This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

The Justice Department has filed a complaint accusing of federal judge in DC of misconduct during hearings over President Donald Trump's executive order calling for banning transgender troops from serving in the military. The Trump administration has been ramping up its criticism of judges over rulings blocking parts of his aggressive agenda. Here's the White House Press Secretary.

The Justice Department has filed a complaint accusing of federal judge in DC of misconduct during hearings over President Donald Trump's executive order calling for banning transgender troops from serving in the military. The Trump administration has been ramping up its criticism of judges over rulings blocking parts of his aggressive agenda. Here's the White House Press Secretary.

District court judges and liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump's basic executive authority. We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law.

District court judges and liberal districts across the country are abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump's basic executive authority. We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law.

The complaint to the d C Circuit's chief judge accuses federal Judge An Arrayes of repeatedly violating the official code of con for district court judges by inappropriately questioning a government lawyer about his religious beliefs and trying to embarrass him with a rhetorical exercise during an exchange about discrimination. Judge Rayes, who's only been on the bench two years, is currently weighing a request by six transgender service members for a preliminary injunction that would put Trump's executive order banning transgender troops on hold while their case challenging it proceeds. Joining me is an expert in legal ethics, Stephen Geller is a professor at and YU Law School. So the AG's chief of staff, Chad Mazel, wrote this letter of complaint to the chief judge of the DC's circuit. The hearing has been described as heated at times, and reportedly the judge repeatedly raised her voice. I mean, how far can a judge go? Where's the line?

The complaint to the d C Circuit's chief judge accuses federal Judge An Arrayes of repeatedly violating the official code of con for district court judges by inappropriately questioning a government lawyer about his religious beliefs and trying to embarrass him with a rhetorical exercise during an exchange about discrimination. Judge Rayes, who's only been on the bench two years, is currently weighing a request by six transgender service members for a preliminary injunction that would put Trump's executive order banning transgender troops on hold while their case challenging it proceeds. Joining me is an expert in legal ethics, Stephen Geller is a professor at and YU Law School. So the AG's chief of staff, Chad Mazel, wrote this letter of complaint to the chief judge of the DC's circuit. The hearing has been described as heated at times, and reportedly the judge repeatedly raised her voice. I mean, how far can a judge go? Where's the line?

Well, there is no single line. Every incident to be evaluated based on the facts in the incident. One of the problems is what we don't have, and what Mizell doesn't have, is an audio recording, because the audio recording may reveal a context somewhat different from what we see on a page. If we're talking about raising voices and fiery language, an audio recording will help understand what exactly is meant, and it will help us understand whether conducts or speech that is allegedly a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct of federal judges was provoked by a lawyer. That happens not so much now, but at one point lawyers were much more willing to provoke female judges than male judges. That's declined obviously in light of what's gone on in the profession of the last twenty five years. So the bottom line is there is no line. It depends very much on context.

Well, there is no single line. Every incident to be evaluated based on the facts in the incident. One of the problems is what we don't have, and what Mizell doesn't have, is an audio recording, because the audio recording may reveal a context somewhat different from what we see on a page. If we're talking about raising voices and fiery language, an audio recording will help understand what exactly is meant, and it will help us understand whether conducts or speech that is allegedly a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct of federal judges was provoked by a lawyer. That happens not so much now, but at one point lawyers were much more willing to provoke female judges than male judges. That's declined obviously in light of what's gone on in the profession of the last twenty five years. So the bottom line is there is no line. It depends very much on context.

So it appeared as if she wasn't getting the answers that she needed, perhaps from the Justice Department's lawyer. For example, she was asking him about what radical gender ideology means, and he said he was loathed to speculate, and she says, it's not like I randomly picked you off the street. You're the government's representative here. So it seems like in different ways she was asking questions that he either didn't want to answer or couldn't answer right.

So it appeared as if she wasn't getting the answers that she needed, perhaps from the Justice Department's lawyer. For example, she was asking him about what radical gender ideology means, and he said he was loathed to speculate, and she says, it's not like I randomly picked you off the street. You're the government's representative here. So it seems like in different ways she was asking questions that he either didn't want to answer or couldn't answer right.

Well. It is on that topic that Mizelle is on the weakest ground, because earlier this led it to the Chief Judge. He says an issue he had during the hearing was simply rightness and success on the merits close quote. Those are not simple concepts, and looking into each of those issues can warrant a judge asking for a lot of information. Mizelle seems to think that the information she asked about when outside the boundaries of the purpose of the hearing. But the topics he describes, ripeness and success on the merits are almost boundary less. They have very few boundaries that where a judge might be inquisitive and wish to note the lawyer's response. That's number one. Number two. Even if the judge asks questions which to the lawyers seem to be far afield of minor or no relevance, that's not a disciplinary or ethical issues. The question of the relationship between the judges question and the issues as the argument is ultimately a question that the judge has to answer for herself. It does not entail a rule violation how the judge chooses to ask or answer those questions.

Well. It is on that topic that Mizelle is on the weakest ground, because earlier this led it to the Chief Judge. He says an issue he had during the hearing was simply rightness and success on the merits close quote. Those are not simple concepts, and looking into each of those issues can warrant a judge asking for a lot of information. Mizelle seems to think that the information she asked about when outside the boundaries of the purpose of the hearing. But the topics he describes, ripeness and success on the merits are almost boundary less. They have very few boundaries that where a judge might be inquisitive and wish to note the lawyer's response. That's number one. Number two. Even if the judge asks questions which to the lawyers seem to be far afield of minor or no relevance, that's not a disciplinary or ethical issues. The question of the relationship between the judges question and the issues as the argument is ultimately a question that the judge has to answer for herself. It does not entail a rule violation how the judge chooses to ask or answer those questions.

Some of the headlines and news articles about the hearing were like judge bless Justice Department attorney. Judge which grills Justice Department attorney? And we know some judges sometimes yell, So let's say she did yell at him. Is that an ethical violation?

Some of the headlines and news articles about the hearing were like judge bless Justice Department attorney. Judge which grills Justice Department attorney? And we know some judges sometimes yell, So let's say she did yell at him. Is that an ethical violation?

No, no, it's not. I mean, you don't want to yell at lawyers. You don't want lawyers yelling at the judge. It doesn't help public confidence in the administration of justice. On the other hand, we're dealing with human beings who gets frustrated and angry. Both lawyers and judges may raise their voice, they use language they later regret, and so you have to create allowances for that. That's universally recognized as something that will happen when you're dealing with a human institution. So behavior along those lines standing alone will not warrant any kind of response from the disciplinary mechanism. It could be such that this judge routinely jack guises or shows anger towards lawyers, is impolite, dis courteous overall rate of time, and at some point they might be need for the Chief Judge to step in in and have a conversation, but that doesn't come through in one appearance before the judge well.

No, no, it's not. I mean, you don't want to yell at lawyers. You don't want lawyers yelling at the judge. It doesn't help public confidence in the administration of justice. On the other hand, we're dealing with human beings who gets frustrated and angry. Both lawyers and judges may raise their voice, they use language they later regret, and so you have to create allowances for that. That's universally recognized as something that will happen when you're dealing with a human institution. So behavior along those lines standing alone will not warrant any kind of response from the disciplinary mechanism. It could be such that this judge routinely jack guises or shows anger towards lawyers, is impolite, dis courteous overall rate of time, and at some point they might be need for the Chief Judge to step in in and have a conversation, but that doesn't come through in one appearance before the judge well.

In fact, this judge is known for her stern rebukes of lawyers on both sides. Earlier this month, she rebuked former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, who's representing the eight government inspector generals who were fired, and she went so far as to threaten the plaintiffs with court sanctions if they didn't immediately withdraw their emergency request, which I thought was odd because former solicitor generals usually garner a level of respect from judges.

In fact, this judge is known for her stern rebukes of lawyers on both sides. Earlier this month, she rebuked former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, who's representing the eight government inspector generals who were fired, and she went so far as to threaten the plaintiffs with court sanctions if they didn't immediately withdraw their emergency request, which I thought was odd because former solicitor generals usually garner a level of respect from judges.

Judges have to realize that they have all the power in the courtroom, so they can be quiet, they could be reticent. They don't have to raise their voices. They've got the power. They also have to realize that the lawyers who are talking to them are representing the client. They are not the using party. The lawyers are simply making an argument, maybe an argument they disagree with, but they're making an argument. And it's unfortunate when judges treat the lawyer personally as an adversary of the judge, and unfortunately, again that happens. One hopes that doesn't happen too often. It's tolerable if it's rare, because again, it's a human institution, but judges have to keep that in mind.

Judges have to realize that they have all the power in the courtroom, so they can be quiet, they could be reticent. They don't have to raise their voices. They've got the power. They also have to realize that the lawyers who are talking to them are representing the client. They are not the using party. The lawyers are simply making an argument, maybe an argument they disagree with, but they're making an argument. And it's unfortunate when judges treat the lawyer personally as an adversary of the judge, and unfortunately, again that happens. One hopes that doesn't happen too often. It's tolerable if it's rare, because again, it's a human institution, but judges have to keep that in mind.

One of the things that Justice Department took issue with was Reyes using an analogy during the hearing about what Jesus would say if transgender people were banned from homeless shelters. Quote, what do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless, that we're not going to allow them into homeless shelters over.

One of the things that Justice Department took issue with was Reyes using an analogy during the hearing about what Jesus would say if transgender people were banned from homeless shelters. Quote, what do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless, that we're not going to allow them into homeless shelters over.

The line that was extremely odd. Jesus should not come up in an argument in court. Let it's about religion or the religion clauses of the Constitution. On the other hand, Trump said when he issued the executive order that he's protecting quote Christians against affirming radical transgender ideology against their faith. I mean Trump raised the issue of religion, in particular Christianity and explaining his justifications for the executive order, and so you could see where a judge would be concerned that the impetus for the executive order was religiously based, which would create constitutional problems, and choose to ask the question of the DOJ lawyer that she did. Even then she would have been better off not asking that question. But in the mix of events, you could see where a judge might have the religion dimension of the episode in her mind. We should also recognize, I think it is really important to say, as we look at this letter and eventually perhaps read the transcript, we should recognize that there are some reason not fully to credit the alarm and complaint of the Justice Department. There is obviously a foot an effort by the administration by Trump by musk by vance to go after the courts. I mean, it's quite clear that the administration sees other power centers as inhibitory of its long range political goals, and one such power center is the Jdiary. In addition, Republicans and Congress have now introduced I think two articles of impeachment is two different district judges based on their ruling, which should not be a basis for impeachment. Their solutions to a ruling that it is pleases is to appeal. But the fact that the administration and its spokespeople and its adjunct groups are going after the judges puts this letter from Mazelle in a less charitable light then we might otherwise read it. And I think that has to be understood.

The line that was extremely odd. Jesus should not come up in an argument in court. Let it's about religion or the religion clauses of the Constitution. On the other hand, Trump said when he issued the executive order that he's protecting quote Christians against affirming radical transgender ideology against their faith. I mean Trump raised the issue of religion, in particular Christianity and explaining his justifications for the executive order, and so you could see where a judge would be concerned that the impetus for the executive order was religiously based, which would create constitutional problems, and choose to ask the question of the DOJ lawyer that she did. Even then she would have been better off not asking that question. But in the mix of events, you could see where a judge might have the religion dimension of the episode in her mind. We should also recognize, I think it is really important to say, as we look at this letter and eventually perhaps read the transcript, we should recognize that there are some reason not fully to credit the alarm and complaint of the Justice Department. There is obviously a foot an effort by the administration by Trump by musk by vance to go after the courts. I mean, it's quite clear that the administration sees other power centers as inhibitory of its long range political goals, and one such power center is the Jdiary. In addition, Republicans and Congress have now introduced I think two articles of impeachment is two different district judges based on their ruling, which should not be a basis for impeachment. Their solutions to a ruling that it is pleases is to appeal. But the fact that the administration and its spokespeople and its adjunct groups are going after the judges puts this letter from Mazelle in a less charitable light then we might otherwise read it. And I think that has to be understood.

She said we're dealing with unadulterated animis because of Trump's two genders executive or and she said there aren't just two genders. Is it unusual for a judge to come out and make statements like that.

She said we're dealing with unadulterated animis because of Trump's two genders executive or and she said there aren't just two genders. Is it unusual for a judge to come out and make statements like that.

Yeah, I think it is unusual, especially since that issue may become part of the litigation. Whatever it means, whatever it means to say there are two genders or there are not just two genders, that may become part of the ultimate legal reasoning, So it was inadvisable to stay flat out if the transcript reveals that that's what she did, a proposition that may turn out to be in dispute in the course of the litigation.

Yeah, I think it is unusual, especially since that issue may become part of the litigation. Whatever it means, whatever it means to say there are two genders or there are not just two genders, that may become part of the ultimate legal reasoning, So it was inadvisable to stay flat out if the transcript reveals that that's what she did, a proposition that may turn out to be in dispute in the course of the litigation.

If you take this in isolation forgetting about the attacks on judges and all that, how odd is it to file a misconduct complaint after a two day hearing when the judge hasn't even ruled yet.

If you take this in isolation forgetting about the attacks on judges and all that, how odd is it to file a misconduct complaint after a two day hearing when the judge hasn't even ruled yet.

Extremely odd. It's a knowing's interest, not the court's interest, not the client's interest, not the lawyer's interest. To have courtroom colloquy this way.

Extremely odd. It's a knowing's interest, not the court's interest, not the client's interest, not the lawyer's interest. To have courtroom colloquy this way.

Is there something like a list of criteria that the judge will use or a grading scale to determine if she's guilty of misconduct or not.

Is there something like a list of criteria that the judge will use or a grading scale to determine if she's guilty of misconduct or not.

Yeah, well, first of all, she's a new judge. That has to be acknowledged. I think that a judge with more years on the bench might have behaved differently, So we have to consider that. But what will happen here is maybe e streeen of us and we'll have a conversation with her. That is what the judicial conduct rules envision. That's what the discipline rules in vision. As an appropriate resolution for this complaint. So at most, and maybe not even that Shrinahasen will sit down with Judge Reyes have a conversation about what may have gone wrong, what she should be conscious of. Maybe that will happen, but that will be the most significant reaction by the Circuit to this event.

Yeah, well, first of all, she's a new judge. That has to be acknowledged. I think that a judge with more years on the bench might have behaved differently, So we have to consider that. But what will happen here is maybe e streeen of us and we'll have a conversation with her. That is what the judicial conduct rules envision. That's what the discipline rules in vision. As an appropriate resolution for this complaint. So at most, and maybe not even that Shrinahasen will sit down with Judge Reyes have a conversation about what may have gone wrong, what she should be conscious of. Maybe that will happen, but that will be the most significant reaction by the Circuit to this event.

So there's no chance that he would take her off the case.

So there's no chance that he would take her off the case.

Oh no, no, there's no chance he would take her off the case. He himself cannot take her off the case. You have to go through a hearing, and the judicial counsel, which is a group larger than than him, might be able to persuade her to leave the case. She's not leaving the case unless she decides she wants to, or unless the government now chooses to make a motion to disqualify her based on actual bias or some other provision of the disqualification rule. This complaint is not a motion to disqualify. That may happen, and then she'll have to address that. But her decision not to accuse herself would be final unless the government can persuade the DC Circuit to mandain this her or to take an interlocatory appeal to get her off the case. I see that as a real, cow fetched possibility. I don't think it will happen.

Oh no, no, there's no chance he would take her off the case. He himself cannot take her off the case. You have to go through a hearing, and the judicial counsel, which is a group larger than than him, might be able to persuade her to leave the case. She's not leaving the case unless she decides she wants to, or unless the government now chooses to make a motion to disqualify her based on actual bias or some other provision of the disqualification rule. This complaint is not a motion to disqualify. That may happen, and then she'll have to address that. But her decision not to accuse herself would be final unless the government can persuade the DC Circuit to mandain this her or to take an interlocatory appeal to get her off the case. I see that as a real, cow fetched possibility. I don't think it will happen.

Do you think the fact that she's the first openly LGBTQ judge in the DC circuit will play in.

Do you think the fact that she's the first openly LGBTQ judge in the DC circuit will play in.

Anywhere not overtly. No one's going to say that. I won't say that. It's an obvious fact that people will think about. Some people might speculate that she was seemingly hostile to the government's position because of her own sexual orientation. That may be true, it may be false, but it's not going to be litigated. Well, maybe I should say it could be litigated if there's a motion to accuse based on her conduct at this hearing. The government, in its motion has an add on argument that her inability to rule without bias has been shown at the hearing so far and is aggravated by her own position as a lesbian. Then this government, certainly this administration, may choose to make that point. I think it would be inadvisable from a pure least strategic point of view, but I don't put it past them, and I just want to.

Anywhere not overtly. No one's going to say that. I won't say that. It's an obvious fact that people will think about. Some people might speculate that she was seemingly hostile to the government's position because of her own sexual orientation. That may be true, it may be false, but it's not going to be litigated. Well, maybe I should say it could be litigated if there's a motion to accuse based on her conduct at this hearing. The government, in its motion has an add on argument that her inability to rule without bias has been shown at the hearing so far and is aggravated by her own position as a lesbian. Then this government, certainly this administration, may choose to make that point. I think it would be inadvisable from a pure least strategic point of view, but I don't put it past them, and I just want to.

Point out that, no matter what else she said during the hearing, at the end, she complimented the Justice Department attorney on his defense, and she declined to act quickly on the injunction requested by the transgender military. She's going to wait until the Defense Secretary issues his formal guidance on how he'll implement Trump's ban. Another hearing on the request has been set for March third. We'll see if there are any fireworks at that time. Thanks so much for being on the show. That's Professor Steven Gillers of NYU Law School. President Tromp has long pushed the idea that the United States will buy Greenland from Denmark. He talked about it during his first term in twenty nineteen.

Point out that, no matter what else she said during the hearing, at the end, she complimented the Justice Department attorney on his defense, and she declined to act quickly on the injunction requested by the transgender military. She's going to wait until the Defense Secretary issues his formal guidance on how he'll implement Trump's ban. Another hearing on the request has been set for March third. We'll see if there are any fireworks at that time. Thanks so much for being on the show. That's Professor Steven Gillers of NYU Law School. President Tromp has long pushed the idea that the United States will buy Greenland from Denmark. He talked about it during his first term in twenty nineteen.

Essentially, it's a large real estate deal. A lot of things could be done. It's hurting Denmark very badly because they're losing almost seven hundred million dollars a year carrying it, so they carry it at a great loss.

Essentially, it's a large real estate deal. A lot of things could be done. It's hurting Denmark very badly because they're losing almost seven hundred million dollars a year carrying it, so they carry it at a great loss.

And reiterated it last month.

And reiterated it last month.

People really don't even know if Denmark has an illegal right to it, but if they do, they should give it up because we needed financial security. That's for the free world. I'm talking about protecting the free world.

People really don't even know if Denmark has an illegal right to it, but if they do, they should give it up because we needed financial security. That's for the free world. I'm talking about protecting the free world.

Tromp has also been threatening to reassert US control over the Panama Canal accusing Panama of charge high rates to use the ship passage.

Tromp has also been threatening to reassert US control over the Panama Canal accusing Panama of charge high rates to use the ship passage.

If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full, quickly and without question.

If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full, quickly and without question.

And he now says that the US will not own Gaza, but rather we'll take it.

And he now says that the US will not own Gaza, but rather we'll take it.

We're not going to buy anything.

We're not going to buy anything.

We're going to have it, and we're going to keep it, and we're going to make sure that there's going to be peace, and there's not going to be any problem, and nobody's going to question it, and we're going to run it very properly.

We're going to have it, and we're going to keep it, and we're going to make sure that there's going to be peace, and there's not going to be any problem, and nobody's going to question it, and we're going to run it very properly.

Of course, Trump has also said he'll make Canada the fifty first state. The leaders of Denmark, Panama, and Canada have all shot down Trump's annexation notions. Joining me is an expert in international law. Monica Hakimi, a professor at Columbia Law School, start by telling us what the international law is regarding annexation of another country.

Of course, Trump has also said he'll make Canada the fifty first state. The leaders of Denmark, Panama, and Canada have all shot down Trump's annexation notions. Joining me is an expert in international law. Monica Hakimi, a professor at Columbia Law School, start by telling us what the international law is regarding annexation of another country.

Well, international law establishes pretty absolute prohibition against annexations, which can be defined as the forcible taking of the territory assigned to another state or similar such entity.

Well, international law establishes pretty absolute prohibition against annexations, which can be defined as the forcible taking of the territory assigned to another state or similar such entity.

And how long has that concept been part of international law.

And how long has that concept been part of international law.

Yeah, that's a good question. There's some debate about it. It was a long time coming. International law used to actually permit or at least condone annexations, So it used to provide that a state that established control over a territory was entitled to sovereign title over that territory. But through a process of normative development that took basically over one hundred years, and that solidified I would say in really nineteen seventy, after World War Two, and after the wave of decolonization that followed it, with what's known as the UN General Assembly Declaration of Friendly Relations. And that is when I would say the prohibition in its most absolute and clearest form finally really solidified. Others would date it back to the un Charter itself, because the un Charter did, of course make significant moves in this respect as well. I just think that the un Charter left some questions open, and in fact, I demonstrate in some research that I've recently done with Ingrid Bronk at Vanderbilt that the un Charter did leave a few questions open that then tended to get sorted out in the process of decolonization and with the nineteen seventy Friendly Relations Declaration, when.

Yeah, that's a good question. There's some debate about it. It was a long time coming. International law used to actually permit or at least condone annexations, So it used to provide that a state that established control over a territory was entitled to sovereign title over that territory. But through a process of normative development that took basically over one hundred years, and that solidified I would say in really nineteen seventy, after World War Two, and after the wave of decolonization that followed it, with what's known as the UN General Assembly Declaration of Friendly Relations. And that is when I would say the prohibition in its most absolute and clearest form finally really solidified. Others would date it back to the un Charter itself, because the un Charter did, of course make significant moves in this respect as well. I just think that the un Charter left some questions open, and in fact, I demonstrate in some research that I've recently done with Ingrid Bronk at Vanderbilt that the un Charter did leave a few questions open that then tended to get sorted out in the process of decolonization and with the nineteen seventy Friendly Relations Declaration, when.

Was the last time that the US annexed another country or a territory.

Was the last time that the US annexed another country or a territory.

No permanent member of the Security Council, and that of course includes the United States ever used force to forcibly ennect the territory of another state until Russia did in twenty fourteen against Korea in Ukraine.

No permanent member of the Security Council, and that of course includes the United States ever used force to forcibly ennect the territory of another state until Russia did in twenty fourteen against Korea in Ukraine.

Let's talk about the areas or countries that Trump is interested in individually, since they all present different circumstances. So he's pushed the idea that the United States will buy Greenland from Denmark, talked about it first in twenty nineteen, and he's talking about it recently. And Greenland is self governing, but Denmark handles its foreign policy and national defense. Right now, Greenland and Denmark are opposed to that notion, But for argument's sake, let's say they did. Is that doable a purchase?

Let's talk about the areas or countries that Trump is interested in individually, since they all present different circumstances. So he's pushed the idea that the United States will buy Greenland from Denmark, talked about it first in twenty nineteen, and he's talking about it recently. And Greenland is self governing, but Denmark handles its foreign policy and national defense. Right now, Greenland and Denmark are opposed to that notion, But for argument's sake, let's say they did. Is that doable a purchase?

Well, international law actually permits transfers of territory with the consent of both parties. So if Greenland or Denmark, which conducts its foreign policy, decided to consent to the transfer of territory, then there arguably would be an argument that that would be permissible through some exchange of cash. But it's clear that neither Greenland nor Denmark is interested in that deal. And so to the extense that the President continues to make threats that he will, you know, get Greenland in one way or another, then that is clearly an exercise of coercion and an effort to circumvent these really settles and fundamental norms of international law that provide for the sanctity of territorial borders.

Well, international law actually permits transfers of territory with the consent of both parties. So if Greenland or Denmark, which conducts its foreign policy, decided to consent to the transfer of territory, then there arguably would be an argument that that would be permissible through some exchange of cash. But it's clear that neither Greenland nor Denmark is interested in that deal. And so to the extense that the President continues to make threats that he will, you know, get Greenland in one way or another, then that is clearly an exercise of coercion and an effort to circumvent these really settles and fundamental norms of international law that provide for the sanctity of territorial borders.

Trump has also been threatening to reassert control over the Panama Canal, and the President of Panama has said every square meter of the Panama Canal is Panama's and will remain so. So tell us a little about the history of the Panama Canal.

Trump has also been threatening to reassert control over the Panama Canal, and the President of Panama has said every square meter of the Panama Canal is Panama's and will remain so. So tell us a little about the history of the Panama Canal.

Basically, you know, we continue to hold on to the Panama Canal and then through a series of treaties, handed it back over to Panama and provided that the canal should be used for you know, there should be a certain non discrimination use of the canal. But it is no longer sort of subject to US authority or sovereignty. It is instead subject to Panamas. And if Trump were to seed the canal and take it as again sort of like a US property that would again be in violation of the prohibition of annexations.

Basically, you know, we continue to hold on to the Panama Canal and then through a series of treaties, handed it back over to Panama and provided that the canal should be used for you know, there should be a certain non discrimination use of the canal. But it is no longer sort of subject to US authority or sovereignty. It is instead subject to Panamas. And if Trump were to seed the canal and take it as again sort of like a US property that would again be in violation of the prohibition of annexations.

You would have to send troops there, which would involve a congressional resolution.

You would have to send troops there, which would involve a congressional resolution.

There's been some debate for the past couple decades, i would say, about the exact allocation of authority between the President and the Congress on decisions to deploy military forces abroad. The Executive Branch has long, and I would say, with increasing insistence, taken the position that it may deploy troops abroad without a congressional declaration of war in many circumstances that don't amount to what sort of by common parlance, might be thought of as like a full throated troops on the ground, long in duration war. And so if the United States were to conduct a sort of some kind of surgical operation, it would be within what the executive branch has aimed as being within his authority for some time now. To say that the executive branch has claimed it does not mean to say that it is actually the lot, just that the Supreme Court has not weighed in on the question of exactly how to define the scope of the presidents versus the Congress's authorities in this space.

There's been some debate for the past couple decades, i would say, about the exact allocation of authority between the President and the Congress on decisions to deploy military forces abroad. The Executive Branch has long, and I would say, with increasing insistence, taken the position that it may deploy troops abroad without a congressional declaration of war in many circumstances that don't amount to what sort of by common parlance, might be thought of as like a full throated troops on the ground, long in duration war. And so if the United States were to conduct a sort of some kind of surgical operation, it would be within what the executive branch has aimed as being within his authority for some time now. To say that the executive branch has claimed it does not mean to say that it is actually the lot, just that the Supreme Court has not weighed in on the question of exactly how to define the scope of the presidents versus the Congress's authorities in this space.

What about Trump's plans for Gaza, that.

What about Trump's plans for Gaza, that.

Too, would be a clear violation of the prohibition of annexations. In fact, the International Court of Justice just issued an opinion in June asserting that Israel's conduct in relation to the West Bank and to a lesser extent, but still the Gaza Strip, amounted to an annexation and violation of international law. And Israel at least has a historical claim in a way that the United States, of course does not. But the same principle would apply to the United States. Just as Israel may not take that land as its own, neither may the United States.

Too, would be a clear violation of the prohibition of annexations. In fact, the International Court of Justice just issued an opinion in June asserting that Israel's conduct in relation to the West Bank and to a lesser extent, but still the Gaza Strip, amounted to an annexation and violation of international law. And Israel at least has a historical claim in a way that the United States, of course does not. But the same principle would apply to the United States. Just as Israel may not take that land as its own, neither may the United States.

Coming up, we'll talk about what these annexations plans could mean for the stability of international relations. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. I've been talking to Columbia Law School professor Monica Hakimi about President Donald Trump's talk about annex Saint Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Gaza, for example. Recently, Trump said that the United States will not own Gaza, but will take it and take care of it.

Coming up, we'll talk about what these annexations plans could mean for the stability of international relations. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. I've been talking to Columbia Law School professor Monica Hakimi about President Donald Trump's talk about annex Saint Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Gaza, for example. Recently, Trump said that the United States will not own Gaza, but will take it and take care of it.

With the United States being in control of that piece of land, a fairly large piece of land, you're gonna have stability in the middle East for the first time, and the Palestinians or the people that live now in Gaza will be living beautifully in another location.

With the United States being in control of that piece of land, a fairly large piece of land, you're gonna have stability in the middle East for the first time, and the Palestinians or the people that live now in Gaza will be living beautifully in another location.

They're going to be living safely.

They're going to be living safely.

They're not going to be killed, murdered and having to leave every ten years.

They're not going to be killed, murdered and having to leave every ten years.

The talks about Gaza in the White House between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nettan Yahoo didn't seem to include the notion of other country objecting.

The talks about Gaza in the White House between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nettan Yahoo didn't seem to include the notion of other country objecting.

One of the things that I think is really worth underscoring here is that the United States is now not only threatening to act a violation of international law, and not just of any international law. But again, the prohibition of annexations is really foundation to the contemporary legal system. And I would say to you the way many people understand the world, which is organized around a set of states, each of which has authority to make most decisions in its own orders and then to enter into agreements with other states on their relations with one another. The prohibition of venexations undergrads that entire legal and political structure. Because, of course, if states may just take the territory of other states, then all of the pretenses of sort of having independent states, each which governments authority in its own territory becomes much much more fragile to the extent that it is realizable at all. So this is a really, really foundational norm of our current world order, and in making these claims that we are going to no longer abide by it, we are no longer asserting that we're going to violate this very very foundational norm. But we are also in at the same time, saying that we are no longer going to do what we historically have done the lion's share of doing, which is to put in place a security architecture that is going to ensure that others don't violate this norm. So at the same time that we are saying we are going to you know, we might take Canada, we might take Greenland, we might take Gaza, we are also saying and we're not going to protect you know, Europe or Ukraine from others who might want to take those that territory. And so we're sort of doing a one two punch simultaneously, which is what is so incredibly destabilizing about the way in which the United States is conducting itself.

One of the things that I think is really worth underscoring here is that the United States is now not only threatening to act a violation of international law, and not just of any international law. But again, the prohibition of annexations is really foundation to the contemporary legal system. And I would say to you the way many people understand the world, which is organized around a set of states, each of which has authority to make most decisions in its own orders and then to enter into agreements with other states on their relations with one another. The prohibition of venexations undergrads that entire legal and political structure. Because, of course, if states may just take the territory of other states, then all of the pretenses of sort of having independent states, each which governments authority in its own territory becomes much much more fragile to the extent that it is realizable at all. So this is a really, really foundational norm of our current world order, and in making these claims that we are going to no longer abide by it, we are no longer asserting that we're going to violate this very very foundational norm. But we are also in at the same time, saying that we are no longer going to do what we historically have done the lion's share of doing, which is to put in place a security architecture that is going to ensure that others don't violate this norm. So at the same time that we are saying we are going to you know, we might take Canada, we might take Greenland, we might take Gaza, we are also saying and we're not going to protect you know, Europe or Ukraine from others who might want to take those that territory. And so we're sort of doing a one two punch simultaneously, which is what is so incredibly destabilizing about the way in which the United States is conducting itself.

Else right now, as you've said, annexation or seizing other countries is not the world order that we're used to, but is there a danger that it could become more prevalent.

Else right now, as you've said, annexation or seizing other countries is not the world order that we're used to, but is there a danger that it could become more prevalent.

I am on record as saying, you know, my view is I think it's very, very often when people think about law and international law to focus on the ways in which it is limited in its enforcement capabilities, especially in the face of powerful actors acting and violation of it. But a more fundamental aspect of the international legal system is the way in which it has been established and maintained disproportionately by and disproportionately for the benefit of but are clearly not exclusively for the benefit of the United States. So now the United States has both doing both simultaneously. It's not only acting and consistently with certain norms, which you know it has long done and been criticized as doing in discreete contexts at a time the two thousand and three Irack Wars probably the most obvious examples. But it is also taking lots of steps to no longer do the sort of support that it is historically done, and that support has been like critical to maintaining this basic world order in which again we have a bunch of states independent, you know, formally independent of one another, each with authority in its own territory, and I think the implications for the kind of world that we're going to see in the next sort of ten years are extraordinary, and that most Americans don't quite appreciate the extent of it, because most, I think, tend to assume that what happens outside our borders is very much shielded from what happens internally, and that what happens outside is more or less stable because it has been for a while.

I am on record as saying, you know, my view is I think it's very, very often when people think about law and international law to focus on the ways in which it is limited in its enforcement capabilities, especially in the face of powerful actors acting and violation of it. But a more fundamental aspect of the international legal system is the way in which it has been established and maintained disproportionately by and disproportionately for the benefit of but are clearly not exclusively for the benefit of the United States. So now the United States has both doing both simultaneously. It's not only acting and consistently with certain norms, which you know it has long done and been criticized as doing in discreete contexts at a time the two thousand and three Irack Wars probably the most obvious examples. But it is also taking lots of steps to no longer do the sort of support that it is historically done, and that support has been like critical to maintaining this basic world order in which again we have a bunch of states independent, you know, formally independent of one another, each with authority in its own territory, and I think the implications for the kind of world that we're going to see in the next sort of ten years are extraordinary, and that most Americans don't quite appreciate the extent of it, because most, I think, tend to assume that what happens outside our borders is very much shielded from what happens internally, and that what happens outside is more or less stable because it has been for a while.

Give me the worst case scenario in the next ten years.

Give me the worst case scenario in the next ten years.

Worst case scenario maybe World War three, maybe nuclear war. Other bad case scenarios include the return of constant just territorial and other conflicts without any sense of shared principles or norms or understandings of how states and other entities might work collaboratively together, and certainly not on issues that are like existential threats like climate change. Another possibility might be spheres of influence, in which the United States tries to dominate particular other actors. Russia tries to dominate Central and Eastern Europe, and China tries to dominate and ends up dominating much of Asia, including many who now have close ties to the United States. Massive bloodshed in the Middle East in an effort to redraw the map, many of whom in the region are quite unhappy with the current map. So there are lots of bad case scenarios that one really imagine. It seems to me this is not like science fiction.

Worst case scenario maybe World War three, maybe nuclear war. Other bad case scenarios include the return of constant just territorial and other conflicts without any sense of shared principles or norms or understandings of how states and other entities might work collaboratively together, and certainly not on issues that are like existential threats like climate change. Another possibility might be spheres of influence, in which the United States tries to dominate particular other actors. Russia tries to dominate Central and Eastern Europe, and China tries to dominate and ends up dominating much of Asia, including many who now have close ties to the United States. Massive bloodshed in the Middle East in an effort to redraw the map, many of whom in the region are quite unhappy with the current map. So there are lots of bad case scenarios that one really imagine. It seems to me this is not like science fiction.

Now.

Now.

These scenarios are all sort of within the realm of possibility of the t onlines that we're seeing continue.

These scenarios are all sort of within the realm of possibility of the t onlines that we're seeing continue.

So sort of as an indication of what can happen. Let's talk about Ukraine. And we saw Trump and the Russians meeting and Ukraine wasn't even in the room at that time.

So sort of as an indication of what can happen. Let's talk about Ukraine. And we saw Trump and the Russians meeting and Ukraine wasn't even in the room at that time.

And that's you know, that's problematic if you take seriously these like basic tendents of statehood to which I referred earlier, which are like, this is Ukraine's business, Ukraine ought to have a say, and what happens internally. It's also problematic just for reasons of you know, basic transparency and governance. It's really hard to know as an American what it is the government is trying to accomplish or why. It seems clear that it is fundamentally changing its disposition towards the world without explaining what its endgame is exactly, but instead trading and information. So there are certainly sort of like also problems as Americans for what is happening. And of course Europe is extremely concerned that with the realliance, what the US seems to be doing with some kind of realliance with Russia, that Europe's own security will seriously be at risk. And you know, jud and I say all of this cognizant of the very real concerns that many Americans have about the extent of our security commitments around the world. And I myself think, you know, like, these security commitments are over extensive, and we need to find ways to shift the burden sharing balance for sort of like the collective defense of states with whom we have close relationships and in cultural, economics, political and other ties. It's just that this is being done extraordinarily dramatically and in ways that are likely to leave many with whom we do have those close relationships very very seriously at risk, include in the Ukraine.

And that's you know, that's problematic if you take seriously these like basic tendents of statehood to which I referred earlier, which are like, this is Ukraine's business, Ukraine ought to have a say, and what happens internally. It's also problematic just for reasons of you know, basic transparency and governance. It's really hard to know as an American what it is the government is trying to accomplish or why. It seems clear that it is fundamentally changing its disposition towards the world without explaining what its endgame is exactly, but instead trading and information. So there are certainly sort of like also problems as Americans for what is happening. And of course Europe is extremely concerned that with the realliance, what the US seems to be doing with some kind of realliance with Russia, that Europe's own security will seriously be at risk. And you know, jud and I say all of this cognizant of the very real concerns that many Americans have about the extent of our security commitments around the world. And I myself think, you know, like, these security commitments are over extensive, and we need to find ways to shift the burden sharing balance for sort of like the collective defense of states with whom we have close relationships and in cultural, economics, political and other ties. It's just that this is being done extraordinarily dramatically and in ways that are likely to leave many with whom we do have those close relationships very very seriously at risk, include in the Ukraine.

Well, it's the same philosophy that's being used in the United States sort of do everything quickly and break things if you have to, and then see what the consequences are. Are the courts going to hold you back? It seems like the same kind of philosophy, only you're dealing with other countries and international order.

Well, it's the same philosophy that's being used in the United States sort of do everything quickly and break things if you have to, and then see what the consequences are. Are the courts going to hold you back? It seems like the same kind of philosophy, only you're dealing with other countries and international order.

Yeah, I completely agree, and I think actually the two are deeply, deeply connected because so much of our domestic, legal, political, economic systems are in fact and twined with an international system in which the United States played a particular role and did particular things, and so breaking the international is also a useful way of breaking the domestic and vice versa, those two things. You know, the breaking of one facilitates the breaking of the other.

Yeah, I completely agree, and I think actually the two are deeply, deeply connected because so much of our domestic, legal, political, economic systems are in fact and twined with an international system in which the United States played a particular role and did particular things, and so breaking the international is also a useful way of breaking the domestic and vice versa, those two things. You know, the breaking of one facilitates the breaking of the other.

So let's say after four years a president is elected who wants to go back to NATO and the old world order. Can what Trump's done in these four years be reversed?

So let's say after four years a president is elected who wants to go back to NATO and the old world order. Can what Trump's done in these four years be reversed?

My view is that it will be extraordinary only difficult, is not impossible to try to recreate what has been broken in four years, both domestically and internationally. I think it's very, very unlikely that, for example, Europe is going to trust the United States or be in a position to continue working as closely with or even dependence on the United States in the same way that it has been, and so we're going to have to figure out how to create something different at that point and move in a different direction. Already, we're saying Europe distancing itself from the United States, trying to figure out how it's going to reorient itself in light of what it increasingly sees as an adversary in the United States as opposed to an ally.

My view is that it will be extraordinary only difficult, is not impossible to try to recreate what has been broken in four years, both domestically and internationally. I think it's very, very unlikely that, for example, Europe is going to trust the United States or be in a position to continue working as closely with or even dependence on the United States in the same way that it has been, and so we're going to have to figure out how to create something different at that point and move in a different direction. Already, we're saying Europe distancing itself from the United States, trying to figure out how it's going to reorient itself in light of what it increasingly sees as an adversary in the United States as opposed to an ally.

Thanks so much for coming on the show, Monica. That's Monica Hakimi, a professor at Columbia Law School. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot com, Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg

Thanks so much for coming on the show, Monica. That's Monica Hakimi, a professor at Columbia Law School. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot com, Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg