From Tariffs to Nukes — How Congress Can Stop Trump’s Power Grabs (with Rep. Ted Lieu)

Trump says these things that he knows the American people know he's lying, but he just keeps on saying it. And it's uh deeply concerning to me. It's always been deeply concerning that the president of the United States of America lies at the rate that he does. But the polling does show the American people are now overwhelmingly rejecting what Donald Trump stands for in his actions policies. >> The last Associated Press poll had Donald Trump at 37% approval, essentially one of the lowest of any modern day president. Only time it's been lower with any other modern day president was Trump in his first term during COVID. That's right.

>> And if you look at elections in America, every time there's a special election, you have Democrats overperforming. And so when voters can actually actualize their beliefs in action at the ballot box, they end up rejecting what Donald Trump Republicans are trying to implement. >> [music] >> Welcome to another edition of the oath and the office. I'm John Fuglesang. On this episode, Congressman Ted Lou joins us to discuss the new no first strike bill for those worried about elderly narcissist authoritarians with no impulse control and decades of untreated syphilis launching nukes based on vibes.

Uh and also folks, it is official. Trump's economy is collapsing and he's decided the best way to fix it is to tear down the White House and build himself a ballroom of the damned. Trump said it. He said it this year. Real quote, "It won't interfere with the existing building. It'll be near it, not touching it." Which is also what he said about the Constitution. So, let's bring in the star of the pod, Professor Corey Brett Schneider, who is the rock star in the polyai department at Brown. You've read his stuff in Politico, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and of course, he is the author of the book, The Oath in the Office, a guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents. Professor Brett Schneider, it's great to see you again.

>> Thanks so much, John. This is of course a really special episode. Um, there's a lot to talk about before Congressman Lou joins us, but the whole theme of the podcast is holding a president to account to the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as required. Now, what branch is supposed to do that? Well, the judiciary and of course most fundamentally the framers thought Congress and most Congress people for for whatever reason have totally abandoned that obligation and the reason >> not most sir not most no not most of one party I would say but not most >> yes yeah well unfortunately in the current distribution that's most the the uh I wish that wasn't true but one person I was going to single out who really has you know just more than lived up to that obligation to understand how our constitutional system is supposed to work is Congressman Lou and he's done so much to really reclaim the powers of Congress and that's why I was very eager to have him on. So, this is an amazing episode and of course there are lots of

constitutional violations to talk about along with the hope that we'll bring in that interview. >> Amen. Well, I'm a big fan of Congressman Lou. He's joined my SiriusXM show many times. He's even Corey joined us on stage for several of these sexy liberal comedy tour performances and yet he still speaks to me. So I'm I'm really honored. But uh I I want to begin with a a question Corey that I need your help on. Um and that is will Donald Trump's tariffs be able to survive the same legal test that killed Joe Biden's student debt relief and climate rules and COVID protections. Yes, friends, it's time for the very sexy topic called the major questions doctrine. Um, now I'm still learning about this, professor. I need you to explain that I know that the major questions doctrine is the court's relatively new judge invented rule that says, and tell me if I'm wrong here, if a president takes sweeping economic action like, you know, cancelling student loan uh interest debt or regulating carbon emissions that

Congress has to have given explicit permission in the statute. Now, Chief Justice Roberts summed it up this way. Congress doesn't hide elephants in mouse holes. But here's the twist. Trump's tariffs, I believe, rest on a law that doesn't even mention tariffs. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 gives the president certain powers in a national emergency, but not, as I understand it, as a layman moo the authority to rewrite global trade policy or tax Americans on imported goods. So now the court has to decide, does major questions only apply to Democrats? Cory, you were part of a Supreme Court briefing explaining Congress's historic power to regulate tariffs, and I'm pretty sure your argument draws on that founding chestnut, no taxation without reprepresentation. Can you walk us through how tariffs fit into that constitutional framework?

>> Thanks. And I'll just first say what my involvement in this case is, and I'm very proud to be involved. um the the Supreme Court litigator who's argued many times before the Supreme Court, Paul Wilson and I have teamed up uh with the aid of his amazing team at Democracy Forward. Uh and we're joined by a number of people who I invited to join as scholars. So this is an amicus brief. The way that it works is that sometimes the court and the parties involved in cases look to people like me and they say, "Tell us the truth." Like what actually is going on in the history of the United States in the Constitution and you put your credibility on the line. We sign these briefs uh and tell us how we should think about this. And you know, I wanted to get involved with this because I think it's so clear, not only, as you say, that Congress didn't hand over the power to the president to enact arbitrary tariffs, but actually in the end of the Nixon period, in the postNixon period, legislation, and this is an important piece of it, was passed to actually limit the power of the president. So, there have been moments

in American history where the Congress has handed over power and periods where it's reclaimed them. And part of what we'll talk about of course with Congressman Louu is the need for a future moment of reclaiming. But in the case of tariffs of economic emergencies, the president is actually relying on a law the international called AIPA which creates international emergencies uh and circumstances in which they they can happen. But when it created this law, it was reigning power in. and it talked about the need, for instance, for unusual and extraordinary circumstances in which there was an external shock to the United States. That's not what's going on in these tariffs. He's trying to recreate uh sorry, I'll say that again. He's trying, the president of the United States is trying to rectify long-standing trade imbalances. It's not an extraordinary unusual circumstance.

It's a very normal circumstance. So he's trying to use a law that all of us fought for, that our democracy fought for to rein in the president, and he's trying to use it to expand his own power. That's really lying about history. the major questions doctrine fits in and that what we're saying is look you the Supreme Court not only do you recognize that when a statute says you can't do something you you will reign in the executive branch but you the Supreme Court have announced a doctrine that says actually when the Congress hasn't been clear in handing over power we're going to default to Congress one more thing John I know this is a lot but it's such an important case you can tell I'm passionate about I've been working on it for weeks finally getting the opportunity to talk about it in depth But one thing we're saying in the brief is that the question of whether or not this is one of these major questions in in in fundamental policy questions where the default should be for Congress. We're saying this has always been the fund not just a fundamental question but maybe the fundamental question in American

constitutional law and politics. Think of the phrase no taxation without representation was resistance to not just a tax the way we usually think of it but specifically a kind of tax a tariff. So this is not just a major questions it's one of the most fundamental in American history and we highlight this postNixon law that we talked about but also the way this has been a major question throughout American history. That was a mouthful. Uh but as you can tell I'm a constitutional scholar. I get excited about things like that. >> No no and I appreciate it. I'm I'm sorry that I still have so many major questions about the major questions [laughter] doctrine, but you know, I went to one of those public schools the Republicans hate so much. Um, Corey, I get that Trump has turned tariffs into this political weapon aimed at our allies like Canada without congressional approval. I don't see how it helps America. I know it makes Putin happy. I don't understand anything more than that. But constitutionally speaking, I get that this is exactly the kind of executive overreach the framers were warning against. But how how did this

doctrine evolve? I mean, how has it been used to strike down Biden era policies on climate change, student debt, and COVID protections? And yet now they're trying to use the same law, the same doctrine, the same mentality to let Trump do whatever he wants. >> I love it. I have to just throw in a shout out to public schools. I also am a product of public schools. PS18Q in Queens and IS-74 uh also in Queens and Ridgwood High School in New Jersey. [laughter] So yes, public schools all the way. Uh going to that really important point and you know now as usual, John, you know, we started out with a kind of basic explanation and now we're really jumping into it. Where does this major questions doctrine come from? And I think the original concern of the court, and now I'm going to get a little wonky, but I think our listeners sometimes will go with us in this direction. Stop me if anything's unclear. Uh, it comes from a concern really to rein in executive agencies and a worry about the court that the federal

government, not not the president, but that agencies were really being given too much leeway in areas like environmental protection. And we talk for instance about the reversal of the Chevron case trying to rein in the discretion of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency. Uh that's not a a a trend that progressives have tended to like and it's one that I didn't love. But we're we have this law and now what I'm trying to do in the brief and joined by amazing scholars like Lawrence Lesig of Harvard who is actually my teacher at Stanford Law School uh and others is to say look if you're going to say that the agencies are reigned in that has to mean that the president is reigned in and now here's my move especially if you believe in the unitary executive. The unitary executive says there is no difference between agencies and the president. So, we're trying to use this well doctrine that's born in something that's not that great to to create a fundamental check on the president of the United States. And we believe that just being consistent with what the court said, requires stopping

the president in one of the most abusive and arbitrary moments of this presidency, as bad as it is, and let me just lay out what we're talking about. What a king does what's the reason why the revolution and the constitution gave the fundamental power to regulate tariffs to congress along with taxation is because they could be so abusive. Think of a king who in an arbitrary way just you know on based on impulse or his or her own uh a king or queen's his or her own u self-interest just starts willy-nilly throwing tariffs on on countries abroad not for concern about the country as a whole. That's part of what an absolute monarchy does. And that's exactly what Trump's done. I don't like Canada today, tariff. I don't like um uh uh China today, tariff. You know, and the arbitrariness, I think, is part of what we're opposing.

>> Saying Ronald Reagan's exact words, my god, Cy, like I know they're really offended by Jesus's exact words, and I've learned this year they're really offended by Charlie Kirk's exact words, but now Ronald Reagan's exact words, they'll slap a tariff on you. But here's what's crazy, Cy. The law we're talking about doesn't use words like tariff or tax or duty. So under the court's own logic, shouldn't Trump's use of it fail the major questions test?

>> Absolutely. I mean on the it certainly should fail the major questions test because this statute that they're relying on AIPA this international circumstances for creating international emergencies not only didn't hand over the power but it reigned it in they look for instance at Nixon's abuses and I do want to say something about this history Nixon of course used emergencies uh including economic emergencies to uh enact his own uh desires without going through Congress and presidents actually going way back had used emergencies in ways that extended them really forever to give them discretion to act in a kind of monarch-like way.

>> Yeah. >> And after the Nixon administration, there were a series of laws in a bunch of different areas, including the War Powers. And the War Powers Act, this was passed actually at the end of Nixon's presidency after his objections, tried to rein in his ability to initiate war and any president's ability. the emer the national emergencies act tried to rein in the ability of any president including as Trump tried to do uh to to just reallocate funds claiming emergency to build that wall a kind of horrible abuse of emergency and this was meant to rein in the ability to do things exactly like this to willy-nilly just create your own tariffs without going through Congress and what we're saying is not only did it under the court's doctrine not hand over the power to the executive branch but it did the opposite it reigned it in. And it's not just that that the Congress said that and in if you look at our brief, we talk about the history of this conscious decision to say, look, Congress has sometimes handed over power and it sometimes brought it back. We are bringing it back. They say

that's their purpose. Uh but they also put it into the law itself and this language of defining emergency um in in regard to unusual and extraordinary circumstances. uh circumstances that have to really come from an external shock, an external event. Those are all ways of reigning in the president's power rather than expanding it. What does all this have to do? Well, we have moments in history where we say to presidents, no more, no more abuse. Are we going to honor those moments or are we going to make them meaningless by allowing this president to just really wipe away law? And you know, this is a fundamental moment for the Supreme Court because we're not just saying, hey, as we are in Row versus Wade, adopt a progressive or a moderate stance in in regard to the Constitution.

We're saying adopt your own idea of where the limits are. >> Yeah. Well, let's bring it uh to something a bit sexier. Uh and that is the ballroom of the damned. I know tariffs are fun. I know the millennials just want to talk tariffs all day, but [laughter] right now as thousands, potentially millions of Americans are losing their jobs, losing their health care, losing their savings, they're bulldozing the East Wing, literally so Trump can host gallas for the billionaires who caused all this. This is this is like The Great Gatsby, but instead of Gatsby spending his money to impress one woman, it's Gatsby desperately spending our money to impress freaking anyone. And it will be our money. I don't care how many oligarchs are giving money right now for the construction of it. We the people will pay for the maintenance of this forever. Cory, Trump was such a big fan of the existing White House that he had it demolished, which is like saying you're a big fan of Abraham Lincoln, so I'm going to defend monuments to Confederates. I I I mean I the this this demolition for this ballroom. Is there any legal justification for doing

construction like this, professor, during a shutdown, especially after public assurances from the chief executive that the building would not be touched? >> Well, we're carving out a theme and it leads right into the interview with with Congressman Louu, which is the usurppation of Congress's power. And in the same way that there are law was a particular law meant to reign in the president's ability to create things like this tariff emergency supposed tariff emergency I should say. There also is legislation that reigns in uh the ability to raise private money to essentially mix in with the public good.

And I'd add in too that the the fundraising for the military is an example of this and certainly the ability to do what they've done, which is to use this nonprofit corporation, uh to then funnel money to pay for this um public um renovation of the people's house of the of the of the White House after all that you're not supposed to do this under this legislation. So yes, I do think it's illegal. The problem is who has standing? who's going to bring the case? And most of all, he's moved so quickly as authoritarians often do. How do we correct this? Are we going to ask him to or require that he rebuild the East Wing the way that uh it was before?

So, it's one of these circumstances where you just have to say, "Yes, it's illegal, but wow, he is going to get away with it." And that's an unfortunate fact. And I think courts, you know, they could assess damages. There are things they can do, but it's going to be too late. I mean, but but beyond legality, what what what is the constitutional symbolism here? A president building a private ballroom for wealthy people while citizens go hungry. I mean, what does this say to history about accountability in an imperial presidency? >> It is a symbol, as you know, I've been talking about this as a self coup, a destruction of Congress's power. And part of it is in the legal details, but the symbol is just so powerful here. And many of our viewer, our listeners and viewers have seen him uh pull down this historic uh east wing. This is after all where Eleanor Roosevelt was crafting things like the existence of international human rights. And there is no respect for history. There is no respect for the modesty of the office that this white house is supposed to convey. We I think for a reason don't

have goaudy ballrooms or gold decked uh rooms everywhere the way he's trying to do in the Oval Office. >> We do now. At least we know when he leaves he'll take all the gold crap with him, right, Cory? We the we the people paid for that gold goddy crap. You know, he's taking it with him when he leaves. Like it's a bunch of classified documents in a box. >> And let me just add to what you said. It's partly that we're going to continue to pay for the maintenance of this uh Trump creation, but and it's partly the the symbolism, but it also is literally that people's house is owned by the the United States. And so what he's doing is imagine somebody coming into your house and saying, you know what, I don't really like the way that you've uh decorated. I'm going to bring a bunch of goaudy materials in and I'm going to rebuild your living room in a way. You might like it the way that you have it.

It might convey a certain kind of modesty. No, I want it to be ostentatious on the, you know, I just think it's a matter of right that he's imposing his, as you say, imperial presidency monarchy aesthetic uh over the people's democratic way of seeing um what this house is supposed to look like. >> We got to take a quick break, but we'll be right back. Don't go away. There's a lot more of the oath in the office. Welcome back to the Oath in the Office. I'm John Fugle saying let's talk about CBS professor uh less than a year after taking over the anchor seat on CBS Evening News, John Dickerson, who I think is just a terrific broadcaster and journalist uh is leaving the broadcast and leaving CBS after 16 years. And now apparently CBS's face the nation has been rebranded. Uh it's now faced the narrative. This week, Margaret Brennan, under new management from editor-inchief Barry Weiss, uh, tried to play gotcha with Akeem Jeff for using the phrase rigged elections. Cuz, you know, Corey, when when Trump says rigged, he's plotting a coup. When Aake Jeff says

rigged, he's describing a literal plot dictated by Trump to illegally gerrymander districts in the middle of a decade, one year ahead of the midterms. It's a very subtle difference. Trump lied and had cops beaten in a terror attack on the capital and called it rigged, which it wasn't. And Democrats call it a rigged election when Trump tells Republican governors to rig an election. I mean, he told Greg Abbott, "Give me five more House seats." And so, here's the clip of Margaret Brennan. This is caused a lot of outrage. Essentially, uh, both sides it. Take it, Margaret.

>> I want to ask you about something you said. You said Democrats, there are no election deniers on our side of the aisle. You said that back in January, but recently you've been using the term rigged elections in reference to the upcoming midterms. Democrats were appalled when President Trump used language like that. How do you justify using that now? Doesn't that undermine faith for voters? You need to show up. No, I've been using that term in the context of Donald Trump's unprecedented effort to gerrymander congressional maps in a partisan fashion all across the country in order to rig the midterm elections and deny the ability of the American people to actually decide who should be in the majority as it relates to the House of Represandering and redistricting.

>> No, no, no. Well, Democrats are going to push back aggressively to make sure that we have fair maps across the country, not partisan gerrymandering, which Republicans have initiated in state after state after state. >> Cory, um, from a constitutional scholars perspective, what's the danger in media normalizing that kind of false equivalence? Well, I just think, you know, we're talking about a threat to democracy and what January 6th was and the election denialism uh was not just a constitutional crisis. It was an an attempted coup. And I sometimes talk about elements of the soft coup that are going on now where we're destroying the powers of other branches, for instance, in the destruction of the East Wing uh in the terrorists case. But there also was an attempted hard coup, a a violent insurrection at the capital. And what went with that and what fed that was election denialism based in nothing. Uh not in any truth. No court of course uh upheld any of those claims. So for CBS

which uh did such a good job of holding Trump to account in the first term to come and say that really that's the same as gerrymandering a factual thing that is happening uh is really a a threat to democracy. We've seen attacks on universities. Uh we've seen attacks on law firms and now we are seeing it on the media and putting in their own person Barry Weiss to create this false equivalence. We can't trust CBS anymore. I I really was blown away by the way that this interview reflected uh Trump's own victory and framing it this way isn't just dangerous for the issue, it's dangerous for the entire stability of American democracy.

>> She she did that whole thing. Don't you think saying rigged undermines faith in democracy? Margaret Brennan, democracy doesn't lose faith when we call out cheating. Democracy loses faith when journalists won't call out cheating. I mean I mean this isn't gerrymandering. The Democrats are countermandering. Cy Republicans draw these maps that look like spilled spaghetti having a seizure. Democrats are trying to bring electoral district balance back to the force and suddenly it's both sides. It's like it's like if Tina slapped Ike back one time and CBS is saying, "Look, both sides do it." I mean, jerrymandering undermines one person, one vote, which the Supreme Court recognized as a constitutional principle. So, shouldn't the press be treating that as a threat to democracy, not as a partisan both sides squabble?

>> I think what you're seeing from CBS is an extreme version of what not to do in a midst of a a self coup. And that's to say, oh, journalists are supposed to be neutral, and what neutral means is both sides. And you saw her do that. >> The response to that is, no, journalists are supposed to call out facts. They're supposed to report on what's actually happening. And what, and just in case anybody has any doubt, what actually happened on January 6 was that there was an attempt to destroy democracy through a lie. And the lie was election deniialism. That's right. When it comes to gerrymandering, which of course we've talked about extensively, including on our previous episode, that is also a fact. That is happening. That's not uh, you know, being mean or or degrading the truth. That is actually a fact. And to to have CBS not seeing the difference between truth and this fake neutrality is really a dangerous moment. And it frankly, it makes independent media like our own podcast all the more important.

>> Yeah. I mean, if the corporate media is going to be doing this kind of framing, that's just going to muddy the waters of the public's understanding of what's genuinely constitutional versus what is illegal and deeply authoritarian and evil. Uh, we got to take a quick break. Back in a moment with our good friend, Congressman Ted Lou. This is the oath in the office. >> Oh, that was tight. And with the clip we added, it's with the clip added, it's going to be another minute longer. So, it's not going to be perfect. Here we go. Wonderful.

Congressman, welcome. >> What a pleasure. Can you hear us? Okay. >> Hi, Corey. How are you? >> Hi. How are you? Thanks so much for joining us. And of course, you know, John Fugal saying, "We're so thrilled and honored that you're joining us." >> Hi, John. You look exactly the same. >> Oh, Congressman, you look even younger, and I resent you deeply for it. Thank you so much. It's so nice to have you with us >> because I use hair coloring now. [laughter] >> Well, I've been using hair color since I was very, very young. Um, it's so nice to see you. Uh, and and thank you so much. I'm I'm I've been so honored by you joining us on stage or on my show over the years. And, uh, and now that I'm a best-selling author, uh, I want to send you a copy of my book, and I'm just so grateful that, uh, all about Christianity and getting in trouble with the right people. And I'm so thrilled you're here, uh, to go deep with Professor Brett Schneider because honestly, uh, this bill is, uh, is the sort of thing that I think Democrats need to scream about so the public knows who's on what side of this. So, uh, we have many questions for you and we'll jump right into it.

>> Great. >> All right. I'm going to do a brief intro, but we'll likely re-record it. And, uh, >> let's come back. Great. Let's come back and, uh, and and bring in the congressman. Wendy, if you're all set. >> I am all set and we are rolling, so I will be in the background. >> Three, two, one. Welcome back to the oath in the office. I'm John Fugle saying, Professor Brett Schneider. I'm I'm We've had some great guests on the show. I'm really excited about this guy. Uh what a pleasure to welcome uh Congressman Ted Louu uh from California.

He's um uh represented the California's 36th Congressional District since 2023 um and represented the 33rd congressional district from 2015 to 2023. And the reason why, as listeners know, and I said a little bit about this in the first segment, that I'm so excited to have Congressman Lou uh um who's trained as a lawyer, I should say, uh is because it's so essential in this moment that Congress reclaim its own powers. And I really have trouble thinking of any member of Congress who's really fought that fight as hard as Congressman Lou, understanding what powers the Constitution gives to the Congress and then working uh in a creative way uh to reclaim those powers.

So, Congressman Lou, welcome to the Oath in the Office podcast. >> Uh thank you, Corey and John. It's an honor to be on your show. I just want to say I've spent much of this year on the floor of the House of Representatives. So, I just want to say how happy I am to now be able to speak with normal, rational, kind people. [laughter] >> Thank you so much. We'll get into some of the dysfunction. And I do of course want to talk about things like the shutdown and a lot of what's happening now, but I wanted to change uh the pace a little bit by asking you about a bill that you've been a sponsor of and I know have been involved with because I think it really goes to the question of hope.

Part of what our listeners want to hear is how Congress can reclaim our democracy from a president who threatens it. And one area in which uh you played a role in making that happen is in the important reclaiming of the war power. So I'd like to hear more generally about how to reclaim uh the power uh of Congress after all to declare war and also your first strike bill which uh recognizes the danger of nuclear war and the danger of a first strike by a president who uh might illegally initiate it.

>> Yes. >> So I want to ask you about the specifics and also about the general. I will say too, I in preparation for this interview watched on Netflix uh this frightening film that's now number one I think on Netflix about precisely the danger that this bill is meant to counter. Uh over the years under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the presidency has gotten more powerful. Now, when you don't have an overtly malicious president, that may be okay.

But we've got an overtly malicious president, and you see the dangers of having too much power concentrating in just one person. So, I do believe that we're going to have a Democratic president in three years. And my hope is the next president will voluntarily sign laws that are going to reduce the power of the presidency and restore Congress to where the founders had envisioned the balance of powers to be. So one of these areas is the power to declare war. If you look at the way our constitution is framed at that time, Congress was created along with the judiciary basically as a check on the president's powers and then the founders gave Congress the greatest power that they knew at that time, the power to declare war. And in my view, there's no way the framers of the Constitution would have given one person the ability to launch thousands of nuclear weapons

and kill hundreds of millions of people in less than an hour and not have called that war. And if you look at the Constitution, it's very clear because only Congress can declare war. It's clear to me that the president of United States cannot by himself initiate a premeditated nuclear first strike. So, Senator Ed Marky and I have introduced legislation over the years to essentially say a president can only launch a nuclear first strike with congressional approval. >> So important. I mean the idea of course as you say that Congress has the power to declare war means to initiate a war and the launch of a first strike of nuclear weapons has to be the declaration of war because uh there is no such thing as a limited use of of nuclear weapons. Exactly as you say. I did want to follow up on your important point, which is realistically we're not going to get legislation like this signed by Donald Trump. He's trying to acquire as much power as possible and is going to resist any of Congress's efforts. I mean, what happened during the Biden presidency that a lot of these

constitutional reforms uh didn't go through? Was it that Biden was just more focused on the economy and other issues? I mean, talk about that moment that we had where a bill like this, which I think is among the most important pending in Congress uh uh didn't succeed [clears throat] in becoming law. It turns out that if you look at the laws Congress has passed and a number of them, we were put in essentially provisions that say, hey, if the president declares an emergency that all of a sudden the president can do this, this or that, >> right? then we never really thought we'd have an overtly malicious president like we do now. So for example with tariffs it is traditionally province of congress but there is a provision in there basically says well if the executive declares emergency then the executive gets to do tariffs and so you have these provisions all over uh the place in our federal laws. And I think one of the things we need to do when we flip the house and then when we get a trifecta

also in three years is to close all these loopholes and say, "Okay, now that we understand that we might get another overtly malicious president some point in the future, how do you write these laws so that we don't have a repeat of what Donald Trump is doing right now?" So I think it's a much more structural problem because Congress >> has always traditionally >> thought, well, we probably should put in these things in case there is an emergency, but now we realize, oh, what if a bad president exploits those provisions? And that's what we're faced with right now.

>> Congressman Lou, that's why I'm so uh inspired by this bill. And I think it actually is the sort of thing that that our conservative brothers and sisters could be persuaded by. I think the bill is actually quite conservative going by the dictionary definition of that word. I mean, a bill to prohibit presidents from using first strike nuclear weapons without congressional approval totally challenges this whole imperial presidency. It fits into the separation of powers for so many decades. We've accepted in this country that presidents have this near unilateral control over nuclear launch decisions. I mean, do you think reclaiming that power for Congress is both constitutional and politically realistic? Because I I do believe conservatives could be persuaded by this.

>> You're absolutely correct. In fact, they were when we first introduced this. We actually introduced it when President Obama was president and everyone thought that Clinton was to be the next president. So, this was never done as an anti-Trump >> piece. It was done because Senator Marky and I and many others simply believe that it was unconstitutional for the president to be able to kill hundreds of millions of people and not have called that war. And we had Republican co-authors. I believe we'll get Republican co-authors again once Donald Trump is no longer president because >> you mean once there's a Democratic president that we can limit the powers of, they'll get behind it.

>> Also, they'll no they're no longer going to fear Donald Trump. But right now, there are lots of things that Republican members of Congress and senators would do, but they don't do because of their fear of Donald Trump. And so once that goes away, I think a lot of them are going to become hopefully much more normal people than they are now. >> Congressman, I've asked you this before. Sorry, Cory, but I got to ask here in the second Trump term, do your do your Republican colleagues confide in you? I mean, are insane moments in the hallways? Do they can they are they capable of acknowledging that they are hostages to this uh creature with no impulse control? Uh they don't really talk about it. Um but it's very clear to me if you just look at their past statements on a number of issues and their present statements, it's 180 degrees >> different. I mean >> yes sir >> Republicans have traditionally been anti-tariff for example right >> and now we have sort of this situation

where their leader of their party is doing these tariffs are increasing costs on a whole bunch of products across America and increasing inflation and you just have Republicans either being silent uh or um just tacily going along with it. >> Yeah. Uh I think by the way the idea that we would use a democratic presidency to restrain a democratic president might be our only hope to look out for a future uh what wannabe authoritarian like the dealing with now.

So I think that's exactly the right strategy to push for it when we have the opportunity and laws like the ethics and government act which created the independent council were were were signed by Carter after all by democrats. So that's a tradition that I think I just completely applaud. The other well the other historical facts that we have uh I remember when we had this briefing by Professor David Cole of Georgetown University. He was also the former legal director of the ACLU uh for nearly a decade and he said something interesting. He said with abuse comes reform. And so after Nixon and Watergate, the incoming Congress that came in passed a series of reforms, um clearly they didn't do enough. Um but that did happen. So I do think you're going to see something similar because the American people now realize, oh, we need to uh tighten up a lot of these loopholes that a malicious president has been exploiting now and could exploit in

the future. >> Yeah. And in fact, we we were earlier talking about that period uh in which for instance the National Emergencies Act and um to my mind the AIPA law limiting international emergencies, economic emergencies, all of those were meant as constraints. But as you say, they've just been lost over time. So they need to be at minimum short up and we need to go beyond that. And on that theme of going beyond it, I want to ask you about one of the most frightening issues of the day that of course you're uh monitoring closely and thinking about and that's the use of the military domestically in places like uh Los Angeles and Chicago. I mean what what can we do here to fight back against this abuse of power? We have the posi commitatus act but of course you might invoke the insurrection act an exception to the posi commitatus act. tell us uh you know give us some hope here too like what might we in a future Congress do to fight back and if you see strategies that we can use now against this really horrific abuse exactly what the framers feared the use of the military to shut

down civil liberties uh uh tell us your thoughts please >> I served on active duty uh in the air force for four years and then I served in the reserves for additional 21 years it's very clear to me the US military uh was not trained to be deployed on Americans And the posicante act essentially says the president is not supposed to deploy them on Americans. And unfortunately this president has been in my view violating the law. Federal district judges have said so. The appellet courts are split and we'll see what happens when this case gets to the Supreme Court. This is another area we're going to have to tighten in terms of the laws uh as we go forward. And um the silver lining to this is if you see what happened in Los Angeles when he deployed a national guard, I was on a meeting at the time about 2,000 National Guard troops were federally activated. And I remember the California National Guard

commander basically saying something effective, well, 700 of them are on standby, meaning they literally were doing nothing. And then of the 300 that were doing something, they were just sort of standing around at federal buildings. Uh so the people of LA just largely ignored them and then after a few weeks they left because there's literally nothing for them to do. >> That's right. That's right. >> And so I think you're going to see a lot of these instances and here in DC, right, you have all these National Guard troops deployed and um first of all, it's a great gig for them. They're like, you know, [laughter] at these cool places by restaurants, they're at Union Station. They're walking around and literally nothing is happening, right?

There's tourists >> separated from their families, separated from their businesses and their jobs. Yeah. >> But there that that is not great. But in terms of the actual mission, they're just walking around. Uh and so the people here just sort of ignore them. And so people see this what it is. It's a political stunt, right? You don't have >> um you know, as the presence is sort of a war zone in Portland. Even the federal judges that have all looked at it acknowledge that that's that's just crazy. That that is not what is happening on Portland. In fact, what you have are these characters in big fluffy animal suits [laughter] making fun of the folks who are deployed.

>> Yeah. Sorry. >> I feel so comforted seeing the troops in DC wearing camouflage to blend in with DC's architecture and especially the ones doing yard work wearing camouflage with orange reflective vests over their camouflage. To me, that's the perfect symbol for the the the thought that went into all this. But I'd love to ask you, Congressman, um, with respect to your service in the Congress and in the US military, right now, the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world's largest aircraft carrier, is steaming toward the Caribbean because apparently, uh, we need 90 fighter jets and 10,000 troops to stop a couple of speedboats full of cocaine. The president is openly threatening to invade Venezuela. Now, a year ago, he was saying we should have taken their oil, but now he's saying it's about drugs. Of course, it's not.

Venezuela has the largest proven reserves in the world, 303 billion barrels, bigger than Saudi Arabia. Congressman Lou, they're claiming this is a war on cocaine and fentanyl. We've seen this in the past with America. You drill it, we kill it. It seems this is a lot like what happened when Iran tried to nationalize their oil in the 50s and America was not about to let that happen. Are are you, sir, personally concerned after all these years of Republicans claiming to be the anti-war party? We really learned our lessons from Iraq. We're so anti-war now. We won't criticize Putin and we'll blow up boats and we'll bomb Iran, but we really are anti-war. And and now, Congressman, I'm terrified that fentanel is about to be the new WMD, the pretense for a war of choice for oil.

>> I'm deeply concerned. Uh these strikes on these boats appear to me to violate the law of armed conflict. Uh, I actually taught the law of armed conflict as a JAG to active duty personnel. Now, the only caveat I would have is I'm doing this based on media reports I'm reading, but we have no freaking idea what the actual details are related to these strikes because the Republican House has been on vacation for five weeks during the Republican government shutdown. So, we've had no oversight hearings. We have no classified briefings. And so I honestly couldn't tell you what the legal justification is that the administration is using or what facts they have uh that could justify these strikes. And so uh it is completely a derolutionary duty for House Republicans to not convene at all and be on vacation during this shutdown. And part of me wonders, is it really because they just don't want to swear in Congresswoman elect?

>> Well, there's that, too. Yeah. signature on discharge petition to force a vote on epsene files. Could it really be that? Because it is crazy for the Republicans to be on vacation during a Republican shutdown. >> Yeah. And it's a way, I guess, of ensuring there isn't transparency. I want to ask you more about the shutdown, but I did want to finish on this really important theme uh that you're talking about and have taken a lead of of the kind of legislation that could restrain a future wannabe authoritarian president. I mean, tell me, what kind of laws might we pass to ensure that there isn't uh killing without due process of what looks to be uh a good possibility anyway, aren't drug smugglers, but might be for instance, migrants, might be vulnerable people. Uh what can we do? Uh I'll add too into the conversation that although the military um uh in many ways has been a stunt the deployment so far of course it could turn serious but when it comes to ICE and ICE agents mass rounding people up the videos that we're seeing are quite frightening. So uh what

in these areas are are areas that that if not in the next um uh year maybe if uh Democratic the Democratic party retakes Congress that we might see or at least in a future Democratic administration. what what might we do in those areas to uh rectify this um really uh not just threat to democracy but abuse of power and human rights. Uh you had asked what had happened sort of the last four years. So when Trump tried to overturn uh the election uh and try to get Mike Pence uh to basically do these stupid things to overturn election. uh we did in fact pass a law basically saying look any sort of loopholes that might possibly be in our laws that allowed the vice president of United States to overturn election we're going to close those. So that in fact did happen. Uh and so Congress sort of reacted to a very specific thing that uh Donald Trump and his first term had tried. what we have to do now because what the second Trump administration is doing is they're looking at like every single provision in there that gives the

president any sort of discretion and there's and then just expanding it to all sorts of uh things that give the president more power. So we have to look at everything where there's expansive language and just tighten it all. Uh so for example uh the president essentially had the administration designate a number of drug cartels as terrorists and and terrorist organizations. And you may remember during the Obama administration, President Obama basically use drones and and kill terrorists. >> Yeah. >> So the issue here is well are drug cartels terrorist organizations? Um I think not. But when you read the law it's pretty expansive. And so, um, the fact that they've done that now sort of gives them some sort of legal justification to then strike drug cartels as terrorist organizations.

We're just going to have to tighten that up and either make the determination to say, "Look, we're going to call terroristation what it actually is or should be, or we're just going to let the president designate whoever he or she feels like designating as a terrorist." And I don't think that is necessarily the right way to go. >> Yeah. these broad delegations. I think that's got to be part of part of the thought of Congress is really saying to the president, no, we're giving you specific authorities, but not not all authority. And and this lesson of the last well year and the previous Trump term has taught us that no, we can't trust a president. We can't assume the president's going to be a person of virtue. You might have a bad president, as Patrick Henry warned, or uh even a criminal president is the phrase that Patrick Henry at the founding warned about. Uh, I wanted to ask about the shutdown and I'm sure John wants to jump into this too. Uh, you know, there's different arguments about it. I mean, how do you see it, especially I'm interested for the purposes of of our listeners and the podcast as part of the fight for democracy? One worry is that he's going to use the shutdown to carry

out firings and hollow out uh essential parts of the of the federal government and the executive branch that are charged with carrying out the laws that are on the books that are passed by Congress. Uh but yet I take it that you um see this as a a necessary maneuver in in resisting uh what would have been devastating uh cuts to areas uh like healthcare. So I mean tell us your thoughts about this uh current shutdown and and how to think about it strategically and the the wider fight for democracy.

>> Uh Donald Trump doesn't have to use a shutdown to fire federal workers. He's been doing that this entire year. I never understood the argument that the shutdown gives him any more powers because it doesn't. He's been >> he's been he dismantled US ID without a shutdown. He dismantled Department of Education without a shutdown. So, uh it is just simply not a valid argument that somehow this shutdown allows him to do more. It doesn't. He has been doing all sorts of things without a shutdown. Now, uh it's structurally just a fact that Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the House. So, this shutdown is on them. It's a Republican shutdown.

And Democrats are fighting uh to basically lower costs uh to cancel the cuts and to save health care for Americans. On um in November, Americans are going to see their premiums rise. Anyone who's on the Affordable Care Act, millions, millions of people are going to see their premiums rise. And then the Republican assault on health care isn't just on the ACA, it's also on deep, deep cuts to Medicaid. And also they've got uh 500 billion cuts slated for Medicare. And what happens when lots of people lose health insurance? Everybody's health insurance premiums then go up because guess what? People who get sick still get treated who have no health insurance because they go to the emergency room and that uncompensated care those costs get passed to everybody else who has healthcare.

>> Yeah. I mean it's amazing seeing that it's so dire. Marjorie Taylor Green is telling the truth about Obamacare hurting uh hurting red state voters while we've got Ran Paul telling the truth about the US murdering people in boats and Mark Wayne Mullen telling the truth about tariffs hurting Americans and Thomas Massie telling the truth about Trump covering for pedophiles. It almost seems like some of these Republicans realize the political landscape's going to be very different come uh post November of of next year, Congressman. But I I I want to ask you when you know the oath in the office is the name of this podcast and and as you know that's not just about it's about what the president swears to uphold, right? Not personal loyalty, not power, but the constitution. So when you look, Congressman Lou, at just this week's events, this White House demolition, the the this trade war over a Ronald Reagan clip in a TV ad, these attacks on free speech, this $40 billion bailout to Argentina while food stamps are stopping, and they're trying to throw 20 million souls off Medicaid, are we

seeing the greatest test yet of whether that oath still means anything? >> It's pretty clear to me the oath doesn't mean much to Donald Trump. uh he has violated law in a number of instances. He has taken actions to me that appear deeply corrupt. And he lies like um no one's ever seen. And >> so look um the American people are smart. Uh Trump's supporters are smart.

Uh he actually thinks they're not very smart because he just constantly lies to them. And um I don't know why he believes that they believe what he's saying. So just on this Ronald Reagan issue, it's just very clear Ronald Reagan is against tariffs. So no matter how many times Donald Trump says Ronald Reagan supports her, Trump is just lying. And all you have to do is just do an internet search. And and I don't understand really why Trump says these things that he knows the American people know he's lying, but he just keeps on saying it. And it's uh deeply concerning to me. It's always been deeply concerning that the president of the United States of America lies at the rate that he does. But the polling does show the American people are now overwhelmingly rejecting what Donald Trump stands for in his actions policies.

>> The last Associated Press poll had Donald Trump at 37% approval. Essentially one of the lowest of any modern day president. Only time it's been lower with any other modern day president was Trump in his first term during COVID. >> That's right. And if you look at elections in America, every time there's a special election, you have Democrats overperforming. And so when voters can actually actualize their beliefs in action at the ballot box, they end up rejecting what Donald Trump Republicans are trying to implement.

>> Yes, sir. >> I was going to ask about hope, and you've already started pushing us in that direction because the American people are starting to see through the lies and to want to hold this president to account. But let me follow up by that and ask you, you know, it's the main thing actually we're hearing from our listeners. We're covering the threat to democracy. We're covering the ICE attacks on civil liberties, the military attacks on civil liberties, but we're also trying to balance that out by thinking about the oath in the sense not Trump, of course, is is doing anything but respecting it. It is destroying it, but to think about reviving it and and to rescue American democracy. So, when it comes to hope, I mean, what do you what do you think that we can look to?

And I'll ask a more specific in addition to that general question, which is if uh the Democratic Party can retake the House, as I hope the Democratic Party will because of what you're saying, uh what do you want to see? Do you want to see impeachment? Uh, of course, Trump was impeached twice in in the previous administration, his previous term. He wasn't convicted in the Senate, but arguably a lot of good came from that impeachment and that we learned about the wrongdoing. We learned about the uh what the the desire to pressure the president Sullinsky of the Ukraine in order to hand over uh dirt on uh his adversary. That's right.

>> And we saw uh January 6 called out for what it was, an attempted insurrection, violent insurrection. Uh would you want to see impeachment uh if Democrats could u retake the House? Um uh where is the hope uh coming from? Congressman, >> I think it's hard to answer that in the abstract. Uh, but what I will say is one reason the Trump administration is getting away with a lot of stuff right now is because the Republican party has completely failed in their oversight responsibilities and the legislative branch of government has completely basically gone silent. If there's a change in makeup of Congress, then what will happen is every single committee will then be chaired by a Democrat.

Meaning that the hearings will be determined by Democrats. The agenda of the hearings will witnesses are called subpoena power Democrats will control. And what happens when there's a lot of public pressure and oversight on a publicly issue? Well, guess what? The administration in fact does respond. So administration didn't have to bring back Kilmer Garcia from El Salv. Uh now my reading of law is at some point they could probably deport him again. Um but at least he has ability to fight it here in the United States. He has due process and that happened because there was enormous public pressure uh from uh folks across America as well as elected officials. So, it's hard to generate that if you don't have the gavos, you don't have subpoena power, uh you don't determine any of the floor votes or committee votes or committee hearings. And if the House flips, that whole situation changes.

>> Yeah. I mean, that's what I've been saying, Congressman. My fervent belief is that the Democrats who promise accountability, who promise handson Bibles in front of cameras for cabinet members for hearings, that they are the Democrats who are not just going to arouse the most passion, but are going to do the best in the fundraising derby. I mean, do you get that sense that the people don't want revenge, but the people are very ready for Democrats to promise accountability? I kind of feel like the Democrats who come out and say, "Okay, Republicans, you got 13 more months. go ahead and be as lawless as you want. There's going to be a new sheriff in town January 2027.

That's the spirit I'm getting from our listeners that that's the kind of Democrats that people are excited to go out and campaign for. Is that the vibe you're feeling inside the capital? So, it is clear to me that the Americ want accountability. If you look at the polling, the number one issue still is the economy and inflation. And under the Trump administration, inflation has continued to increase. Beef prices are at the highest that they ever been. Energy prices continue to skyrocket. And you've got Trump Republican policies making things worse. So, you've got the Trump administration cancelling uh energy projects because they happen to be clean or because they're green. And that's just going to reduce supply which increases energy prices. And then you've got these tariffs that are increasing prices uh for American consumers. And so, uh, for a lot of people, they're having even more trouble making ends meet under the Trump economy. And so, that still does remain the number one issue. And one of the, uh, secondary

issues is health care. People are really concerned about the healthcare premiums rising as well. >> Yeah. And I'll just share a thought on that too, which is I think one of the things that somebody like you is so well positioned to do is to show the American people that the pocketbook issues like inflation are tied to the constitutional issues because of course inflation is partly the result of these unilateral and illegal tariffs that Trump is imposing. So I guess that will be a challenge in this campaign. I'll ask a final question about oversight because I do think that throughout American history, Congress's role in just shining a light on the executive branch has been so important and the abandonment in the last year of that has been a disaster exactly as you say. Uh but what might we do as we uncover things? So for instance, one of the things that you might uncover as you look at the destruction of these boats in international waters without any due process is is criminal intent. in the Garcia case, which we've covered at length, it looks like there was an order by um uh by a justice department now now

judge to disregard court orders. So the president of course has criminal immunity under um Trump versus the United States at least for official acts even after he's president in abs in the you know in that's a gamecher in my opinion. We can no longer say oh the courts will hold this president to account. Um I mean are you open to the possibility of impeachment in the instance in which we do find um serious violations not just of abuse of power but of the criminal law.

>> Well again it's hard to answer that question in the abstract. I do note that people who are not the president don't have such a community. >> Right. Nice. Nice. >> Still there is right no such defense as you know um I quote an unlawful and legal order. uh if you follow an unlawful and illegal order, you can still be prosecuted, >> right? I'm not sure they're aware of that, but maybe that is something we should make them aware of. The way they speak, sometimes I think that memo hasn't gotten to them that presidential immunity doesn't carry over to the staff. [laughter] Right.

>> Congressman, it is such a pleasure and honor uh to for you to join us. Thank you so much for for taking the time. I I hope that you're feeling hope right now. Uh I'm wondering if you are. >> I am. And so let me uh end on some words of hope. When I served on active duty, my uh first training base was Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama. There was a beautiful Rosa Parks Museum there. I've had opportunity to visit it a number of times. The last time was with the late amazing John Lewis. And I remember finishing the museum again and then sitting there thinking, >> you know, Rosa Parks would not have been surprised by President Donald Trump.

>> Yeah. >> Her life was full of injustice. But she never could have imagined President Barack Obama winning the presidency twice. She never could have imagined Vice President Kla Harris. And she never could have imagined Speaker Hakee Jeff, which is what's going to happen right next term. Thank you so much, Congressman Ted Louu, for this amazing discussion, partly about how we might reform our laws to recapture the constitutional limits on the presidency. Uh what we might do in the near term to hold this president to account and of course for providing uh us some hope uh that this fight for democracy uh will prevail. Uh thank you so much. What a pleasure. I hope you'll join us again.

Been an honor to have you on the oath in the office, Congressman Ted Lou. Thank you so much. honor to be on your show. >> Thank you so much, Congressman. Really a pleasure. Well, that's a pretty packed episode, Corey. Thanks again to Congressman Ted Lou for joining us. And uh Corey, how can our listeners follow you when they're when they're not reviewing us and and subscribing and telling everybody to to join the podcast? How do we keep up with you the rest of the week? >> Wow, we really are well over 400 reviews. All five stars. Uh five stars from hundreds of reviews is unusual, I'm told. Uh you can we have an oath in the office Substack. You can find us also on YouTube or if you're listening on and watching on YouTube, you can find us wherever you get your audio podcast. And I just have to say a final word, John, about this show. You know, we talked all a lot about how to reclaim the powers of Congress, and you heard Congressman Lou talk in specifics about how to do that.

So, you know, that really is hope for me. Um, you know, there there's a question about how good our laws are. I think in this tariff case, they're pretty good. Uh but regardless of how good they are, he's really spoke to a core idea of this podcast, which is that we have to get specific in the way we rewrite our legislation in war powers, in tariffs, uh in the use of the military domestically. And when we do so, we really can save our democracy. >> I want to thank you, Corey, and Congressman Tedloo, and thanks to Wendy and Beaolf and everyone who puts the show together. And most of all, thank you, our listener. Please be sure to subscribe and give us a good review and tell your friends and all the fun stuff.