Alright, so you're with us today for another
deep dive and we've got some pretty fascinating
news articles all dated March 24th, 2025. So
pretty recent stuff. We're going to kind of pick
them apart, see what we can learn from them,
really connect the dots. I think one of the biggest
themes that emerges is looking at how the Trump
administration's policies are kind of shaking
things up, right? And then naturally, what are
the reactions going to be? How are people going
to push back? What does this mean for the Democrats
moving forward? You know, the whole landscape.
So that's what we're going to be exploring today.
And it should be pretty interesting to see what
comes out of all this. Yeah, no, absolutely.
I think these articles give us a really, really
interesting albeit kind of scary, look at where
things stand right now, and things are moving
fast, maybe even changing in some pretty fundamental
ways. So yeah, let's jump right in. I think it
makes sense to start with Trump's approach to
immigration, which is, shall we say, making some
waves. Definitely. It seems like there's a huge
focus on deportations now. We're talking about
potentially over half a million immigrants being
targeted for deportation, specifically folks
who came from Haiti, Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua.
And what's interesting is they all entered the
U .S. legally under this Biden era parole program.
And the whole point of that program was to actually
decrease illegal immigration, you know, by giving
them temporary legal status for a couple of years.
All right. And one of the authors makes this
really striking Harrison, they say it's like
trying to reduce jaywalking by just getting rid
of crosswalks altogether. I mean, if you take
away the legal pathway, it doesn't just make
people disappear, they still need to get somewhere.
Kind of just pushing them further into the shadows,
making the whole situation even more complicated.
Exactly. And we're talking big numbers here,
like 213 ,000 people from Haiti, 120 ,700 from
Venezuela, 110 ,900 from Cuba, and another 93
,000 from Nicaragua. Their legal status expires
on April 24th, and after that, they're basically
at risk of being deported through this expedited
removal process, which is, from what I understand,
much harsher. It really limits their ability
to appeal, to fight the deportation in court.
It's like fewer legal protections all around.
Yeah, it definitely raises some serious questions
about due process. You've got hundreds of thousands
of people potentially facing deportation with
limited legal options. It's going to be, well,
chaotic, as one of the advocates, Karen Tumlin,
puts it. the Justice Action Center. They're already
suing the administration over this. Yeah, and
there's this, I don't know, kind of cynical observation
in one of the articles about Ukrainian refugees.
You know, at one point, there was talk of revoking
their parole status, too. There are about 240
,000 of them. But so far, nothing's happened.
And the author makes this pointed comment saying,
well, maybe it's because Ukrainians are white,
and then they throw in that line, you know, all
immigrants are equal, but some are less equal
than others. Can't help but wonder if there's
some truth to that, you know? It's definitely
thought -provoking. And tying it back to the
bigger picture, the article suggests this is
all kind of low -hanging fruit for the Trump
administration. These are people from countries
he's criticized in the past, and because they
registered for the parole program, the government
knows exactly where they are. I mean, what article
even mentions the possibility of publishing their
names and like encouraging employers to fire
them? Pretty extreme stuff. It is. And of course,
Trump is all over social media saying these actions
are solving the immigration crisis, you know,
using his executive power to push through these.
pretty sweeping policy changes. Now, moving on,
another big theme that jumps out is this concerted
effort to dismantle, like, really take apart
Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs. And
it's not just tinkering around the edges. It
seems like a very deliberate, systematic effort
to weaken or even eliminate programs in areas
like voting rights, desegregation, environmental
protection, education, affirmative action, health
care, you name it. It's a pretty fundamental
shift in how the government sees this role in
dealing with inequality. like going back to a
time before the New Deal when it was more about
individual and state responsibility. I mean,
just to give you some examples, they revoked
Johnson's 1965 executive order on equal opportunity
for federal contractors, like right out of the
gate. They're reallowing segregated federal facilities.
They're undermining the Department of Education,
which, of course, manages all those scholarships
and loans created by Johnson's Higher Education
Act. And there's a good chance they'll support
deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. And on top
of all that, they're pushing for voting restrictions,
which is, you know, the complete opposite of
what Johnson was trying to do with the Voting
Rights Act. They're like they're going after
the very foundation of these programs. And one
author puts it pretty bluntly, saying Trump wants
to make America great again, like it was before
the Great Society, maybe say the 1950s or the
1850s. It's a pretty stark assessment, but you
can see where they're coming from. And it seems
like this is driven by that deep -seated belief
among small government conservatives that these
programs were always overreach, you know, that
the federal government just got too big and too
involved in people's lives and now they have
the opportunity to really roll back the clock
on decades of social progress. But, you know,
it's not all one sided. The articles also talk
about how states might be able to push back against
this. Yeah, that's a fascinating angle. The argument
is that Trump has been trying to weaken these
traditional power centers in the U .S. Congress,
the media, law firms, universities, by kind of
picking them off one by one. But states are different.
They have their own governments, their own resources.
And the Supreme Court has often sided with states
against the federal government in the past. And
they give this example of the conflict with Maine
over transgender girls in sports. Trump wanted
to ban them, but the governor, Janet Mills, refused,
and the administration threatened to withhold
federal funding, you know, money that Maine is
legally entitled to. It shows you the kind of
tension that can arise. But the articles propose
this interesting counter -strategy. What if you
had a bunch of Democratic governors, maybe even
some Republicans who believe in states' rights,
what if they all banded together and said, no,
we're not doing this? You know, they could file
lawsuits, launch PR campaigns, even put financial
pressure on the federal government. Like encouraging
people to delay their tax payments. It's a bold
idea for sure. But there's something to that
safety in numbers logic, right? If enough states
and individuals participate, it could really
throw a wrench into things. It would be a high
stakes gamble, but it shows you the power that
states potentially have. And speaking of legal
challenges, the articles highlight two specific
lawsuits out of like 132 that have been filed
against the Trump administration that are particularly
important to watch. Yeah, these are being seen
as a real test of whether the Supreme Court is
going to stand up to the executive branch or
just go along with whatever Trump wants. The
first case is about impoundment, which basically
means the president refusing to spend money that
Congress has already approved. And the legal
arguments against impoundment seem pretty strong.
I mean, the president's oath of office says he
has to faithfully execute the laws, right? And
that includes spending laws. Plus, there's this
law, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, that
says the president has to get approval from Congress
if he doesn't want to spend the money. And they
quote a couple of Supreme Court justices from
before they were on the court, of course. John
Roberts in 1985 said, No area seems more clearly
the province of Congress than the power of the
purse. And Brett Kavanaugh in 2013 wrote that
even the president does not have unilateral authority
to refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated.
So it'll be interesting to see how they rule
on this, because if the court sides with Trump,
it really weakens Congress's power of the purse.
And it basically means more power for the executive
branch. You know, that whole separation of powers
thing is at stake here. The other big case is
about birthright citizenship. Can the president
just ignore the 14th Amendment and say, nope,
certain babies born in the U .S. aren't citizens
anymore? The amendment says pretty clearly all
persons born or naturalized in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens
of the United States. Right. And they explain
that subject to the jurisdiction thereof means
almost everyone born here, including children
of undocumented immigrants, because, well, they're
subject to U .S. law. The Supreme Court even
ruled on this in the past in a case called United
States v. Wong Kim Arc. They said the only real
exception is children of foreign diplomats. So,
yeah, this case is a big deal. One article even
says that if the court sides with Trump on either
of these cases, the impoundment one or the birthright
citizenship one, it could be. the end of democracy
and the start of autocracy. I mean, that's a
pretty scary thought. It definitely highlights
how important independent judiciary is. And looking
ahead, the articles also raise this concern that
even if Democrats win everything in 2029, the
presidency, the House, the Senate, it might be
really hard to undo all the damage that's been
done. Yeah, they're saying that Trump is basically
restructuring the entire federal government.
It's like an FDR level overhaul. It's not just
about revoking a few executive orders. You have
all these experienced government people who've
been fired or quit. And it's going to be tough
to find replacements, especially if people are
worried about getting purged if the next administration
changes. So one idea they propose is to strengthen
civil service protections, you know, make it
harder for presidents to just fire people for
political reasons, give people more legal recourse
if they are unfairly targeted. It's about making
sure the government has a stable expert workforce,
no matter who's in charge. Now, shifting gears
a bit, there's this upcoming election in Wisconsin
for the state Supreme Court that's getting a
lot of attention. It's seen as a really important
bellwether race. It's a 10 year term, and it'll
decide whether the court leans liberal or conservative.
And even though it's supposed to be nonpartisan.
It's become super nationalized. Trump has endorsed
the conservative candidate Brad Schimel and Elon
Musk has poured over 12 million dollars into
supporting him. And Musk's tactics are pretty
interesting. He's been offering people in Wisconsin
100 bucks for their email addresses and home
addresses, supposedly for a petition drive. But
it's pretty clear he's just building a voter
database. Democrats are calling it buying votes
and it definitely raises some ethical questions.
It's a lot of money to throw around. And it shows
how much influence wealthy individuals can have
in these state -level races. And the articles
also talk about how nasty the campaign has gotten
on both sides, you know, a lot of personal attacks
and negativity, just like we see in national
politics. This election matters because the Wisconsin
Supreme Court is going to be deciding on things
like abortion, gerrymandering, the voting rights.
So the stakes are pretty high. And it's worth
remembering that a Trump endorsement isn't a
sure thing. In 2023, a candidate he opposed actually
won a Wisconsin Supreme Court race by a landslide.
So it'll be fascinating to see what happens this
time around. Now, switching over to the Democratic
Party, the articles do a bit of a postmortem
on the 2024 election and where the party stands
now. And the overall picture isn't pretty. They
talk to some top Democrats. And there are a lot
of different explanations for why Kamala Harris
lost. Some people blame Biden for running again
at 80 years old. Others say Harris was just a
bad candidate, that she didn't do enough to distinguish
herself from Biden, who wasn't very popular,
and that she ran an old school campaign, ignoring
things like podcasts and social media. They also
say the Democrats didn't do a good job of fighting
back against Republican attacks on wokeness,
you know, things like transgender issues. And
there's a sense that the party has become too
elitist, too focused on catering to special interest
groups. And some people say they just couldn't
match Trump's, well, his testosterone, his ability
to dominate the conversation. And of course,
the economy wasn't great and inflation was a
big issue and the border was a mess. And you
can't forget that Trump just has this certain
appeal to some voters and maybe Harris was just
the wrong candidate at the wrong time. It's a
lot for the Democrats to digest. They're basically
going through an identity crisis, trying to figure
out what went wrong and where to go from here.
And one thing that keeps coming up is this idea
that They're just not connecting with enough
voters anymore. Yeah, they lost the presidency.
They lost the Senate. And there's a lot of frustration
among Democratic voters that their leaders in
Congress aren't doing enough to oppose Trump
and people like Musk. It's like they've lost
that sense of unity and purpose they had during
the resistance years. And some Democrats are
even starting to openly criticize the leadership.
Senator Michael Bennett kind of hinted that Chuck
Schumer should step down as Senate Majority Leader,
and a CNN poll found that 52 % of Democratic
-leaning voters think the party leadership is
going in the wrong direction. So you have people
like AOC and Bernie Sanders going on their fighting
oligarchy tour and drawing big crowds. And there's
talk about AOC maybe challenging Schumer in a
primary in twenty twenty eight or maybe Chris
Murphy taking over sooner. And then you have
this upcoming special election in Arizona's seventh
district, which is seen as a kind of test case
for the party's direction, you know, whether
they're going to go more progressive or stick
with a more centrist approach. It's definitely
a period of transition and uncertainty for the
Democrats. Now let's talk about Elon Musk. The
article suggests that his close relationship
with Trump could be very profitable for his businesses.
Yeah, even though Tesla stock has taken a hit
since Musk started cozying up to Trump, his companies
are in line to receive billions of dollars in
government contracts. For example, there's $42
billion set aside for expanding high -speed Internet
in rural areas, which would be a huge boost for
Musk's Starlink satellite Internet service. And
then there's always the possibility of SpaceX
getting more lucrative contracts from NASA. So
you have to wonder if this is the payoff for
that 300 million dollars Musk donated to Trump's
campaign. Watchdog groups like the Project on
Government Oversight are warning about the potential
for abusive power and corruption. It just doesn't
look good when a major political donor gets billions
of dollars in government contracts after helping
that politician get elected. And there's a chance
this could backfire on Musk. You know, his competitors
like Blue Origin and Boeing are going to be pretty
unhappy and regular people might see it as a
quid pro quo. The Democrats could really try
to make this an issue. Now, lastly, there's this
interesting development with the Southern District
of New York, the SDNY. The SDNY is known for
being this really powerful and independent prosecutor's
office. But Trump just appointed Jay Clayton
to run it. And Clayton is a former SEC head with
zero experience as a prosecutor. So the big question
is, is he going to keep the SDNY independent
or is he going to use it to go after Trump's
enemies in New York? And Clayton's history is
kind of mixed. His law firm has represented Trump
in the past, which is already raising eyebrows.
And there are rumors that he was involved in
some shady dealings that led to the previous
acting head of the SDNY resigning. So you can
see why people are worried that politics might
be influencing decisions at the SDNY. But Clayton
also have this track record of supporting diversity
and inclusion efforts at the SEC. And he focused
on protecting everyday investors. And he's friends
with a former Manhattan district attorney who
investigated Trump. So who knows? It's really
hard to say what kind of leader he'll be at the
SDNY, but it's a powerful office and the potential
for politicization is definitely a concern. And
just to throw in one last interesting tidbit,
Trump is basically on the ballot in Canada right
now. The new prime minister, Mark Carney, called
a snap election for April 28th. And the main
issue is how to deal with Trump. Carney has been
very critical of Trump, saying things like, President
Trump claims that Canada isn't a real country.
He wants to break us so America can own us. So
this election is basically about whether the
liberals under Carney or the conservatives under
Pierre Poilier are better equipped to stand up
to Trump. And it'll be interesting to see how
Trump reacts if Carney wins with a strong anti
-Trump mandate. You know, will he retaliate with
tariffs or start a trade war? Canadian elections
are usually pretty short and polite compared
to ours. So this one is going to be pretty unique.
Yeah, it's not every day that a U .S. president
becomes a major issue in another country's election.
So that's a wrap on our deep dive for today.
We've covered a lot of ground. Trump's immigration
crackdown, his efforts to dismantle the Great
Society, potential for states to push back those
crucial Supreme Court cases, the Democrats identity
crisis, Elon Musk's growing influence, the SDNY
situation, and even Trump's impact on Canadian
politics. It's a lot to process. And it shows
you how quickly things are changing and how interconnected
everything is. The decisions being made right
now, both in the U .S. and internationally, could
have a lasting impact on how our government functions
and how we relate to the rest of the world. So
for you, our listener, as you think about all
these events, the policy changes, the legal battles,
the political maneuvering, what do you think
is the most important factor that will shape
the future? It's a question worth pondering as
these stories continue to unfold. Thanks for
joining us.