In this edition of #ListenFirstFriday, the 17-year-old founder of YAP Politics discusses efforts to bridge the polarizations between political affiliations.
Video: #ListenFirstFriday Yap Politics
#ListenFirst Friday Yap Politics
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Guests in the audience await the arrival of U.S. Vice President Mike Pence during the Federalist Society's Executive Branch Review Conference at The Mayflower Hotel on April 25, 2023, in Washington, D.C.
Drew Angerer/Getty Images/TNS
Trump Shows That Loyalty Is All That Matters to Him
Jun 24, 2025
Last week, the Court of International Trade delivered a blow to Donald Trump’s global trade war. It found that the worldwide tariffs Trump unveiled on “Liberation Day” as well his earlier tariffs pretextually aimed at stopping fentanyl coming in from Mexico and Canada (as if) were beyond his authority. The three-judge panel was surely right about the Liberation Day tariffs and probably right about the fentanyl tariffs, but there’s a better case that, while bad policy, the fentanyl tariffs were not unlawful.
Please forgive a lengthy excerpt of Trump’s response on Truth Social, but it speaks volumes:
“How is it possible for (the CIT judges) to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP?’ What other reason could it be? I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real ‘sleazebag’ named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions. … In any event, Leo left The Federalist Society to do his own ‘thing.’ I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!”
Let’s begin with the fact that Trump cannot conceive of a good explanation for an inconvenient court ruling other than Trump Derangement Syndrome. It’s irrelevant that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 law the administration invoked to impose the relevant tariffs, does not even mention the word “tariff” or that Congress never envisioned the IEEPA as a tool for launching a trade war with every nation in the world, the “Penguin Islands” included. Also disregard the fact that the decision was unanimous and only one of the three judges was appointed by Trump (the other two were Reagan and Obama appointees). (The decision has been paused by an appeals court.)
Trump is the foremost practitioner of what I call Critical Trump Theory — anything bad for Trump is unfair, illegitimate and proof that sinister forces are rigging the system against him. No wonder then that Trump thinks Leonard Leo, formerly a guiding light at the Federalist Society, the premier conservative legal organization, is a “sleazebag” and “bad person.” Note: Leo is neither of those things.
But Trump’s broadsides at Leo and the Federalist Society are portentous. Because Congress is AWOL, refusing to take the lead on trade (and many other things) as the Constitution envisions, it’s fallen to the courts to restrain Trump’s multifront efforts to exceed his authority. That’s why the White House is cynically denouncing “unelected” and “rogue” judges on an almost daily basis and why Trump’s political henchman, Stephen Miller, is incessantly ranting about a “judicial coup.”
The supreme, and sometimes seemingly sole, qualification for appointments to the Trump administration has been servile loyalty to Trump. But that ethos is not reserved for the executive branch. Law firms, elite universities and media outlets are being forced to kneel before the president. Why should judges be any different?
Trump has a history of suggesting “my judges” — i.e., his appointees — should be loyal to him. That’s why he recently nominated Emil Bove, his former personal criminal lawyer turned political enforcer at the Department of Justice, for a federal judgeship.
The significance of Trump’s attack on the Federalist Society and Leo, for conservatives, cannot be exaggerated. The legal movement spearheaded by the Federalist Society has been the most successful domestic conservative project of the last century. Scholarly, civic-minded and principled, the Federalist Society spent decades developing ideas and arguments for re-centering the Constitution in American law. But now Trump has issued a fatwa that it, too, must bend the knee and its principles to the needs of one man. The law be damned, ruling against Trump is ingratitude in his mind.
Speaking of ingratitude, the irony is that the Federalist Society deserves a lot of credit — or blame — for Trump being elected in the first place. In 2016, the death of Antonin Scalia left a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Many conservatives did not trust Trump to replace him. To reassure them, Trump agreed to pick from a list of potential replacements crafted by the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society. That decision arguably convinced many reluctant conservatives to vote for him.
In the decade since, the Heritage Foundation has dutifully reinvented itself in Trump’s image. The Federalist Society stayed loyal to its principles, and that’s why the Federalist Society is in Trump’s crosshairs.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Protestors march during an anti-Trump "No Kings Day" demonstration in a city that has been the focus of protests against Trump's immigration raids on June 14, 2025 in downtown Los Angeles, California.
Getty Images, Jay L Clendenin
Americans Want To Rein In Presidential Power
Jun 18, 2025
President Trump has been attempting to expand presidential power more than any president in recent history, in large part by asserting powers that have been held by Congress, including federal funding and tariffs. Public opinion research has shown clearly and consistently that large majorities—often bipartisan—oppose expanding presidential powers and support giving Congress more power.
The Pew Research Center has asked for nearly a decade whether presidents should not have to “worry so much about Congress and the courts” or if giving presidents more power is “too risky.” Over seven in ten have consistently said that giving presidents more power would be too risky, including majorities of Democrats and Republicans, no matter which party is in power. In February 2025, 66% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats took this position.
Very few support presidents being able to act unilaterally in defiance of the other branches of government. An AP-NORC poll in March 2024 found just two in ten saying it would be “a good thing” for presidents to be able to change policy without Congress or the courts. The president being able to disobey federal court rulings is supported by just 14%, per a recent Ipsos/Reuters poll; and support rises to just three in ten when told that the court ruling could impede the president’s ability to prevent a terrorist attack, per a recent Annenberg Public Policy Center poll.
As political scientist Andrew Reeves noted in his 2022 book “No Blank Check”, in which he analyzed decades of public opinion data, the public has consistently “express[ed] low levels of support for presidents acting unilaterally,” and that “even when the president changed, these views shifted only slightly over time.”
Specific expansions of presidential power have been met with large public opposition. President Trump has declared he has the authority to directly control federal agencies that were designed by Congress to be independent from presidents. Two thirds oppose presidents having this authority, including majorities of Republicans (52%) and Democrats (81%), according to a March 2025 survey by the Program for Public Consultation (PPC). A YouGov poll found just a quarter (24%) of respondents said it is acceptable for the president to “[assert] control over previously independent federal government agencies.”
The March PPC survey also found that majorities of about two in three prefer to keep seven currently independent agencies free from direct presidential control (FCC, FTC, SEC, NLRB, FEC, OSC, and the Federal Reserve’s regulatory arm), including majorities of Republicans in all but one case (the FTC).
The Trump administration has asserted it has the authority to refuse to spend funds allocated by Congress, known as impoundment. In the March PPC survey, 63% opposed presidents having the power to impound funds, with Republicans being roughly divided. A New York Times/Siena poll found a majority opposition to presidents being able to “eliminate government programs enacted by Congress” (54%, with just 21% in favor). A similar majority opposed presidents having the power to “impose tariffs without authorization from Congress.”
The effort to give the president more direct control over the hiring and firing of civil servants is broadly opposed. Over six in ten Americans oppose the idea of “allowing presidents to fire civil service workers for any reason,” including a 47% plurality of Republicans, according to a June 2024 YouGov poll. A majority find the idea of presidents “dismissing officials because they are perceived as disloyal to the president” unacceptable, per another YouGov poll. Even the more narrow proposal in a recent Executive Order that allows policy-related civil servants to be replaced for any reason under the direction of the president is opposed by a majority (55%) in a PPC survey.
Not only do Americans oppose expanding presidential powers but they favor reining presidents in and giving Congress a greater role. Six in ten oppose presidents being able to directly change policy, such as through executive order, without Congress voting on them, according to YouGov and Annenberg polls.
Even on national defense—where presidents are typically understood to have the most discretion—the majority of Americans support taking away power from presidents and giving it to Congress. Six in ten favor requiring congressional approval for military operations initiated by presidents (Republicans 53%, Democrats 62%), according to a 2022 PPC survey. Another bipartisan majority of six in ten favor requiring congressional approval for presidents making arms sales over $14 million. And a 2019 PPC survey found a bipartisan majority of nearly seven in ten in favor of requiring congressional approval and a formal declaration of war by Congress in order for a president to use nuclear weapons first in a military engagement.
Efforts to expand presidential power are not completely unique to President Trump. Over the last few decades, political scientists agree that the balance has shifted towards the presidency, as a result of presidents taking more power or Congress giving it to them.
One may wonder why Americans favor giving Congress more power when Americans express so much dissatisfaction with them. Though the public is frustrated with congressional gridlock and believes it is too responsive to moneyed interests, Americans appear to nonetheless embrace the Founders’ idea that there should be a balance of power and see the office of the presidency as holding too much power.
Steven Kull is director of the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation.
Evan Lewitus is a senior research analyst for the Program for Public Consultation.Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump (R) meets with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in the Oval Office at the White House on May 6, 2025 in Washington, DC. Carney, who was elected into office last week, is expected to meet with President Trump to discuss trade and the recent tariffs imposed on Canada.
Getty Images, Anna Moneymaker
Why Congress Must Counteract Trump’s Dangerous Diplomacy
Jun 16, 2025
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s May 31 speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue defense summit in Singapore was no ordinary one. He accused China of posing a “real” and “imminent” threat, leading China to accuse the United States of touting a “Cold War mentality.” Juxtapose this with King Charles’ May 27 speech opening the Canadian Parliament, which he was prompted to deliver in response to U.S. threats to annex Canada. Consistency has not been a hallmark of this administration, but the mixed messages are not just embarrassing—they’re dangerous.
Given Trump’s unpredictable tariffs and his threats to make Canada the 51st U.S. state, Canada can no longer rely on its continental neighbor as a trusted partner in trade and defense. Canadians are rallying around the hockey saying “elbows up” and preparing to defend themselves politically and economically. Trump’s words, which he doubled down on after the King’s speech, are destroying vital U.S. relationships and making the world—including the United States—less safe. Hegseth’s message to China rings hollow next to Trump’s refusal to treat territorial borders as subject to change only by consent, not coercion or conquest.
To understand why Trump’s rhetoric is so dangerous, think back 80 years to the signing of the Charter of the United Nations. World War II was the world’s deadliest conflict, killing an estimated 70–85 million people, including over 400,000 U.S. soldiers. Between 50–55 million civilians died. Countries created the United Nations and agreed in a binding treaty that they would not use the threat or use of force against any other state’s “territorial integrity or political independence, or in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” This is the cardinal principle of post-war international relations, and it has—so far—prevented another world war.
The United States made this bargain in its own self-interest. Without minimizing the political and economic instability Americans have faced in recent decades, the situation would be immeasurably worse if we lived in a world of all-out global military conflict. Yet that is where the Trump administration’s rhetoric is taking us, even though Trump claims to be “anti-war.”
The United States and Canada share the world’s longest land border, which has been conflict-free for over 200 years. Yet Trump has called this border an “artificial line.” He has insinuated that Canada would be better off joining the United States. And looming over his conversation with Prime Minister Mark Carney in the White House was a not-so-veiled threat of making Canada a Godfather-like “offer it can’t refuse.” Before January 2025, the idea that the United States would threaten Canada was imaginable only in South Park, where characters sing about “form[ing] a full assault!” on Canada, dismissing it as “not even a real country anyway!”
Canada is only the latest target. Trump has touted the possibility of annexing Greenland and the Panama Canal. His suggestion that Russia could gain territory in a peace deal with Ukraine has undermined Ukraine’s self-defense and panicked European allies, who know that rewarding Russia’s attack would encourage future land grabs. And Trump has threatened to turn America’s back on the United Nations entirely.
This leaves a global invitation to other aggressive moves, for example in Taiwan, notwithstanding Hegseth’s admonition of China. This might seem like a far-away conflict but it affects Americans deeply. In addition to valuing Taiwanese democracy, Americans rely on Taiwan to produce the world’s most advanced computer chips, which we all use daily. Moreover, as World War II showed, military conflict sparked by territorial ambitions is not easily contained.
Talking about borders as “artificial” gives military hawks around the world tacit permission to disregard the lines that protect each country’s territory and the people who live within them. Annexing any other country’s territory without the clear and uncoerced consent of the population—and even talking about doing so—makes Americans less, not more, secure.
Trump’s South Park diplomacy is destructive and should be rejected. Congress can and should take steps to show the world that Trump does not represent the views of the American people. China has long accused the United States of “double standards”—Trump’s annexationist rhetoric adds fuel to such accusations and increases global instability.
The post-war years have seen Congress cede much of its foreign relations authority to the President in practice, but the Constitution gives Congress an essential role. There are multiple ways for Congress to make its views known. For example, in 2023, Congress passed legislation introduced by Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) and then-Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) attempting to prevent any president from withdrawing from NATO without Congress’s consent. During Trump’s first term, congressional Republicans cooperated with Democrats to protect spending on U.S. foreign policy, including the State Department. They should do so again. Individual members of Congress can issue statements with their foreign counterparts, as Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) did in her capacity as a member of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, emphasizing that “the future will be defined by partnership, not ownership,” and that other countries are “[o]pen for business, but not for sale.” After Carney’s White House visit, several U.S. senators visited Canada to try and stabilize the U.S.–Canada relationship. That’s a good start, but it’s not enough.
Although it’s difficult to imagine a bipartisan resolution recommitting to the principles of the U.N. Charter as we mark the 80th anniversary of that treaty’s signing, such a move would help restore the world’s badly shaken confidence in the United States, a country that—under presidents of both parties—could previously be counted upon to support our allies and respect their borders, just as we insist that other countries respect ours.
Chimène Keitner is a professor of law at the University of California, Davis School of Law, a PD Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project. She previously served as Counselor on International Law at the U.S. Department of State.
Keep ReadingShow less
A large banner with the image of President Donald Trump hangs outside the Department of Agriculture near where a U.S. Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle is displayed ahead of this weekend's celebration of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the Army on the National Mall on June 12, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Chip Somodevil
I Was a Military Officer for 10 Years. I Got Out Just in Time.
Jun 13, 2025
On May 18, 2015, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Over a decade later, as a Lieutenant Commander in the Navy with a J.D., I resigned my commission.
I saw the signs. I feared if I stayed any longer I’d be ordered to act against my conscience.
Few military officers outside of Judge Advocate Generals have a law degree, but I do. I also flew helicopters–MH-60Rs–and am highly trained to fight submarines and fire hellfire missiles and torpedoes. I studied law while on active duty, graduating with a 4.0 GPA, and I was already almost halfway through getting a Master of Laws in Global Business Law from Columbia University when I left the Navy. When it comes to matters of global concern and constitutional law, I think it would be safe to assume I have a more formal background and experience than most.
But in my final months, I watched in horror as overtly unconstitutional moves were made within the government. On June 2, I left the Navy. On June 9, Trump ordered 700 Marines to storm into Los Angeles. Let that sink in. An American president just deployed American troops against an American city. Remember: we are not at war. This was not a military necessity but an act of political theater, designed to intimidate dissenters and strut for supporters. And a reckless gesture driven by personal, petty politics. It undermines everything I have believed in as a service member, an American, and someone committed to the study of law.
Throughout my service, I contemplated the ethical hypothetical: what would I do if asked to carry out an order I believed to be illegal or immoral? I knew I’d refuse, even at the cost of my career. I’m a queer Jewish girl from Berkeley, California. When it comes to foreign service, I value diplomatic solutions over militaristic ones. What was I doing in the military in the first place? Well, for better or worse—and I tend to believe for worse because it is by design—the military is the single best way in this country to get healthcare and education, not to mention financial security. The enlisted ranks are filled with young people trying to get a foot in the door to a better life. Showing up for them was a mission that always motivated me, even if the idea of war did not. I told myself, if you leave, those sailors will have one fewer advocate. One fewer ally to help them navigate an often unforgiving environment. So, I hoped I would never be given an order I couldn’t follow—that I could trust my superior officers. I left the military in part because that confidence had faded. As a legal officer, I felt hypocritical prosecuting sailors for offenses far less egregious than that of our commander in chief, and as a command security manager, I struggled to explain the lack of accountability after our secretary of defense committed a security breach that I knew would get me sent to prison.
I am proud of my military service, but it may quickly become a source of shame for myself and all other veterans if the institution becomes an unaccountable political tool for an unaccountable political tool. The repeated illegal and unnecessary authorization of military force is the beginning of the end.
The United States military is supposed to be a humble institution, one entrusted with a solemn duty to defend this nation. Yet, tomorrow, Trump will order soldiers to display force at his birthday party in a vanity exercise that will cost American taxpayers $45 million.
It’s hard to support the troops when they’re marching on Washington and Los Angeles. But many of these enlisted folks joined for financial stability. When the consequences can be cut in rank or pay, a dishonorable discharge, or a court-martial, what 18-year-old kid is prepared to challenge the orders of the officers above them? And when Trump has fired all the dissenters, what’s left is blind obedience. Now is the time for insubordination. It will take an extraordinary level of bravery.
We can help them. As a country, we can show zero tolerance for this frivolous use of our armed forces. Veterans, active duty service members, and civilians alike must join together to condemn these unlawful and un-American actions. That is the call of duty now. We must all answer.
Julie Roland has deployed to the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating from the Navy in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She graduated law school from the University of San Diego, is currently pursuing a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is the director of the San Diego chapter of the Truman National Security Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More