Did you know that doge was originally created under Obama as the US Digital Service, So how did it become today's Doge. We'll ask that question to our next guest. Also, the Trump administration is facing something like over eighty lawsuits ranging from issues like refugees to birthright citizenships to doge's access to government databases? Will the left be able to hold up his agenda in the courts? Also, what's the Empowerment Control Act? I'm going to ask all these questions to our next guest, who is a brilliant legal mind. He is also the author of Lawless, The Miseducation of America's Elites, and he knows something about it because when he was at Georgetown Law he faced a four month investigation over a tweet. So what was that tweet and what was that investigation like? And what did he learn about the miseducation of America's elites during that time? His name is Ilia Shapiro. You've probably heard him, you see on TV, you read something that he's written, because he has written a lot. He's a brilliant legal mind and currently the Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and Director of Constitutional Studies. You have read his work, You've seen him on TV. The guy is brilliant. He's also done something like filed more than five hundred Front of the Court briefs in the Supreme Court, so he knows a thing or two about the law. It's a fascinating conversation with a fascinating guy. So stay tuned for Ilia Shapiro. Ilia Shapiro, I really appreciate you making the time. Obviously, there are a lot of lawsuits at the administration spacing and a lot of a lot of legal issues to get into, so I'm looking forward to having you break this all down for us. So I really appreciate you making the time my pleasure. So will you say something that surprised me that DOGE was originally created under Obama as the US Digital Service, So explain that, you know, why was it created then, and then how is it being used today as DOGE.

Did you know that doge was originally created under Obama as the US Digital Service, So how did it become today's Doge. We'll ask that question to our next guest. Also, the Trump administration is facing something like over eighty lawsuits ranging from issues like refugees to birthright citizenships to doge's access to government databases? Will the left be able to hold up his agenda in the courts? Also, what's the Empowerment Control Act? I'm going to ask all these questions to our next guest, who is a brilliant legal mind. He is also the author of Lawless, The Miseducation of America's Elites, and he knows something about it because when he was at Georgetown Law he faced a four month investigation over a tweet. So what was that tweet and what was that investigation like? And what did he learn about the miseducation of America's elites during that time? His name is Ilia Shapiro. You've probably heard him, you see on TV, you read something that he's written, because he has written a lot. He's a brilliant legal mind and currently the Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and Director of Constitutional Studies. You have read his work, You've seen him on TV. The guy is brilliant. He's also done something like filed more than five hundred Front of the Court briefs in the Supreme Court, so he knows a thing or two about the law. It's a fascinating conversation with a fascinating guy. So stay tuned for Ilia Shapiro. Ilia Shapiro, I really appreciate you making the time. Obviously, there are a lot of lawsuits at the administration spacing and a lot of a lot of legal issues to get into, so I'm looking forward to having you break this all down for us. So I really appreciate you making the time my pleasure. So will you say something that surprised me that DOGE was originally created under Obama as the US Digital Service, So explain that, you know, why was it created then, and then how is it being used today as DOGE.

Yeah, indeed, it was created under Obama as the US Digital Service to help federal agencies with their websites and other adaptations to big tech, to the Internet age. And it was an agency within an office within the Executive Office of the President, just like the White House Counsel's Office or the Council of Economic Advisors, or the there's an Office on Science and Technology, all of these things that are not Senate confirmed. They're just appointed by the president as staffers, aids, assistants on various issues. And what Trump did was rename the US Digital Service, changed the d from Digital to DOGE, and DOGE in turns stands for Department of Government Offficiency, and hired a bunch of people led by Elon Musk as special government employees. That's a technical legal term from the relevant statute, which means they're duly appointed to help with all sorts of digital stuff and to look at data from different agencies, and they're charged with cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse. So they are fully legally authorized. This is not just you know, Elon gave a bunch of money to Trump and therefore now gets to be some shadowy, I don't know, resputant figure with no legal authority. It's you know, certain things that DOGE might be trying to do, such as firing workers who have civil service protections, might run into legal heat. But for the most part, the mission, the structure, the authority of DOGE is not contestable.

Yeah, indeed, it was created under Obama as the US Digital Service to help federal agencies with their websites and other adaptations to big tech, to the Internet age. And it was an agency within an office within the Executive Office of the President, just like the White House Counsel's Office or the Council of Economic Advisors, or the there's an Office on Science and Technology, all of these things that are not Senate confirmed. They're just appointed by the president as staffers, aids, assistants on various issues. And what Trump did was rename the US Digital Service, changed the d from Digital to DOGE, and DOGE in turns stands for Department of Government Offficiency, and hired a bunch of people led by Elon Musk as special government employees. That's a technical legal term from the relevant statute, which means they're duly appointed to help with all sorts of digital stuff and to look at data from different agencies, and they're charged with cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse. So they are fully legally authorized. This is not just you know, Elon gave a bunch of money to Trump and therefore now gets to be some shadowy, I don't know, resputant figure with no legal authority. It's you know, certain things that DOGE might be trying to do, such as firing workers who have civil service protections, might run into legal heat. But for the most part, the mission, the structure, the authority of DOGE is not contestable.

You know, and we have seen that legal heat. I guess what limitation does doge face? You know, there have been lawsuits, particularly with access to certain databases, certain government databases. So are there limitations here or kind of walk us through the legal angles of all of that.

You know, and we have seen that legal heat. I guess what limitation does doge face? You know, there have been lawsuits, particularly with access to certain databases, certain government databases. So are there limitations here or kind of walk us through the legal angles of all of that.

Yeah, And the most recently Dose has been winning a series of judicial rulings. I think in the early stages, it was just so new that judges didn't know what to do with it, so they were issuing temporary restraining orders for you know, ten or fourteen days. And then they realized that it was improper to stop, say the Department of the Treasury Secretary, the Senate confirmed Treasury secretary or his agents from looking at payroll processing systems and things like that. That the what Trump was doing was wholly within What Musque was doing was wholly within the executive branch, and it is up to the executive to reorganize itself. There's some questions about, you know, are they not fulfilling what Congress legislated. Congress appropriated x million for you know, usaid, how can they not spend that that's called impoundment and it's illegal. Well, I mean, there was a pause and Congress didn't specify which specific contracts had to be funded, you know, the twenty thousand dollars for a transgender opera in Peru or something like that. The Congress doesn't micromanage like that, and so as long as the administration ends up spending the appropriated money by the end of the fiscal year, they'd be okay. But simply say, moving some functions of aid into the State department, closing some contracts, this is all within kind of normal or management of the executive branch. In fact, President Clinton probably comes closest to what this might be with his Reinventing Government project. You might recall thirty years ago Gore was tasked with reinventing government. Part of that was offering buyouts to federal employees, just like Doge has done, apparently netting seventy five thousand early retirements something like that. Part of it is streamlining agencies. So you know, there's very little new under the sun, even if Elon Musk's kind of larger than life figure and excitable character makes this look like something unusual. And by the way, Lisa, I think I'm still flabbergasted that Doge has become the lightning rod for the resistance or the opposition to Trump this time around in light of the seemingly more politically controversial issues that the various other executive orders have touched.

Yeah, And the most recently Dose has been winning a series of judicial rulings. I think in the early stages, it was just so new that judges didn't know what to do with it, so they were issuing temporary restraining orders for you know, ten or fourteen days. And then they realized that it was improper to stop, say the Department of the Treasury Secretary, the Senate confirmed Treasury secretary or his agents from looking at payroll processing systems and things like that. That the what Trump was doing was wholly within What Musque was doing was wholly within the executive branch, and it is up to the executive to reorganize itself. There's some questions about, you know, are they not fulfilling what Congress legislated. Congress appropriated x million for you know, usaid, how can they not spend that that's called impoundment and it's illegal. Well, I mean, there was a pause and Congress didn't specify which specific contracts had to be funded, you know, the twenty thousand dollars for a transgender opera in Peru or something like that. The Congress doesn't micromanage like that, and so as long as the administration ends up spending the appropriated money by the end of the fiscal year, they'd be okay. But simply say, moving some functions of aid into the State department, closing some contracts, this is all within kind of normal or management of the executive branch. In fact, President Clinton probably comes closest to what this might be with his Reinventing Government project. You might recall thirty years ago Gore was tasked with reinventing government. Part of that was offering buyouts to federal employees, just like Doge has done, apparently netting seventy five thousand early retirements something like that. Part of it is streamlining agencies. So you know, there's very little new under the sun, even if Elon Musk's kind of larger than life figure and excitable character makes this look like something unusual. And by the way, Lisa, I think I'm still flabbergasted that Doge has become the lightning rod for the resistance or the opposition to Trump this time around in light of the seemingly more politically controversial issues that the various other executive orders have touched.

So you'd mentioned empowerment and we're worriedy hearing a lot about it. We're going to be hearing a lot about the Empowerment Control Act in nineteen seventy four law in the coming or you know, throughout the Trump administration. Rather, Trump believes that it's unconstitutional. You know, essentially for the audience, Congress appropriates money, and what's in question about the Empowerment Control Act is can the executive branch and the President say, you know what, maybe I'm not going to give all this money over here, or maybe use it for other purposes. So that's sort of that issue. You'd be able to explain that the legal angles of it, obviously more in depth than I just did. Is it unconstitutional? You know sort of what's your analysis of the Empowerment Control Act?

So you'd mentioned empowerment and we're worriedy hearing a lot about it. We're going to be hearing a lot about the Empowerment Control Act in nineteen seventy four law in the coming or you know, throughout the Trump administration. Rather, Trump believes that it's unconstitutional. You know, essentially for the audience, Congress appropriates money, and what's in question about the Empowerment Control Act is can the executive branch and the President say, you know what, maybe I'm not going to give all this money over here, or maybe use it for other purposes. So that's sort of that issue. You'd be able to explain that the legal angles of it, obviously more in depth than I just did. Is it unconstitutional? You know sort of what's your analysis of the Empowerment Control Act?

Well, the president is supposed to enforce the laws that Congress passes. He's not supposed to create new law, but he can interpret existing laws as presidents always do, to say, well, you know this, this part is unconstitutional. I can't enforce it that way, or we're going to interpret this in light of this other statute, and then there are lawsuits about whether he's right in that interpretation and things like that. The Empowerment Act has been it was a it was a post Water Game reform in the seventies and always had some controversy about whether, you know, if the if the president in his judgment doesn't want to spend certain money that he can accomplish the goal that Congress laid out in in in a particular federal program. You know, why should he just spend money for no particular reason. Uh. If if you know the congressional the legislation has been fulfilled, but it's never been litigated. Uh that you know, we could be set for that. Again, it's not it's not right, as lawyers say, right now, because you can't you can't challenge a pause or you shouldn't be able to because that's not a final action.

Well, the president is supposed to enforce the laws that Congress passes. He's not supposed to create new law, but he can interpret existing laws as presidents always do, to say, well, you know this, this part is unconstitutional. I can't enforce it that way, or we're going to interpret this in light of this other statute, and then there are lawsuits about whether he's right in that interpretation and things like that. The Empowerment Act has been it was a it was a post Water Game reform in the seventies and always had some controversy about whether, you know, if the if the president in his judgment doesn't want to spend certain money that he can accomplish the goal that Congress laid out in in in a particular federal program. You know, why should he just spend money for no particular reason. Uh. If if you know the congressional the legislation has been fulfilled, but it's never been litigated. Uh that you know, we could be set for that. Again, it's not it's not right, as lawyers say, right now, because you can't you can't challenge a pause or you shouldn't be able to because that's not a final action.

Uh.

Uh.

And the president does have until the end of the fiscal year in September to spend the money that that that Congress has appropriated. That's when an Empowerment Act challenge if if he decides not to spend it all when that could be had, and it's and it's an interesting point you I guess of course, would be looking at, uh, has the President fulfilled his duty under the take care clause? The duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed? You know? Does that mean he has to spend all the money that Congress has appropriated if if the laws are being faithfully executed. So that's fleshing out a little bit where where the debate might be if it comes to it.

And the president does have until the end of the fiscal year in September to spend the money that that that Congress has appropriated. That's when an Empowerment Act challenge if if he decides not to spend it all when that could be had, and it's and it's an interesting point you I guess of course, would be looking at, uh, has the President fulfilled his duty under the take care clause? The duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed? You know? Does that mean he has to spend all the money that Congress has appropriated if if the laws are being faithfully executed. So that's fleshing out a little bit where where the debate might be if it comes to it.

Now do you think this would make its way to the Supreme Court? I mean we're going to see you know, probably a lot of lawsuits. You know, New York City is feral a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration for eighty million dollars that they say FEMA funding should be going to them, that is not going to them. You know, does the city have standing in that? Like? Where do you think this all?

Now do you think this would make its way to the Supreme Court? I mean we're going to see you know, probably a lot of lawsuits. You know, New York City is feral a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration for eighty million dollars that they say FEMA funding should be going to them, that is not going to them. You know, does the city have standing in that? Like? Where do you think this all?

That's a different sort of different there. Yeah. Eric Adams the mayor, and we can get into his particular foibles in a moment, but he is in alignment with the Trump administration in that they're trying to stop or clawback monies that were going to migrant asylum programs and housing and things like that under the Biden administration and arguing that this is an improper use of FEMA funds. And I think they're probably right. They have a very strong case about what natural disaster funds are supposed to be going to. But that's a separate sort of issue. I think, you know, would be recipients of contracts that all of a sudden are rescinded may have some sort of right if they have reliance costs. You know, they were assured that they got this contract and so they went ahead and built out some infrastructure, what have you, and then then that all got canceled. Potentially at least American recipients might have some sort of standing there. We're not talking about international development work. But beyond that, states have to be harmed. As states. They can't be suing on behalf of their of the on behalf of their citizens. Generally, courts frowned on that. So if there are grants going to states in some way that are now being stopped, some states might want to sue over those. There are separate lawsuits that certainly will put the federal and state governments in against each other in court over sanctuary cities, For example, whether state and local officials have to cooperate and to what extent with ICE. They're not allowed to interfere with ICE at least even if they're not required to cooperate affirmatively. But what does interfere mean? So those sorts of suits are certainly headed our way. The Supreme Court inevitably every presidential term decides some conflicts about how our challenges to how the executive branch implements the law. I think the issue that's on the fact is tracked to the Supreme Court is probably birthright citizenship. Not this term, but I can imagine next term, So by the summer of twenty twenty six, we'll have a ruling as to whether the Trump administration's executive order that restricts citizenship only to kids of citizens and permanent residents, whether that is lawful. And here's a little preview of something that I've been thinking in this vein. It could be that the media and Justice, as Chief Justice Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh might say, well, the Constitution isn't clear here and none of our precedents provide a rule for decision, Which is true, But to change so many decades of established practice it would require an Act of Congress rather than a mere executive action. That could be the middle way. They decide that we've got.

That's a different sort of different there. Yeah. Eric Adams the mayor, and we can get into his particular foibles in a moment, but he is in alignment with the Trump administration in that they're trying to stop or clawback monies that were going to migrant asylum programs and housing and things like that under the Biden administration and arguing that this is an improper use of FEMA funds. And I think they're probably right. They have a very strong case about what natural disaster funds are supposed to be going to. But that's a separate sort of issue. I think, you know, would be recipients of contracts that all of a sudden are rescinded may have some sort of right if they have reliance costs. You know, they were assured that they got this contract and so they went ahead and built out some infrastructure, what have you, and then then that all got canceled. Potentially at least American recipients might have some sort of standing there. We're not talking about international development work. But beyond that, states have to be harmed. As states. They can't be suing on behalf of their of the on behalf of their citizens. Generally, courts frowned on that. So if there are grants going to states in some way that are now being stopped, some states might want to sue over those. There are separate lawsuits that certainly will put the federal and state governments in against each other in court over sanctuary cities, For example, whether state and local officials have to cooperate and to what extent with ICE. They're not allowed to interfere with ICE at least even if they're not required to cooperate affirmatively. But what does interfere mean? So those sorts of suits are certainly headed our way. The Supreme Court inevitably every presidential term decides some conflicts about how our challenges to how the executive branch implements the law. I think the issue that's on the fact is tracked to the Supreme Court is probably birthright citizenship. Not this term, but I can imagine next term, So by the summer of twenty twenty six, we'll have a ruling as to whether the Trump administration's executive order that restricts citizenship only to kids of citizens and permanent residents, whether that is lawful. And here's a little preview of something that I've been thinking in this vein. It could be that the media and Justice, as Chief Justice Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh might say, well, the Constitution isn't clear here and none of our precedents provide a rule for decision, Which is true, But to change so many decades of established practice it would require an Act of Congress rather than a mere executive action. That could be the middle way. They decide that we've got.

More with Ilia in just a moment of first after more than a year of war, terror in pain in Israel. All of Israel is brokenhearted after learning of the tragic deaths of the Beva's children who were held hostage in Gaza, and so many are still herding throughout the Holy Land, where the need for aid continues to grow. The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews has supported and continues to support the families of hostages and other victims of the October seventh terror attacks. With your help, IFCJ has provided financial and emotional help to hostages in their families and to those healing and rebuilding. They're broken homes and broken bodies, but the real work is just beginning. Your gift will help provide critically needed support to families in Israel whose lives continue to be destroyed by terror and uncertainty as Israel remains surrounded by enemies. Give a gift to bless Israel and her people by visiting SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. That's one word, support IFCJ dot org or call eight eight eight for eight eight IFCJ. That's eight eight eight for eight IFCJ. Regarding the sanctuary cities, I guess who was standing in that? You know, where does that go? You know, what are your thoughts on that?

More with Ilia in just a moment of first after more than a year of war, terror in pain in Israel. All of Israel is brokenhearted after learning of the tragic deaths of the Beva's children who were held hostage in Gaza, and so many are still herding throughout the Holy Land, where the need for aid continues to grow. The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews has supported and continues to support the families of hostages and other victims of the October seventh terror attacks. With your help, IFCJ has provided financial and emotional help to hostages in their families and to those healing and rebuilding. They're broken homes and broken bodies, but the real work is just beginning. Your gift will help provide critically needed support to families in Israel whose lives continue to be destroyed by terror and uncertainty as Israel remains surrounded by enemies. Give a gift to bless Israel and her people by visiting SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. That's one word, support IFCJ dot org or call eight eight eight for eight eight IFCJ. That's eight eight eight for eight IFCJ. Regarding the sanctuary cities, I guess who was standing in that? You know, where does that go? You know, what are your thoughts on that?

If the federal government tries to hold back or not award, say, law enforcement funds, because state law enforcement isn't cooperating with ice, there'll be the lawsuit over whether that restriction is germane, whether it's constitutional. Have you already agreed to it? If existing funds, existing contracts, or grants are in jeopardy, then there's a question of whether that's the federal government commendeering state officials. That is, under our constitution, federal authorities can't tell state authorities what to do. They can't even tell them to enforce federal law, but they the state authorities can't interfere with federal enforcement of federal law. So, whether that's with respect to marijuana, which is still illegal at the federal level but legal in many many states, whether it's with immigration enforcement, that's where the clash is. The courts of Hell that states can have sanctuary policies, but at what point does non cooperation become interference, you know, and.

If the federal government tries to hold back or not award, say, law enforcement funds, because state law enforcement isn't cooperating with ice, there'll be the lawsuit over whether that restriction is germane, whether it's constitutional. Have you already agreed to it? If existing funds, existing contracts, or grants are in jeopardy, then there's a question of whether that's the federal government commendeering state officials. That is, under our constitution, federal authorities can't tell state authorities what to do. They can't even tell them to enforce federal law, but they the state authorities can't interfere with federal enforcement of federal law. So, whether that's with respect to marijuana, which is still illegal at the federal level but legal in many many states, whether it's with immigration enforcement, that's where the clash is. The courts of Hell that states can have sanctuary policies, but at what point does non cooperation become interference, you know, and.

Of course in a lawsuits over firing federal employees, there are a lot of protections there in some instances, I know President Trump has done things before, like you know a Schedule F reclassifying federals.

Of course in a lawsuits over firing federal employees, there are a lot of protections there in some instances, I know President Trump has done things before, like you know a Schedule F reclassifying federals.

Between them is yeah, there's a difference between civil servant personnel changes where Schedule F comes in trying to designate more people as political appointees or are having responsibility for policy setting, in which case they have to be goes the argument they have to be more accountable to the president, removable, replaceable, et cetera. Whether certain civil service protections orublic sector union contracts are unconstitutional because they hamstrung the executive and the executive branch can't fulfill its duties and exercise its constitutional authority. These are open questions. And then at the higher levels, with say the head of the National Labor Relations Board or the Federal Election Commission, all of these alphabet so called independent agencies, removal authority over those Senate confirmed officials. That is an issue that's definitely going to go to the Supreme Court as well. The Acting Solicitor General of the government's head lawyer before the Supreme Court has notified the Senate, for example, that it will no longer be defending the constitutionality or the removal protections for those officers, and is questioning a ninety year old Supreme Court president called Humphrey's Executor, which carved out from the normal rule that the president can replace officers of the United States because that's how constitutional accountability in the executive branch worked. So that case, Humphrey's Executor said, well, certain officers exercise sometimes quasi legislative, quasi judicial functions. So the Federal Trade Commission adjudicates disputes of certain kinds or it promulgates regulations, which is kind of like a legislative function. That's why its leaders have certain protections. The Court found in that case. I think the Humphrey's Executor is right for reconsideration, and I think a majority of the current membership of the Supreme Court is likely to side with the Trump administration in enforcing more accountability. You can see that from a handful of cases that have been decided in the last ten to fifteen years.

Between them is yeah, there's a difference between civil servant personnel changes where Schedule F comes in trying to designate more people as political appointees or are having responsibility for policy setting, in which case they have to be goes the argument they have to be more accountable to the president, removable, replaceable, et cetera. Whether certain civil service protections orublic sector union contracts are unconstitutional because they hamstrung the executive and the executive branch can't fulfill its duties and exercise its constitutional authority. These are open questions. And then at the higher levels, with say the head of the National Labor Relations Board or the Federal Election Commission, all of these alphabet so called independent agencies, removal authority over those Senate confirmed officials. That is an issue that's definitely going to go to the Supreme Court as well. The Acting Solicitor General of the government's head lawyer before the Supreme Court has notified the Senate, for example, that it will no longer be defending the constitutionality or the removal protections for those officers, and is questioning a ninety year old Supreme Court president called Humphrey's Executor, which carved out from the normal rule that the president can replace officers of the United States because that's how constitutional accountability in the executive branch worked. So that case, Humphrey's Executor said, well, certain officers exercise sometimes quasi legislative, quasi judicial functions. So the Federal Trade Commission adjudicates disputes of certain kinds or it promulgates regulations, which is kind of like a legislative function. That's why its leaders have certain protections. The Court found in that case. I think the Humphrey's Executor is right for reconsideration, and I think a majority of the current membership of the Supreme Court is likely to side with the Trump administration in enforcing more accountability. You can see that from a handful of cases that have been decided in the last ten to fifteen years.

I mean, I do think the one, well, one big benefit of President Trump is we've all learned a lot more about how government works. It's all got a lot more attention than it has in you know, administrations prior. When it comes to reforming government. We're certainly seeing a more muscular government from President Trump than you know, maybe some Republicans in the past. When it comes to reforming government, what can President Trump do on his own, you know, latterly, and then what does he need Congress to do?

I mean, I do think the one, well, one big benefit of President Trump is we've all learned a lot more about how government works. It's all got a lot more attention than it has in you know, administrations prior. When it comes to reforming government. We're certainly seeing a more muscular government from President Trump than you know, maybe some Republicans in the past. When it comes to reforming government, what can President Trump do on his own, you know, latterly, and then what does he need Congress to do?

The executive can't close the Department of Education, say or USAID. They were created by Congress. It would take an Act of Congress to shut them down. The executive could reorganize certain functions like it could say, okay, the Office of Civil Rights at Education, that's duplicative of what the Justice Department is or should be doing. So we'll move all of those functions into DOJ student loan administration. That's not an educational function, that's a you know, economic financial piece. What We're going to send that to the Treasury Department to operate things like that, or you know, certain we're going to cancel certain kinds of contracts that violate that that implement DEI because we consider de I to be unconstitutional, violation of civil rights, equal protection, things like that. But it can't shut the entire structure down and just send the funds back as block grants to the states. That would take an Act of Congress.

The executive can't close the Department of Education, say or USAID. They were created by Congress. It would take an Act of Congress to shut them down. The executive could reorganize certain functions like it could say, okay, the Office of Civil Rights at Education, that's duplicative of what the Justice Department is or should be doing. So we'll move all of those functions into DOJ student loan administration. That's not an educational function, that's a you know, economic financial piece. What We're going to send that to the Treasury Department to operate things like that, or you know, certain we're going to cancel certain kinds of contracts that violate that that implement DEI because we consider de I to be unconstitutional, violation of civil rights, equal protection, things like that. But it can't shut the entire structure down and just send the funds back as block grants to the states. That would take an Act of Congress.

But could you roll us AID into the State Department, for instance.

But could you roll us AID into the State Department, for instance.

I think most of its functions could be yes, And I think that's what they're trying to do.

I think most of its functions could be yes, And I think that's what they're trying to do.

And would that be constitutional? Then?

And would that be constitutional? Then?

I think so?

I think so?

I think.

I think.

So, you know, there's very you know, Congress created the agency and it specified certain things. So I haven't looked at USA I d's organic statute, but you know, whatever Congress specified has to be has to be done. And and back to the Empownment Act, what you know what what money it appropriated to implement certain programs. That money, you know, if you take those functions into the State Department, that money would go there and then have to be spent or again you have this fight over whether the UH the UH the law is being executed more cheaply or what have you. So it's you know, there's there's certainly a great area. It's sometimes it's hard to draw the line between reorganization within the executive branch and dissolving or or disabling UH an agency that that Congress created and wants to exist. But that's the general outline.

So, you know, there's very you know, Congress created the agency and it specified certain things. So I haven't looked at USA I d's organic statute, but you know, whatever Congress specified has to be has to be done. And and back to the Empownment Act, what you know what what money it appropriated to implement certain programs. That money, you know, if you take those functions into the State Department, that money would go there and then have to be spent or again you have this fight over whether the UH the UH the law is being executed more cheaply or what have you. So it's you know, there's there's certainly a great area. It's sometimes it's hard to draw the line between reorganization within the executive branch and dissolving or or disabling UH an agency that that Congress created and wants to exist. But that's the general outline.

Yeah, and I know the Clinton administration also considered doing that as well, rolling USA Idea into State Department. I want to get to your book because that's really interesting as well. Your book, Lawless, The Miseducation of America's Elite. You talk about how in the past, you know, Columbia Law School, for instance, produced leaders like Franklin Roosevelt or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Now it produces windows smashing activists. How did that happen? Yeah? How did that happen?

Yeah, and I know the Clinton administration also considered doing that as well, rolling USA Idea into State Department. I want to get to your book because that's really interesting as well. Your book, Lawless, The Miseducation of America's Elite. You talk about how in the past, you know, Columbia Law School, for instance, produced leaders like Franklin Roosevelt or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Now it produces windows smashing activists. How did that happen? Yeah? How did that happen?

Yeah? So the book's called Lawless, The Miseducation of America's Elites. It came out about a month ago, just over a month ago, from HarperCollins Broadside Imprint, and it builds on my so called lived experience at Georgetown Law three years ago where I was investigated for a tweet and kind.

Yeah? So the book's called Lawless, The Miseducation of America's Elites. It came out about a month ago, just over a month ago, from HarperCollins Broadside Imprint, and it builds on my so called lived experience at Georgetown Law three years ago where I was investigated for a tweet and kind.

Of a tweet no less a tweet, yeah, a tweet, yeah, tweet.

Of a tweet no less a tweet, yeah, a tweet, yeah, tweet.

Yeah. I got to see the kind of the dirty underbelly of the failures of ideology, bureaucracy, and leadership to wit. When I was in law school twenty years ago. You know, we had debates between liberals and conservas, left and right, originalism, living constitutionalism, what have you. But we took the law or the legitimacy of American institutions as a given. Now, there were these theories that considered legal institutions to be illegitimate because hopelessly imbued with racism, sexism, you know, heteronormativity, all of these different things. They have to be torn down and rebuilt according to a different privileged hierarchy. Your rights and freedoms depend on whether you're part of a class deemed oppressor or oppressed, et cetera. Critical theory, critical legal studies. We had thought that that was something from the eighties and early nineties that had been relegated to some you know, dusty corner of a philosophy or sociology department or something. But the crits came roaring back in the last in the last decade, and there's a lot of that kind of undermining of respect for the rule of law taught by law schools themselves, which is a a big problem. Then you have the bureaucracy, which might even be a bigger problem than the shift from in the faculty, from education to that kind of activism that I described. And it's remarkable how much non teaching staff or administrators have grown relative to faculty, relative to student bodies. All schools now have more non teaching staff than faculty, and you know, that's part of why tuition is skyrocketed. It's also part of why we've had, especially in the last decade, especially in the last five years, the growth of DEI because bureaucrats incentive always, whether in the public sector, private sector, nonprofit, what have you, is to justify and grow their authority and budget. So once you started having these offices that were looking to inculcate students in a culture of viewing issues through lenses of race and sex and identity and what have you, they needed to manufacture outrage and have things to investigate and adjudicate and and punish, and and away we went. Uh So, so oftentimes, the the bureaucracy, and especially now the DEI bureaucracy, is the tail that wags the dog of the of the whole educational project. Because this gets to the third major failure. Uh Deans and presidents and provosts are not themselves woke radicals, but they're spinalless cowards, and they counts how toward this illiberal mob, whether coming from the students buttressed by the the structures and dynamics put in place by the by the non teaching staff, the bureaucrats. Uh and uh, you know their careers, bureaucrats, and they're trying to climb the greasy pool. And uh they they faci illitate the takeover, this illiberal takeover. And I want to be clear, and I'll end with this and let you ask the next thing that this is not just the latest conservative lament about decades of faculty bias or the hippies taking over the faculty lounge. In fact, those hippies, the Berkeley free speech movement of the nineteen sixties, would now be considered retrograde white supremacists by these woke radicals. So all of these failures combined is what's led to a very unhealthy culture in higher education generally in law schools specifically. And I focus on law schools not just because I'm a lawyer, but because regardless of what happens in English or sociology departments, that's unfortunate when they go crazy. Law schools graduate our next generation of gatekeepers of our political and legal institutions. Literally the foundations on which American prosperity and liberty rests if that goes all a kilter.

Yeah. I got to see the kind of the dirty underbelly of the failures of ideology, bureaucracy, and leadership to wit. When I was in law school twenty years ago. You know, we had debates between liberals and conservas, left and right, originalism, living constitutionalism, what have you. But we took the law or the legitimacy of American institutions as a given. Now, there were these theories that considered legal institutions to be illegitimate because hopelessly imbued with racism, sexism, you know, heteronormativity, all of these different things. They have to be torn down and rebuilt according to a different privileged hierarchy. Your rights and freedoms depend on whether you're part of a class deemed oppressor or oppressed, et cetera. Critical theory, critical legal studies. We had thought that that was something from the eighties and early nineties that had been relegated to some you know, dusty corner of a philosophy or sociology department or something. But the crits came roaring back in the last in the last decade, and there's a lot of that kind of undermining of respect for the rule of law taught by law schools themselves, which is a a big problem. Then you have the bureaucracy, which might even be a bigger problem than the shift from in the faculty, from education to that kind of activism that I described. And it's remarkable how much non teaching staff or administrators have grown relative to faculty, relative to student bodies. All schools now have more non teaching staff than faculty, and you know, that's part of why tuition is skyrocketed. It's also part of why we've had, especially in the last decade, especially in the last five years, the growth of DEI because bureaucrats incentive always, whether in the public sector, private sector, nonprofit, what have you, is to justify and grow their authority and budget. So once you started having these offices that were looking to inculcate students in a culture of viewing issues through lenses of race and sex and identity and what have you, they needed to manufacture outrage and have things to investigate and adjudicate and and punish, and and away we went. Uh So, so oftentimes, the the bureaucracy, and especially now the DEI bureaucracy, is the tail that wags the dog of the of the whole educational project. Because this gets to the third major failure. Uh Deans and presidents and provosts are not themselves woke radicals, but they're spinalless cowards, and they counts how toward this illiberal mob, whether coming from the students buttressed by the the structures and dynamics put in place by the by the non teaching staff, the bureaucrats. Uh and uh, you know their careers, bureaucrats, and they're trying to climb the greasy pool. And uh they they faci illitate the takeover, this illiberal takeover. And I want to be clear, and I'll end with this and let you ask the next thing that this is not just the latest conservative lament about decades of faculty bias or the hippies taking over the faculty lounge. In fact, those hippies, the Berkeley free speech movement of the nineteen sixties, would now be considered retrograde white supremacists by these woke radicals. So all of these failures combined is what's led to a very unhealthy culture in higher education generally in law schools specifically. And I focus on law schools not just because I'm a lawyer, but because regardless of what happens in English or sociology departments, that's unfortunate when they go crazy. Law schools graduate our next generation of gatekeepers of our political and legal institutions. Literally the foundations on which American prosperity and liberty rests if that goes all a kilter.

Well, and we've already seen how some of that has played out with you know, some of the what Trump was facing in the courts, particularly in d C. And in Georgia, and also you know what a lot of these January six ers faced and sort of the unfair treatment that they received in the courts as well. So, I mean, it is carried that these are the people that are going to be shaping the law for you know, for you know, years and years and years to come, decades to come. So what was the tweet that was subject to this four month investigation.

Well, and we've already seen how some of that has played out with you know, some of the what Trump was facing in the courts, particularly in d C. And in Georgia, and also you know what a lot of these January six ers faced and sort of the unfair treatment that they received in the courts as well. So, I mean, it is carried that these are the people that are going to be shaping the law for you know, for you know, years and years and years to come, decades to come. So what was the tweet that was subject to this four month investigation.

So I had been at CATO, the Cato Institute for nearly fifteen years and got an opportunity to take my career in a different direction to become the executive director of Georgetown Center for the Constitution. And the few days before I was due to start that job was when Justice Bryer's retirement announcement came. And so I was doing a lot of media that day in January of twenty twenty two because my previous book, Supreme Disorder, Judicial Nominations in the Politics of America's highest Court was right on point, and I was getting more and more upset with Joe Biden, huewing to his campaign promise from twenty twenty to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court. Nothing wrong with appointing a black woman, of course, but I wouldn't restrict my candidate pool, whether for janitor, let alone justice by race and sex. And so I late at night after doom scrolling Twitter. Not a best practice I've done, offered up. I offered up the hot take that if I were Biden, or if I were a Democratic president, I would pick the chief Judge of the d C Circuit, the second most powerful court in the land, a man by the name of Sri Srinovasan happens to also be an Indian American immigrant. So check some demographic boxes, but alas not the right ones under what I called today's privileged hierarchy or hierarchy of intersectionality. And so, given Twitter's character limitation, I said, if Biden maintains his promise, we will end up with a quote lesser black woman. And it's those three words, in artfully phrased, I clearly met less qualified than the candidate that I was proposing as the best pick that got me in trouble over, I hit send on that went to bed, and overnight my ideological enemies went for my head, and that led to what I call four days of hell, as it wasn't clear whether i'd be fired right there, then four months of purgatory as I was onboarded but immediately suspended pending investigation into whether I violated harassment and anti discrimination policies. And the longer that so called investigation went, the more it seemed like it was a farce. And when I finally was reinstated on the technicality that I wasn't yet an employee when I tweeted, so the policies didn't apply. This little jurisdictional knit that some high powered lawyer found once the students were off campus so they couldn't protest. But then I got the fine print, this report from the Office of Institutional Equity Diversity an affirmative action idea, and that made clear that the next time that I offended someone or otherwise transgressed progressive orthodoxy, I'd be creating a hostile educational environment. And I realized I could not do the job I was hired to do, so I had to quit, and I did what lawyers call a noisy exit, publishing my resignation letter in the Wall Street Journal, as one does, and then announcing my move to the Manhattan Institute on Fox News, and away we went after that. And I've been trying to use this platform that I've been given to shine a light on the rock in academia.

So I had been at CATO, the Cato Institute for nearly fifteen years and got an opportunity to take my career in a different direction to become the executive director of Georgetown Center for the Constitution. And the few days before I was due to start that job was when Justice Bryer's retirement announcement came. And so I was doing a lot of media that day in January of twenty twenty two because my previous book, Supreme Disorder, Judicial Nominations in the Politics of America's highest Court was right on point, and I was getting more and more upset with Joe Biden, huewing to his campaign promise from twenty twenty to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court. Nothing wrong with appointing a black woman, of course, but I wouldn't restrict my candidate pool, whether for janitor, let alone justice by race and sex. And so I late at night after doom scrolling Twitter. Not a best practice I've done, offered up. I offered up the hot take that if I were Biden, or if I were a Democratic president, I would pick the chief Judge of the d C Circuit, the second most powerful court in the land, a man by the name of Sri Srinovasan happens to also be an Indian American immigrant. So check some demographic boxes, but alas not the right ones under what I called today's privileged hierarchy or hierarchy of intersectionality. And so, given Twitter's character limitation, I said, if Biden maintains his promise, we will end up with a quote lesser black woman. And it's those three words, in artfully phrased, I clearly met less qualified than the candidate that I was proposing as the best pick that got me in trouble over, I hit send on that went to bed, and overnight my ideological enemies went for my head, and that led to what I call four days of hell, as it wasn't clear whether i'd be fired right there, then four months of purgatory as I was onboarded but immediately suspended pending investigation into whether I violated harassment and anti discrimination policies. And the longer that so called investigation went, the more it seemed like it was a farce. And when I finally was reinstated on the technicality that I wasn't yet an employee when I tweeted, so the policies didn't apply. This little jurisdictional knit that some high powered lawyer found once the students were off campus so they couldn't protest. But then I got the fine print, this report from the Office of Institutional Equity Diversity an affirmative action idea, and that made clear that the next time that I offended someone or otherwise transgressed progressive orthodoxy, I'd be creating a hostile educational environment. And I realized I could not do the job I was hired to do, so I had to quit, and I did what lawyers call a noisy exit, publishing my resignation letter in the Wall Street Journal, as one does, and then announcing my move to the Manhattan Institute on Fox News, and away we went after that. And I've been trying to use this platform that I've been given to shine a light on the rock in academia.

Well, I respect the noisy exit in that in that Redguard. You know, we're saying, d I die. To a certain degree, we've seen a lot of companies jump ship in recent months, you know, particularly after President Trump's reelection as well as the actions that he has taken with his administration. Are we seeing that on some of these campuses? And you know what do you think that impact will be at you know, higher education and at some of these universities across the country.

Well, I respect the noisy exit in that in that Redguard. You know, we're saying, d I die. To a certain degree, we've seen a lot of companies jump ship in recent months, you know, particularly after President Trump's reelection as well as the actions that he has taken with his administration. Are we seeing that on some of these campuses? And you know what do you think that impact will be at you know, higher education and at some of these universities across the country.

In society more broadly, I'm optimistic. There's definitely been uh you know what people call it, talk about a vibe shift which was instantiated in the November election, But just more broadly, whether in private enterprise and the culture, it feels like a like a fever has broken in academia. I'm not quite sure that the jury is still out. There's not quite the same feedback mechanism. There isn't a critical mass to push back on the excesses of this let wing illiberalism. And there are so many vested stakeholders. You know, the National Association of Higher Education Diversity Officers, if you can believe that's an organization, has ten thousand members. They're not going to be like, Okay, well, I guess I'll learn to code now. You know, they're gonna they're gonna resist. And and just like Brown v. Board didn't overnight mean desegregation in the Jim Crow South, there is massive resistance both to the Supreme Court's order not to use racial preferences in admissions and to Trump's dei orders. We'll see if the Education and Justice departments keep their foot on the gas in these investigations, threatening to withhold federal funding, research funding, and otherwise from recalcistron schools. There's there's quite a battle that that's being set up. So it's uh, you know, I'm I'm less pessimistic than than I was when I left Georgetown nearly three years ago, but the battle's been Joineday.

In society more broadly, I'm optimistic. There's definitely been uh you know what people call it, talk about a vibe shift which was instantiated in the November election, But just more broadly, whether in private enterprise and the culture, it feels like a like a fever has broken in academia. I'm not quite sure that the jury is still out. There's not quite the same feedback mechanism. There isn't a critical mass to push back on the excesses of this let wing illiberalism. And there are so many vested stakeholders. You know, the National Association of Higher Education Diversity Officers, if you can believe that's an organization, has ten thousand members. They're not going to be like, Okay, well, I guess I'll learn to code now. You know, they're gonna they're gonna resist. And and just like Brown v. Board didn't overnight mean desegregation in the Jim Crow South, there is massive resistance both to the Supreme Court's order not to use racial preferences in admissions and to Trump's dei orders. We'll see if the Education and Justice departments keep their foot on the gas in these investigations, threatening to withhold federal funding, research funding, and otherwise from recalcistron schools. There's there's quite a battle that that's being set up. So it's uh, you know, I'm I'm less pessimistic than than I was when I left Georgetown nearly three years ago, but the battle's been Joineday.

What can can the Trump administration do anything to address this miseducation?

What can can the Trump administration do anything to address this miseducation?

You know, they're trying. They're trying, I mean they're there.

You know, they're trying. They're trying, I mean they're there.

We would you get into those.

We would you get into those.

Existing that there are existing strings on federal funds, which is why the Education Department two weeks ago launch investigations of half a dozen schools for anti semitism and free speech violations and all these things like that. So yeah, if you take federal money, there's there's strings attached to everything from accounting standards to non discrimination rules to free speech protections. And so hopefully something comes of it, because the by administration was kind of shamed into opening some investigations after October seventh, but then they quickly closed them with less than a slap on the wrist at the end of the of the Biden tern So hopefully there is going to be teeth, investigatory oversight, teeth for these executive actions. But of course you live by the executive action, you died by the executive action, and hopefully some of this will get codified as legislation.

Existing that there are existing strings on federal funds, which is why the Education Department two weeks ago launch investigations of half a dozen schools for anti semitism and free speech violations and all these things like that. So yeah, if you take federal money, there's there's strings attached to everything from accounting standards to non discrimination rules to free speech protections. And so hopefully something comes of it, because the by administration was kind of shamed into opening some investigations after October seventh, but then they quickly closed them with less than a slap on the wrist at the end of the of the Biden tern So hopefully there is going to be teeth, investigatory oversight, teeth for these executive actions. But of course you live by the executive action, you died by the executive action, and hopefully some of this will get codified as legislation.

We've got to take a quick commercial break. More with Ilia on the other side, Well, we also saw, you know, alumni of some of these universities, particularly when we saw the anti semitism happening across the country. You know, say hey, look, you're not going to give you x amount. You know, like these really really rich people being like, oh, we're going to withhold funds, and so that led to you know, some turnover with these university presidents. Is that sort of you know, another plan of action that you know, people should start taking more and kind of threatening their own personal funding of some of these universities. Oh.

We've got to take a quick commercial break. More with Ilia on the other side, Well, we also saw, you know, alumni of some of these universities, particularly when we saw the anti semitism happening across the country. You know, say hey, look, you're not going to give you x amount. You know, like these really really rich people being like, oh, we're going to withhold funds, and so that led to you know, some turnover with these university presidents. Is that sort of you know, another plan of action that you know, people should start taking more and kind of threatening their own personal funding of some of these universities. Oh.

Absolutely, Look, it's going to take in all of the above push State legislators and governors can and are in some cases acting to abolished de I bureaucracies, get rid of diversity statement litmus tests for hiring, other kinds of preferences for admissions. It's going to take private employers to say that, look, we can't hire from your school because there's no guarantee of quality there, and the kids show up entitled, and you know, we don't want to deal with that, let alone being a Hamas supporter or yelling at federal judges we hope your daughters get raped and things like this that has happened in the last few years. It takes donors and trustees and alumni and universities, even rich ones like Harvard with a sixty billion dollar endowment notices. When there's a five percent decline either in overall amount of giving or in the rate of giving the percentage of alumni that donate, that's a that's a warning bell for them. And so it's not you don't have to be a multi millionaire donor to get the attention of your alma mater. You know, get together with a bunch of friends. Then there's there's free speech coalitions. There's all sorts of kind of alumni groups that are have been created in various schools, especially at the so called elite ones where these sorts of problems are the most acute, and so you can you can have an impact that way. And alternate institutions. The University of Austin, for example, just opened its doors to students this year, the first cohort of I think ninety freshmen. I spoke there about a month ago. It's a great example of a kind of parallel institution. Some centers and institutes are being created within existing schools. Arizona State unc University of Florida, Florida State. Lots of different schools now have centers for excellence or Civics or classics. All of these kinds of teachings that's supposed to be the liberal arts mission of the broader university, but has been forced into these college within a college sort of thing. So yeah, we're in a time of flux, and some institutions, no doubt, will fail or lose influence and even more public confidence. Some might be might be righted.

Absolutely, Look, it's going to take in all of the above push State legislators and governors can and are in some cases acting to abolished de I bureaucracies, get rid of diversity statement litmus tests for hiring, other kinds of preferences for admissions. It's going to take private employers to say that, look, we can't hire from your school because there's no guarantee of quality there, and the kids show up entitled, and you know, we don't want to deal with that, let alone being a Hamas supporter or yelling at federal judges we hope your daughters get raped and things like this that has happened in the last few years. It takes donors and trustees and alumni and universities, even rich ones like Harvard with a sixty billion dollar endowment notices. When there's a five percent decline either in overall amount of giving or in the rate of giving the percentage of alumni that donate, that's a that's a warning bell for them. And so it's not you don't have to be a multi millionaire donor to get the attention of your alma mater. You know, get together with a bunch of friends. Then there's there's free speech coalitions. There's all sorts of kind of alumni groups that are have been created in various schools, especially at the so called elite ones where these sorts of problems are the most acute, and so you can you can have an impact that way. And alternate institutions. The University of Austin, for example, just opened its doors to students this year, the first cohort of I think ninety freshmen. I spoke there about a month ago. It's a great example of a kind of parallel institution. Some centers and institutes are being created within existing schools. Arizona State unc University of Florida, Florida State. Lots of different schools now have centers for excellence or Civics or classics. All of these kinds of teachings that's supposed to be the liberal arts mission of the broader university, but has been forced into these college within a college sort of thing. So yeah, we're in a time of flux, and some institutions, no doubt, will fail or lose influence and even more public confidence. Some might be might be righted.

And we've seen judges too, you know, say, hey, look like Judge James Hoe saying I'm not going to hire you know, law students from Yale due to some of this woke stuff. And you know, some judges stepping up and kind of.

And we've seen judges too, you know, say, hey, look like Judge James Hoe saying I'm not going to hire you know, law students from Yale due to some of this woke stuff. And you know, some judges stepping up and kind of.

And that's gotten Yale's attention. The dean there recognizes that Yale has gotten some black eyes, and purely out of personal self interest, because she, Heather Durkin, wants to be the president of an Ivy League school at some point, and she realizes that if her reign, her tenure at Yale Law is seen as dysfunctional, that's not going to happen. So yes, she's the boycott the publicity from these various scandals. She's reassigned bureaucrats. She's hired a senior professor, Keith Whittington, from Princeton and given him a bunch of money to do civil discourse stuff. Hired a junior professor who had clerked for Alito. So some of you know, more savvy educational leaders I think can get the message from a combination of alumni giving bad publicity. Yeah, judicial employer pressure, all these different things.

And that's gotten Yale's attention. The dean there recognizes that Yale has gotten some black eyes, and purely out of personal self interest, because she, Heather Durkin, wants to be the president of an Ivy League school at some point, and she realizes that if her reign, her tenure at Yale Law is seen as dysfunctional, that's not going to happen. So yes, she's the boycott the publicity from these various scandals. She's reassigned bureaucrats. She's hired a senior professor, Keith Whittington, from Princeton and given him a bunch of money to do civil discourse stuff. Hired a junior professor who had clerked for Alito. So some of you know, more savvy educational leaders I think can get the message from a combination of alumni giving bad publicity. Yeah, judicial employer pressure, all these different things.

Is there anything else you'd like to get across about the book?

Is there anything else you'd like to get across about the book?

Before we go? I published for the first time anywhere that report that I got from Georgetown's DEI office. And it's funny the publisher, my publisher, you know, you go through a legal review, of course, and they had no problem with you know, the choice words that I had for Georgetown and dean and administrators and what have you. But they said, look, that report technically Georgetown might have a copyright on it, and so we need to transform the work from an intellectual property perspective. So they had me put in some snide comments every couple of paragraphs. So anyway, I'll leave that to your listeners to uh to buy it on Kindle or audible or have the hardcover book itself.

Before we go? I published for the first time anywhere that report that I got from Georgetown's DEI office. And it's funny the publisher, my publisher, you know, you go through a legal review, of course, and they had no problem with you know, the choice words that I had for Georgetown and dean and administrators and what have you. But they said, look, that report technically Georgetown might have a copyright on it, and so we need to transform the work from an intellectual property perspective. So they had me put in some snide comments every couple of paragraphs. So anyway, I'll leave that to your listeners to uh to buy it on Kindle or audible or have the hardcover book itself.

That's a good tease, always going to leave everyone with the teas. Elias Shapiro, really appreciate your time. Really interesting conversation. I appreciate it so much, so thank you, thank you.

That's a good tease, always going to leave everyone with the teas. Elias Shapiro, really appreciate your time. Really interesting conversation. I appreciate it so much, so thank you, thank you.

And you know, Lisa, this this administration that Trump too, is so much better lawyered than the last one was so all of these things and you know, the shock in awe and they really used their their transition time well, and the lawyers are ready. So I think most of this stuff that you know, it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff sometimes, but most of this stuff I think we'll get upheld in court.

And you know, Lisa, this this administration that Trump too, is so much better lawyered than the last one was so all of these things and you know, the shock in awe and they really used their their transition time well, and the lawyers are ready. So I think most of this stuff that you know, it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff sometimes, but most of this stuff I think we'll get upheld in court.

Well, I'm actually glad you mentioned that because that is one of the questions I was going to ask you that I forgot too. So you're helping me cover all the ground that I wanted to cover. So I wanted to ask you about how his legal team is doing. So I'm glad you got that in there. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. My pleasure was to take care Itzilias Shapiro. Appreciate him for taking the time. Appreciate you guys at home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday, but of course you can listen throughout the week until next time.

Well, I'm actually glad you mentioned that because that is one of the questions I was going to ask you that I forgot too. So you're helping me cover all the ground that I wanted to cover. So I wanted to ask you about how his legal team is doing. So I'm glad you got that in there. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. My pleasure was to take care Itzilias Shapiro. Appreciate him for taking the time. Appreciate you guys at home for listening every Tuesday and Thursday, but of course you can listen throughout the week until next time.