Share This Podcast

• Check out Strict Scrutiny – crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/
• Call Congress – 202-224-3121
• Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8
• What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast

Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/

TRANSCRIPT

Jane Coaston: It’s Tuesday, January 13th, I’m Jane Coaston, and this is What a Day, the show that wants to remind you that one of the many problems with getting big checks from President Donald Trump from tariff revenue is that he’s going to forget he promised to give you big checks from tariff revenue. Here he is talking to the New York Times last week. 

[clip of unnamed New York Times reporter] You promised two thousand dollar checks to Americans based off of your tariff revenues, when can–

[clip of President Donald Trump] I did do that. When did I do that? 

Jane Coaston: Grandpa will get you that check just as soon as he remembers where he put his pen. [music break] On today’s show, the Environmental Protection Agency shoves an industry-shaped knife into the back of, you guessed it, the environment. And I-N-D-E-P-E N-D E-N T. Do you know what that means? According to a new Gallup poll, it means young people are abandoning both parties in droves. But let’s start with the Federal Reserve. The normally, let’s say subdued, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell went nuclear on Sunday night. After the Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation into his handling of renovations to the Fed’s D.C. Headquarters and whether or not he lied to Congress about them. But as Powell said in a video posted on the Federal Reserve’s social media, that’s just a pretext. 

[clip of Jerome Powell] The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation. 

Jane Coaston: To be clear, that’s nuclear for Jerome Powell, a man who seems like he’d react to a plane landing on his head by saying something like, that’s less than ideal. And he has every right to be upset. We’ve already seen efforts by the Trump administration to prosecute a number of people the president doesn’t like, from New York Attorney General Letitia James to former FBI Director James Comey. The Justice Department even fired a prominent prosecutor on Monday because he refused to lead the case against Comey, and Trump really, really really doesn’t like Jerome Powell. A fact he’s not exactly shy about sharing. Here he is at the US Saudi Business Forum in November. 

[clip of President Donald Trump] I’ll be honest, I’d love to fire his ass. He should be fired. 

Jane Coaston: As a side note, that was supposed to be a speech about U.S. Saudi business relations. This is all happening as the Supreme Court is set to debate another one of Trump’s efforts to take control of the Fed by getting rid of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The Trump administration has accused her of mortgage fraud, allegations she’s strenuously denied and don’t seem very strong to begin with because she didn’t actually break the rules she’s being accused of breaking. So to talk more about Jerome Powell, the Supreme court, and Donald Trump’s various efforts to prosecute people he does not like. I spoke with Leah Litman. She’s co-host of Crooked Media’s legal podcast, Strict Scrutiny. Leah, welcome back to What a Day. 

Jane Coaston: Thanks so much for having me. First things first. What crime does the DOJ say they’re investigating Jerome Powell for? 

Leah Litman: Lying to Congress, which is a curious crime to investigate someone for these days, given that–

Jane Coaston: Yeah. 

Leah Litman: –a variety of Trump administration officials seem to view that as part of their job responsibilities. 

Jane Coaston: I mean, I’m aware this is a different context. I was thinking in my head, like, if lying about how big a renovation is going to be is a crime, Trump would be in massive trouble, granted, that wasn’t to Congress, but like, is there a legal basis for any of this at all? 

Leah Litman: No. Um. And I think it’s clear, as Jerome Powell said in his statement, that he is basically being coerced and threatened to lower interest rates. That’s why this, you know, investigation has been opened. That’s why they are potentially prosecuting it, because I don’t even know why they think he lied about the scope of the renovations–

Jane Coaston: Yeah can you tell me a little bit about–

Leah Litman: –to the Fed. 

Jane Coaston: -about these renovations because I personally am not like laser focused on renovations taking place to the Washington headquarters of the Federal Reserve, but like what are they, what’s going on, and why are they allegedly a point of contention? 

Leah Litman: From my understanding, they seem to be mostly internal. And I haven’t seen images of the Fed or any wing of the fed being bulldozed on national television, which makes me think the project didn’t exceed its scope in as catastrophic and momentous away as the renovation of the White House did, but it’s not like there’s been an indictment or whatnot. We don’t really know why they even think they can allege that he allegedly misrepresented the scope of the renovations to Congress. 

Jane Coaston: Of course this is not about renovations. 

Leah Litman: No. 

Jane Coaston: To the Federal Reserve. Trump and Powell have clashed repeatedly over the last year about interest rates. What are the president’s complaints about Powell and the Federal reserve? 

Leah Litman: Basically, he wants the Fed to manipulate the economy so that it is politically beneficial for him. That, of course, runs counter to the very premise of the independence of the Federal Reserve Board, which exists to allow that agency to consider the nation’s long-term economic interests, not the short-term political fortunes of any one elected official. And so what Donald Trump is trying to cajole Powell and the Fed into doing is lowering interest rates to give the economy a short-term boost to make his, again, disastrous management of the economy look better than it is. And that is a recipe for a long-term economic collapse if you do things, again, that are convenient in the short term but will undermine growth and stability in the long term. 

Jane Coaston: The president told NBC News on Sunday night that he didn’t know anything about the investigation into Powell, saying, quote, “I don’t know anything about it, but he’s certainly not very good at the Fed and he’s not very good at building buildings.” So take that as you will from the person who puts gold lame on everything. But if this is another attempt from Trump to prosecute his enemies, which that’s what it looks like to me, is there anything in the law that can stop him from doing that? And what does it tell you that it seems like he wants to do this, but also not be connected to it at all? 

Leah Litman: In some ways, it exposes the ridiculous lie at the heart of the unitary executive theory you know that the Supreme Court has been embracing and that Donald Trump has been embracing to expand his power. The conceit of that theory is that the president embodies the entire executive branch, which exists only to carry out you know his personal directives and whims. Here you have him basically saying, I don’t know what DOJ is doing, even though the Department of Justice is supposed to be, according again to the Supreme Court in their immunity opinion, basically coextensive with and synonymous with the president. As for what might stop this, you know we have seen some of the vindictive prosecutions be halted. You know the Comey prosecution, the James prosecution, those were thrown out because they were instituted by you know acting US attorneys or interim US attorneys who have been improperly appointed. We don’t yet know where Trump might attempt to have Powell charged. And it’s possible he would only be able to find someone who’s willing to charge Powell by, again, attempting an end run around the usual appointment and confirmation process, which is what doomed the Comey and James prosecution. So what potentially stops this? Career prosecutors who actually view it as their obligation to uphold the law and are unwilling to just indict people because Donald Trump doesn’t like them. That’s one bulwark. Potentially a grand jury you know declining to indict Powell, if it came to that. That is something that has stopped the prosecutions of protesters and other individuals that this administration has attempted to launch. And then after that, you have the courts. In addition to raising claims alleging that any US attorney might be unlawfully appointed. Powell probably would have a vindictive prosecution claim, the idea that he is being targeted just because Trump doesn’t like him, not because he potentially violated the law. So there’s a host of defenses that Powell might have. And then the final safeguard is really the jury itself. You know if the jury believes that there isn’t a there there to the charges, then they would acquit him. 

Jane Coaston: Powell has not been the president’s only target at the Federal Reserve. Last summer, he attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, but the Supreme Court allowed her to stay in her position until they hear oral arguments in the case next week. What can we expect from those arguments?

Leah Litman: I mean, I think Donald Trump just made those arguments a lot more interesting because the Cook case really arose out of the Supreme Court’s kind of weak effort to attempt to insulate the Federal Reserve Board as they simultaneously empowered the president to basically fire the heads of every other agency. They basically told him, go ahead, fire everyone, but don’t fire the Fed. You can only fire governors if you have cause. So what does Donald Trump do? He turns around and tries to fire a governor of the Federal Reserve Board by manufacturing cause, by drumming up specious allegations of mortgage fraud you know against Lisa Cook. Something similar is happening with Jerome Powell. And what this shows is, if the court truly allows the president to manufacture claims about why he has cause to fire governors of the Federal Reserve Board. If courts don’t actually meaningfully scrutinize the president’s asserted grounds for firing governors of the federal reserve, then effectively the Fed is no longer independent because the president can just invent these allegations about why he has cause and then use them to get rid of anyone on the Fed he doesn’t like. 

Jane Coaston: Is there any indication on how they’ll rule? It’s been interesting because it seems like the Supreme Court has largely honored the idea of the unitary executive, except for the Fed. Cause it’s like, oh, if it’ll impact the economy, we got to put it over here. 

Leah Litman: Yeah, so I don’t really know how this one is going to shake out. Um. Obviously, as you say, they have really gone out of their way to try to insulate the Fed from this expansive consolidationist view of executive power. On the other hand, they have shown themselves to be quite reticent to basically second guess the president’s factual determinations, that is to accuse the president of lying and that’s kind of what they might have to do in Lisa Cook’s case in order to stop her firing. Now, it’s possible they might say, oh, the president didn’t go through the required procedures in order to fire her, even assuming he has cause. So that might be a way for them to kind of insulate the Fed a little or at least prevent this firing without questioning whether the president is lying. But I think there’s real pressure on the justices here. You know on one hand, they’re obviously sympathetic to the president’s wildly expansive view of executive power and the unitary executive theory. On the other hand, they have investment accounts, and they have good friends who are super rich, and they do not want to allow the Republican Party to be its own worst enemy and tank the economy. And so they may be be doing them a solid by ruling against them here.  

Jane Coaston: Clarence Thomas needs to get on those yachts somehow. 

Leah Litman: Those yachts don’t pay for themselves. 

Jane Coaston: It’s true. Now, speaking of the Supreme Court, today justices are hearing arguments in two separate cases weighing whether trans athletes can compete in public school sports. Can you give us a preview of each case? 

Leah Litman: Yeah, so there are basically two cases that raise a similar issue. They are about how courts will scrutinize or review laws that really discriminate against transgender individuals. You know one question in the case is, if the laws discriminate on the basis of sex, which I’d note the state concedes that it does, if the law does discriminate on the basis of sex, is the court going to water down the standard that courts usually apply to review laws that distinguish between people and discriminate on the basis of sex? Because here, the state is basically arguing, well, look, we can do this because a lot of trans women will do really well, you know, in sports, and that’s bad for people who are assigned female sex at birth, and that might cause injuries. But the reality is, like, that is a generalization, and we don’t usually allow broad generalizations, and stereotypes to carry the day when a law discriminates on the basis of sex. If we did, then all kinds of sex differentiation and discrimination would be legal. And the litigants in these cases, I mean, the teenager, BPJ, it’s not like she was winning all of the awards or placing in the top 50%. And so again, that just underscores if the court applied the usual standard for sex discrimination cases, you know it seems like the plaintiffs here would prevail. And then the other question is going to be, what is the court going to say about laws that discriminate against trans people generally? Will the court say, courts should also review those laws more skeptically and basically hold the state to a pretty high burden in order to pass laws and enforce laws that single out trans people? Or will the court instead say, no, we’re going to treat those laws as presumptively legitimate? And that could invite states to do even more discrimination against trans people, you know, outside the context of athletics, outside the context of college sports or, you know, high school sports or whatnot. 

Jane Coaston: Looking ahead at the Supreme Court’s docket, what can we expect from the second half of this session? We’ve already seen Trump posting about how, if he doesn’t get the tariff result he wants by the Supreme court, he’s screwed. Are any other decisions expected to come down soon? What are we looking for? 

Leah Litman: So we never know exactly what decisions of the Supreme Court are going to come down and when. And anyone who says otherwise, right, is just lying to you. That being said, we can attempt to predict you know what the court might decide and when based on past practices, as well as whether there are any timing considerations unique to particular cases. Here, you know the tariffs decision, I think people think of as time sensitive because the longer it is drawn out, the more tariffs that are collected and the more money that the government is potentially on the hook for to pay back. And that’s why people expect that decision could potentially come down soonish or earlier, even though these big cases usually take until the end of the term. The other big case that could potentially come early is the major existential challenge to the Voting Rights Act, because if that case comes down earlier, that could, potentially, allow states to do some additional redistricting or try to do some addition redistricting before the midterms. And so you know some people think maybe the court will rush to get out that decision in order to give you know Republican-led state legislatures the ability to engage in even more gerrymandering. I think that one’s less likely because I would be surprised if the Democratic appointees kind of let that one go out on the earlier side. 

Jane Coaston: Leah, as always, thank you so much for joining me. 

Leah Litman: Thanks as always for having me. As my t-shirt says, leave trans kids alone, you absolute freaks. 

Jane Coaston: Agreed. That was my conversation with Leah Litman, co-host of Crooked Media’s legal podcast, Strict Scrutiny. We’ll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. [music break]

Jane Coaston: Here’s what else we’re following today. 

[sung] Headlines.

[clip of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison] This has to stop. So let’s be clear, it never should have started. These agents have no good reason to be here. 

Jane Coaston: Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced a lawsuit on Monday against the Trump administration to halt its outsized immigration operations in the state. Minnesota and the Twin Cities sued the Department of Homeland Security, claiming the surge of agents is unconstitutional and has, quote, “instilled fear among people living, working and visiting the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.” Alongside the city’s mayors, Ellison detailed how federal agents have been causing chaos in their communities. 

[clip of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison] Minneapolis police have had to respond to more than two hun– twenty excuse me twenty ICE related incidents like witnesses seeking people being pulled into unmarked vehicles by men in masks or ICE abandoning vehicles on the street with people detained inside. This is an unlawful commandeering of police resources. 

Jane Coaston: Attorney General Ellison called BS on claims that ICE is needed to fight fraud in Minnesota. He said the real reason the administration is there is because the president has been targeting cities and states that don’t agree with him politically. 

[clip of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison] Immigration enforcement agents aren’t trained to investigate fraud, and randomly stopping people in the street because you don’t like their accent isn’t going to stop fraud. So enforcing federal immigration law and fighting fraud are just pretext for this surge. 

Jane Coaston: The lawsuit follows the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis last week. In response to the lawsuit, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote online in part, quote, “President Trump’s job is to protect the American people and enforce the law.” She added, quote, “that’s what the Trump administration is doing.” Is it? The Environmental Protection Agency’s website states its mission statement as, quote, “to protect human health and the environment.” An example, for decades, the EPA justified clean air regulations by weighing the costs saved from fewer asthma issues and early deaths from pollution. But now, it would appear less interested in the health of humans and more interested in the heath of the economy. Internal emails and documents reviewed by the New York Times show the Trump administration plans to stop monitoring the health benefits of limiting pollution. This shift would make it easier to roll back contamination limits on coal plants, oil refineries, steel mills, and other pollutant belching facilities nationwide. Which in short could lower costs for companies, but would likely lead to dirtier air for everyone else. Sure, there’s always been disagreement over how to value human life in policy math, but until now, no administration has straight up erased it. 

[clip of Senator Mark Kelly] Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth sent a chilling message to every retired member of the military. If you speak out, say something that the president or the secretary of defense does not like, you will be censured, threatened with a reduction in retirement grade, or even prosecuted. 

Jane Coaston: Arizona Democratic Senator Mark Kelly sued the Department of Defense Monday over Pete Hegseth’s efforts to punish him for criticizing the Trump administration. Hegseth recently issued a formal censure against Kelly, accusing him of making, quote, “seditious statements after Kelly appeared in a video with his fellow members of Congress,” telling service members to refuse unlawful orders. As a retired Navy captain and astronaut, that censure could lead to Kelly’s demotion and pension cuts. So, in Kelly’s lawsuit, the senator offered the former Fox & Friends weekend anchor a refresher on the First Amendment. It reads, quote, “the First Amendment forbids the government and its officials from punishing disfavored expression or retaliating against protected speech.” Mark Kelly once spent 340 days in outer space. So for him, this must be some of the most terrestrial bullshit ever. If you’ve ever looked at both political parties and thought, nah, then you’re in very good company. According to a new Gallup poll, 45% of U.S. adults identify as political independents, a spike from about a third of the country 20 years ago. Gallup’s analysis suggests that growth is less about new-found love for independence and more about frustration with whoever’s in power. Right now, that dynamic happens to favor Democrats heading into the midterms, not because independents are warming up to Democrats, whose approval remains historically low, But rather because the reviews of President Trump have grown even colder, with his approval rating falling steadily over the year. But hey, we’ll take it. Younger Americans appear to be driving the shift. Majorities of Gen Z and millennials now identify as independents. That breaks with past generations that were more likely to pick a party and stick with it. 47% of those independents describe themselves as moderates who feel squeezed out by parties that are growing more polarized. That leaves both parties stuck between a political block and a hard place, reaching out to independents without turning off their most loyal supporters. And that’s the news. [music break] One more thing. Let’s talk about the MAGA money machine and bribes. María Carina Machado is the 2025 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. She’s a critical opposition leader in Venezuela where she led a successful campaign against former president Nicolás Maduro until Maduro’s government barred her from running. But according to Donald Trump, she doesn’t have the, quote, “respect to run Venezuela.” However, she does have something he wants very, very badly, a Nobel Peace prize. So in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity last week, she hinted that maybe she might be willing to hand it over when the two meet next week. 

[clip of Fox News’ Sean Hannity] Did you at any point offer to give him the Nobel Peace Prize? Did that actually happen? I had read that somewhere, I wasn’t sure if it was true. 

[clip of María Carina Machado] Well, it hasn’t happened yet, but I certainly would love to to be able to personally tell him that we believe the Venezuelan people, because this is a prize of the Venezuan people, certainly want to to give it to him and share it with him.

Jane Coaston: Unfortunately, the Norwegian Nobel Institute had to rain on everyone’s parade on Saturday and announced that actually you cannot transfer your Nobel Peace Prize to someone else, which is tough news for María Machado. Because the clearly implied quid pro quo here was visible from space. If she gives Trump her Nobel Peace prize, which she earned for facing the scourge of a repressive government to stand up for human rights and democracy, maybe she will get to participate in the rebuilding of her country. Because right now that’s not what’s happening in Venezuela, since, as CBS News detailed, everyone besides Maduro is still in power. 

[clip of unnamed CBS News anchor] Even though Nicolás Maduro is out, the regime is still very much there. There are these armed militias that are called colectivos that have been canvassing the streets of Caracas and cities beyond. Only public displays of support for Maduro are tolerated, and any hint of support for the U.S. can be met with arrest. 

Jane Coaston: See what Donald Trump wants are bribes. You wanna participate in the rebuilding of your country? Give him your award. You wanna avoid tariffs? Give Trump a gold Rolex desk clock and an engraved gold bar. It’s like the musical Chicago. If you’re good to Trump, maybe he’ll be good to you. [music break]. 

[AD BREAK]

Jane Coaston: That’s all for today. If you liked the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, contemplate the college philosophy class that is no longer allowed to discuss Plato, and tell your friends to listen. And if you’re into reading, and not just about how Texas A&M University has decided that Plato constitutes, quote, “gender ideology,” so you can’t teach Plato’s symposium anymore, like me, What a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at crooked.com/subscribe. I’m Jane Coaston and seriously? [music break] What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. It’s recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producers are Emily Fohr and Chris Allport. Our producer is Caitlin Plummer. Our video editor is Joseph Dutra. Our video producer is Johanna Case. We had production help today from Ethan Obermann, Greg Walters, and Matt Berg. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison, and our senior vice president of news and politics is Adriene Hill. Our theme music is by Kyle Murdock and Jordan Cantor. We had help today from the Associated Press. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East. 

[AD BREAK]