and import.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. The secretary is also overseeing and supporting farmers forestry grasslands conservation efforts. Basically, yeah. I mean think food supply. So Rollins did get unanimous support from the Senate committee. So not the whole Senate, but the committee who held her hearing. But others are concerned about her lack of experience. She ran two conservative think tanks and served in the last Trump administration in two roles. One, she was the director of the Office of American Innovation.

Nick Capodice: The what now?

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, this was the white House office that was basically the liaison between the white House and the tech industry. It existed really only during Trump's first administration. Then Rollins was the acting director of the US Domestic Policy Council. But now she's got to tackle the impact of potential tariffs on our food producers and the loss of farmhands from new immigration policies and the bird flu.

Nick Capodice: Oh, the eggs.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, the eggs. Trump has said that Rollins will, quote, do something about egg prices. Next on the list coming in at a 6829 confirmation is Scott Bessent, our new Treasury Secretary.

Archive: Most Americans watching at home will be unfamiliar with my background.

Nick Capodice: That is our chief financial officer, right? Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: Right. So the Treasury secretary is in charge of making sure our economy doesn't tank and doing something about it. If it does. Peek inside this department and you will find the mint. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing. The mint makes coins. Bureau of Engraving and Printing makes dollars. The IRS also the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, among lots of other things. This department investigates financial crimes. It's in charge of borrowing money for the US. And the secretary also sits on the National Security Council. Because guess what? Money and security are pretty closely linked.

Nick Capodice: All right, so I do know one thing about Bessant.

Hannah McCarthy: What's that?

Nick Capodice: Well, he's not just a guy who knows money. He's a guy who has money. Lots of it. Billions of bits of it. Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: So Bessant is a hedge fund manager. For a while, he worked for George Soros, George Soros.

Nick Capodice: George Soros is famously a liberal philanthropist.

Hannah McCarthy: And billionaire.

Nick Capodice: And billionaire.

Hannah McCarthy: So Bessant was a major Democrat donor, and he is now a major Republican donor. He was an adviser to Trump, and he is still an adviser to Trump, though now is a secretary. And it will be on him to help figure out tax cuts, tariffs and regulation rollbacks. Some things that Donald Trump has promised. All right. Up next, 59 Yays, 34 nays for Kristi Noem.

Nick Capodice: Okay, I know this one. That is the new Homeland Security secretary.

Archive: We will undertake a large job and a large duty that that we have to fulfill that the American people expect us to do by securing our border.

Nick Capodice: Also, she was South Dakota's only Rep in Congress because South Dakota is only one district.

Hannah McCarthy: I forget that all the time. The whole state is just one district. It's very interesting. And yes, you are correct. She served four terms and was then elected the first ever female governor of South Dakota in 2018. And now as the head of DHS, she is in charge of our immigration system.

Nick Capodice: Which, as we know, is a major element of Donald Trump's presidential plans.

Hannah McCarthy: As we know. So Noem has already deputized 600 State Department officials to help with arrests and deportations. She will also be overseeing Customs and Border Protection, the US Coast Guard and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, aka FEMA, though Trump has suggested getting rid of FEMA, so that part remains to be seen. Also, Noem oversees the Secret Service, which she has promised to overhaul. All right. Chris. Right. The new energy secretary. He got 59, 38 nays.

Archive: Energy has been a lifelong passion of mine, and I have never been shy about that fact. Then again, I've never been shy about much.

Nick Capodice: Oh, yeah.

Nick Capodice: Chris Wright is an oil man.

Hannah McCarthy: He is indeed. He was the head of a fracking firm. He is now overseeing the science, technology and security of energy in the US. So this includes energy production. Think oil and gas and wind and solar. Though the oil and gas part is the major priority for Donald Trump, as well as overseeing our nuclear weapons program and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which is supposed to address climate change.

Nick Capodice: All right. So this administration is really focused on oil and gas and focused hard. So what does that mean for the rest of it. All right.

Hannah McCarthy: So in the past, Wright has said that there is no climate crisis in this hearing. He was like, actually, it's real, it's global, and we have to develop new energy technologies.

Nick Capodice: Even though the president has suggested it's a hoax. Yes.

Hannah McCarthy: But let's say that he does disagree with the president on that point. He's very much on board with the quote unquote, unleashing of American energy. That is something that Trump has ordered, which in terms of the numbers, I mean, like in terms of the numbers of American energy, it's not leashed. We are the leading producer of oil and gas, but the idea is to ramp up extraction, ramp up production anyway. So right is in line with the president's agenda, but suggests that there is a multi-pronged approach here. Okay, Nick, those are nine of the 18 new appointees so far set to run our federal government.

Nick Capodice: Oh, that's it. We did.

Hannah McCarthy: It. Well, I mean, that's not it, but we are leaving it at that for now. And in the next episode, we're going to see some slimmer vote margins. Contention peppers the confirmation hearings. The appointees make it to the big Show, but not without fielding some serious Senate reservations. And you can learn about all of that in part two of who is running the government, which, if you want, you can go listen to right now. All right, Nick, let's jam. Let's do it. This episode of Civics 101 was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy, with Nick Capodice and Rebecca Lavoie, who also happens to be our executive producer. Thank you. Rebecca. Christina Phillips is our senior producer. Music in this episode comes from Epidemic Sound. You can learn a lot more about a lot of these departments and agencies at our website, civics101podcast.org. And while you're there, give Nick's episode on the cabinet a listen. It is a really good one. Civics One on One is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

Transcript (Part 2)

Hannah McCarthy: So. You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: And this listener is part two of Who's Running the Government. I'm going to be talking about nine of the so-far 18 confirmed presidential appointee leaders in our nation's executive branch. But if you want to know who the other nine are and a little bit more about what this process is all about, I recommend you go back and listen to part one, because we're just gonna hit the ground running on this one.

Nick Capodice: If nothing else, listen to part one to hear Hannah reveal not one, but two significant pieces of personal history trivia about me to which I did not give my approval vote. Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: It was worth it, though. The people need to know Nick.

Nick Capodice: And now they do. All right, so in addition to those little gems, Hannah, in part number one, you told me that the vote margins, as in the number of yeas and nays and nominee, got when the Senate confirmed them. Those margins were going to get a little slimmer.

Hannah McCarthy: That's right. We are going through the list from the most yeas to the fewest. The second batch of President Donald Trump's appointees got more pushback, more questions about their experience, their politics, their personal conduct. And we are kicking it off with our new Environmental Protection Agency administrator, the head of that independent executive agency, not Department, Lee Zeldin. He got 56 yeas and 42 nays.

Archive: Our mission is simple but essential to protect human health and the environment. We must do everything in our power to harness the greatness of American innovation with the greatness of American conservation and environmental stewardship. We must ensure we are protecting the environment while also protecting our economy.

Nick Capodice: Lee Zeldin Hannah. I do not know that name at all.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, so Zelda was in the New York State Senate and then in the US House of reps. And he served there until 2023. He was also a major Trump defender when it came to the impeachments. Zeldin is also an officer of the US Army Reserve. And one big thing with Zeldin when it came to his confirmation hearing was experience, or lack thereof. So the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, it is supposed to make sure that we have clean air and water, that we protect the environment, protect human health re environmental concerns, and clean up toxic sites. Zeldin doesn't have much experience in environmental regulation.

Nick Capodice: But given what I know about Trump's environmental policy plans. Zeldin is going to be in charge of rolling a lot of regulation back. Am I right? Yeah.

Hannah McCarthy: The biggest of those is a very new rule that limits greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes. Trump wants that one gone. Now that one is tricky because auto manufacturers have already invested tons of money in things like electric vehicle development, so we're going to see how that goes. Zeldin is also apparently consulting with Trump about a really major principle that kind of underlies a lot of our climate policy here in the United States. We don't know a lot about that yet, but we probably will soon. All right. Scott Turner, 55 yeas, 44 nays. Turner is our new Housing and urban Development secretary.

Archive: Hud's mission is to create strong and sustainable communities and support quality, affordable housing, serving the most vulnerable of our nation. Yet as we sit here, we have a housing crisis in our country. We have the American people and families that are struggling every day. We have a homelessness crisis in our country.

Nick Capodice: Also, Hannah, I am ashamed to say here I was unaware of Scott Turner until very recently.

Hannah McCarthy: Well, he's not super well known in the world of federal politics, or he wasn't until now. Turner is a former pro football player. He was a Texas state rep. He was a motivational speaker as well, and he spent two years as the executive director of the white House Opportunity and Revitalization Council under Trump during his first term.

Nick Capodice: Well, that sounds like it could be adjacent to his new job.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. At the time, Turner was overseeing a program that found ways to build affordable housing and improve economic development in impoverished areas in the US. And his new job is very broadly to make housing affordable in America. Hud does this through programs, rules and policies.

Nick Capodice: So we're talking stuff like housing assistance, public housing, mortgage relief, that sort of stuff.

Hannah McCarthy: That sort of stuff. Yep. Shelters, transitional housing, all of the things that people live in but often find a hard time finding, securing and affording. I read through some statements from various housing assistance organizations. You know what their opinion of Turner is right now? It looks like their plan is to be vigilant and see how this works out, because they don't have a lot of information yet about how it will work out. Um, let's move on to Small Business Administration Administrator Kelly Loeffler, who got the job with 52 yeas and 46 nays.

Archive: From managing inflation and capital to hiring a skilled workforce and weathering uncertainty, job creators in the last four years have faced rising demands to comply with new rules, often drafted with unknown cost and consequence. This regulatory complexity crushes growth, picks winners and losers and denies opportunity to those who dare to dream of a better future.

Nick Capodice: I feel like I'm batting a thousand in this episode, Hanna, but I honestly don't know what that administration does.

Hannah McCarthy: The SBA is not a department, it's an agency. Its whole thing is, as the name suggests, small business. The administrator oversees Administering loans to people, starting and growing small businesses, advising and supporting entrepreneurs, and protecting their interests. Loeffler is a former co-owner of the WNBA team Atlanta Dream. She has worked for a few financial services companies and served a brief period, just two years as a senator representing Georgia. She promises that she will help, quote, restore the small business economy. All right. Up next, we got former Wall Street executive Howard Lutnick with just 51 yeas and 45 nays. He is the new Commerce secretary.

Archive: I saw the strength of the American spirit during President Trump's campaign, and it fueled my desire to serve our nation. We need healthy businesses, small, medium and large, to hire our great American workers to drive our economy. I will dedicate myself to making our government more responsive, working to ensure Americans have the greatest opportunity for success.

Nick Capodice: All right. Now, Lutnick I have heard of. He has been a financial advisor to Donald Trump for a little bit. Right?

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, for the last year. He also led Trump's transition team. So the Department of Commerce is an interesting one because it's not the Treasury, right? It's about money, but not in the same way it analyzes the economy, tries to make sure the US is competitive. It promotes trade. The department also oversees the census and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Nick Capodice: Wait, Noah, like the weather people?

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, yeah, they monitor weather. They monitor storms, which might not seem relevant. But what they also do is support fisheries and marine commerce. So you got to know what the weather is if you're going to do that.

Nick Capodice: And I guess with the census, you got to know how many people there are to really understand how the economy is going.

Hannah McCarthy: I would imagine it certainly helps. I don't know a lot about these things.

Nick Capodice: All right. I know we already talked about the Treasury and tariffs when it comes to the Treasury Secretary. But I have to assume that the Commerce Secretary. They have something to do with that as well.

Hannah McCarthy: You assume correctly, my friend. Lutnick will be overseeing tariffs, determining tariff rates, and working to control certain exports, like there's a plan to restrict tech exports to China. Now, Lutnick is a very wealthy investor with a huge portfolio. So there is some concern that he's going to run into some conflicts of interest. As someone who oversees American economic interests.

Nick Capodice: As in, will his interests affect how he conducts America's business?

Hannah McCarthy: That's the question. And frankly, it is a question that would be hard to answer definitively, even if the answer is yes. Next up, Nick, we have Pam Bondi, 54 yeas, 46 nays.

Archive: My overriding objective will be to return the Department of Justice to its core mission of keeping Americans safe and vigorously prosecuting criminals. And that includes getting back to basics gangs, drugs, terrorists, cartels, our border and our foreign adversaries.

Hannah McCarthy: And I think, you know, Pam Bondi's marching orders.

Nick Capodice: I certainly do. Hannah. Attorney general, we're talking about the law.

Hannah McCarthy: We are talking law. So, first and foremost, if you have not yet listened to our producer Christina Phillips episode on All the president's lawyers, I implore you do so now. She covers the twists and turns of legal representation and the executive branch and says everything that I don't have time to say here and says it better than I could. And Nick Watt is the attorney general.

Nick Capodice: The attorney general or the AG is the head of the Justice Department. They are the chief law enforcement officer of the US. They give advice to the president and the other executive department heads. But they represent the United States, ostensibly and on the rarest of occasions, they might appear before the Supreme Court.

Hannah McCarthy: That about covers it. So Bondi was Florida's first ever woman attorney general and was planning to run again, actually, until Trump picked her for his second choice nominee for us AG.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, this is after his first choice, Matt Gaetz, withdrew amidst a major scandal.

Hannah McCarthy: That is correct. So Bondi has told the Justice Department that they're, quote, shameful era unquote is going to come to an end. She has condemned what she calls insubordination in the Justice Department and calls for, quote, zealous advocacy of the Trump administration's policies. A lot of people have expressed concerns that her loyalties are more to Trump than they are to the US. All right. Moving on, Russell T Vogt, new director of the Office of Management and Budget. He got the job with 53 yeas, 47 nays.

Nick Capodice: We have to use taxpayer dollars.

Archive: Wisely because inflation driven by irresponsible federal spending taxes. Americans twice.

Nick Capodice: All right, the OMB. Hannah. Hannah, this is the one I was waiting for. Because it seems like all of a sudden, everybody cares about the OMB.

Hannah McCarthy: It sure does, doesn't it? Nick, what is the OMB?

Nick Capodice: The OMB is within the white House itself. So we've been talking about some departments and some independent agencies, and this is its own thing. So basically, this office helps the president do what the president wants to do. It develops the budget for doing what the president wants to do. It figures out what happens when the money runs out. It handles contracting. And it for the federal government It sends around drafts of executive orders to figure out what the other agencies think about them. The OMB is the thing that makes it all happen, and Russell.

Hannah McCarthy: T Vogt has been there before. Vogt ran it during Trump's first administration. Before that, he worked as a lobbyist for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and for a couple of Republican caucuses. And then after Trump's first term, Vogt founded the center for Renewing America. And he was an important architect of project 2025.

Nick Capodice: Project 2025, by the way, being shorthand for a bunch of policy recommendations for dismantling what they call the, quote unquote, deep state, making the executive more powerful and slashing government spending, among other things.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, the quote from Vogt's proposed budget in this whole project is dismantling the woke and weaponized bureaucracy. Vogt has expressed that he does not believe the congressional power of the purse is constitutional. He has a strong vision of dismantling the government. You know the government as it is right now. Senate Democrats did just about everything they could think of to delay his confirmation, but he did get through. All right. Nick, three more for you. And these last three appointees share something in common. They are the only three who did not score unanimous Republican consent. Wow.

Nick Capodice: All right, let's hear it.

Hannah McCarthy: Oh, you'll hear it. But we got to take a quick break.

Nick Capodice: Okay, fine. But before that break, listeners, Hannah and I have a whole comprehensive breakdown of the executive branch departments and what they do in our book, A User's Guide to Democracy How America Works.

Hannah McCarthy: I, in fact, reread parts of our book to remind myself of what these departments do while I was writing this, which felt like past Hannah giving present Hannah a little lesson. You know, it was nice.

Nick Capodice: You can find that book wherever books are sold.

Hannah McCarthy: We're back. This is part two of who is running the government. We're looking at all of President Donald Trump's confirmed executive branch leader appointees. Now, I have three more appointees to cover, all of whom failed to get unanimous Republican senator approval. The first two are tied. Each got 52 yeas, 48 nays. First, Tulsi Gabbard, director of national security.

Archive: And my day one priorities will be to assess the global threat environment, identify where gaps in our intelligence exist, integrate intelligence elements, increase information sharing, and ensure that unbiased, apolitical, objective collection and analysis to support the president and policymakers decision making occur.

Nick Capodice: But hang on. Did Tulsi Gabbard get a no from a Republican?

Hannah McCarthy: She did. Mitch McConnell, the senator from Kentucky. So the National Security Agency, the NSA, is a part of the US intelligence community. Think of it as cybersecurity for the United States. It also gathers intelligence from other countries, communication systems, weapon systems, etc.. It codes our stuff and decodes other nations stuff. Then it gives that information to our government and military. It also protects our weapons and security systems.

Nick Capodice: Right now, I know that Tulsi Gabbard is a Republican now, but she used to be a Democrat. Did she not?

Hannah McCarthy: She did. This is Gabbard's story. Gabbard was Hawaii's youngest state rep from 2002 to 2004. She became the first American Samoan congresswoman. She served from 2013 to 2021, and during this whole period, she's a Democrat. She was even the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee until she resigned to endorse Bernie Sanders in 2016 for his presidential campaign. Then she joined the Republican Party in 2024. Gabbard is a lieutenant colonel in the US Army Reserve. She has served in the Hawaiian National Guard and the Army Military Police. She has made statements considered sympathetic to Vladimir Putin and to Syria's Assad regime. And all of this adds up to mean that Gabbard has critics on both sides of the aisle. She's also considered to be inexperienced in the realm of national security.

Nick Capodice: And she got the confirmation.

Hannah McCarthy: She got the confirmation. So. Add that to the long list. She has since emphasized the need for America's allies to work with the United States to share intelligence in the interest of, quote, peace, security and prosperity. So do you want to hear who tied with her?

Nick Capodice: Oh, I know who it is, Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: You do?

Nick Capodice: I do. That would be Robert F Kennedy Jr for Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Archive: Our country will sink beneath a sea of desperation and debt. If we don't change the course and ask why are healthcare costs so high in the first place?

Nick Capodice: Okay, so Kennedy is Attorney General Robert F Kennedy's son and President John F Kennedy's nephew. He is an environmental lawyer and has done a lot of work in clean water advocacy and human rights. He is also propagated the widely debunked myth that vaccines cause autism and spread misinformation about the Covid 19 vaccine during the height of the pandemic. He ran for president as an independent in 2024, dropped out of the race eventually and endorsed Donald Trump. Right.

Hannah McCarthy: So that vaccine thing, Nick, was a major sticking point during his confirmation hearing. When questioned about his views, Kennedy said they were taken out of context that he is not anti-vaccine. In fact, he said he supports vaccines and just wants. Quote unquote, good science. He got the job without Mitch McConnell's vote, and that job is to protect American health. This secretary is charged with preparing for and responding to public health emergencies, administering Medicaid, Medicare and the Affordable Care Act, overseeing medical research and administering funding for it, and repping the US in global health issues. We got one last one, Nick.

Nick Capodice: At least for now, and it is so many people and yet it's not that many people. Do you know what I'm saying? Like, not a lot of people at the top.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. And this last of the so far confirmed appointees did not have a lot of support at the top either. 51 yeas and nays. The smallest margin for any confirmed defense secretary in history.

Nick Capodice: So the total of votes here, Hannah, is 101. Which makes me assume that Vice President Vance broke the tie.

Hannah McCarthy: That's correct.

Nick Capodice: And we're talking about Pete Hegseth.

Archive: As I've said to many of you in private meetings, when President Trump chose me for this position, the primary charge he gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense.

Nick Capodice: The thing that always blew my mind about the Department of Defense, the DoD, is the sheer size of it. It is so big, Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: It's the largest government agency. We are talking Army, Navy, Air Force, Joint Chiefs of Staff, a bunch of other agencies within that department, by the way, including the NSA.

Nick Capodice: The NSA is part of the DoD.

Hannah McCarthy: It sure is. Over 3 million people work within the DoD. The 2025 budget request was nearly $850 billion. Now the president is the commander in chief. How and when to employ and deploy the military. That is up to Trump. But the Secretary of Defense is responsible for defense policy, for spending that nearly trillion dollars and taking care of people and equipment in our many hundreds of national and international military bases and our thousands of military installations. The Secretary advises the president and helps them develop and implement defense strategy. It is the oldest department with the biggest budget, the most property, and the most people. So, Nick, can you tell these people who Pete Hegseth is?

Nick Capodice: Hegseth is a former Army national major. He served three tours. He then joined Fox News and became a co-host of Fox and Friends. Hegseth is a big Trump supporter. His confirmation hearing got a lot of coverage because it was so contentious. Hegseth has been accused of sexual assault. His former colleagues at Fox have expressed concerns about excessive alcohol consumption. He doesn't have a lot of experience managing people, which is considered a problem when you have to manage millions of people, and he has made statements opposed to women serving in the military.

Hannah McCarthy: That's the long and short of it. Hegseth, by the way, has denied the personal conduct allegations, and during his hearing, he said that women would have access to ground combat roles under his leadership. He got three Republican nays Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell again, and Lisa murkowski of Alaska. And that, Nick, is all she wrote. If she is the Senate confirming Trump's nominees and also me.

Nick Capodice: But you've said these are the confirmations so far. Who is left?

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, we are waiting on votes for the secretary of Education, potentially. Linda McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, aka WWE. The labor secretary, potentially. Lori Chavez-deremer, a former city council member and House rep from Oregon. We are still missing the US Trade representative, potentially Jamison Greer, who's a lawyer. He was also a trade official in Trump's first term. And we are missing the UN ambassador, potentially. Elise Stefanik, a House rep from New York. Wow.

Nick Capodice: Okay. And then that'll be that.

Hannah McCarthy: Well, we won't know till we know, but all of these other nominees are less contentious than some of those who have been confirmed already. If that tells us anything.

Nick Capodice: I think it maybe tells us something.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, so per usual, stay tuned. Civics 101 is going to be here. Basics and not so basics of government right where you need them. And also sometimes trivia about Nick who has lived a very interesting life. His band wants made a commercial for a light bulb company.

Nick Capodice: We did. Oh, how we did. Well, I'm gonna see your trivia and raise you, McCarthy.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. I guess that's only fair, but just like, leave middle school Hannah out of this, she's seen enough.

Nick Capodice: You mean the middle school? Hannah, who painted herself entirely in green and performed for good from wicked and a variety show.

Hannah McCarthy: That does it for this episode. It was produced by me, Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice and Rebecca Lavoie, our executive producer. Thank you again, Rebecca LaVoy Christina Phillips is our senior producer. Music in this episode comes from Epidemic Sound. You can find everything else we have ever made, including lots and lots of info on many of our executive branch departments and agencies at Civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

NY Times v Sullivan

When it comes to the protection of a free and fair press, there is one landmark Supreme Court case that sits at the top, and it is New York Times Company v Sullivan (1964). 

This case redefined libel in the United States and is cited in almost every defamation suit since, but its origin is in the Civil Rights Movement, when newspapers were sued to the brink of collapse for covering protests in the south. 

Taking us through libel, defamation, and "actual malice" are Ang Reidell, Director of Outreach and Curriculum at the Annenberg Public Policy Center, and Samantha Barbas, professor at the Iowa College of Law and author of Actual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan. 

Click here to watch a fantastic documentary from Annenberg on the case.

Quick note to teachers! Our guests are collaborating today! The first fifty teachers who join the Civics Renewal Network will receive a free copy of Samantha Barbas's book, click here to sign up and get yours today!

Transcript

Note: this transcript is AI-generated and may contain errors

times v sullivan d1_mixdown.mp3

Nick Capodice: Hannah. You saw this in? What was it? Fourth grade.

Hannah McCarthy: Third or fourth? Yeah.

Nick Capodice: I know you were eight, but can you describe what you saw?

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. This is footage from a civil rights protest in Birmingham, Alabama, in, I think, the early 60s. Students were marching to protest segregation in their city. They were marching peacefully. A thousand kids walking from a church, holding hands, singing. The police told them [00:00:30] to disperse. The kids did not. And the police sprayed the children with fire hoses. They set dogs on them.

Nick Capodice: And what had seeing that so young do to you?

Hannah McCarthy: Uh, it made me sick. I think I was just sitting there slackjawed. I was watching something where there was no political middle. This is, you know, right and wrong, right in front of your eyes. [00:01:00] It was unjustifiable. Violence. It was. It was just pure ugliness.

Nick Capodice: That's the thing that strikes me when I watch footage from civil rights protests. It's it's that it's consistent. Right? It is almost always a black person being hurt, dragged, hit with a fist or a baton, and almost always it is a white hand doing the hurting. When you see an evil like this, when it is filmed and broadcast into your home in 1963, you're forced [00:01:30] to ask, whose side am I on? And that is what this episode is about.

Archival: But, you know, the Sullivan Standard has been a target for conservatives for quite some time, and there's a lot of momentum behind it now.

Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: And today's episode is about one of the most important Supreme Court cases in US history. It is a case directly tied to the work you and I do as journalists, and [00:02:00] it is the strongest protection of that work we are talking about. New York Times v Sullivan, 1964.

Hannah McCarthy: So we've talked about this case in other episodes, but when I think of times v Sullivan, I always think about words like defamation, freedom of the press, libel. I don't immediately connect it to the civil rights movement.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Me neither. And we are going to explain all those terms. But to your point, I usually think of the ramifications of this case, not [00:02:30] what this case was about.

Hannah McCarthy: What was it about? When did it start?

Samantha Barbas: The short story is that a police commissioner named L.B. Sullivan sued the New York Times and some civil rights leaders in 1960.

Ang Reidell: There's all this stuff going on in the background related to the civil rights movement. Right. But the main thing that the case was focusing on was this piece in The New York Times. Now. The piece ran in other newspapers [00:03:00] too, but it was an ad called Heed Their Rising Voices.

Samantha Barbas: My name is Samantha Barbas, and I'm a professor of law at the University of Iowa College of Law.

Ang Reidell: I'm Angela Vidal. I'm the director of outreach and curriculum at the Leonore Annenberg Institute for civics, and I facilitate the Civics Renewal Network. Feel free to cut part of that title.

Nick Capodice: I refuse to cut part of that title, Ange. So, Hannah, we often share [00:03:30] extra resources tied to our episodes, but I'm gonna beseech our listeners to check two out if they have any interest in this case whatsoever. The first is Samantha Barbusse's book, Actual Malice, and the other is a tremendous 30 minute documentary that Android team at Annenberg put out. There are links to both of those in the show. Notes.

Hannah McCarthy: And getting back to the civil rights protests, this was an ad in the New York Times.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, it was it was from May 1960.

Hannah McCarthy: When I think about press coverage of the civil rights movement, that [00:04:00] made a big impact. An ad in the paper isn't necessarily what springs to mind.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, you're correct there there was a ton of coverage in the South. There were press from many papers and broadcasting entities. They had journalists in the South covering these protests, and this coverage was changing people's minds.

Ang Reidell: People were seeing the hoses on the students. They were seeing dogs being sicked on people. Once people could see those images, [00:04:30] these really disturbing images, they knew something had to change. There was a whole network in the South who wanted to keep this system of segregation. If the press was coming in and showing what was happening, they thought that put them in a bad light. And so they wanted to push back using whatever methods they could. They were already using violence, but then legal methods against the press as well.

Nick Capodice: Southern politicians who opposed desegregation, [00:05:00] they seized upon this as a strategy. They saw that if the press continued to cover this brutalization of peaceful protesters, the only solution was to remove the press and you remove them by suing them into oblivion.

Hannah McCarthy: Was there more than one paper sued?

Nick Capodice: Yes. Many more. Sullivan sued the New York Times for $500,000, but that was just the tip of the iceberg.

Samantha Barbas: So The New York Times was sued for about $12 [00:05:30] million over that. Advertisement. So there were at least 6 or 7 lawsuits brought just over that publication. But then the southern officials sued the Saturday Evening Post, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, all of these other media outlets so that by the time the Sullivan case got to the Supreme Court in 1963, there were about $300 million dollars worth of potential judgments in the works here. So this was, [00:06:00] in fact, a concerted conspiracy that could have crushed the press.

Hannah McCarthy: What were the grounds for the lawsuit? I mean, the press have a right to be the press report, the news. It is a protection in the First Amendment.

Nick Capodice: It is. But now we are getting into our first legal definition, and that is libel. Libel is something that is written and published that defames someone. It hurts their reputation. And libel is not protected [00:06:30] under the First Amendment.

Hannah McCarthy: Is libel only libel because it's not true? What's the distinction?

Nick Capodice: Well, if we go back a good stretch, Hannah, whether something was true or not was utterly irrelevant.

Hannah McCarthy: I know what that song means.

Nick Capodice: You sure do. We are going back to 1733 to the trial of a guy named John Peter Zenger.

Hannah McCarthy: What did John Peter Zenger do.

Nick Capodice: Zenger wrote a newspaper called the New York Weekly Journal, and at this time us not [00:07:00] yet being an independent nation, England appointed governors to the colonies, and Zenger wrote articles criticizing New York's new British governor, William Cosby, so Cosby wanted a chunk of the salary from the former governor at the court ruled against him, and in an act of retribution, he fired the chief justice of the New York Supreme Court, Lewis Morris.

Speaker6: New York abstains courteously, and Cosby.

Nick Capodice: Said that Zenger's articles damaged his reputation, [00:07:30] and Zenger was put in jail.

Hannah McCarthy: But Zenger's articles were not lies.

Nick Capodice: No they weren't. They were critical, but they didn't have any falsehoods. But at that time, under British law, anything that damaged a reputation was considered libel.

Hannah McCarthy: And what happened to Zenger? Did he go to jail?

Nick Capodice: He was gonna. At the trial, the jury was basically told, if you agree that Zenger wrote these articles, then he is guilty and he did write them. So this seemed like an open and shut [00:08:00] case. But in their findings, the jury said, yeah, he definitely wrote the articles, but we refuse to find him guilty.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, this is jury nullification, right? Where, you know, the jury is given a set of parameters basically telling them how to make their decision. And they say we actually don't agree to those parameters. We don't agree to the rules.

Nick Capodice: Precisely. And Zenger goes free and a precedent is set if something is defamatory but can be proven to be true, it is not libel. [00:08:30] And that brings us back to 1962. The ad in the New York Times heed their rising voices.

Ang Reidell: Basically, the group supporting Martin Luther King was trying to raise funds for his legal defense. And so there was this huge effort to get people to sign on to the ad. Ads. So there were people like, um, Marlon Brando, you know, Eleanor Roosevelt, lots of people who were already in [00:09:00] the civil rights movement, Harry Belafonte, you know, entertainers, things like that.

Nick Capodice: Wow. Yeah. Nat King Cole, Sidney Poitier, Langston Hughes.

Samantha Barbas: So this advertisement listed a number of things that the southern officials had been doing to civil rights protesters, how they'd been brutalized and how they were kicked out of facilities and so forth. Uh, it turned out that this ad contained a few errors of fact. The ad said [00:09:30] that student protesters sang My Country Tis of Thee on the Capitol steps in Montgomery, when they really sang the national anthem. It said that the police had ringed a college campus when they actually lined up outside the campus. So these really minor errors of.

Ang Reidell: Fact, that's what L.B. Sullivan was suing for, and he sued The New York Times. He wasn't mentioned in the ad at all.

Hannah McCarthy: Hang on. So Sullivan wasn't even in [00:10:00] the ad, and he sued for defamation of character?

Nick Capodice: He wasn't. And he did.

Ang Reidell: I know, it's just like, how can that be? But his his legal point was that since the police in Montgomery were being named and he was the police commissioner, all that was reflecting on him and so he could sue for libel because there were small inaccuracies in that full page ad.

Nick Capodice: Now, Sullivan won [00:10:30] his case in Alabama handily, as did dozens of other people suing media outlets for covering the civil rights movement. And part of the reason he won it so easily and quickly is that the trial was in Alabama. Alabama. Judge. Alabama. Jury.

Samantha Barbas: It was obviously very biased against the New York Times and the civil rights leaders. The judge in the trial was a notorious segregationist. Um, he was [00:11:00] very, like, abusive to the civil rights leaders. Lawyers during the trial didn't allow black jurors to sit in the jury. And there were serious allegations of racial discrimination. You know, in addition to the bias against The New York Times.

Nick Capodice: So in this instance, the burden of proof was on the media outlet. They have to say that every single thing they report is true, and they have to prove it in [00:11:30] court.

Samantha Barbas: And that's very hard to do to prove the truth of something in court. And then also the law was that even if the publisher made an innocent mistake, they got something wrong just because, you know, they were careless in some minor way, they could still be liable. It's strict liability. So it's was really easy for people suing the press or other people to win defamation cases.

Nick Capodice: And again, Sullivan suing the New York Times was a drop in the bucket. These cases were happening over [00:12:00] and over, and newspapers were faced with a choice. Pull all your reporters out of the South or fold. No matter how big or well-financed they were, they could not take an endless stream of litigation.

Hannah McCarthy: So what happened?

Nick Capodice: I'm going to get to the arguments, the decision, as well as some modern day stuff going on with times v Sullivan. But we got to take a quick break.

Hannah McCarthy: But before that break, just our constant reminder that Civics 101 is made by a public radio station and you are the public. [00:12:30] Consider making a gift to support our work at our website civics101podcast.org. We're back! You're listening to Civics 101 and we are talking about the landmark Supreme Court decision New York Times v Sullivan. When we left off, the times had just lost their Alabama trial.

Nick Capodice: They did, and the New York Times appealed their case to the very top, it was argued [00:13:00] in the Supreme Court in January 1964. Here is Samantha Barbas again.

Samantha Barbas: Essentially, the lawyers for Sullivan are saying libel law has always been outside the First Amendment. That is to say, the Supreme Court had always said that libel law didn't implicate any constitutional free speech issues. And the times lawyer is saying, actually, libel law really does raise big free speech questions and that it is time for the Supreme Court to now [00:13:30] analyze libel law under the framework of the First Amendment and lists a number of reasons why it's imperative that the court take that step.

Archival: Our first proposition is that this action was judged in Alabama by an unconstitutional rule of law, the rule of law offensive to the First Amendment, an offensive on its face to the First Amendment.

Samantha Barbas: The lawyer for The New York Times was [00:14:00] a Columbia Law School professor named Herbert Wechsler, and he was quite a scholar, and he made this historical analysis. He went back to 1798, when a Sedition Act was passed in the US, and essentially that criminalized criticizing the government.

Archival: And we are actually making here in relation to this rule of law, the same argument that James Madison made [00:14:30] and that Thomas Jefferson made with respect to the validity of the Sedition Act of 1798.

Samantha Barbas: And at the time, it was generally agreed that that was totally unconstitutional, that the ability to criticize Government is the heart of the First Amendment.

Nick Capodice: And speaking to the First Amendment. Hannah, it is worth mentioning here, as we do in every episode that touches it, Supreme court cases dealing with the First Amendment were very rare. They were quite late in our history. There [00:15:00] was one famous press case called near v Minnesota, which dealt with prior restraint. Basically, the government cannot preemptively censor a newspaper for printing something they can be punished after, but they cannot be stopped from doing it.ht. So there was not a whole lot of precedent here for the court to go on. And that is why the times lawyer had to go all the way back to the Sedition Act, which was denounced by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

Samantha Barbas: And so Wexler, he's almost making like an originalist argument. So he says that [00:15:30] what the Alabama courts are doing is essentially punishing people for criticizing government. Right. The times is being punished because it published criticism of Sullivan. That's no different than being punished for sedition. And that goes absolutely against what the First Amendment stands for.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. Let's hear about the ruling.

Nick Capodice: Who won? The winner in this one, Hannah, is the old Gray Lady. The New York Times again. Here's Andy Riedel.

Ang Reidell: It [00:16:00] was a unanimous decision, saying that in order for there to be libel, there had to be actual malice. And that's the phrase that all the law students learn. That was a change to what had been. They were saying inadvertent mistakes can happen, and it can only be libelous if there is actual malice behind their reporting.

Samantha Barbas: Actual malice means [00:16:30] essentially knowledge of the falsity of a statement or publishing a statement with reckless disregard of the truth. So in order to show actual malice, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant either knew that the statement was untrue.

Ang Reidell: Or if they should have known or been suspicious that it wasn't true. So those are the two things. And it and it really does switch kind of the burden of proof from one side [00:17:00] to the other. The powerful people who are saying that's libel now have to prove that the press was using actual malice.

Hannah McCarthy: Was there a fallout after this ruling came down? We so often hear about a landmark ruling, let's say Brown v board or Loving v Virginia, where the Supreme Court says something and the states take, you know, a few decades to comply. But that couldn't have happened here, right? Because if someone sued you for libel and it was proven [00:17:30] that there was no actual malice, that lawsuit just wouldn't have a chance. Right.

Nick Capodice: And because it applied immediately, the media knew it was now safe to report in the South. And look, I know you got to be careful playing a game of what if when you're looking at history. But what if the court had ruled the other way? What would that have done to the civil rights movement? How would it affect, you know, journalism writ large?

Hannah McCarthy: Part of the reason we're talking about [00:18:00] this case right now is because times v Sullivan is in the headlines.

Nick Capodice: Sure is.

Archival: If we see the Wynn case, make it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decides to get rid of the New York Times versus Sullivan decision, a precedent that's been in place for 60 years. Consider it game over.

Nick Capodice: Most recently, Las Vegas casino tycoon Steve Wynn has petitioned the Supreme Court to rule on his defamation case. He sued an AP reporter in 2018 [00:18:30] who wrote about several sexual assault charges against him in the 1970s. Now Steve Wynn lost, but he is looking for an appeal. He has petitioned the Supreme Court and his petition is explicit. It says his case is asking, quote, whether this court should overturn Sullivan's actual malice standard. End quote.

Hannah McCarthy: Do we have any idea whether or not the Supreme Court has indicated any interest in taking this case?

Nick Capodice: Yes and no. The Steve Wynn case [00:19:00] seems like it won't be heard. And I say that because I read an article this morning saying that Justice Kavanaugh has been citing Sullivan as precedent on other rulings, which kind of implies this isn't a typical conservative liberal justices debate. However, two Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, they have been vocal about a desire to revisit the decision.

Archival: And there's a lot of momentum behind it. Now. In a separate opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said it was [00:19:30] time to revisit the standard. So, you know, the idea is out there. And with six Supreme Court conservatives, you don't know that the rules are going to remain the way they are in 2023.

Nick Capodice: Justice Thomas wrote, quote, the court usurped control over libel law and imposed its own elevated standard. And New York Times Company v Sullivan, end quote. And also that quote, the court did not base this actual malice rule in the original meaning of the First Amendment. End quote. So it's percolating. [00:20:00] Cases are coming up. Petitions to overturn times v Sullivan have increased in the last 20 years. So is that 1964 ruling safe? We do not know.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. So, you know, I often don't like looking into the future, making predictions, etc.. But I am curious, in this case, did Ange or Samantha offer any insight into what would happen if Sullivan was overturned? They did.

Ang Reidell: Well, [00:20:30] I think, um, anytime freedom of the press is threatened, um, then there are serious fallouts because it's the press that, um, you know, are looking into the stories that of what our government is doing and informing us of that. That is what is happening in our world, in our country, in our communities.

Samantha Barbas: So I think it would become much more difficult for the press [00:21:00] to write about not only public officials, but really anybody in the news. There would be a real chilling effect. Journalists would have to really think twice before, uh, reporting on public affairs. And, you know, I think back to what things were like in the South in 1960 when it was so easy to weaponize libel suits. And I think there are many people today who would love to use libel [00:21:30] law to crush their opponents. And if Sullivan weren't in place, that would really be a possibility.

Ang Reidell: You know, it's right there in the First Amendment. So that has a huge impact on our lives by, you know what, what we can learn, how we can learn it. You know, we have the right to to that information about what our government is doing. And if the free press is not there, then there is there is a problem.

Nick Capodice: Ok, that's Times v Sullivan. Huge thanks to the folks Annenberg Classroom for helping us out, you really should see that documentary it's fascinating. This episode was made by me Nick Capodice with you Hannah McCarthy, thank you always, our staff includes producer Marina Hencke, Senior Producer Christina Phillips, and Executive Producer Rebecca Lavoie. Music in this ep from Blue Dot Sessions, Epidemic Sound, Scanglobe, Scott Gratton, Bio Unit, and the composer I wouldn't defame for a million dollars, Chris Zabriskie. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

All The President's Lawyers

Have you ever wondered what the White House counsel does? Who it is? Whether that person is the president’s personal lawyer…or something else? And what about the Justice Department? Where do all those legal types fit in?

Our guest is political science professor Nancy Kassop. She’s an expert on many things, but her extensive experience interviewing White House counsels helped us dig deep on this topic. We also dive into the legal norms and traditions that are being strained under the Trump administration.

Civics 101 is hosted by Hannah McCarty and Nick Capodice. Christina Phillips produced and anchored this episode. 

---

Transcript

Note: This trancript is AI-generated and may contain errors.

All The President's Lawyers

Christina Phillips: I'm just going to go ahead and get started.

Nick Capodice: Sounds great.

Christina Phillips: All right.

Christina Phillips: Hi. Hello. Are we ready to do this?

Hannah McCarthy: I'm ready.

Nick Capodice: Born ready. Phillips.

Christina Phillips: All right. You are listening to civics 101. I'm Cristina Phillips, and today I have dragged you, our host, Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice, into the studio to talk about the most powerful lawyers. We're gonna start by talking about the White House counsel, also known as the president's in-house go to adviser for. Can I do this? Should I do this? And how can I do this?

Hannah McCarthy: All right.

Nick Capodice: Sounds good.

Christina Phillips: Yep. And later we're going to talk about the Justice Department and the relationship between the president and federal law enforcement.

Hannah McCarthy: I am quite excited for this, because while I have a general sense of how all of these things go on, this is like a prime example of one of those civics, one on one things that we try to avoid, which is assuming that we know anything. Right. This world within the executive branch is something that I think I know, which is dangerous because I it means I haven't looked into it. So. Huzzah! Christina.

Christina Phillips: We're also going to talk about the difference between lawyers who work for the government and lawyers who work for a person, and if when that person is the president, is there a line between them, because it's not really clear that there's a line anymore.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay.

Nancy Kassop: When the president says, I'm going to ask my Department of Justice to criminally prosecute people who served on the January 6th committee or people who were legally my opponents, we've never seen that before.

Christina Phillips: That's Nancy Kassop. She is a political science professor at the State University of New York at New Paltz, and she studies the relationship between the presidency and the legal system, particularly the White House and the Department of Justice. And she's interviewed a number of White House counsel's over the years.

Hannah McCarthy: So I think we should be explicit, right, that like she is talking about something that just happened, right? This is not a hypothetical. She's saying we've never seen before what is actually happening right now. And it seems to me like she is implying that this is the president using the Justice Department personally.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So President Trump has been accused of weaponizing the Justice Department against his personal political enemies, and he has said that those political enemies include people inside the government, those Justice Department employees who, on behalf of the government, investigated him for alleged attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and alleged withholding of public records, including classified documents, after leaving the White House. And we should say that since his reelection, the Justice Department has ended those investigations.

Nick Capodice: It does, though, feel like there is a long and storied tradition of presidents rewarding friends and punishing enemies. It's just this is the first time I feel we've seen him use the Justice Department to do that.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, it's the first time that a president has explicitly said that people in the Justice Department were his enemies, and said that he is going to order the Justice Department or mandate the Justice Department to investigate people who investigated him as a person in office and out for federal crimes.

Hannah McCarthy: And given the recent Supreme Court decision about executive immunity. We're in a sort of different legal landscape now.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, yeah. So the unprecedented part is sort of multifold in that, like, we have no precedent to compare this to because no president has looked like Trump or even close. And then also the way that he is positioning people and the way he is appointing people is unusual, even though presidents have appointed people who were friends. You know, this is unusual.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay.

Christina Phillips: So I think the central question I want to get to today is, is the Justice Department a tool for the president to use to enforce a political agenda? And when we hear about the president's lawyers, are we talking about the federal government employees or private lawyers or both?

Nancy Kassop: There are lawyers in the White House, and there are lawyers outside of the White House. And so the lawyers outside of the White House would be those in the Department of Justice, as well as every one of the cabinet departments, also has a general counsel lawyer. But for this purposes, the White House counsel is the lawyer. Inside of the White House actually is part of the White House staff. So when you see other people in the White House staff, such as the press spokesperson or the White House chief of staff, that White House staff office is relatively small and it is situated, you know, physically within the White House. The job of the White House counsel is to look at the presidency as an office and to protect its prerogatives. And so the kind of advice the White House counsel would give to the president, we often talk about it as being a mix of politics, policy and law. So, in fact, it's the White House counsel's job to tell the president when the president wants to take some kind of action, whether it's some military action or whether it's signing a law from Congress. The White House counsel will give the president legal advice. Is this constitutional? Is this legal? Is this good policy? Is this wise?

Christina Phillips: The White House counsel started with Franklin Roosevelt, and it's evolved over time. It used to be more of a policy advisor and a speechwriter, and now it's a legal adviser. I also want to note that this is somebody who's in the office at the behest of the president. They do not have to be nominated and confirmed by the Senate. So there's really not congressional oversight over this position in the way that there would be for a political appointee in the Justice Department.

Nick Capodice: This sounds kind of like an advisor, you know, like like what is it, chief of staff? Isn't that also an advisor who's like, I'm going to help. At least I'm just going by the West Wing model.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah.

Nick Capodice: Margaret.

Archive: Have we heard anything from the president this morning?

Archive: No, sir. You want me to call Debbie?

Nick Capodice: No, but it sounds like the White House counsel is somebody who you want to be. Kind of like your buddy a little bit, but also has a really good understanding of the law and the Constitution and and can say, you can do this and you can't do that. But if you wanted to do this, let's come at it from this angle. It's like a real strategic you want a real good game player to have that job.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. And I think some of the things that the White House counsel and sometimes you'll hear like counselor to the president and they'll, they'll be used interchangeably. Sometimes the White House counsel is oftentimes the person who if the president says, oh, I want to do this, can I do this? The White House counsel is the one who's going to go to the Justice Department, to the Office of Legal Counsel, which has all this institutional history about how laws have been applied and say, so, what's your official recommendation? And then the Office of Legal Counsel will come back and say, you know, we think you could do this or not this. And then the White House counsel has to sort of seek out ways to do it. If they don't have the information, they're consulting with other lawyers that can help them advise the president on what they're supposed to do.

Hannah McCarthy: So when I think about, let's say you're a really high power lawyer, whatever term you would use for it, you have a huge staff of people who do a ton of research and prepare a bunch of documents, and they like, let's say you're looking for a loophole that can take like hundreds of hours. So you have to have a bunch of people working for you to, like, produce the document, the loophole that you need. So are the lawyers in the Justice Department effectively the White House counsel's support staff, or does the White House counsel have paralegals and other individuals working for them that do that?

Christina Phillips: The latter for sure. So the White House counsel is going to have an office of staff. And so these are all people where when the president says, can I do this thing? Or I'm thinking of making this decision. Or, you know, maybe Congress is investigating me. Should I turn over documents like, what's my right here as the president? The White House counsel is then going to find that information. And so they may consult the Justice Department. And we will talk about the firewall that's been put in place a little bit later about like, how much the Justice Department is going to tell the White House what it's doing. But as far as the White House counsel, they are going out and getting answers from these other legal advisers like the AG is going to be also advising the president. Here's what I think you should do. And national security counsel. But the White House counsel is sort of like the filter and the one who's also making sure that White House employees are following ethics rules and and making sure that the president isn't meeting with anyone that could give the appearance of something nefarious. Like they're really interested in protecting the president's image, but also protecting the institution of the presidency and the powers that the president has.

Nancy Kassop: And so the relationship between the white the White House Council and the. The person who is in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel's Office. The White House counsel will say, can I do this? And frequently, the person in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel will say, no, you can't. I mean, again, when I've talked to people who've served in the White House counsel's office, they have said it's a very conflictual kind of relationship because I often don't get the answer I want. But then the White House counsel's job is to be creative. That particular office often, and not so much under the Trump administration. And again, it depends on the personalities of who's appointed in that office. But that office has often had the reputation of actually being very solicitous of the president and giving the president green lights to go ahead and do things. And so it's often known as somebody that the president can turn to and say, okay, I have authority from the Office of Legal Counsel. I can do this. The opinions that get published are often the ones that are permissive to the president that president that will say the president has the authority to do X, Y, and Z. Frequently, what doesn't get published is the oral advice that the lawyer in the Office of New Counsel gives to the White House counsel. What the public sees that gets published are the opinions that are mostly favorable to what the president wants to do, and the opinions that are negative of that often don't see the light of day because they're only exchanged through an oral exchange rather than a written one.

Hannah McCarthy: You know, I think about the fact that, like a personal lawyer is probably perceived by somebody as being someone who is loyal to them, right? Like you're paying them. And so they're gonna they're gonna back you up. Is it a similar deal with the president? I mean, is this White House counsel expected to be, quote unquote, loyal to the president as a human person?

Christina Phillips: I'll first say that it is pretty common for these White House councils that get appointed to have had a relationship with the president before they were in office.

Nancy Kassop: And the White House counsel's job as a lawyer. And this is one that a lot of people don't often understand is the lawyer for the institution of the presidency. So people think, well, is this person the president's personal lawyer? Does this person give the president personal legal advice? And the answer is no. And that is an important distinction, is that this person's job, even though it is a an appointment by the president. So it's often somebody that the president knows quite well. The important point here is that it is not someone who technically owes their loyalty to the person of the president, but in fact to the institution of the office of the presidency.

Nick Capodice: I think a reliable White House counsel would be more of an improviser and say yes and instead of no, because I've.

Nancy Kassop: I've had the opportunity to interview many people who've served in the office of the White House counsel. You know, one of the things they will say is that their job is when the president wants to do something that seems legally questionable, their job is to find a way. And I use that phrase very, very, you know, advisedly to find a way to tell the president this is how you can reach the policy outcome you want, but you can do it in a different way that will be more legally, you know, responsible. And the White House counsel's job to say to the president, if you don't take my advice, and if you do this particular action the way you want to, you could be making yourself legally liable or you could be subject to impeachment.

Christina Phillips: So a couple of things the White House counsel advises the president on are pardons on judicial appointments, other political appointments. And then, of course, executive orders.

Nancy Kassop: On the first day of a new president's administration, it is now very common for the president to president to issue a slew of executive orders, and many of those executive orders are setting in place policies the president wants to be able to pursue. And many of them are also repealing the executive orders from the previous administration.

Christina Phillips: They screen people who come through the White House and train the White House staff on ethics.

Nancy Kassop: Let's put it this way. Every person who walks into the Oval Office to speak to the president is supposed to have been somehow either approved or vetted by the White House counsel. In other words, to make sure that unsavory characters don't get into the Oval Office to talk to the president. Because, again, the council is protecting the office from bad influences. The White House counsel is supposed to advise the president on pardons. That's obviously a very, you know, interesting and timely kind of issue, and particularly at the end of a presidency, that is the time when we see a flurry of pardons. It's like the like the last couple of weeks of the presidency.

Christina Phillips: And they communicate with Congress. So when Congress is drafting legislation, legislators will go to the White House counsel and say.

Nancy Kassop: Do you think this is something the president's going to approve? Will the president sign this, or is the president likely to veto this? So the White House counsel is sort of relaying the president's position on legislation as it's being drafted.

Nick Capodice: So who gets the job like historically, like what kind of person gets hired to be White House counsel?

Christina Phillips: Yeah. So the first thing I'll say is they do not have to be a lawyer. Really, the only office Congress is mandated in the executive department that has to be a practicing lawyer is the solicitor general.

Hannah McCarthy: So the so the AG does not have to be a lawyer?

Christina Phillips: No.

Nancy Kassop: You know, political scientists love this sort of fact. Is that the only office for which you actually have to, by virtue of a law of Congress, Congress requires that the person who serves as solicitor general, the lawyer for the government of the United States, must be a bona fide certified lawyer. The attorney general doesn't need to be a lawyer. The White House counsel doesn't. Of course, obviously, practice has determined that. Those people, of course, are always lawyers. But there's no actual written requirement anywhere, with the exception of the Solicitor General. So that's sort of interesting.

Christina Phillips: So the White House counsel is almost always a lawyer, but they are not going to be representing the president or the federal government in trial. They may serve on a legal team, which they have in the past, including for impeachments, but they are not necessarily like they don't have to be able to show up in court and argue on behalf of their client. So it's not unusual for the White House counsel to have a personal relationship with the president before they were in the White House. So this could be a former advisor in a different political office, or a legal advisor on a campaign or even a personal attorney. And on the other hand, some presidents choose someone who's had a lot of experience in Washington and in federal court. So there have been former judges. There's even been one that was a White House counsel for a previous president.

Nancy Kassop: The kind of people who would serve in either of those offices. As I said, there are two models. Some presidents choose their White House counsel as somebody they can trust. It often is somebody they've known over a long period of time. President Bill Clinton chose his best boyhood friend, Mack McLarty, back from, you know, little Rock, Arkansas, as his White House counsel because it was somebody who he knew would give him unvarnished advice, would be looking out for the president's best opportunities. And so the White House counsels that have come in that have been close friends of the president are often people who are not very familiar with how Washington runs. You know, it's sort of a balance. On the one hand, the president says, well, I know this person is going to look out for my best interests, but this person might not be the one who has had contacts throughout the government and throughout Washington and understands, you know, national politics. It really depends on each individual president as to which model they choose.

Christina Phillips: For example, Clinton and H.W. Bush both had White House counsels who were legal advisers during presidential campaigns or for their personal businesses. But then when Clinton was being investigated by Congress, he brought in Charles Ruff, who's a trial lawyer for the Department of Justice. And he actually worked on the investigative team during the Watergate scandal. So he had been part of the team that investigated Nixon and the Justice Department during Watergate, and he worked as a U.S. attorney in D.C.. So he understood impeachment trials, and he really understood D.C. politics.

Hannah McCarthy: And he understood what's going on when someone's looking into the president's behavior. Right. Because he did.

Christina Phillips: It. Yeah. So sometimes you want to bring in a White House counsel who's a super player in the D.C. area, who has a lot of influence and a lot of institutional knowledge that someone who's worked for the president for years might not have. And then Trump, in his first term, for the most part, appointed White House counsels who represented him as a private citizen, his business or his presidential campaigns. One example is Don McGahn. He worked on Trump's 2016 campaign, and he represented and defended him in lawsuits brought against the campaign for alleged voter intimidation. Pat Cipollone. He represented Trump in commercial litigation, but he also worked for Bill Barr when Barr was an attorney general to H.W. Bush. Trump's current White House counsel is David Warrington. He is an election law specialist, and he was on Trump's 2016 campaign, and he was his personal lawyer for lawsuits following the January 6th Capitol attack, and was his general counsel for the 2024 Trump campaign.

Nancy Kassop: The other point about the White House counsel is they can only give legal advice. It's up to the president to decide whether to take that advice or not. All the counsel can say is, if you don't listen to me, it might not work out very well for you.

Christina Phillips: It's also worth mentioning that White House counsels can be subpoenaed, and they have been to testify before Congress or the Justice Department about their legal advice and what the president did with that with that advice.

Archive: They had been seeking his testimony for months and today it finally happened. Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone arriving on Capitol Hill. A key witness to Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the election and to the chaos.

Christina Phillips: One big, big thing I want to emphasize is that the White House counsel is not supposed to carry out investigations itself on behalf of the White House or within the Justice Department. They don't have the authority to investigate people, whereas the attorney general, the deputy attorney general are given that power.

Hannah McCarthy: Mhm.

Christina Phillips: So what we're going to do now is we're going to start looking at the relationship between the White House and the White House counsel, and the president and the rest of the Justice Department. So we're leaving the White House. We're sort of like floating in that space between the White House and where the attorney General's office is, what's happening in those communications and also, what is the Justice Department supposed to be doing? And how much of a firewall is there between what a president wants and what the Justice Department is required to do, which is enforce federal laws?

Hannah McCarthy: Okay.

Christina Phillips: We will talk about all of that after a quick break. We're back. This is Civics 101. We've been talking about the White House counsel, but now we're going to talk about the relationship between the president and the Justice Department at large. And I feel like now is a good time to really define what the Justice Department is. Just to make sure we all know what are the things that the Justice Department does. Do you want to try to take a stab at a couple of those?

Hannah McCarthy: The Justice Department is an executive department, so it's a part of the executive branch. The executive branch is the branch that has the most enforcement power. The president and other people take an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, right? So my understanding is that the Justice Department ensures the enforcement of the following of federal laws.

Nick Capodice: That's pretty good. Isn't the Justice Department the bridge between the executive branch and the judicial branch, where they are taking rulings from the courts and applying those rulings to everyone?

Christina Phillips: Yes. And also, if the Justice Department or the executive branch decides to charge people with crimes or bring them to court, they are bringing them to the judicial branch where the courts will decide. And that's also true if people want to sue the government or they want to file a lawsuit against something happening in the executive branch, they are going to the judiciary. And then the Justice Department is representing the federal government and those actions on behalf of the executive branch.

Hannah McCarthy: And we should say, like there is discretion here. Like I think about all the time, especially given our federalist system, right? Which means that there are 50 little, slightly sovereign states. And then there's the big federal government. There are things and I think like the prime example everyone thinks about, even though lawyers absolutely hate when people bring up this example, is marijuana being a schedule one drug, right? The federal government could bust up every single dispensary that is legally permitted by states, because these states have decided to engage in commerce around a schedule one substance. They just choose not to. Right. First of all, it's a whole part of the economy. Now. People would find it really unpopular at the state level. The federal government is looking for litmus tests, right. So it's looking basically for the states to mess around and see what works and what doesn't. And then maybe they change federal law. And also that would just be so chaotic.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, I think that's a really good example of, you know, how vast this kind of network of institutions and laws are. A couple of other things I want to touch on is that the Justice Department includes the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service, the DEA, and 94 separate districts across the US with their own district attorneys and staff. And there's over 100,000 people in the Justice Department. Many of them are nonpolitical career positions. So they're they're civil servants that are working in the Justice Department. Other executive branch departments have their own enforcement arms, but the Justice Department is where they go for help and support. So the Office of Legal Counsel, for example, that the Justice Department is helping advise other executive branch departments on what they can do or what they should do, how they should apply the law, and also can help with enforcement against violations of federal law.

Nancy Kassop: What's important to sort of emphasize, and what the public often doesn't recognize, is how much of the government is populated by career people. And they will say, you know, I've worked, you know, in the in the next desk to this person. For the last 30 years, I couldn't tell you what their political opinions are or what political party they belong to. But the top layer is what our political appointees, and there are very few of those there, just the heads of each of the divisions within the Justice Department. And that includes the attorney general, the deputy attorney general and the Solicitor General. Those are political appointees. They must be confirmed by the Senate.

Nick Capodice: Also, the Justice Department, these people carry guns. They don't just say what someone should do, they enforce it.

Hannah McCarthy: It's law enforcement.

Nick Capodice: It's law enforcement. It's America's cops.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, that is given to it by Congress. Like Congress writes, the laws that say that, yes, the Justice Department can do this. This is what law enforcement looks like on a federal level. So let's talk about these top political appointments in the Justice Department. We've got the attorney general who oversees the entire Justice Department, the deputy attorney general, who has almost exactly the same powers as the attorney general, but does more of the everyday logistics and enforcement of department policies. And then there's the solicitor general who represents the federal government in court. And I asked Nancy, you know, okay, so where does the White House counsel fit in? If there's all these people over in the Justice Department? And then there's the president in the White House. What is the White House counsel's role in communicating with all these different people?

Nancy Kassop: That's an excellent question. And in some respects, the white you sort of think of the White House counsel as the hub, the center, the spokes of the wheel, because all of these other executive branch offices and departments and agencies are running things through the White House counsel, and it's the White House counsel's job, really, to be, as one counsel put it, the best law firm that the president can have access to.

Nick Capodice: I've worked with a lawyer before. You know, lots of my friends and family are lawyers, but a lawyer is first and foremost an advocate for you, the person who hires them. And the word advocate I want to advocate for you. Avocado. It's that's what a lawyer's job is, is to represent you. And I can't get over this feeling that the job of White House counsel really does have one client. I mean, ostensibly, it's it's it should be America. It should be democracy. But it seems like first and foremost, the White House counsel is going to say, you know, I'm going to advocate for you, Mr. President. Just something I'm wrestling with.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, I'm glad you said that, because that kind of leads into where that line can be crossed, where perhaps a White House counsel or even the Justice Department are acting on behalf of this person in the White House, this person with the position of president in a way that may not align with federal law and also with the interests of the public. And so I'm going to bring us to Watergate and talk about how Watergate kind of revealed this issue between like, the personal interests of the person in office and the Justice Department and this law enforcement arm of the executive branch.

Archive: Just a year after that great election victory, Richard Nixon is now perceived by an increasing number of Americans to be unworthy of the mandate. And so there is tonight, a real persistent and substantial question of whether the president can, in fact, carry out his responsibilities.

Christina Phillips: So do you guys remember what happened with Watergate, as far as the involvement of people in these political positions in the Justice Department?

Nick Capodice: Well, I know some names from Watergate because my father used to sing me the song that when Haldeman and Ehrlichman, Mitchell and Dean, the one name I know that's a White House counsel is Chuck Colson. Charles Chuck Colson was in the office of the White House counsel, and I know that because all the president's men.

Archive: Said, you work for Colson.

Archive: Steuben's crazy. I never worked for Coulson. He said I worked for an assistant. Coulson was really big on secrets anyway. Even if I had worked for him, I wouldn't know anything.

Nick Capodice: She's a great movie.

Hannah McCarthy: I've not thought about it until just now that the title of that movie is meant to say. People think that one guy did something wrong. No. This is the story of when everyone colludes. Yeah, all of the president's men were like, let's do this, guys. Let's make this happen. You know.

Nick Capodice: I have also never thought of the title because, you know, I read the book when I was so little.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, yeah. Essentially, the story here is that Nixon's reelection campaign was working with his White House counsel and senior White House staff, and the attorney general at the time, John Mitchell, to carry out this scheme of illegal activities, including breaking into and wiretapping the Democratic National Committee. And what I find interesting about this is that the FBI, which is part of the Justice Department was investigating that break in, and that's when they made the connection to Nixon's White House staff. And, of course, by that time, the White House and the acting FBI director were already starting to destroy evidence, and the attorney general was trying to cover things up. And a bunch of these people were charged with federal crimes afterwards. But the investigation process itself was pretty compromised because these were people who were violating federal law while they were federal law enforcement. And afterwards, naturally, the public is very suspicious of the Justice Department and the White House because of the whole colluding with one another to break the law and then cover it up. And so Nancy told me that one of the solutions that Carter's White House counsel came up with, his name is Griffin Bell. He wanted to instill trust in the executive branch again. So he wanted to create some sort of firewall that would demonstrate that there was a separation between the White House and the and the Justice Department. And here's how we went about doing that.

Nancy Kassop: And so he was trying to bring some sort of sense of civility and sense of ethics back to the Justice Department. And so he established this process that the Justice Department would write up a memo. Um, and the White House counsel would write a depart memo called the Contacts Policy. I mean, I actually describe it as the no contact policy, because what it meant was that the the Department of Justice is supposed to be completely separate from the president when it comes to particularly law enforcement or any type of, uh, criminal matter, that somebody that might be a person that the president knows who is about to be indicted and there is to be no contact, with the exception of the White House counsel and the attorney general. So at the very highest levels of both offices, they are permitted to talk to one another. But beyond that, there's a prohibition on anybody else unless they are designated by the White House counsel or the attorney general. But it's supposed to be that the person to person contact between those two offices is only at the very top level, and the idea is to keep the president insulated from any kind of criminal indictments that the Department of Justice may wish to bring.

Nick Capodice: Christina, can you just clarify this for me? Is the president not supposed to have any communication whatsoever with the attorney general?

Christina Phillips: I think this is all like norms.

Hannah McCarthy: Mhm.

Nick Capodice: Someone's got a case of the spouses. Yeah. This is like you're not supposed to.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. I think the word we're looking for here is tradition. There's been a tradition that the White House should not interfere, or at least keep the appearance that it's not interfering with Justice Department investigations. Even Trump, during his first term in office, didn't directly order the end of a Justice Department investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, though he was very unhappy about it. And he did fire the FBI director, James Comey, for his participation and overseeing of this investigation. And that, of course, is part of a pattern we see with Trump and his first administration, where he fires people or they leave because they refuse to do what he wants, especially in the Justice Department and in the White House and some of his top advisers. We're going to talk more about the relationship between the interests of the White House and the interests of the Justice Department. Right after a quick break. We're back. This is Civics 101. I'm Cristina Phillips, and we have been talking about the supposed firewall between the White House and the Justice Department. And one thing I do want to say is that former presidents, especially after Watergate and this includes Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Trump and Biden have all been in office during investigations carried out by the Justice Department that involve their allies, their family members, members of their campaign. And many of these are what are called special counsel investigations, meaning the Justice Department appoints people outside of normal Justice Department channels because they want to guard against any conflicts of interest, like if the A.G. was involved in something, a special counsel would be shielded from the A.G. getting involved so the Justice Department can investigate independently, and whether the president is actually shielding themselves for involvement or not is kind of up for debate.

Christina Phillips: But also, presidents have asked for their Justice Department to carry out these investigations or express their frustration at those investigations. But there has been an effort since Nixon to put on this show that the president is not making the final call and that the Justice Department is allowed to investigate things it needs to investigate. And all of all of that is usually laid out in a contact policy. And that's usually written at the beginning of a president's administration by the White House counsel that lays out, you know, the firewall that will exist. So only these people between the White House and the Department of Justice will communicate with each other. There will be no presidential involvement in investigations, that kind of thing. So I think now is a good time to talk about when we hear the words unprecedented. What is different about Trump as a president compared to presidents past? I don't think we can really do a 1 to 1 comparison about what Trump is doing compared to previous presidents, because no presidents past have had the kind of legal history that Trump does. So there are three things that we should think about. One, Trump has been charged with more federal and state crimes and been in more civil lawsuits, and has been investigated by the federal government since he left office than any other president in history. He has a large network of personal lawyers who have represented him in these cases. And to say that Trump has felt as though the federal government has been conspiring against him would be an understatement.

Archive: The ridiculous and baseless indictment of me by the Biden administration's weaponized Department of Injustice will go down as among the most horrific abuses of power in the history of our country. The entire thing has been a witch hunt, and there is no collusion between certainly myself and my campaign. But I can always speak for myself and the Russians. Zero.

Christina Phillips: There is really no model that is like Trump as far as his position and his history as president.

Nick Capodice: It's not just since he was president. Donald Trump has a history of courts and laws and going back decades.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah.

Christina Phillips: So here's number two. The other thing we have to consider when we talk about Trump is that he's only the second person to run for reelection, lose and then run for reelection again and win and then return to office. So the first was Grover Cleveland, and I know the sample size is one, but he was not indicted for federal crimes when he left office.

Nick Capodice: No, he just made Labor Day.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. And number three, since his return to office, Trump has begun the process of filling the highest positions in the Justice Department. These are political appointees with people who defended him in court.

Nancy Kassop: Okay. So we are heading into a very and it's a very overused word, but it is true, a very unprecedented set of circumstances in that the White House counsel, as well as the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, the associate principal, attorney general, which is the third person, and the solicitor general are all people who have been private lawyers for the incoming president. That has never been the case before. From my point of view, it will be fascinating to see how they exercise their authority in those positions. Clearly, these are people who have personal connections to the president. That's in itself not necessarily anything disqualifying. But to have served the president in a legal capacity as a private personal attorney versus now having to do a complete sort of turnaround to become the lawyer for a governmental office is a very different kind of opportunity. It'll be fascinating to see how they manage to do that.

Nick Capodice: The White House counsel I can understand as being a job. I agree from someone that's been with you through thick and thin. But in terms of the people who actually head the Justice Department being private lawyers for you, that is erasing this, you know, mirage of impartiality Partiality towards the president.

Hannah McCarthy: I appreciate that this idea of it being a mirage. Right. I feel like we often talk about the fact that like, sure, it seems like things are all just fine, but you know, that there's stuff going on underneath the surface and it's like, yeah, but but there's a degree to which it is important that everyone even pretends right. Like I come back to this idea of like the Constitution and democracy. Those are just ideas. Like, if you don't look like you're doing it, if you don't do it, you know, if you're not faking it till you make it, then you're never going to make it. Like the appearance is important to a degree.

Nick Capodice: It's also these are these are Senate confirmed positions.

Christina Phillips: Yeah. I'm so glad you said that because different from the White House counsel, these are all positions that have to be confirmed by the Senate. Some of these confirmation hearings are still ongoing, of course, but so far, the Senate has confirmed anyone that Trump has put up for these positions. So it's not just that the president is appointing these political allies and former personal attorneys. The Senate is saying, yeah, that's fine. We want these people to run our Justice Department. And since we've now established that, let's actually talk about a couple of these people real fast. So we're taping this on Wednesday, February 12th. I interviewed Nancy in mid January. So you may hear her refer to a couple of people who are up for confirmation who have now since been confirmed. And I want to start with the acting deputy attorney general. That's Emil Beauvais. So he has been in office while the Senate is doing confirmation hearings for the future deputy attorney general. That's Todd Blanche, but it's understood that Emil Beauvais will stay in some sort of high position in the Justice Department after that confirmation. And then there's D John Sauer. He's the nominee for solicitor general, and both worked for Donald Trump's personal defense team in federal cases brought by the Justice Department involving classified documents and alleged election obstruction. And Sauer also represented President Trump in court for his presidential immunity case. He's the one who, after the judge asked him if the president could order the assassination of a political rival, he said that a president could only be charged with federal crimes after they've been impeached and convicted by Congress. That was his answer to that. So here's what Nancy had to say about these two people.

Nancy Kassop: Those two lawyers and others in their legal filings. In some of the Trump legal cases that have gone through the federal courts have used language that is very rhetorically charged. And they've even been reprimanded by the federal judges reading their legal briefs or listening to their legal arguments and saying, you know, you're not making a legal case, you're making a political case. The lawyers in their legal briefs that are, you know, official documents filed with the courts are saying this is simply a political witch hunt against Donald Trump because his political enemies want to try to, make life as difficult for him as possible. Something like that. That's a political argument, and in fact, it actually makes the brief lose credibility to, you know, the judge is not going to think kindly of that. They're not helping their client, let's put it that way. The legal argument would be that the president has this authority from the Constitution. The president is the commander in chief. The president has certain legal powers that he can exercise.

Christina Phillips: Here are a few things that Emil Bové has done since he's been in the position. He's forced out a bunch of nonpolitical employees at the Justice Department who are supposed to be helping shield Justice Department investigations from political interference. He also ordered the FBI to put together a list of names of FBI employees who investigated the January 6th riots. And again, these are employees assigned by the Justice Department to carry out their law enforcement duties under federal law. And so, part of the issue with that, according to lawsuits filed by some of these employees, is that they don't always get to choose what cases they work on. And also, there was a concern that he's requesting personal sensitive information about employees outside of secure channels. And he also ordered federal prosecutors to drop a corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams. And when the U.S. attorney general in charge of that case and five of her prosecutors resigned, they said that it was a quid pro quo where essentially, Mayor Adams agreed to help enforce Trump's immigration policies in New York City in exchange for having these charges dropped against him. We've also got Pam Bondi. She was just confirmed a few days ago to be the attorney general. She worked on Trump's legal team during the first impeachment trial, and she spread conspiracy theories about voter fraud in the 2020 election.

Hannah McCarthy: I do know the big thing that at least the media has indicated is of concern is what Trump said publicly about Pam Bondi after she was confirmed.

Nancy Kassop: She was asked those questions. Well, are you going to do what the president asked you to do when it comes to criminally prosecuting Liz Cheney or Bennie Thompson or Jack Smith, and she'll say, you know, I need to look at the facts and I will decide each case on a case by case basis. Well, that doesn't give you a whole lot of confidence. I mean, on the other hand, that's sort of the expected answer. I can't give you a hypothetical answer. Now, I need to look at the facts and make a judgment and make a determination. But those are the kinds of things that would be so unprecedented, and those would be the type of things. Would the career people put a brake on that and say, wait a minute, you can't do this. Will they be listened to? People's jobs depend on doing what the president has asked them to do. And if they push back, and if they say to the president, sorry, I'm not going to follow through on that, then they have a responsibility. Do I resign in protest? And do I resign in protest and make it public so that the public is informed of what is going on behind the scenes?

Christina Phillips: Since she's been appointed, Bondi has released at least 14 memos about how the Justice Department will run. One includes firing staff members who choose not to participate in court proceedings on behalf of the federal government or signed legal briefs. So in the past, Justice Department attorneys have had the right to recuse themselves or not sign their names on legal briefs. She's also ordered an investigation into staff who worked on federal investigations against Trump and his alleged role in trying to overturn the 2020 election. Another thing that's happened is that the White House counsel, David Warrington, released his contact policy. And in it, it said that the president, the vice president, the White House counsel and the deputy White House counsel can all speak to the Justice Department about investigations. Now, this is not too far off from Trump's contact policy in his first administration, except this one specifies that the president has the right to ask the AG's office or other Justice Department employees about criminal investigations, which is not the norm. And the AG's office has already put a White House liaison right in the Justice Department to facilitate these communications. So that strict firewall that previous presidents have really tried to establish, that does not seem to be what's happening here.

Nick Capodice: That's quite an understatement.

Hannah McCarthy: Also, we can pretty reasonably guess that Pam Bondi is not ordering these investigations just because you know her understanding of the law and her, you know, heart and her soul guide her to do so. Trump said explicitly that he would be making sure this happened. Now it is happening. So I think we can say this is on his behalf at his behest, right?

Christina Phillips: Yes. Even if these people, which, for example, Emil Bove has said he's acting on guidance from the president, but not on the orders of the president, even if that's so, they are doing things that the president has said he wants his Justice Department to do. Do you want to know who the liaison is, by the way?

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Who's the new liaison?

Christina Phillips: So the new liaison is this guy, Paul Ingrassia. He says he's a constitutional law expert, but he's most famous for pushing a fake theory that Nikki Haley wasn't eligible to run for president on Trump's social media app, Truth Social, that Trump then promoted. And his theory was basically that Nikki Haley's parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth, which disqualifies her from running for president, which, frankly, I can't believe I have to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway. You must be a natural born citizen to run for president. Nikki Haley was born in South Carolina.

Hannah McCarthy: And then Trump entered office and issued a presidential action that essentially would make that conspiracy theory true.

Christina Phillips: Yes.

Hannah McCarthy: If indeed, Nikki Haley's parents were not lawful permanent residents or citizens of the United States.

Christina Phillips: Yeah, yeah. The argument was basically that her parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth. That's what he said. I was thinking a lot about like, so what now? Like, where do we go from here? Especially because this does seem to be the way things are going, is that no matter what past history shows us, Trump has been appointing people into the Justice Department who are acting on his behalf politically. And we're seeing it happen. Congress, by allowing these appointments, has so far, you know, signaled that that's okay. There have been lawsuits in court. Those will continue to play out. But what does this mean as far as how the Justice Department operates? And I was thinking about career civil servants who all these people in the Justice Department who make up the majority of the Justice Department, who are working under these political appointees. And here's what Nancy had to say about that.

Nancy Kassop: For people who have been career civil servants for the last couple of decades. Many of them at the beginning of a new administration, depending on how their own. Personally, even though it may not be something that they express publicly, their own political views about the incoming administration have to decide for themselves. Is this an administration I can serve? Will I be comfortable staying in my job or not? And so there's this big question right now, particularly among executive branch lawyers. And again, they can even be Republican executive branch lawyers. It doesn't it's not always by party, because the Republican Party itself has changed dramatically over the last few decades. But the big question is do I stay or do I leave? And can I be of service to the presidency or to this administration if the administration coming in is particularly politicized? Is this something I feel comfortable doing with a sense of integrity, or would I be better off leaving?

Nick Capodice: Of all the tropes since the election, this is the one I've heard the most from guests in our episodes, which is so many people who work for all these departments and all these agencies have been there for 30, 40, 50, 60 years. They know how stuff works. They know how to get bills passed. They know how to do the right thing for the world, right for the environment or for healthcare or whatever. So every single at every single juncture in America right now that is going away. This notion of it doesn't matter how long you've been here or who you've served. All that matters now is fealty. And you're losing so much institutional knowledge when you do that. It's the people who have done stuff for so long and know how things work. They're gone. I think the thing that might be saddest is just because of the guests we talked to, is the lack of institutional memory for all of these agencies and departments. It's going to be gone.

Christina Phillips: What I was thinking about is I'm like, okay, so there is chaos in the Justice Department. There are people who are being fired, and there are people who may leave in droves. There may be this lack of institutional knowledge. Well, the Justice Department still has a has a job. It still has a responsibility to the American people. As a voter or as somebody in America, like you expect your federal government to work for you. And so I just think a lot about like, well, what happens if the federal government is not able to do those things anymore, either because it doesn't have the right people who have trained to do it, or because it's been given different directives that mean it is doing certain things at the cost of others. As people who live in this country and who are civically engaged. What do we expect the Justice Department to do for us, and how can we hold them accountable to doing those things for us because they are supposed to serve us? And I don't have an answer necessarily. Call your congressman. But like that is something we should expect the federal government to continue doing, no matter who is in the position.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah I agree.

Christina Phillips: This episode of Civics 101 was written by me, Christina Phillips, and edited by Rebecca Lavoie, our executive producer. Rebecca is also the head of the podcast team at New Hampshire Public Radio. Special thanks to our host, Nick Capodice and Hannah McCarthy for joining me in the studio for this episode. Music in this episode from Epidemic Sound and Chris Zabriskie. Civics 101 is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

What is a Constitutional Crisis?

It's a term thrown around quite a bit lately, but what does it actually mean? This is an episode about the basics of the Law of the Land, the three branches of government and what happens when they're don't work the way they're supposed to.

Our guide is Aziz Huq, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. His books include The Rule of Law: A Very Short Introduction, The Collapse of Constitutional Remedies  and How to Save a Constitutional Democracy. 

If you want some extra context for this one, check out these other episodes:

Checks and Balances

So Long, Chevron

What is "originalism"?

How Should We Govern the Algorithm?

The Fourteenth Amendment

Want our new "Civics is my cup of tea" mug? CLICK HERE TO DONATE AND GET YOURS!

• CLICK HERE: Visit our website to see all of our episodes, donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more! 

• To see Civics 101 in book form, check out A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works by Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice, featuring illustrations by Tom Toro.

• Check out our other weekly NHPR podcast, Outside/In - we think you'll love it!

Transcript

Note: This transcript was AI-generated and may contain errors

Archive: Away from the American people. We've talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis. We are now in it.

Archive: Revolution within a constitutional crisis.

Archive: It almost certainly would have precipitated a full blown constitutional crisis.

Archive: Thus, we have a constitutional crisis.

Archive: Yesterday's constitutional crisis, brought to you by Trump.

Archive: This is a constitutional crisis that we are in today. Let's call it what it is.

Hannah McCarthy: Hi there. Nick. How are you?

Nick Capodice: I am well. And yourself. Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: If you are well, I am well.

Nick Capodice: Are see to salvation. Salvation. Wait, is it salvaje? Salvaje? Or is it salvaje? Salvio?

Hannah McCarthy: I think that all depends on if you're asking a professor or a priest. But anyway, you know. Nicely done. Remembering your Latin either way. Thank you. Uh, and actually, this is where I want to start today.

Nick Capodice: With Latin.

Hannah McCarthy: With this phrase, with this idea. If you are well, I am well.

Nick Capodice: Now, Hannah, correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is an episode about constitutional crises, is it not? Or are we pivoting?

Hannah McCarthy: No, no, no, we're not pivoting.

Nick Capodice: We aren't pivoting. Everyone know pivot.

Hannah McCarthy: Sit tight and I'm gonna get to that phrase. Constitutional crisis. Constitutional crises. This is Civics 101. I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: And for this episode, I called up someone who has been on the show before, Aziz Huq.

Aziz Huq: Yeah, I'm happy to, you know, do this kind of thing. It's it's my pleasure.

Hannah McCarthy: You may remember Aziz from our episodes on the 14th amendment and on artificial intelligence and the algorithm and law. Aziz is a professor of law at UChicago, and his books include How to Save a Constitutional Democracy and the Collapse of Constitutional Remedies.

Nick Capodice: I am always happy to have Aziz back.

Hannah McCarthy: You and me both. So I did call Aziz to talk about the phrase constitutional crisis. You know. What is it? What would one mean? Is that even a thing?

Nick Capodice: And did you get an answer?

Hannah McCarthy: In a way. But first, Nick, I want to share this. I asked Aziz after we'd talked about this phrase constitutional crisis. You know, so in light of this discussion, if people are feeling, you know, perhaps disempowered or cynical, what can they do? Does voting and participating, for example, make a difference? And Aziz said, absolutely yes of course. And then he said this.

Aziz Huq: But it's also instrumentally important. I think part of what makes us rounded, full human beings is that we care for each other and that we act on the basis of that care.

Hannah McCarthy: And this is why I am starting with if you are well, I am well, because those words I think, are not just a pleasantry. I think they are a truth. I think they are what we mean when we say common good.

Aziz Huq: I think many people are cynical about politics, clearly, and they're jaundiced about what they see on TV or what they read on Twitter or what have you.

Archive: When your political involvement is is all about watching cable television and screaming at the TV or writing on social media, it's actually incredibly disempowering to you.

Archive: Even if Americans don't agree on who to vote for. Most say they often feel exhausted just thinking about politics. Anxious.

Hannah McCarthy: Nightmarish.

Archive: Hectic. Anxiety.

Archive: Challenging.

Archive: Chaotic.

Archive: Nerve wracking. Confusing.

Archive: Anxiety. Prophetic.

Archive: Content to turn young people off to government. And if they do not embrace their role in that process, then I'm not sure what will be left with.

Aziz Huq: I would think about politics in a different way. I think politics is at the level of an individual person who's a citizen, who's just a resident of a place is. It's the way that you demonstrate care and compassion for your fellow residents and citizens, and it's a way of engaging with them respectfully and as equals by processes of persuasion and advocacy and all of the things that people do in ordinary democratic politics.

Hannah McCarthy: Today we are going to talk about the Constitution and government and politics and democracy. And I think instrumental to all of that is the agreement that the wellness of others is the wellness of oneself. In a democratic system especially, it is about the whole. It is about saying, if you are well, I am well. And that can be true even when you're not getting what you want out of this system. It is right to ensure that others are well. That is how and why any of this works.

Aziz Huq: I absolutely think that it is possible that elections have consequences and how people behave make up those consequences. What people do to mobilize, how people vote really matter. But I also think that even when it doesn't work, it's also really important. I draw an analogy to parenting. People who are parents understand that they're not able to able to prevent all the bad things that can happen to their children from happening. Stuff happens. People. Kids get hurt. Kids make bad decisions. But that doesn't change the fact for most parents that they still try and be good parents, and they still try and do the things that help their kid. And the fact that they don't have complete control over that doesn't alter it doesn't mean that they stop doing it. It doesn't mean that they stop acting out their compassion, acting out their bond. In that case, it's a familial bond with the child. So I think there's a parallel between parenting and citizenship that I think pushes one to think of the duties of citizenship, the duties of belonging to a place as not being completely dependent upon. Do I think these are going to have a material effect? I think you do things because they're the right things to do, not because you know they're going to work.

Nick Capodice: I really have to say, Aziz sure has got me there, Hannah. I mean, I know this as a parent, and I hate saying that phrase as a father, but I know this as a parent. You don't always or even often see how your parenting is actually working. But to be a parent at all means doing it every day. A hundred, a thousand little failures and you never stop. And it sounds like Aziz is saying likewise, being a citizen in this democracy means doing it every day.

Hannah McCarthy: Even if you feel like other people are not.

Aziz Huq: I think a way of thinking about that is if you read coverage of the reasons people have for voting, one of the reasons that powerfully emerges is resentment and contempt of others, and that that set of feelings, I think, has been charted probably better in journalism than it has in opinion polls, for example. Arlie Russell Hochschild has a marvelous book called Strangers in Their Own Land, which describes people who are motivated by a kind of compound of fearful resignation and anger at those who have seemingly more. And I think that there's a profound human problem, which doesn't have to do with consequences, but has to do with how do you respond as a human being when you when it's really hard to see what it is that you've done that warrants those sentiments of anger, resentment, contempt, and even hatred? I think that that human problem is best thought about by looking back at the examples of historical figures who we admire because of their of their ability to continue operating as decent human beings under conditions in which they were hated.

Archive: New tonight police arrest A man wanted for three anti-Muslim attacks in Queens.

Archive: The 23rd annual Transgender Day of Remembrance, in honor of all who have lost their lives to violence.

Archive: Police say back in September, they yelled anti LGBTQ statements at a man.

Archive: Charges of racial intimidation tonight for her outburst inside of a Montgomery.

Archive: Black Lives matter what it loud say it clear immigrants are welcome here. My body, my choice, my body.

Archive: But we're beginning to make sure we make a change that don't just last a week and last for decades, for a lifetime. So our children can be better off. I won't be.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, so just keep that in mind as we talk about something that a lot of people perhaps are concerned about. I mean, we're talking about the word crisis, right? But what are we even saying when we say constitutional crisis?

Aziz Huq: I don't think that we can say what a constitutional crisis is, because there's no shared definition in either the law or in a social science discipline, which we might look to for an objective opinion.

Nick Capodice: So in terms of the Civics 101 of it all, we can't tell everyone what it is like. We can't define this term because people don't agree about what it is.

Hannah McCarthy: And because of the reason and the way the phrase constitutional crisis tends to crop up.

Archive: Mr. speaker, we are in a constitutional crisis.

Archive: I want you to know that the crisis is here.

Archive: And thus we have a constitutional crisis.

Aziz Huq: In daily politics, when you hear talk of a constitutional crisis. Generally, the definition at work turns upon the speaker's views about what values they prioritize in government, and therefore the definition they are using is often one that's not shared by others. Because of that, I tend to avoid the phrase constitutional crisis because I think it is more confusing than it is illuminating.

Nick Capodice: All right, so people might say this is a constitutional crisis, but what they really might mean is I see this as a threat to what I care about, or simply, I don't like this, you know, and you're throwing Constitution, the law of the land, the latticework undergirding democracy right up next to the word crisis. So basically you're saying everybody, we've got a democracy emergency, but what are we actually talking about here?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, I think that maybe we should avoid even using the word emergency, because what does that mean? Aziz tended to say breakdown and strain. And he started me off with what the Constitution is ostensibly for, whether people are using it that way and what it means if they're not.

Aziz Huq: I think I would distinguish between a couple of different ways in which you could have substantial breakdowns in constitutional law. Understood in some sense. Here are two ways of thinking about that, that I think are salient now. So the first is you might think that the purpose of the Constitution is not just to create a number of offices or roles that are filled at the level of the nation, and that carry out the work of government. It's also to impose constraints upon how those roles can behave, and to carve out paths or lanes that they should, rather than should not be in.

Nick Capodice: Now, this I do at least think I know that the Constitution establishes the existence of government, the people in charge, and also puts guardrails on that government.

Hannah McCarthy: Great. So those are two things that the Constitution is for. But if one of those things isn't happening, that could be a breakdown.

Aziz Huq: One way of thinking about a situation of substantial constitutional strain is to say, well, many of the mechanisms that kept those actors who were given power through or by the Constitution. All or most of the mechanisms that cap them in their lanes are breaking down. And although the creative part of the Constitution, the bit of the constitution that elevates people to offices of public power and influence is working the constraining part of the Constitution, the element that imposes breaks and channels those people isn't in good working order. So that's one way of thinking about it.

Nick Capodice: So this makes me think of separation of powers and checks and balances. I feel like that's a pretty well known government guardrail. One branch might really want to do something, but the other branch checks it maybe has to approve it or is allowed to say no to it.

Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, we know the framers were worried about tyranny. They were worried about too much power being in one person or one group of group of people's hands. So they split it up and they added some rules for keeping it that way. Because. Because, Nick, this whole system is supposed to be about the group, the whole people having a say in their governance, people governing themselves.

Aziz Huq: Another way of thinking about it is to say, well, one of the important and central goals of the Constitution is self-government. It's to fashion a set of offices that are not just responsible for doing the thing that's beneficial to the nation today, but that are capable over time of being responsive, not just to the voters of today, but to the voters of tomorrow and to the voters of the day after that. You can think of that as democracy, as a going concern and another form of substantial constitutional strain occurs if their possibility of democracy as a going concern starts to recede meaningfully from sight starts to become a theory, but not actually a practice. And we know from looking around the world that other countries experience of what's come to be called democratic backsliding, that that kind of recession into the twilight of democratic possibility is a real, uh, a real thing that happens even in the absence of elections being called off or some kind of very clear signal of democracy ending. I think that's a different kind of constitutional failure.

Nick Capodice: All right. So we've got these two principles, the guardrails that ensure democracy and people prioritizing Self-Governance, prioritizing democracy. And if either of those things gets weak or is strained, either because people give them up or because people find ways around them, then we're not doing democracy anymore.

Hannah McCarthy: And by the way, there are people, as Aziz pointed out to me, who do not believe that the point of the Constitution was to create democracy. So those people might say, well, democracy receding is not a constitutional strain.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. And I want to avoid the rhetorical exercise here of we're a republic, not a democracy. We have a whole episode on that, if anyone is interested. But you and I, at least we pretty much operate on the assumption that the point of the Constitution was to create democracy.

Hannah McCarthy: I guess you could call that a Civics 101 philosophy. But I think it's also one that a lot of people agree on. A lot of people think.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. And real quick, Hannah, it is possible, right, that when someone says this is a constitutional crisis, they actually do mean the guardrails are breaking down or democracy is backsliding.

Hannah McCarthy: It definitely is possible.

Nick Capodice: All right. So now I've got to know where the courts come in. Like if I think about people avoiding government guardrails, for example, isn't that when the federal courts are supposed to jump in and say, you cannot do that, we say the Constitution says so, or I guess you can do that. We say the Constitution says so, right?

Hannah McCarthy: Okay. The courts. So you're describing what happens when someone thinks someone else is breaking a federal law or violating the Constitution. They go to the federal courts and they ask a judge to say something about it. And that judge either agrees that it's a violation or says that it isn't. If they say it is, it means the violation has to stop.

Nick Capodice: And then, of course, that sometimes gets appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution really has to say about this.

Hannah McCarthy: So thinking about the breakdown of guardrails, I basically asked Aziz, okay, so what if that guardrail breaks down? What if the federal courts what if the Supreme Court says this is the way it has to be? And the person they're talking to says, nope.

Nick Capodice: As in, what if someone ignores what a judge or a justice says?

Hannah McCarthy: Right.

Aziz Huq: Probably the best example of government officials not complying with a instruction from the Supreme Court is what happened in the wake of Brown v Board of Education. Brown in 1954 declares that separate but equal in education is a violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. For roughly a decade after, Brown has decided there is no meaningful change in the level of school segregation outside of a couple of what are known as the border states, places like Maryland. The reason for that absence of change is the officials responsible for managing schools at the local and the municipal level, and to some extent at the state level, successfully resisted the instruction in Brown.

Nick Capodice: Oh, of course. And I know this is super complicated, Hannah. And schools today are still wildly segregated, if not by law, than by policies at the state and local level, and everything from district boundaries to school choice to income inequality to a lack of a court overseeing things. And it took something like 50 or 60 years before the last school district was formally desegregated in 2016.

Aziz Huq: One of the lessons that one might take from that is the answer to the question of what happens when officials defy the court is that the court loses. The court is not in a position to buck certain kinds of coordinated resistance by governmental actors.

Nick Capodice: The court loses. Like that's the answer. Is that allowed?

Hannah McCarthy: Well, it's not supposed to happen, but it can. It has, and it is a really big deal. Remember, this system is about guardrails and about agreeing on democracy, agreeing to abide by it and keep the project up. This is all just a theory written down on paper. If we don't do it, then we don't do it.

Nick Capodice: Okay. Did Aziz say anything about the federal courts today? If we're thinking about upholding the Constitution, how all these branches work together or not? How is that branch working right now?

Hannah McCarthy: We're going to get to that after a quick break. But before that break, just a little reminder that Nick and I wrote a book. We really love it. We hope you will too. It is called A User's Guide to Democracy How America Works. I think it's pretty useful. You can find it wherever books are sold. We're back. We're talking about the idea of the Constitution being strained. And Nick, before the break, you asked if Aziz Huq, a UChicago professor of law who has written a lot about the Constitution, had anything to say about the federal courts today? He sure did.

 Aziz Huq: I don't think we're in a world in which that characterizes the challenge to constitutional stability practice today. I think we're in a world in which it's much more likely that particularly the justices of the Supreme Court take their cues for their rulings not from text, not from original understanding, not from precedent, not from constitutional principle, but from what their ideological fellow travelers think.

 Nick Capodice: Okay, let me make sure I understand this, Hannah. We're talking about the courts today. Specifically the Supreme Court and the way the Roberts Court interprets the Constitution and hands down rulings based on the Ocean, all part of the project of upholding the guardrails, upholding the law of the land. So what does it mean to base rulings on what your, quote, ideological fellow travelers, unquote, think instead of, you know, text, precedent, principle, etc.?

 Hannah McCarthy: So here's the example he gave.

 Aziz Huq: A really good example of this is the attack on administrative agencies that culminated this last year. The core of that attack was an attack on the idea that when a federal administrative agency does something, when it interprets the law, it gets a lot of deference from the federal courts. And this was really a non-issue among any of the justices until about 2015.

 Nick Capodice: Oh, this is Chevron, right.

 Hannah McCarthy: The Chevron deference. Yeah. The court did away with that in a case called Loper Bright, which I made an episode about and warmly recommend you listen to if you want a better sense of what Aziz is referencing here. But essentially, for a long, long time, experts in administrative agencies could interpret a statute and the courts would generally say, you know, okay, we defer to you. You're the expert.

 Aziz Huq: And in 2015, a couple of the justices start saying, well, hey, we shouldn't do this. We should we should police what agencies are doing. Well, what changes in 2015? The only thing that changes in 2015 is that in the course of the Obama administration, the RNC platform is changed to include we shouldn't give deference to agencies and lawyers associated with the Republican Party and that movement start making arguments in that register.

 Nick Capodice: So the Republican National Committee came up with this idea, and then they got it into the legal system. They put the question out there. I mean, that is how cases get before the Supreme Court. People actively try their best to put them there, often after years of planning.

 Hannah McCarthy: Absolutely. That is often how it works. But I think the reason Aziz brought this up is that, for one, this was, as he put it, a non-issue in the court until it became a part of a party platform. And for another, the actual reasoning, the logic of the majority opinion is borrowed from the arguments that those lawyers were making the lawyers associated with the Republican Party.

 Aziz Huq: Those arguments very, very quickly filter into judicial opinions. I think you can say the same thing about affirmative action. I think you can say the same thing about the way that the religion clauses of the Constitution are understood. I think you can say the same thing about the court's ruling on presidential immunity last year. There are many instances in which even the grounds upon which the Roberts Court majority usually justifies itself. Its originalist grounds do no explanatory work. They're not even in the opinions, and the basis for the opinions can really only be understood in terms of changes in the legal culture, but changes in a very particular code. Partisan corner of the legal culture.

 Nick Capodice: Okay. So a majority of the Roberts court justices identify as originalists. And we also have an episode about that which listeners might find helpful right now. And Aziz is saying that in many cases, even their originalism or what they're calling originalism, which is supposed to be about the text of the Constitution, does not explain their reasoning.

 Hannah McCarthy: Yeah. Later on in an email, Aziz explained to me that he thinks, quote, it is hard to explain any rulings by the Roberts court on the basis of standard legal sources text history, precedent. He also said that he thinks, quote, that it is hard to explain those rulings without seeing an effect of political affiliations.

 Nick Capodice: And Aziz, in case anybody out there missed it, is someone who knows the Constitution, text history and precedent really well.

 Hannah McCarthy: Really well. So if Aziz finds it hard to explain these rulings without taking politics into account, it seems likely that politics are being taken into account in these rulings.

 Nick Capodice: So if the majority of the Roberts court is basing its rulings on that Partisan corner, as disease puts it, what does that mean for the judicial guardrail? They're supposed to be independent. The whole reason justices are allowed to serve for life is to protect them from political pressures, so that they can keep the other branches in check.

 Aziz Huq: So I just don't think we're in a world in which the courts Are likely, except for edge cases, to offer much by way of resistance to what's happening in the executive branch or perhaps in Congress.

 Hannah McCarthy: And look, Nick, I know you know that a Supreme Court of nine perfect angels who cannot possibly be remotely influenced by politics in any way is a pretty tall order. But we are talking about a court that particularly stands out for what appears to be Partizan reasoning and rulings. So I asked Aziz, you know, is this a new thing? Have we ever seen the Supreme Court behave this way before?

 Aziz Huq: I think that the best analogy is to the court in the 1870s and 1880s, where around the election of 1876, the national political culture, both on the Democrat and the Republican side, take a hard shift away from the idea that racial reconstruction in the South is is is worth the pennies being spent on it, and in particular, in the wake of a number of economic crises that occur in the 1870s and early 1880s, there is a dramatic shift toward building up a national economy and deepening what is then an emerging industrial state. The Supreme Court in this period moves roughly in lockstep with those national that change in national sentiment and interprets the what were then recently enacted reconstruction amendments the 13th, the 14th and the 15th amendment in ways that dilute or rob them of much of their practical force.

 Nick Capodice: Okay. The Supreme Court looks at these new parts of the Constitution, and it looks at what politicians in the US think and want, which is often what voters think and want, and it picks what they want over what the law of the land says.

 Aziz Huq: So for the court in the 1870s and early 80s is moving roughly, not entirely always precisely in lock step, but roughly in lockstep with a changing national sentiment and throwing the formerly enslaved and their families subject to the system of Jim Crow under the bus. I think that there's a parallel between then and now, the parallel. It's all historical parallels, is imperfect, but it is worth noting that one of the effects of that shift is that whereas in the late 1860s and early 1870s. There were a substantial number of African American representatives in state legislatures and local elected offices across the South. There were two black senators in D.C. there were a number of black members of Congress. Essentially, all of that black representation is eliminated by about 1895. And you don't see, for example, black senators for another 60 years in DC. So the court's decision to move away from the project of the Reconstruction Amendments was maybe it was it would never have worked in the absence of national political support. But by moving with that shift in national political support, it's, I think, fairly uncontroversial now to say that the court just gave up on this slice of the Constitution For 60 or 70 years, and that part of the Constitution was a dead letter for. Let's put this concretely, at least three generations of people living in the South.

 Nick Capodice: So that's what can happen when the Supreme Court picks political whims over the Constitution. Whole groups of people don't get to have the Constitution or parts of it. Okay. Hannah. Thinking about the laws and whether they actually happen or don't happen, I know the court can, quote unquote, lose when government officials defy it, but that's where the executive branch comes in. The court relies on it to enforce the law.

 Hannah McCarthy: Right. The branch with enforcement power. We will talk about the executive branch and its role in all of this. After a quick break. We're back. And before the break, Nick, you asked me about enforcement power. The court declares something unconstitutional or unconstitutional, legal or not. So what is the role of the executive branch when it comes to enforcing the law?

 Aziz Huq: I think the constitutional law is of two minds on this topic. And the two minds are not completely reconcilable. On the one hand, the text of the Constitution directs that the president shall take care that the laws be enforced. This imposes by all originalist and precedential accounts a weighty obligation on both the president and subordinates to enforce the law in the ways that they are written. On the other hand, the Supreme Court, in a number of cases, and the executive branch at every opportunity they have, underscores the idea of their discretion as to whether and when to enforce the law and when it comes to the discretion of prosecutors and enforcers. The Supreme Court has indulged in every leeway or possible form of permission it can grant when it comes to the power to issue new regulation. The court has withheld every grace, every leeway that it's possible to grant. So the the legal materials on this question point in all sorts of different directions, and I think fairly rare, rather betray the fact that the court does not read the Constitution, does not read statutes so as to require the executive to take seriously its obligations under the law. It selectively gives the executive free rein, particularly when it comes to enforcing. And particularly when it comes to using coercion and ties, the executive hands when it comes to shielding and protecting people, especially through regulation.

 Nick Capodice: It selectively gives free rein. What does that mean?

 Aziz Huq: I think if you put those two things together, I think what you get is, is a little bit different from what particularly? Well, actually what people on either the right or the left stereotypically say that the right stereotypically says we want we want a small state. The left says we want a larger, more Interventionist state. And what you see the court doing is building a state that is incapable of helping people, but profoundly capable of hurting them. I think the court gives every opportunity for the government as prosecutor to decide or not decide which cases to bring to dial up or down the intensity of the criminal law in particular, but also other other kinds of law which involve coercive enforcement. On the other hand, when the when the government is acting as a regulator, exactly the same court says, no, no, no, we don't trust the government. We are really worried about discretion. Well hold on. Why is it that you trust the government when it acts as a prosecutor, but you don't trust the government when it acts as a regulator? There is no logical, coherent legal response to that.

 Nick Capodice: So if there's no logical or legal response, how do we answer that Answer that question.

 Aziz Huq: There is a coherent, logical political response to that which is we, the court, want a particular kind of state, a state that is strong in some ways and a state that is weak or even handicapped in other ways. That is a political project, not a constitutional one. It's not even one that the court explicitly embraces, but it's one that's evident across the patterning of the cases.

 Nick Capodice: All right. I'm just full of questions today, Hannah. I hear all of this, and I want to kind of bring it back to the theme, so to speak, of this episode. We are talking about straining the Constitution, and we're also talking about the people who are supposed to be upholding the Constitution. So if you are someone who wants the Constitution to be the law of the land, for the people, of the land, for all the people, is there a way to basically make sure the justices are following it, are using it?

 Aziz Huq: I think that there are two ways of thinking about the process of constitutional change and the role of the court. I think one is, well, what's actually likely to happen. And the second is, well, what could holding constant the likelihoods in the world, what could happen or what could be done? I do think that we are not in a world in which anything other than cycling over membership in the court is likely to affect the direction the court moves in in the near future, at least in a world in which those political constraints are bracketed. If you imagine that world, I think there's other things that can be done. My own view is that in for much of American history, up until about the 1890s, there were substantial constraints upon the kinds of cases that the Supreme Court could hear that were imposed, not by the court itself, saying, here are these cases. We don't like hearing them, for example, with respect to pass and Partizan gerrymandering, but that were imposed by Congress. And you can imagine a world in which Congress reengaged and channeled the work of the court and imposed legislative restrictions upon it in ways that were meaningful.

 Nick Capodice: That's interesting, because I sometimes forget that Congress is allowed to regulate the Supreme Court to a degree.

 Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, Congress can limit what is called appellate jurisdiction. Basically, that is the ability to review the decision of lower courts. Most of the cases that the Supreme Court hears are within appellate jurisdiction. Congress can also pass a constitutional amendment, which, of course, would have to be ratified by three quarters of the states.

 Aziz Huq: There's also a world in which the Constitution could be amended. And, for example, term limits can be imposed upon the justices. New kinds of constraints upon judicial behavior or action could be added. My own personal view is that the design of the Constitution, which channels appointments through the elected branches, through the presidency, which is subject to the Electoral College and through the Senate, which is wildly malapportioned in relation to population, were mistakes. And that if you look at more recently drafted constitutions in many parts of the world, there are a variety of other appointment mechanisms that successfully insulate to much greater degrees, judges from politics. And we'd be far better off with one of those appointment mechanisms, because we'd have much less politicized courts and much less politicized jurisprudence. Again, that's that's a nice idea, but I'm under no illusions that that kind of proposal is even, even incrementally plausible under current conditions.

 Hannah McCarthy: All right. Nick, I need to take a beat here And share with you that this episode, despite being about constitutional crisis or strain or breakdown, is one that, maybe more than anything, made me think about the saucer that cools the tea.

 Nick Capodice: Oh. That one. That perhaps apocryphal thing that George Washington said.

 Hannah McCarthy: Yeah, that supposedly he watched Thomas Jefferson pour his tea into his saucer, and George was like, what are you doing, dude? And Jefferson was like, I'm cooling this hot tea. And Washington said, we pour our legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.

 Nick Capodice: Now, I remember this very well, Hannah, but how on earth did this episode make you think of that?

 Hannah McCarthy: Well, because this is some potentially hot stuff, or at least that's kind of how I was thinking of it. And when I gestured to that, you know, when Aziz shared His whole point about citizenship that we talked about earlier. I was really moved by that. I said, basically, you know, some people might feel like they need some light in the darkness right now. And he said this.

 Aziz Huq: Yeah, yeah. I will say, I think that the extent of the darkness is largely a product of flagellation by people in the media who are taking a sense of their own feelings and projecting it out, and we're creating a kind of vicious circle.

 Archive: Many Americans are nervous about rising costs and what it signals about our nation's economy.

 Archive: So today, I asked press secretary Jen Psaki to explain this winter of discontent.

 Archive: At the end of one tough year and at the beginning of another. There's a worry that none of it will bring America what it truly needs.

 Archive: It has been a turbulent year in politics around the world, but perhaps nowhere more than in the United States.

 Archive: We know exactly what we're going to be spending the next days and weeks and likely years of our life working on.

 Aziz Huq: I don't mean to view things through rose tinted lenses, but I do think it's important to recognize that there are cycles of emotion in the media, and that includes the NPR level of the media as much as any other level of the media. So I discount a little bit that I think it's worth just taking a breath before taking that that too seriously.

 Nick Capodice: Yeah. You wrote about this in our newsletter, and you've also maybe mentioned it 6 or 7 times to me this week.

 Hannah McCarthy: I have been thinking about it constantly, especially in an episode that talks about things that could perhaps make people anxious. I think Aziz plays the saucer that cools the tea in the way that he explains it all. You know, he's careful, he doesn't exaggerate. And what opinions he does share. He bases them on his extensive reading and research and academic and legal work terms like constitutional crisis, which don't even have a clear definition, which are pretty likely to be a reflection of their users emotional state. Those terms have the potential. I mean, they might even be designed to ramp up other people's emotions. So when we, you and me, Nick, talk about this kind of thing, I think we've got to ask ourselves, are we playing the saucer that cools the tea?

 Nick Capodice: I honestly don't know, Hannah. Like, are we supposed to be?

 Hannah McCarthy: Well, okay, so we tell people that this show is here to explain how everything thing works to be a resource, to help people right, to perhaps do what we can to make sure that they are well, at least when it comes to having a sound understanding of the government as it is, as it was supposed to be, as it could be, if our listeners are well, if our citizenry is well and equipped to do their civic duty, then I think we are well, Nick, we are doing what's right. So I say yes, as journalists whose voices are in many people's ears, we absolutely should be the saucer that cools the tea. We have to try our very best to be.

 Nick Capodice: Well, if that's true, Hannah, what do you have to say about this whole episode? How are you gonna cool that tea?

 Hannah McCarthy: I think I'll say this is all a really, really long game. Aziz said that we can think about democracy as a going concern, as a thing that is about many years, many generations of people doing what is right today so that tomorrow, next year, a decade from now, other people still have a system that gives them self-governance. And I think this idea about doing what's right and kind and civic is part of that. You might not be getting something out of it. Do it anyway.

 Nick Capodice: You know, this reminds me. I was talking to one of my friends the other day. She's a city council member. She said, you've got to avoid two things apathy and urgency. Don't lose your concern, but don't rush at it either.

 Hannah McCarthy: Take it seriously, but don't get caught up in your anxiety. Yeah. You know, maybe if someone cries constitutional crisis, for example, it helps to take a breath. Even if there is a crisis, take a breath. Go out there and be kind and vote and talk to people and keep democracy real. One of the things that strains democracy, one of the things that breaks it down, is that people stop agreeing to do it. They stop upholding it. And you can be one less person being a strain on the system.

 Nick Capodice: And one more person making sure we are well.

 Hannah McCarthy: This episode was produced by me. Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice Cristina Phillips is our senior producer. Rebecca Lavoi is our executive producer. Music in this episode by Mind Server Unlimited, Spring Gang, Dharma Beats, Andreas Dahlback, Matt Large, Hitomi, tsunami, ikebana, peerless, Ramiro, James, LFO, Jonah and Adeline. You can find the episodes that we referenced in this episode, as well as everything we have ever done at Civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

What are Executive Orders?

Every president (with the exception of William Henry Harrison)  has issued executive orders. Most recently, Donald Trump issued several on his first day in office. Some have been published in the Federal Register, others are facing legal challenges.

So what IS an executive order? How do they differ from other executive actions, like proclamations or memoranda? Who writes them? Who reviews them? All that and more with our guest Andy Rudalevige,  professor of Government at Bowdoin and author of By Executive Order: Bureaucratic Management and the Limits of Presidential Power.

Click here for our episode on the Federal Register.

Here is a link to every single proclamation issued by a president.

Transcript

Note: this transcript is AI-generated and may contain errors

Nick Capodice: I want to do like a law and order intro to this with like the dun dun and all that.

Law and Order Voice: The episode you're about to hear.

Nick Capodice: But really folks, the episode you're about to hear contains information on executive orders. The guest for this episode was interviewed before President Trump's inauguration in January, and every single day since the inauguration has brought new executive actions and new lawsuits against those actions. For example, on January 28th, a two page memorandum [00:00:30] from the Office of Management and Budget ordered a freeze on all federal assistance programs, including all grants and loans. Among other things, this memo resulted in Medicaid portals being down in all 50 states. Now, a district judge in Washington, D.C. blocked the freeze later that afternoon. So it is temporarily halted until a hearing on Monday. The day before this episode comes out. So what this preamble here is trying to say is that [00:01:00] regardless of whether a branch of government complies with the rule of law or not, we at Civics 101 talk about the law and about the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Yes, we make a lot of airbud jokes, but in the end, we refuse to say that laws and rules don't matter. Not because we wouldn't have a show and we wouldn't, but because we wouldn't have a democratic republic. Okay, here's executive orders.

Archival: Because you can [00:01:30] do an executive order, right? Well, you could do I want to I want to not use too many executive orders, folks. Because, you know, executive orders sort of came about more recently. Nobody ever heard of an executive order.

Archival: This first executive order that we are signing.

Archival: Today, I'm announcing two actions to respond to the demand of the American people for honesty in government.

Archival: Truman signs the proclamation putting the Atlantic Charter into effect.

Archival: Earlier today, I issued an executive order to strengthen our nation's commitment [00:02:00] to research on pluripotent stem cells, which.

Archival: We can authorize by executive action without a new act of Congress. Okay.

Nick Capodice: You're listening to Civics 101. I'm Nick Capodice.

Hannah McCarthy: I'm Hannah McCarthy.

Nick Capodice: And today we are talking about executive orders, what they say, what they do and what they can't say or do.

Hannah McCarthy: And we did just do an episode on President Donald Trump's orders from his first week back in office. You can listen to that before this episode, if you [00:02:30] like.

Nick Capodice: Or after, because then you'll know what they are.

Hannah McCarthy: Good point. All right. So let's get into it. What are executive orders?

Andy Rudalevige: So an executive order is simply an order by the president to the executive branch.

Nick Capodice: This is Andy Rudalevige. He's a professor of government at Bowdoin College, and he's the author of By Executive Order Bureaucratic Management and the Limits of Presidential Power.

Andy Rudalevige: It is a formal directive. Uh, it's different than other directives in that it is [00:03:00] required by law to be published in the Federal Register, but in general, it's one of a group of presidential tools to tell people within the executive branch what he wants them to do.

Nick Capodice: So first off, the executive orders don't require Congress. So they're a way that a president can push through laws that Congress might not be able to pass themselves. Relative to this is that the 118th Congress had the least productive session in modern history [00:03:30] from 2023 to 2025, passing fewer than 150 bills. Now, executive orders, on the other hand, have the force of law without the need for legislation, though there are a lot of restrictions which we're going to get into. But first, to get some stuff clear from the get go, executive orders are just one kind of executive action, right?

Hannah McCarthy: What are the other ones?

Nick Capodice: Well, for today's purposes, I want to talk about memoranda and also proclamations. We'll break down each of those in order. [00:04:00] And this is important because and it's not anybody's fault. These get mixed up all the time.

Andy Rudalevige: But executive action covers the whole gamut, including, by the way, appointments, pardons, anything really that Congress doesn't need to be involved in. But I think often too, though, if you read a news article, there's a lot of confusion about what is an executive order versus something else. A lot of things and even presidents will do this. They'll say, I issued an executive order to do a there is no executive order. It was maybe [00:04:30] a memorandum, or maybe it wasn't even that. Uh, and if you were to Google, uh, DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, right. A very famous executive action by President Obama. Uh, it was not an executive order, but if you Google it, that's what's going to come up. This executive order by President Obama, you know, millions of hits on that phrase. And that's just wrong, understandably wrong. Uh, but mistaken.

Archival: President Obama is in Nevada today after making his new immigration policy official. He signed two executive orders as he flew west [00:05:00] on Friday. Julianna Goldman is in our Washington bureau.

Andy Rudalevige: Interestingly, sometimes presidents take advantage of the confusion. Obama was being accused back in, say, 2014 of being, you know, a dictatorial. He was issuing way too many executive orders, and he actually put out a chart and said, no, I've issued very few executive orders. And it turned out that a lot of what his executive actions had been were either memoranda or, you know, as in the case of DACA, it was actually a departmental directive. [00:05:30]

Hannah McCarthy: All right. Caveat taken. Can we start with proclamation?

Nick Capodice: All right.

Nick Capodice: Proclamations. Quick note here. Proclamations and executive orders are published in something called the Federal Register. The Federal Register is a daily publication. It's printed in D.C.. We did an episode on it a very long time ago. Link in the show notes. So the Federal Register isn't just a thing that people who live in D.C. look at every morning to see, hey, what's going on in the government when an order is [00:06:00] published in it? This is an indication to an agency that this is the new law. This is the new official way things go. So the freeze on federal funds that I mentioned at the top of the episode, that was not published in the Federal Register, and some critics of the freeze have pointed out that the team of lawyers who work at the Federal Register would have addressed that it was an illegal impoundment. All that said, the Federal Register is fun to read. It's fascinating, and you can read it for yourself [00:06:30] for free at Federal Register. Gov. The more you know. Anyways. Proclamations.

Andy Rudalevige: A proclamation is literally to proclaim to the wider public what the president is going to do and sort of the state of the world often. Um, whereas the executive order, as I say, is to the executive branch, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a wider impact than on the behavior of Of bureaucrats, but that is the, you know, specific audience for a given order. [00:07:00]

Hannah McCarthy: Our proclamations, usually just for lack of a better term, window dressing. You know, naming holidays and monuments and stuff like that.

Nick Capodice: Yeah, a lot of them are. Hannah, there have been over 9000 presidential proclamations. Also, I have a link to an archive of every single one of those in the show. Notes for you lovers of ephemera out there. And yes, most of them are, you know, President Carter declaring National Family Week or President Reagan proclaiming National [00:07:30] Dairy Goat Awareness Week.

Hannah McCarthy: Well that happened.

Nick Capodice: It certainly did. Oh, how that did happen, Hannah. Proclamation 5834. By the way, can I read you a paragraph from it?

Hannah McCarthy: I would love it.

Nick Capodice: Today, among the contributions of dairy goat farming to our nation's economy is an impressive array of dairy products. The interest of both domestic and foreign consumers in U.S. domestic goat cheeses or chevre continues to increase, as does awareness of all dairy goat products. [00:08:00] These trends deserve every encouragement.

Hannah McCarthy: I love that Reagan is giving everyone a little French lesson there, right? Just in case you didn't know, goat cheese is also called chevre.

Nick Capodice: You did that funny.

Nick Capodice: That said, I have to pivot here and say that not all proclamations are ceremonial in nature. There are a lot that have serious, immediate impact. President Donald Trump has issued five already in this new administration. There is one ordering flags [00:08:30] to be flown at full mast on Inauguration Day, for example. But in a more consequential vein, declaring a national emergency at the southern border and granting pardons to the January 6th insurrectionists. Those were both proclamations, and I'm sure we'll be hearing about them both for some time.

Hannah McCarthy: All right, moving on. What are memoranda? How is a memorandum different from an from an executive order.

Andy Rudalevige: An executive order is telling, using the president's authority to tell agencies to do something. [00:09:00] Whereas technically a memorandum is the president telling the agencies to use their own authority to do something.

Hannah McCarthy: So memoranda are the president saying, I maybe don't have the power to do this thing, but you do. So you take care of it for me.

Nick Capodice: Yeah. Memoranda do not have to be published in the Federal Register, by the way. So often the president just wants an end result. Right. But the intricacies of how all the other departments work, they're complicated [00:09:30] and nuanced, and the president can't dictate how it's going to happen. Exactly. But they're asking just to get something done.

Hannah McCarthy: Do you have an example?

Nick Capodice: I do. Trump has issued 15 memoranda so far. One of them is the memorandum on promoting beautiful Federal Civic Architecture. And in this memorandum, he is directing myriad other agencies to submit proposals to him to ensure that federal buildings, quote, should be visually identifiable as civic buildings [00:10:00] and respect regional, traditional and classical architectural heritage. End quote. Or we have the recent memorandum on return to in-person work. This is telling other agencies to terminate all remote work.

Hannah McCarthy: Just want to run all these back before we get into executive orders. Specifically, proclamations tell the American people and the world in general. I, the president, am going to do X, Y, and Z. And then the proclamations are published in the Federal Register, and memoranda are [00:10:30] I, the president, am telling other agencies to do XYZ, and these are not published in the Federal Register?

Nick Capodice: Absolutely correct.

Hannah McCarthy: All right. So let's get to the big one executive orders. When did they start? Have presidents been issuing them from the beginning?

Nick Capodice: Uh, yes and no. I'm going to tell you tell you a little bit about some of the earliest ones, along with who writes them and how they happen or don't happen right after a quick break.

Hannah McCarthy: But before that break, [00:11:00] if there is a special someone in your life you think could use a primer on every gear in the governmental machine, tell them to check out our book, A User's Guide to Democracy How America Works. It's the civics class we wish that we had had in eighth grade. It sure is.

Nick Capodice: We're back. We are talking about executive orders here on Civics 101. When a president delivers policy all on their own.

Hannah McCarthy: Nick, [00:11:30] for how long have presidents issued executive orders? Do they go back far enough to justify the horse and carriage sound effect?

Law and Order Voice: Yep.

Andy Rudalevige: There are no executive orders in the definitional sense going way back to George Washington. Um, but, you know, we don't have executive order number one from 1789.

Nick Capodice: Again, Andy Rudalevige, professor of government at Bowdoin College.

Andy Rudalevige: Sometimes these are written, you know, on scrap paper. Um, there's some fun research into, uh, how sometimes [00:12:00] they're written in the margins of memos or maps.

Hannah McCarthy: Maps.

Nick Capodice: Maps.

Hannah McCarthy: What was the first one?

Nick Capodice: Well, like Andy said, they weren't numbered officially for a while. So technically, Abraham Lincoln issued Executive Order number one, establishing a provisional court in Louisiana. But every single president before him, except for William Henry Harrison, issued them. They just didn't have a number. George Washington's first one was pretty funny. In 1789, [00:12:30] he wrote a letter to the heads of every department asking them for, quote, a full, precise, and distinct general idea of the affairs of the United States.

Hannah McCarthy: It sounds a bit like our show, doesn't it?

Nick Capodice: Sure does.

Andy Rudalevige: So they were, you know, not nearly as formal as they are today. And that was part of the problem at the time. We time. We get to the 1930s and the government's expanding. Franklin Roosevelt's issuing lots of these orders. You know, people needed to keep track of them. They needed to know who had been told what. And at some point, [00:13:00] the courts get involved and and sort of lambaste the FDR administration for, you know, not knowing what the law is and what the president has actually said about the law and how to implement it.

Hannah McCarthy: I want to know a little bit about how executive orders come to be. Like a president can't just order anything at all. They have to have authority to do it, right?

Nick Capodice: They certainly do.

Andy Rudalevige: So an executive order has to be something that the president is authorized to do, either by the Constitution or by a statute. [00:13:30] And so, you know, presidents are often, you know, sort of sending their lawyers out into the law books to find them, some authority that they can use to to do things. You know, finding new meaning in old laws has become quite a pastime for recent administrations, Illustrations, in part because there are so few new laws being passed.

Speaker16: And the problem with Washington, they don't make deals. It's all gridlock. And then you have a president that signs executive orders because he can't get anything done. [00:14:00] I'll get everybody together. We'll make great deals.

Andy Rudalevige: So congressional gridlock is sort of a great opportunity for presidents to try to act in ways that they, they feel won't be reversed because Congress finds it so hard to act.

Nick Capodice: The first line of an executive order usually lays that authority out. They often start with, by the authority vested in me as president by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and by blah, blah, blah in the US code, I am ordering such [00:14:30] and such.

Andy Rudalevige: And then you'll have sections, perhaps setting out some definitions. So there could be a section setting up a new advisory committee and saying who's going to be on it and what kind of report they should issue. And or it may lay out. Here are some priorities for things we want the department to look at, um, and to come up again with actions that would achieve the goal of this executive order.

Nick Capodice: And since the authority is not an option, it's a requisite. There are a lot [00:15:00] of steps taken before the order is signed.

Andy Rudalevige: They do have to go through a process of both the central clearance process with regards to the Office of Management and Budget approving the order.

Hannah McCarthy: Real quick, we just have to say what is the Office of Management and Budget?

Nick Capodice: The Office of Management and Budget is a crucial piece in the puzzle of executive orders. They're the largest office working for the president. They help create a president's budget. They make sure executive actions are in line with Congress and the law. They [00:15:30] are the ones checking every single thing that comes out of the Oval Office.

Andy Rudalevige: Also has to be signed off for what's called form and legality by the Justice Department and the Office of Legal Counsel within the Justice Department usually does that. Um, so they'll look at it and make sure that the order is actually fine in terms of how it's been composed, but also legal that the president does have the authority to act in the way that he wants to act through this order. And sometimes [00:16:00] successive justice departments will have different ideas about what is allowed or not. Daca, as we mentioned before, is a pretty good example where the Obama Justice Department said, yes, you can do this. And the Trump Justice Department said, no, you can't. And Biden said, sure, you can go back with it.

Archival: Today, President Biden unveiled a new executive action that shields approximately 500,000 immigrants from deportation. It's aimed at Americans whose spouses or children are non-citizens.

Andy Rudalevige: And then often there's a deadline [00:16:30] for action. And, you know, some kind of reference, perhaps, to older executive orders that might be being superseded or even revoked as part of this one. So they can be anything from a paragraph long to 20 pages long.

Hannah McCarthy: So Nick.

Nick Capodice: Hanna.

Hannah McCarthy: Trump signed a lot of executive orders on his first day in office. And I've read them. Some of them are long and complicated. Some of them are short and to the point. [00:17:00] Uh, some of them cite countless legal codes and pieces of legislation and other executive actions over the last 250 years. I think it's safe to say that Donald Trump did not sit down and all by himself, type all of these out.

Law and Order Voice: No.

Nick Capodice: No one person can write an executive order in our modern era.

Hannah McCarthy: So who does write them?

Andy Rudalevige: I think the, um, executive orders themselves. We think of them as totally unilateral. [00:17:30] The president just sits down at the desk, pulls out the Sharpie, and we have a piece of policy. Um, normally there is a kind of a long review process of executive orders. And, you know, they can come from really anywhere, you know, in the executive branch or for that matter, outside the executive branch. And I'm sure, you know, if you're issuing a lot of orders on day one, you know, they're coming from, you know, transition staff or think tanks or people who've sort of written them out beforehand because you don't yet have [00:18:00] full access, you know, to the agencies in the federal government.

Nick Capodice: But to your question, Hannah, who wrote these recent orders, we don't have a name. The only name on these executive orders is that of Donald Trump. We do not know which think tanks or what teams of lawyers have been drafting them in the days leading up to the inauguration. I do have to point out here, though, prior to the election, the Heritage Foundation, which is a conservative think tank, they [00:18:30] published a massive document called project 2025, the subject of a three hour episode in the future, I'm sure. This was a blueprint for how to dramatically reshape American government to suit a suit a conservative agenda.

Hannah McCarthy: Which Donald Trump at certain times has denied knowing about at all.

Archival: I have nothing to do with project 2025 that's out there. I haven't read it. I don't want to read it purposely. I'm not going to read it. This was a group of people that got together. They [00:19:00] came up with some ideas, I guess. Some good, some bad.

Nick Capodice: However, a recent in-depth analysis by time magazine found that nearly two thirds of the executive actions Trump has issued so far mirror or partially mirror proposals from the 900 page document, ranging from sweeping deregulation measures to aggressive immigration reform. End quote.

Hannah McCarthy: Okay, so right now I'm thinking about the executive order to end birthright citizenship. [00:19:30] Um, a judge has already issued a pause on that order, has declared it unconstitutional. There are a bunch of lawsuits out against it. You know what happens when there are legal challenges to an to an executive order. Do we have any other examples of that?

Nick Capodice: We certainly do. We do not know what is going to happen with that particular executive order. But Andy had an example that bore a lot of resemblance to what we're seeing now.

Andy Rudalevige: The sort of exception that proves the rule is President Trump's [00:20:00] first travel ban order, the so-called Muslim ban from early 2017. You know, it's issued, um, you know, barely a week after the administration's come into office. It had not been reviewed at all, even by the Department of Homeland Security, which would have to implement it. And it was a disaster, right? It was, you know, there were people literally in the air and, you know, uh, immigration staff on the ground waiting to receive them. And they don't know what they're supposed to do.

Archival: American Civil Liberties Union says it will help people with valid visas [00:20:30] or refugee status who have found themselves detained in transit or at U.S. airports.

Andy Rudalevige: You know, if somebody comes in with a green card, are they allowed in? If they're from one of the countries that was banned in the order? That wasn't clear. Nobody had thought of that because, again, they hadn't asked the people who actually knew how to do it. So, you know, by the time that order gets around to the Supreme Court, it's actually been revised twice. It's been revised, uh, you know, by bureaucratic input. And the third version, which is actually a proclamation, not an executive [00:21:00] order, uh, has been shifted enough that the Supreme Court says, yes, this is legal. And they move ahead with that version.

Archival: The US Supreme Court has handed victory to President Trump by partially allowing his temporary ban on travelers from six mainly Muslim majority countries to come into effect.

Hannah McCarthy: Are executive orders generally popular? Nick like, do people like them?

Nick Capodice: I don't want to get into my whole hypocrisy. Doesn't matter to anyone diatribe [00:21:30] here, but I will say that people tend to dislike them when they or their party isn't in power, and when their party is in power, they're the best thing ever.

Andy Rudalevige: Donald Trump, Interestingly, you know, 2016 said that executive orders were a terrible way to govern. It was lazy. It was bad leadership. You should do everything through Congress. Uh, President Obama was using executive orders like they were butter, I think was the phrase.

Archival: Then all of a sudden, Obama, because he couldn't get anybody to agree with him, he starts signing them [00:22:00] like they're butter. So I want to do away with executive orders for the most part.

Andy Rudalevige: Well, it turns out everybody likes butter. Uh, you know, when President Trump came in, he, of course, issued lots of orders and after 100 days in office, issued a press release saying that he was the most effective president, uh, at least since Franklin Roosevelt. Why? Because he had issued more executive orders than anybody except Franklin Roosevelt in his first hundred days.

Nick Capodice: I want to go back to the butter metaphor one last time. Butter is easy. Butter [00:22:30] smooth. But if you're a person who works in a different.

Nick Capodice: Branch.

Nick Capodice: Or office, like Congress or the courts, even if you are lockstep in line with the president's agenda. That butter could be dangerous to your own power.

Andy Rudalevige: I mean, a lot of this will come down to the Congress having the sort of institutional pride in some ways to take action when the president is stepping on their turf and war powers, immigration, [00:23:00] uh, tariffs. Right. The economy, international trade. That's specifically a congressional power under the Constitution. It's one of those areas where power has been delegated over time to the president. Doesn't mean it couldn't be taken back. Uh, and we'll see, I guess, whether Congress, even a Republican Congress is interested in, you know, taking back some of the authority that it's kind of gifted to the president over time. [00:23:30]

Speaker20: That's executive orders for today. This episode was made by me Nick Capodice with you Hannah McCarthy, thank you. Christina Phillips is our senior producer, Marina Henke our producer, and Rebecca Lavoie our Executive Producer. Music in this episode from epidemic sound, HoliznaCCO, Hanu Dixit, Broke for Free, Blue Dot Sessions, Cycle Hiccups, and the man whose music is more like a gentle brown rice oil than butter, Chris Zabriskie. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio. [00:24:30]

---

Trump's Executive Orders

During his campaign, now-President Trump promised a lot of action (much of it to happen on day one). So what did he actually do once he regained the office? A LOT. This is the first week of Trump's executive orders.

For some context, check out our episodes on:

Wong Kim Ark and Birthright Citizenship

Dred Scott

The Fourteenth Amendment

An earlier version of this episode incorrectly identified several Presidential memoranda and proclamations as executive orders.

Transcript

Note: this transcript is AI-generated and may contain errors

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:01] Here we are. Nick.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:03] Here we are.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:04] You know what's pretty rare? When someone tells you they're going to do a whole bunch of major stuff, and then they actually do it.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:13] Yeah. Like how you told everyone you were going to be a big Broadway star.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:16] Mccarthy I'm still young ish. Nick and I practice every day. But we're not talking about me. We're talking about the leader of the free world.

Nick Capodice: [00:00:24] Ah, yes. The president. And generally, that is a role wherein it's pretty difficult to [00:00:30] get a lot done. Especially the stuff you promise people in order to get elected.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:00:35] Yeah. Especially that a while ago I made an episode about what then president elect Trump was promising to do on day one of his presidency. It was a long list. A tall order, some of which was impossible to achieve all on one's own as the president. So what did Trump actually do once he got back in that [00:01:00] office. Well, uh, he did a whole lot. Are you ready?

Nick Capodice: [00:01:07] I'm ready.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:09] So after being sworn in and giving his inaugural address, President Donald Trump sat down in the Oval Office and signed no fewer than 26 executive orders. As of this recording, he has signed several more. So the grand total as of the morning of Friday, January 24th, is 33.

Nick Capodice: [00:01:27] Wow.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:01:28] Yeah, it's a lot. And we're [00:01:30] going to do a full explanation of executive orders next week, including the differences between orders and proclamations or presidential memoranda. And fair warning, because there are so many items to cover in this episode, we will not be doing an analysis of many of them, even those orders that people might be really interested in or concerned about. But before we Begin. Can you just give us a quick primer [00:02:00] on what an executive order is?

Nick Capodice: [00:02:04] Absolutely, Hannah. Executive orders are, simply put, orders to the executive branch. So the executive branch is the largest group of employees in the world. That's over 4 million people. If you count the military and the president is in charge of the executive branch and they sign an order. This order is published in the Federal Register. That, by the way, is a journal of the government's rules and public notices [00:02:30] also. And I know we're going to touch on this, Hannah. A president must have the authorization to order the executive branch to do something. This authorization has to come from the Constitution itself or a statute, a law passed by Congress.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:02:46] So you're saying that the president can't just order whatever?

Nick Capodice: [00:02:49] Well, they can order whatever, you know. They can say whatever they want in an order. But for that order to be carried out, Hannah, it It needs that authorization. And by the way, orders can [00:03:00] be stopped or suspended by the courts and rendered ineffective by existing or future laws. And like we said in our episode on the executive branch a long, long time ago, executive orders are really easy for a president to do. They just happen. On the flip side, they're also the weakest way to take an action, as they are extremely easy for a following administration to undo.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:03:26] They are indeed, and I'm glad you brought that up, Nick, because this ties into [00:03:30] our very first order for today. Now I'm going to go through these promises made and kept and not kept, and I'm going to do it fast because there is a whole lot to get through. And I want you to keep a couple of things in mind as I do this. While President Trump signs them while they are his orders, he has many advisers who likely lent a hand in crafting them. Also, pay attention to the actual names of these orders. The Trump administration is sending a [00:04:00] message in addition to creating policy. A lot of these orders and the words they employ pay not so subtle service to political ideologies. All right, you ready?

Nick Capodice: [00:04:13] I am ready as I'll ever be, Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:15] Okay. First, Trump vowed to undo former President Biden's border policies on day one, an undo he did among a whole lot of other undos.

President Donald Trump: [00:04:25] My recent election is a mandate to completely and totally reverse [00:04:30] a horrible betrayal, and all of these many betrayals that have taken place and to give the people back their faith, their wealth, their democracy, and indeed their freedom.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:04:46] Trump called this order initial rescissions of harmful executive orders and actions. He revoked Biden orders that addressed asylum, refugees and immigration enforcement. He also revoked. And Nick, I think you should [00:05:00] take a deep breath here.

Nick Capodice: [00:05:01] All right. Hold on.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:05:04] Yeah. All right. He also revoked Biden's orders on racial sexual orientation and disability equity and inclusion, counting noncitizens in the census for the purposes of apportionment. Combating Covid 19 and supporting people and things affected by it. Preventing discrimination on gender identity and sexual orientation. Establishing ethics commitments for members of the executive branch. Protecting public health and addressing the climate crisis. [00:05:30] Protecting the federal workforce. Enabling all qualified Americans to serve in the armed forces. Eliminating private prisons. Strengthening Medicaid and the ACA. The Affordable Care Act. Improving access to voting. Clean energy and cars. The Infrastructure and Jobs Act. Affordable health care. Criminal justice. Public safety. Promoting the arts and humanities, and museum and library services. Protecting land from oil and gas. Leasing [00:06:00] safe artificial intelligence. Safety on the West Bank. Taking Cuba off the terrorist nation. List. Orders of succession for executive branch departments and. Helping people who served in AmeriCorps get jobs.

Nick Capodice: [00:06:16] Woo!

Nick Capodice: [00:06:18] Real quick, I must jump in here and say that rescinding executive orders with executive orders is very common when a new president takes office.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:28] Yes, that must be said. [00:06:30] And we just got to make a note of that and move on, because the president has been really busy in his first week. Are you ready for promise number two?

Nick Capodice: [00:06:38] Yep. Born ready.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:06:39] Hannah, let's go with that birthright. Trump promised to end birthright citizenship, the provision laid out in the 14th amendment that says people born in the United States are citizens of the United States. On day one, Trump issued an executive order doing just that, meaning what? He [00:07:00] focused on the part of the 14th amendment that says, quote, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Meaning subject to United States jurisdiction. Trump's executive order says that if your mother is not lawfully in the US or is here legally but temporarily, and your father is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident, then you, regardless of being born in United States territory, are not a citizen. Trump called this one protecting the meaning and value of American citizenship. [00:07:30]

Nick Capodice: [00:07:30] Wow. Um, this could change a lot. I know you said you wanted to do this fast, Hannah, but this.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:07:39] No, no, I know, I know. We are going to follow this. We will not leave you hanging, listener. As of the recording of this episode, a federal judge had temporarily blocked this order and called it, quote, blatantly unconstitutional. This case might very well end up before the Supreme Court, and either way, we shall return. But for now, we shall move on.

Nick Capodice: [00:08:01] Uh, [00:08:00] by the way, listen to our Wong Kim Ark episode, please. And Dred Scott and 14th amendment, please.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:09] Yes. Do that. I will put the links in the show notes. While we are on the subject of lawful presence in the US. Are you ready for more?

Nick Capodice: [00:08:16] I don't know, Hannah. Are you?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:18] Trump promised he would close the southern border and declare a state of emergency there.

President Donald Trump: [00:08:23] First, I will declare a national emergency at our southern border.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:08:33] So, [00:08:30] is the border closed now? A full closure would mean a shutdown of ports of entry. And that is not what we are talking about here. But Trump did suspend the US refugee admissions program. It will be reassessed every 90 days. In another order called simply Securing Our Borders, Trump directs the government to build a wall, provide adequate personnel to deter and prevent the entry of, [00:09:00] quote unquote, illegal aliens, detain undocumented people suspected of breaking laws until they can be deported, and prosecute those who violate immigration law. That bit is also clarified in another order called Protecting the American People against invasion. And the goal, according to Trump, is to obtain, quote, complete operational control, unquote, of the borders.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:25] What does that mean, complete operational control?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:28] Yeah. Great question. I [00:09:30] had the same one, and I found the answer kind of in a proclamation, which is different from an executive order. You can learn all about that in our episode on executive orders about declaring a national emergency at the southern border of the United States.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:44] All right, so he did that too.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:09:47] That and another order called clarifying the military's role in protecting the territorial integrity of the United States. That one orders military personnel to be sent to the border to, quote, unquote, seal it.

Nick Capodice: [00:09:59] To seal [00:10:00] it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:00] Right. Okay. Trump also signed an order directing the government to designate cartels as terrorist organizations, to expedite their removal from the US and to prevent them from exerting control over the US.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:13] Wait, this is like drug cartels.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:15] So this is interesting. A cartel is very basically an organization that limits business competition and creates artificial shortages to increase prices. So yeah, some cartels are involved in drugs [00:10:30] and human trafficking, but cartels are also involved in things like agriculture and tourism. They often have a hand in a lot of industry.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:39] And all these groups weren't already considered terrorists.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:42] Now people have actually wanted to classify Cartels as terrorist groups for a long time, but they have repeatedly decided not to.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:51] Because.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:52] Because in part, Mexico is our largest goods trading partner.

Nick Capodice: [00:10:57] Is it really?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:10:58] It really is. And there are a [00:11:00] ton of American businesses that have operations in Mexico.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:05] Okay, I am starting to see where this is going. Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:08] Right. So American businesses, Nick. They are not allowed to do business with terrorists.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:14] No, they are not.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:15] And technically, this comes from a federal law that makes it a federal crime to knowingly provide money, support or resources to a terrorist organization. All right. So you declare these cartels to be terrorists, then you're looking at a sticky wicket of very [00:11:30] likely having to disentangle the US from terrorist groups and potentially losing some business.

Nick Capodice: [00:11:37] Got it. So we never did it because it seemed like it would mess with trade and the economy and all that.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:43] But we've done it now or Trump has. Okay. Are you ready for more?

Nick Capodice: [00:11:47] I think I just need a quick break first. Hannah, like, just a moment. I appreciate all this and the way you're tearing through it, but sometimes I just need to rest my head.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:11:56] Okay. Fair enough. You can rest your noggin, and then [00:12:00] we're going to be right back to it.

Speaker3: [00:12:01] Yes, ma'am.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:12:02] Now, speaking of ma'am.

Nick Capodice: [00:12:04] No, no. Not yet. Don't do another one. By the way, everyone, if you want the context for a lot of what we're talking about today, you can find it at our website, civics101podcast.org. Now, let us all just rest our noggins for a sec. We're [00:12:30] back. You're listening to Civics 101, and today we are talking about Trump's executive actions on day one and then some. And [00:13:00] Hannah, just before the break, you mentioned the word ma'am. What about ma'am?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:05] Yeah. A quick recommendation for everyone to read Jessi Klein's essay on the word ma'am. But what I'm really getting at is gendered terms and ideas. And, uh, let's just hop right into the executive order titled Defending Women from Gender Ideology, Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.

President Donald Trump: [00:13:29] As of today, it [00:13:30] will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:13:49] So Trump implies that trans women endanger cis women, aka women assigned female at birth who identify as female, though there is no documented proof of that. However, [00:14:00] there is documented proof that trans people are assaulted at four times the rate of cis people, and scientific evidence that gender and assigned sex are not always in alignment. Plus, it should be noted that trans people have existed throughout history across cultures. Anyway, Trump says, quote, Self-assessed gender identity permits, quote, the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society [00:14:30] to regard this false claim as true, unquote.

Nick Capodice: [00:14:34] So Trump calling this a false claim, is essentially him saying that being trans is a lie.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:14:41] Essentially. So the order says that the United States will only recognize two sexes, male and female. It defines male and female as sexes established at conception. It orders the Department of Homeland Security to reflect that on government issued IDs like passports. [00:15:00] It tells the government to eliminate what Trump calls gender ideology from statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications and other messages. This order also affects prisons, discrimination and what Trump calls intimate spaces.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:16] All right. And I'm going to assume that if it affects discrimination, then we are talking about laws that include gender identity and transgender status.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:15:26] Yeah. Lawsuits are pretty sure to come. And though this order does [00:15:30] not explicitly end gender affirming care for kids, as Trump promised he would do before he was elected, it certainly could. I know this is a lot. And again, trust me, we will keep making episodes as things develop. I know this is all really important, but we have so much more. Okay, so I'm going to move on. Speaking of discrimination, let's talk ending radical and wasteful government Dei programs and referencing.

Nick Capodice: [00:15:59] Dei [00:16:00] meaning diversity, equity and inclusion.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:02] Correct. This order calls Dei initiatives in the federal government, quote, illegal and immoral discrimination programs and commands an end to them. There's another order that extends this beyond the government, including to airlines, law enforcement agencies and higher education institutions that receive federal funds. This is definitely a topic that we will revisit in future episodes, but for now, I just got to keep rolling.

Nick Capodice: [00:16:28] Roll on McCarthy.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:29] Now you [00:16:30] remember how Trump promised to restore the travel ban that he put in place last time he was in office?

Nick Capodice: [00:16:35] Yes, this is the order banning people from majority Muslim and Arab nations from entering the United States.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:16:41] Yeah. So the order called, quote, protecting the United States from foreign terrorists and other national security and public safety threats, establishes an intensive threat screening process for people who either have or apply for visas, especially if they are from regions or nations with identified security risks or [00:17:00] countries with quote unquote, deficient vetting processes, or if they, quote, unquote, bear hostile attitudes.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:07] But this isn't explicitly a travel ban.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:10] No, it's not put in that way. It does not look exactly the same. But civil rights groups are already saying that this could essentially amount to that and also potentially result in the deportation of foreign students who participated in things like pro-Palestinian rallies. Okay. Drill, baby. Drill. [00:17:30]

President Donald Trump: [00:17:30] We will drill, baby drill.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:17:40] So I'm gonna go ahead and lump a bunch of orders together on this one, all of which are designed to encourage natural resource extraction, and because that practice is known to contribute to environmental pollution. I'm also going to bring in Trump's claim that he would end the Green New Deal on day one.

Nick Capodice: [00:17:58] Which is, by the way, something [00:18:00] that never actually passed.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:01] Yeah, we don't have a Green New Deal policy.

President Donald Trump: [00:18:04] With my actions today, we will end the Green New Deal and we will revoke the electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto industry and keeping my sacred pledge to Audrey.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:16] Trump declared a national energy emergency. He said that energy is too expensive and there is not enough of it. Despite the fact that the US is currently the largest oil producer on the planet. So the nation's leaders can use this emergency status [00:18:30] to prioritize even more resource extraction A memorandum suspended new leases for wind farms in the Outer Continental Shelf, while an order called Unleashing American Energy calls for, quote, energy exploration and production on federal lands and waters, including on the outer continental shelf.

Nick Capodice: [00:18:48] Maybe we need an episode about the Outer continental shelf.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:18:50] In that same order ends Biden era electric vehicle goals and orders emission standards to be eliminated. Quote, where appropriate. And [00:19:00] it mandates the American people's freedom to choose their own quote, including but not limited to light bulbs, dishwashers, washing machines, gas stoves, water heaters, toilets and shower heads.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:11] Now, wait. Now, what does that mean?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:14] It means the end of regulatory standards that make household stuff more efficient.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:20] All right.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:21] Unleashing, by the way, is the word of the week at the white House, because there's another order called unleashing Alaska's extraordinary Resource potential.

Nick Capodice: [00:19:30] That's [00:19:30] a wasted opportunity to quote there will be blood, if you ask me. Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:19:34] This one is all about extracting Alaska's natural resources and making sure leases can be obtained in the state's National Wildlife Refuge. While we're on the subject of Alaska, Trump renamed Mount Denali, reverting it back to Mount McKinley. While we're on the subject of renaming, Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. The renaming order is called Restoring Names that Honor American Greatness. And while we're on the subject of states, [00:20:00] he ordered a water rerouting plan in California.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:04] Is this the one he tried in his first administration?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:06] It is exactly that. So Governor Gavin Newsom sued when Trump tried to implement his water plan, saying that it would drive certain fish populations to extinction. Biden issued different water rules when he came in. Trump called this order putting people over fish.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:22] Wow, you were not kidding with these names.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:24] I was not. All right, Nick, can I hit you with some quickies?

Nick Capodice: [00:20:28] Oh, yes. Please.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:31] Now, [00:20:30] Trump promised to, quote, return to a foreign policy that puts America's interests first.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:36] Did he do that?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:37] Yes. He ordered the secretary of state to put America's interests first.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:41] Ah. That's it.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:42] Yeah, actually, it's a really short order. He did also issue a similar one for trade. That particular one is a memorandum.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:51] All right. Is this the tariffs?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:20:52] This is the tariffs. Among other things. But this order just kicked off the. Let's explore tariffs. Era of government.

Nick Capodice: [00:20:59] All right. So he didn't just [00:21:00] issue a whole bunch of tariffs right off the bat.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:02] He's asking agencies to figure out if and how to do it. Trump promised to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. That's the international treaty on climate change. He also revoked the United States international climate finance plan, and he withdrew us from the World Health Organization.

Nick Capodice: [00:21:19] Well, he did that before, didn't he?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:21:20] He did. So this time around, he undid that undoing. All right. A few executive actions deal with what Trump calls past misconduct [00:21:30] of the government. He revoked the security clearances of 50 people who once signed a letter about Hunter Biden's laptop, though at a different turn, he ordered immediate top secret clearance for others. He ordered an end to the federal combating of what he says they call misinformation and disinformation. He just calls that free speech. He ordered a review of past investigations and prosecutions by the federal government, with the goal of correcting them if he thinks they were political in nature. He [00:22:00] reinstated schedule F. You might remember that from the end of his first term. It makes it easier to fire federal workers, and the order clarifies that it will be about those who Trump believes do not faithfully implement his policies. He also instituted a performance plan to review top level officials. There's also a hiring freeze for federal civilians, a regulatory freeze until Trump's own appointees are in charge and paused foreign aid. Pending review.

Nick Capodice: [00:22:29] So, [00:22:30] Hannah, are all of these executive orders?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:22:33] Well, not all of them, as you've heard me say. Some of them are proclamations. Some of them are memoranda, which, again, we learn way more about in your episode on executive orders. Nick. But his actions include reinforcement of the death penalty for federal capital crimes. Biden had walked that back quite a bit. Broad clemency, commuted sentences and pardons for more than a thousand people accused or convicted of crimes during the January [00:23:00] 6th insurrection at the Capitol. The restoration of TikTok despite a federal law banning it, as well as the promise to make it safe. The mandate to make civic buildings beautiful, and the command that heads of executive departments make life less expensive in America.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:19] Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:20] Yeah.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:22] All right. I was just making sure you're still there, because suddenly the list stopped.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:27] Oh. I'm done.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:28] You're done.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:29] I mean, by the time [00:23:30] people listen to this, there will almost certainly be more executive orders. But yeah, for now, I'm done.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:35] All right, I have to say, that was a marathon.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:38] I mean, I just had to read about it. Imagine making it all happen.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:42] Yeah. That and the lawsuits.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:44] Yeah. There are already so many promised lawsuits.

Nick Capodice: [00:23:47] Just before we go, Hannah, can I ask real quick? What didn't he do? You know what promises are as of yet? Unfulfilled?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:23:56] Well, a lot of these executive actions might just be paving the road for [00:24:00] other stuff that Trump promised. Like revoking federal funds from schools that teach critical race theory, which grade schools, by the way, do not teach. Or schools that have vaccine and mask mandates. Trump has not yet shut down the Department of Education, though he promised to do so. He didn't yet eliminate the taxes that he promised to get rid of. The mass deportations did not happen on day one, though there have been reports of many Ice raids and raids and arrests in the last week. And he did not end the wars in Ukraine or Gaza [00:24:30] immediately after taking office.

Nick Capodice: [00:24:37] I gotta say, this is truly remarkable. I mean, the degree to which, at least on paper, literally, Donald Trump really did fulfill many of the promises he made on the campaign trail. Sending out so many orders so early in his term means we might not have to wait long to learn exactly how feasible or legal [00:25:00] these plans are, right?

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:02] So many organizations and states are launching lawsuits. So now the question is, do the courts think X, Y, or Z is legal? And then, of course, will Congress support these orders in law and budgeting or will it render them ineffective? What flies. What doesn't? But Donald Trump is the president and these are his orders. How they happen, if at all. Is going to be up to the rest of the government. [00:25:30]

Nick Capodice: [00:25:30] I think it's going to be a busy four years. Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: [00:25:33] Buckle up pal. That does it for this episode. It was produced by me. Hannah McCarthy with Nick Capodice. Christina Phillips is our senior producer. Rebecca Lavoie is our executive producer. Music in this episode by Epidemic Sound. And I just have to say it again, we will come back to so many, if not all of these executive orders in the future. But for now, if you want more Civics 101, you can find the rest of our episodes at our website [00:26:00] civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is a production of New Hampshire Public Radio.

---

Birthright Citizenship: The SCOTUS case that solidified the 14th Amendment

Most of us know about birthright citizenship, but not many people have ever heard of Wong Kim Ark and the landmark Supreme Court decision that decided both his fate and the fate of a U.S. immigration policy that endures to this day.

This is the case that solidified the Fourteenth Amendment as we understand it today. 

Transcript:

Note: This transcript was AI-generated and may contain errors

Nick Capodice: This is Civics 101. I’m NIck Capodice.

On this episode of Civics 101, we’re revisiting a topic that’s top of mind right now, as President Donald Trump has signed an Executive Order titled ‘Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.’ This order is designed to overturn the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which guarantees birthright citizenship.

The 14th Amend6ment by the way states, quote:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

We WILL be doing an episode on executive orders, another on birthright citizenship explicitly, and we’re also working on one about Constitutional crises - so stay tuned for those.

But today we’re bringing you a look back at a critical moment in the history of birthright citizenship - a landmark Supreme court case from 1898 that cemented the interpretation of the 14th amendment as we understand it today. The case also determined the fate of the man at the center of it - Wong Kim Ark.

This episode was produced back in 2020 by Felix Poon, who's now a producer on the NHPR podcast Outside/In - at the time…he was an intern on our team. 

With the developing news around President Trump’s executive order, including the many lawsuits that have already been filed to stop it, (I won’t say the exact number because it’ll likely have increased between the time it took to read these words and deliver them to your ears) it seemed like a good time to replay this episode, which provides some understanding of the rights held by the people born in this country, and how the Supreme Court has - at least in the past - affirmed those rights. 

So, here’s that episode.

Felix Poon: Hi, Nick. Hi, Hannah.

Hannah McCarthy: Hey, Felix.

Nick Capodice: Hello, Felix. Listeners, if you don't know who this is, this is Felix Poon. Felix has been an intern with Civics for the last summer and has been a delight to work with. We're very glad you're here today.

Hannah McCarthy: Felix Yeah. And Felix, you are going to guest host today, right?

Felix Poon: I am, because I've got a story for you, and this story starts in 1895. A man named Wong Kim Ark is on a steamship returning to his hometown of San Francisco, [00:00:30] the city where he was born. And when he lands, a customs agent says he can't enter the United States. He says, you're Chinese and there's a Chinese exclusion law, so you can't come in.

Hannah McCarthy: But you said it was his hometown of San Francisco, Right. So are you saying that someone born on U.S. soil was not allowed back into the country?

Felix Poon: That's right. That's what I'm saying. And he wasn't the only one. This was actually pretty common at that time. Customs agents tried to keep as many Chinese Americans out as they [00:01:00] could, but some Chinese Americans sued the U.S. government to be granted entry. Wong came out, sued, and his case went all the way to the Supreme Court. And it's his case that solidifies birthright citizenship. Nowadays, pretty much everybody knows about birthright citizenship, which is anybody born in this country as a U.S. citizen. And that's the law. But not many people have ever heard of Wong Kim Ark and the landmark Supreme Court decision that decided his fate and [00:01:30] the fate of U.S. immigration policy that endures to this day. And that, my friends, is the story I'm going to tell you about today. I'm Felix Poon and this is Civics 101, the podcast refresher course on the basics of how our democracy works. Today, the story of Wong Kim Ark, the man, the landmark Supreme Court case and the legacy of birthright citizenship. Before I tell you about Wong Kim Ark, I need to tell you about the America [00:02:00] that you was born into. Chinese immigrants began arriving in significant numbers in the 1850s. Many came for the gold rush in California. And when the gold rush ended, they found jobs as railroad workers, miners, farmhands, laundry owners and domestics. But hostility towards them had been growing.

Carol Nackenoff: In San Francisco. You have a labor organizer, Denis Kearney, who was agitating that the Chinese were taking white jobs [00:02:30] and and running a Chinese must go campaign.

Felix Poon: This is Carroll Nackenoff, professor of political science at Swarthmore College and coauthor of the forthcoming book American By Birth Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship.

Carol Nackenoff: In July of 1877, a mob formed and destroyed $100,000 in Chinese owned property, burning laundries and leaving four dead.

Felix Poon: That's millions of dollars of damage in today's money. That's a lot. But [00:03:00] more importantly, that's lost life and a lost sense of safety and belonging. And this racially motivated violence happened not just in San Francisco, but all along the West Coast, including Seattle, Tacoma and Los Angeles, where more than half the victims were publicly lynched.

Hannah McCarthy: That's horrifying. And I feel like this is a moment in American history that we really don't hear about. At least I didn't learn about in school. Did you, Nick?

Nick Capodice: No, not at all.

Felix Poon: Yeah, I didn't even learn about it until college, and I was kind of shocked to hear about [00:03:30] it, especially like I'd never learned about it before. And this is when Congress began excluding Chinese immigrants. They passed the country's first immigration act, the Page Act, in 1875, barring Chinese women from entering the country. And then in 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act barred all Chinese people from entering the country. So that's the hostile environment that Wong Kim Ark was born into around 1871 [00:04:00] in San Francisco. He grew up in Chinatown. He was five foot seven tall. His father was Wong Zi Ping, and his mother was Lei Mei. His parents came to the US from Toisan, China, so public record listed them as merchants. But like, what does that actually mean?

Carol Nackenoff: They ran a store that's considered a merchant, which was in the city directory listed in 1879 and 1880 as a butcher and provision for.

Felix Poon: Wong Kim Ark didn't have much formal education. [00:04:30]

Carol Nackenoff: From age 11. He was listed as a cook.

Felix Poon: And that's about all we know about his life in the US. There are records of four trips he took to China. The first was in 1889 with his parents. He gets married on this trip to a woman named Yishai from his ancestral town of toI san. His second trip is in 1894 to 1895 to visit his wife and family, and it's coming back to San Francisco on the second trip that the customs agent says he can't enter the United [00:05:00] States.

Bethany Berger: And so he was detained. And he said, hey, I was born here. I'm a citizen. You have to let me in.

Felix Poon: This is Bethany Berger, professor of law at the University of Connecticut.

Bethany Berger: Not only did he say that he had.. He had papers with him to prove that. And the customs officer says, I don't care. Chinese cannot become citizens by being born in the United States.

Felix Poon: One of those papers is a notarized letter. We, the undersigned, do hereby certify [00:05:30] that the said Wong Kim Ark is well known to us a witness statement.

Carol Nackenoff: Anybody else traveling, a white American traveling abroad didn't have to have anything in the way of documents.

Felix Poon: This is Carol Nackenoff again.

Carol Nackenoff: And so the Chinese had a far more rigorous documentation regime than anybody else. They had to have witnesses that attested to where they lived and that they knew them.

Felix Poon: These witnesses [00:06:00] couldn't be Chinese. They had to be white.

Nick Capodice: Wait, was that written in? Was that was that a stipulation of it? Like they had to be white?

Felix Poon: I don't think they said it was like a written requirement. Like you must make sure you get a white person. It was just kind of like an unspoken rule that they wouldn't trust Chinese people. And so it was just kind of like they can't be Chinese in practice. It was find a white person, right?

Carol Nackenoff: And they would go through an interview, get this certificate that allowed them to return, go and return. [00:06:30] And it was a single use document.

Felix Poon: Even with this documentation in hand, the customs agent denies Wong K mark entry and so basically he has nowhere to go. So he gets back on the boat.

Hannah McCarthy: Seriously, did he have to go back to China?

Felix Poon: We'll get to that part. But first I have to tell you about those who came before him and what happened to them. There are a lot of Chinese men traveling back and forth to visit family in China at this time, and many are getting denied reentry to the United States. Some of them just give up [00:07:00] and make the trip back to China, a trip that takes 33 days, according to an old newspaper clipping. But others fought their detentions in court with the help of the six companies.

Nick Capodice: The six companies. What's that?

Felix Poon: Well, companies is probably a misnomer. There were really six prominent Chinese associations in San Francisco, and they came together as one to provide social support, but also to provide legal support to Chinese Americans. Here's Bethany Berger.

Bethany Berger: Again. In the first. Years of [00:07:30] the exclusion laws.They brought 7000 cases challenging Chinese exclusion. And they were so successful in doing this that Congress and the customs officials kept trying to amend the laws to make it harder for them to win these cases.

Hannah McCarthy: That's actually very cool.

Felix Poon: So the six companies are there for Wong Kim Ark. They file for habeas [00:08:00] corpus.

Nick Capodice: Habeas corpus, that little Latin phrase. That means bring the unlawfully detained person before the court.

Felix Poon: Yep, that's it. It's a right to a trial. Meanwhile, Wong Clark is still off the coast of San Francisco on a ship. And that ship is about to sail back to China.

Bethany Berger: So he's put onto another ship, and then that ship wants to go back and he's put on to another ship. And so this is a period. Of months. In which he's confined, looking over. At. [00:08:30]His hometown, but unable to set foot there.

Nick Capodice: So is he granted habeas?

Felix Poon: They do grant him habeas. But what's interesting here is that the judge actually agrees in principle with the U.S. government that Wonky Mark is not a citizen. But he says he has to go by legal precedent that was set by earlier court cases. And so he rules that Wong Clark is a U.S. citizen because of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.

Hannah McCarthy: So this judge makes explicitly [00:09:00] clear that he has a racist idea here and that he is only making this decision based on precedents. He basically says this is against my better judgment, but I'm going to do this anyway. And so just as a reminder, that citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. So [00:09:30] Felix Wong, Kim Ark won?

Felix Poon: Yeah, he won. I mean, he was still unlawfully detained on three different boats for five months, but at least he won his court case.

Nick Capodice: So is that it, Felix Like, is this happily ever after for Wong Kim Ark?

Felix Poon: No, not quite.

Julie Novkov: The government immediately appeals, so they take it all the way up to [00:10:00] the US Supreme Court.

Felix Poon: This is Julie Novikov. She's a professor of political science at the University at Albany and coauthor with Carroll on their book, American by Birth. Wong Kim Ark in the Battle for Citizenship.

Julie Novkov: The majority opinion is written by Justice Horace Gray, and his response is that if people are in the United States and they're following the laws of the United States and basically they're not in some sort of special category like that of a diplomat, they [00:10:30] are living under the sovereignty of the United States and therefore, children who are born to them in the United States are born under that sovereign power. And therefore, according to common law principles, going back to England, they are entitled to citizenship on the basis of the 14th Amendment.

Felix Poon: In writing the majority opinion, Justice [00:11:00] Gray did reaffirm that there are exceptions to the citizenship clause. Diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If they commit a crime, they don't face the justice system the same way that we do. So there are children that are born here, not US citizens, children born here of a foreign occupying force. It hasn't happened yet, knock on wood. But if it did happen. Not US citizens. So what the majority opinion boils down to is that Wong Kim Ark does not fall into any of these exempt [00:11:30] categories. So he is indeed a US citizen.

Nick Capodice: But hold on. If this case was decided the other way, wouldn't you then have to revoke the citizenship of millions of children born to European immigrants?

Felix Poon: I mean, basically and Justice Gray wrote this in his opinion that to deny Kim Ark his citizenship would be to, quote, deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German or other European parentage who have always been considered [00:12:00] and treated as citizens of the United States. This ruling is a big deal. It solidifies a path to citizenship for all immigrants that is based on the 14th Amendment. But then there were some unintended consequences in the aftermath of the ruling.

Nick Capodice: Like what?

Felix Poon: So there's this phenomenon of paper sons.

Nick Capodice: Paper sons actually know about these, do you Hannah?

Hannah McCarthy: I don't. I would imagine it's someone claiming someone as their their son [00:12:30] or your daughter, but it would be son in this case.

Nick Capodice: So since the only way you could be a legal Chinese immigrant to the United States was if you were a family member of somebody who had been born here, a child of somebody who had been born here. So you have all these people claiming. Right. So all new Chinese immigrants to the U.S. are claiming that they are the children of people already here on paper, therefore paper sons.

Julie Novkov: Some of these paper sons were maybe not necessarily the sons of citizens, but they were close relatives, maybe they were brothers, [00:13:00] maybe they were nephews. But because there's an awareness among immigration officials that that this is happening, they become far, far more suspicious. What evolves out of this is that you you wind up with kind of a cat and mouse game between Chinese who are trying to get into the United States and immigration officials who are trying to keep as many out as possible.

Felix Poon: And exclusion laws only [00:13:30] get worse.

Julie Novkov: By the time we get to 1924. Legislation is basically excluding almost all Asian immigration and denying immigrants from Asia any possibility of gaining citizenship. This actually goes as far in the 1920s as denying citizenship to Japanese who had served in World War One. [00:14:00]

Archival: My fellow countrymen. We have called the Congress here this afternoon not only to mark a very historic occasion, but to settle a very old issue that is in dispute.

Felix Poon: It's not until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that immigration bans and quotas are completely lifted.

Archival: With my signature. This system is abolished. [00:14:30]

Felix Poon: And finally, you have greater numbers of Asians immigrating to the US.

Archival: Never again shatter the gate to the American nation.

Felix Poon: Soon after that, public scrutiny over immigration shifts and beginning around the 1980s, you have some people using the term birthright citizenship pejoratively against the children of undocumented [00:15:00] Mexican Americans. They call for doing away with birthright citizenship and immigration.

Archival: President Trump is setting to challenge a 150 year old constitutional standard that anyone born in America is an American citizen.

Hannah McCarthy: The President. But the president can't just unilaterally do away with something that was decided in the Supreme Court, right? I mean, the Wonka marque ruling means that they can't just get rid of birthright citizenship.

Felix Poon: Well, some would argue that the Wong Kim Ark ruling doesn't [00:15:30] apply here because Wonka Marks parents were here legally while undocumented immigrants are here illegally.

Nick Capodice: So what did the people you talked to think about that?

Felix Poon: They don't think this argument would be very convincing in court. Basically, they say that there was no distinction back then between documented and undocumented. If you made it to U.S. shores, you were a citizen. But given the exclusion laws, it was clear the government wanted to exclude Chinese people from this country. [00:16:00] So they're in consensus that the Wong Kim Mark ruling does apply, and therefore the only way to do away with birthright citizenship is to amend the Constitution, which, by the way, is not an easy process. It would need to pass through both the House and the Senate with two thirds majorities, and then it needs to be approved by three fourths of state legislatures. So birthright citizenship is probably here to stay. And our guests all agreed that's a good thing. Here's Julie Novikov.

Julie Novkov: Well, I think birthright citizenship is [00:16:30] important simply because it provides an additional layer of protection for some of the most vulnerable residents of our country. And it also, I think, telegraphs a message of equality of of being born in America. And regardless of where you're coming from or what your situation is, there's a kind of moral [00:17:00] valence to birthright citizenship that is entangled in a productive and good way with American ideals.

Hannah McCarthy: Felix I'm so curious what happened in the end to Wong Kim Ark.

Felix Poon: Well, we don't really know much beyond his third and fourth trips to China to visit his family. Remember, his wife was back in China in that fourth trip in 1931. Was Wong [00:17:30] Mark's last. He didn't come back to the US and we know that he died sometime in the 1940s.

Nick Capodice: So do you know if, like, he died without ever knowing what his legacy was?

Felix Poon: That's a really good question, Nick, and I think the best person to answer that is Erica Lee. She's a professor of American history at the University of Minnesota. She said the reason why he wouldn't have known is because of his lived experience. Remember those notarized witness statements Wong Kim Ark had to get Erika went to see the originals [00:18:00] at the National Archives at San Francisco, and she saw that by his third and fourth trips to China, the U.S. government standardized them into a templated form.

Erica Lee: It was called application of alleged American citizen of the Chinese race for pre investigation of status. This is a government form that means that someone typeset it, someone put it through the printer, someone ordered thousands of copies to be printed and then sent to immigration offices around the country having [00:18:30] that. That term alleged citizen shows just how deeply rooted and institutionalized this racism was. So. So no matter if you won the Supreme Court case. On a daily basis, you're still going to be suspect. I also remember flipping through the file and wondering, where's the copy of the Supreme Court case? Like, shouldn't this be like in Monopoly? Should this be or get out of jail free [00:19:00] card? Like, shouldn't he have just, like, gotten walked off the ship? Hey, it's one mark, you know. Come on in. That didn't happen.

Hannah McCarthy: Felix This is something that we encounter a lot when it comes to people who win their Supreme Court cases in the names of civil rights, and that's that. It just takes so long for whatever it is they've won to be implemented across the United States, right? That that that person ostensibly the beneficiary isn't practically [00:19:30] the beneficiary. They don't get to reap the reward of that decision. And it sounds like that's how it went down for Wong Kim Ark, right?

Felix Poon: Oh, definitely. But there is one last thing to this story. What this landmark ruling does do for Wong Kim Ark is that it allows his sons to immigrate to the US and become naturalized citizens. So guess what? Wong Kim Ark has descendants here in the US, and I just think that's amazing because the US government tried so hard to prevent [00:20:00] Chinese immigrants from establishing families here, but here they are, the family of Wong Kim Ark.

Hannah McCarthy: Mark Felix Does this end up being this proud family story that gets passed down?

Felix Poon: Actually, no. Erica says nobody in the family really knew about it until 1998. There was a 100 year anniversary celebration in San Francisco, and Wong Kim Ark's youngest son just happened to see it reported in the Chinese language newspaper.

Erica Lee: And this is where for the first time, those of us who had [00:20:30] researched Wong Kim Mark realized that his son was still living in San Francisco and that when the reporter interviewed him, he expressed a great deal of surprise that he had never heard his father talk about his struggle. He had no recollection that this [00:21:00] Supreme Court case and the right of birthright citizenship was based on his father's efforts. And it was just such a, I think, tragedy of how we choose which stories, which struggles get remembered and which ones we allow to get forgotten. It was a double tragedy, you know, not just for the Wong family, [00:21:30] but for all of us who care about our our country. One would think that when you win a Supreme Court case and that it establishes such a broad base of citizenship rights, the right of birthright citizenship, that your name would be well known, celebrated, that there would be streets named after you, that there [00:22:00] would be a a statue, that there would be a way that every schoolchild would know who this person was and the importance of his struggle for equality.

Nick Capodice: I just want to say I think it's interesting that the three of us are talking about learning or not learning about [00:22:30] this in school because we've been talking a lot about exclusion and the idea of like the Chinese Exclusion Act. But exclusion doesn't end in 1965. There's still this exclusion of what stories we tell and don't tell.

Hannah McCarthy: I feel like after today, I have a much clearer sense of this time in American history. So thanks for sharing Felix.

Felix Poon: Yeah, thank you for having me host Today it's been an honor to be able to tell you this story. Today's [00:23:00] episode was produced by me Felix Poon, along with Hannah McCarthy, Nick Capodice and Jacqui Fulton. Erika Janik is our executive producer. Special thanks to Bill Hing and Taylor Quimby. Music In this episode from Blue Dot Sessions, Sara, the instrumentalist, Loba Loco and the Tower of Light. You can listen to more Civics 101 at Civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. [00:23:30] It's a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

NIck Capodice: This episode of Civics 101 was written and produced by Felix Poon, Hannah McCarthy, and Nick Capodice. Our executive producer is Rebecca Lavoie, and our senior producer is Christina Phillips. Music In this episode from Blue Dot Sessions, Episodemic sound, Sara, the instrumentalist, Loba Loco and the Tower of Light. Special thanks to Taylor Quimby for his voiceover in this episode. You can listen to more Civics 101 at Civics101podcast.org. Civics 101 is a production of NHPR, New Hampshire Public Radio.

---