costa rica. it will be a model for the region and the world. god bless you all and thank you very much. amen. god bless you as well. thank you very much to both of you and thank you to our colleagues from the press. thank you for everyone who has been following this broadcast on social media. god bless. have a good afternoon. which responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] -- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> president trump and vladimir putin are expected to -- president trump and benjamin netanyahu are expected to meet just after 5:00 p.m. eastern. you can watch on the free c-span now video app or online at c-span.org. >> joining us from new orleans, stephen griffin of tulane law school, a constitutional law professor, here to talk about the president's use of

executive power. >> no problem at all. happy to be here. >> we have seen the president use this power for over a week now, almost two. from what you have seen, what would you say of his use of this power? >> well, that is a pretty big question because there are several things going on at once. in one sense, president trump is using executive orders to establish some of the themes and programs he talked about on the campaign. he is giving directives to executive agencies to sort of line them up along his policy objectives. and perhaps spark some action, but there are other executive actions that raise serious constitutional questions and/or are attempt to follow-up on a lead, and this is a theme i like

to introduce, a lead given to him by the supreme court. in some sense, the supreme court itself has teed up the power he is now exercising through executive orders so there are several categories there, and of course some are more controversial than others.that >> that lead you talk about, is that a reference to the executive power that trump has in the united states? >> actually>>, i have had this question from reporters but i am not talking about the executive immunity decisions. i would really like to highlight the cases that are in every casebook that are called removal power. cases. people have noticed the president is doing some arguably unusual things as far as removals, but i don't think they have quite grasped the direct connection between what the

roberts court has been doing since roberts got in there in 2005 and what president trump is now following up on or also pushing the envelope. those removal cases, like the free enterprise fund case or especially the selle a law case in 2020. >> can you elaborate? when it comes to some removal cases, where has the president applied his power? >> so i also should have said all of these cases relate to the important concept, which we really started hearing about perhaps in the bush 2 prime minister should of the unitary executive. for quite a wild, conservative legal thinkers, justice scalia on the court, and other people on the court have been pushing the idea the president should be in sole control of the executive branch, so when i talk about removals, you need to think

power over the executive branch, president versus congress. it can seem like a technical issue of who gets to fire whom, but the real issue, the underlying issue is control and power, direct power over the executive branch. and so those decisions had to do with extending the reach of presidential authority to fire. for example, until the cell law decision, you could not remove the head of the consumer finance protection board. both president trump and president biden availed themselves of this power to dismiss. president just did it again, but there are broader issues, broader issues having to do with so-called independent regulatory agencies that congress designed to be somewhat independent of

presidential power, and also a huge issue, control over civil service employees. those are really big issues, and i am not sure they have been discussed that much quite yet. >> we will continue on with our conversation with our guest, and if you want to ask about the president's use of executive power, stephen griffin joining us for this conversation. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. an independents, (202) 748-8002. -- and independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to texas, (202) 748-8003 -- text us, (202) 748-8003. what has the court done as far as giving this type of power to the president? guest: i would characterize it this way. there was an easy balance in the law and an understanding, stemming from two early 20th century decisions.

the myers decision in the 1920's, having to do with the post office of all things. and the humphrey's executor decision in 1935, about 90 years ago. the humphrey's executor decision has been mentioned in recent news stories. the supreme court seemed to say the president cannot exercise removal authority and could not control what we would call independent regulatory agencies, such as the federal trade commission, the securities and exchange commission. and president trump's specific action that has to do with the equal opportunity employment commission. the eo ec. this is a thin layer of people in charge of operating these agencies where it has been designed in by congress that they should have fixed terms and can only be removed for cause.

at the same time, everyone agreed on the basis of the myers decision that the president should have removal authority over cabinet level agencies and there has been no question about that. there is an uneasy compromise or line drawn between, for example, cabinet level agencies and these independent regulatory commissions. starting in the 1980's, people associated with the reagan administration and justice scalia in particular started raising serious questions about this line and, in effect, embracing the unitary executive model announced in the myers decision. and they have been responsible for sort of a decades long campaign to get that removal authority at will, removal authority extended to the entire executive branch.

and if that were to happen, that would indeed be big news. separately from that, there is the whole question of presidential authority over the civil service, which are lower-level employees which are protected. you see, it's not just about removal. it is about influence and control. and president trump, pretty clearly, wants to control in a very direct sense, the entire executive branch of government. irrespective of laws passed by congress. that's the issue i would like to highlight. there arethere are other imports like birthright citizenship. i do not want to ignore those but this issue that i've talked about as we've seen got less attention. host: you probably get this question a lot specifically what the constitution says about executive power and why you think it has grown so much since then? guest: well. i will start with what i learned and where many books start which

is article two of the constitution does not give a lot of detail about presidential power and it certainly does not give a lot of detail about the structure of the executive branch. that's really for congress to build out. that is the conflict. what is the limit of congress's power to specifically organize the executive branch, versus you ask the source of the power. it's a famous gap in the constitution. the constitution has an appointments clause but it does not have a removal clause. but the people who have been advancing the unitary executive idea believe it is encapsulated in the very first sentence of article two which talks about vesting the executive power in the president. justice scalia argued in a case morrison versus olson, he lay down -- laid down a marker, he

was a lonely dissent. saying this means all the executive power and what he meant is what chief justice taft talked about in the myers case about limited power removal even in the face of congressional statutes to the contrary. at least in separation of powers land that is a big conflict and it has real-world implications. host: republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000. independent, 202-748-8002. ron is in michigan, a democrats line. good morning, go ahead. >> good morning. in my opinion what trump is doing he is eliminating all supervisory roles the federal government had to safeguard -- we will just take social security and put elon musk in charge of going to the records of social security to eliminate

people from social security and what that's can do is there going to eliminate people from social security and in the past we could call the federal government and get help, there will no longer be any help. so though go through with trumps and the billionaires forcing them down our throats and there will be no more recourse. benefits social security will start and then they will go on to v.a. and medicare cuts and there will no longer be any recourse in the billionaires are in charge. he is taking control of the fbi and federal law enforcement agencies -- they are no longer in place. the only thing that stands in his way now is the military and he's got pete in there. so it's either fascism or fight. host: puts out a lot of scenarios. the fbi we saw a lot of removal

within. does that fall within the president's power because it's not an outside board? you would know more than i. we're just a power fall on that front? guest: the new stories about the fbi often make it sound like an independent agency and these confusions trip up a lot of people. similarly with stories about the food and drug administration. but these are not independent agencies. the fbi is inside the department of justice and that was commented on in the hearings on pam bondi for example. but there is another issue here when you are talking about the department of justice and i can perhaps talk a little bit about elon musk. the issue is there's been a post-watergate understanding that the department of justice

should operate informally independently at arms length from the white house. president trump pretty clearly even from his first term does not have much time for that, does not believe in that in there is a connection between that and trump versus the united states, of the immunity decision. because the supreme court in that case if they had been more mindful of what some of us regard as watergate precedents, the decision would not of come out that way. because nixon was clearly -- people thought it was possible certainly to indict nixon. i am sorry that's a little telegraphic but the point is the conservative legal thinkers including people on the board -- court, obviously don't have the same respect for the post-watergate precedents with respect to the fbi and the doj,

as do the people in the trump administration and possibly on the supreme court as well. host: in kentucky, a republican line, this is george. caller: good morning. at what point would they say that a president has crossed the line? what would that line be and what exactly could they do to stop him? as a disabled veteran i would like to know. guest: if this is about the possible interference with the payment systems i don't think there is enough details on why mr. mosk has asked for this permission to scrutinize what's called the bureau of fiscal service in the department of the treasury. i think we are at early days as far as whether that represents even something that president trump is interested in. but, in terms of the doj fbi

angle, i think there's just a desire for more direct control and this is often been thought to be sort of a limiting case that no one would really be in favor of presidents directly controlling who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. but that may be challenged. another way for me to engage with the question is is it really true that the supreme court would back up president trump on all of these removal questions. i am not saying it's guaranteed at all. i think the judiciary is going to be a check on president trump just like it was in the first term. people forget about that. but president trump lost a lot of the cases brought in court that the court was not a rubber stamp and i think that's important to say. host: i was going to ask you to elaborate the role the courts have about crossing a line that

the viewer brought up, can you elaborate more on where you see the courts going even in these first tranche of executive orders. guest: to the extent that somehow teed up control the department of justice. i'm not quite sure how that would arise. what i was trying to get across is the supreme court has kind of given trump whether he knows it or not, a green light to challenge the independence of these agencies i was talking about. as well as even possibly undermining the civil service and it is unclear just how far the court would let trump go and you can read the decisions that i just mentioned in a limited way that they're not interested in destroying the whole structure of independent agencies, but i think we have to face the fact that the roberts

court gave a green light, sort of opened the door and president trump is walking through it. it's not to say he is going to win all the cases that i mentioned, but there is an interactive here that i think we have to pay attention to. >> andrea in north carolina, democrats line. >> good morning, things for taking my call. this is something that's really concerning me and i would like to know what to think about this. based on the fact the president does not believe in the law, he does not respect the country, what is the worst case scenario? can you use these exec's powers to gain access -- can he for example legalize the use of -- two maintain power.

how much should we rely on the president's morals in the country not to see something like this happen, or is there any way -- i think we cannot stop trump. i think at this point i'm very concerned about this country. what do think about this. guest: to the extent you are raising the 22nd amendment, limiting presidents to two terms in office. i really don't see somehow some magic way around that. so i think this is president trump's last term. i was thinking to myself some of the earlier callers might of been raising concerns about executive orders with respect to appropriations. and there is a serious concern that has to do with what's call -- there a lot of issues to keep

track of here. that's one of the most direct ways that a president trump could in theory do something about -- but the caller was raising what's the worst case. the worst case i will just stick with my watergate era observation that people haven't wanted to think about what would happen with this formal understanding having to do the doj fbi collapse. if it did collapse, that means the worst case scenario as well. what was asked about in the pam bondi hearings that president trump will constitute himself and enemies list and direct government agencies to go after all the people on the list and if people complain, they will be on the list. there is no doubt that an investigation by the fbi or

other agencies because people serious problems even if there are no court cases. i think that is one concern, that at least people in my area constitutional law professors have worried about. guest: the president has requiring people to come back to work in washington dc offices, he's offering some resignations to some within the civil services does that fall within the president's power. you were talking about what to the extent it does to civil service employees? guest: i was discussing blowing through the protections people have. i'm not sure this has been well covered. he dismissed a bunch of the january 6 prosecutors with no real reason other than they don't have trust and confidence in them. in the language of the law that is not a reason. a reason for the civil service would be people aren't doing their jobs, they are incompetent, they are not

showing up for work. it requires proof that would satisfy a court. but with the courts -- if the courts help president trump tear down the civil service protections and make civil service employees the equivalent of that will political appointees. then we are looking at a new politicization, something that looks more like a patronage system of the 19th century and the jacksonian area. that's another concern that people in my area worry about that you'll lose the benefits and they are very real, of the civil service and have a more chaotic administration government. host: jim in minnesota, independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for coming onto this and for your comments here. president trump's use of these

executive orders -- for me it reflects project 2025 and also the powell memos, you talk about president nixon and the supreme court, their power grab, this whole thing is just for me it looks like a massive power grab to take over and basically rule by authoritarian -- authoritarianism, just look at what elon musk has done with social security when he has no business even legally to be in that place. i would like your thoughts on that. guest: i think this has been under covered by the news media

that there are some parallels between the nixon administration and nixon personally and trump. because nixon came in after multiple democratic presidents from kennedy to johnson and he had been vice president and he had a good knowledge of the executive branch but he also believed the executive branch was controlled by democrats, people hostile to him. so he really wanted to run things, run the entire executive branch from inside the white house and he wanted very direct control over what was happening in the executive branch. i am not recalling that he challenged the independent agencies, but the point is he believed that the executive branch was fundamentally hostile to him. and he had a program to combat

that are undermined that and part of why -- part of watergate grew out of nixon's desire to run things from inside the white house. there is a parallel here with trump's view that democrats have been in power for four years, but furthermore he is using the civil service as party base and i'm really not sure that's true to the extent you have that attitude you'd be looking to undermine the civil service. as far as what people keep mentioning about payments to social security or whatever i am afraid i cannot speak to that. host: where does congress fit into this? you kind of insinuated they had a role to play but how do they flex that muscle so to speak to push back against the power used by the president? guest: this may sound abstract, but this tees up our civics book

understanding of the way the constitution is supposed to work versus how it actually works. in the civics book understanding each branch has a check and there is no doubt whatsoever that congress has a lot of tools it can use if it wants to to defend the traditional way of organizing the executive branch where you have silos in the president can instantly control everything if he wants but then you a party based government and president trump's party is in control of congress and has so far shown no inclination to check him. that's why a talk about the courts first. rather than congress. i think congress especially the senate may become more concerned if president trump actually does something more concrete with the way especially government is funded. congress is very jealous

historically of its appropriations power. that would run into the fact of if president trump wants to us this to happen, he has plenty of supporters in congress and they are very likely the first instance to give him a pass so i don't think congress, you want to say the republican congress isn't going to be much of a check on what trump wants to do at least at first. host: this is dan in indiana, republican line good morning. caller: i'm watching the show and i'm kind of shocked. biden started the executive orders. the biden harris controlled the fbi. they went after trump at every station they could get him. and it's common sense trump is following common sense and the law. he didn't break the law like

hunter biden. and talking about the j six. i watch for two years the democrats burned all the cities and killed people. i feel like i'm watching msnbc. host: so what's the question for our guest? he's gone. if you want to respond to that. guest: first of all i probably should've said something about the biden administration's use of power. by way of providing a little perspective i do go back and look. this tendency to use the first weeks of the presidency to lay down and through executive orders, you might attribute this to the bush administration but you really see it happening with president obama where he wanted to set a new tone for how we fought the war against terror. it really did take off with president trump's first term,

president biden follows with a lot of exec of orders himself so now we are in a tit-for-tat situation. yes, republicans believe that the whole doj, fbi has been politicized anyway and they are very resentful of all the investigations, especially the russia investigation, the special prosecutor muller. from their point of view it did not go anywhere. i have the traditional point of view that you had to investigate some of these but you were taking a clear risk in building an image of the fbi is politicized and so this stuff about post watergate obviously does not impress some republicans because they do not see that there was much of an arm's-length talking about that arm's-length relationship in the biden administration.

so there is a real problem being set here. the issues i discussed are real and despite any mistakes that were made in the obama or biden administration, the dangers that could follow from a more thorough presidential control of the fbi or doj are still there. they do not go away simply because bad things happened in the obama or biden administration's. we've got a bad situation here with respect to the administration of justice and president biden did try to take some steps to rebuild it, but once the january 6 prosecutions got going obviously that proved difficult. and furthermore, president biden , all these recent presidents have arguably abused their pardon power in such a way as to make people cynical perhaps about the administration of

justice. that is a serious problem. host: democrats line, you are on, good morning. caller: i wanted to ask if the president can send funds that have already been appropriated by the previous congress and can he allow a visitor to run the social security funds. guest: i really can't speak to social security, but i wish i had said more about this impoundment situation. this badly worded order from the office of management and budget which has now been enjoined or rescinded, but there is -- it is a troubling feature. there is a more general issue which is president trump has acted as if since he won, he ought to be able to put on pause

any flow of federal funding that he does not like. put that way, that is not right. that is illegal under the impoundment control act and unconstitutional. but the way he has gone about it so far has been so unclear that it's unclear even if he wanted to impound some of these funds. i tend to give him a pass on that, some of these orders were unclear even if the president knew about them. but, there are a people associated with the administration who somehow believe that the impoundment control act that congress enacted in the watergate era there's a reason we keep talking about it. is unconstitutional. and i don't follow that reasoning and i don't think it is right. the supreme court in a previous decision written by justice thomas lee declared that congress has control of the

purse and i don't think these impoundments are what they are will succeed. >> joy in savannah, georgia republican line you are next up for our guest. caller: what i want to say is trump is so far ahead of all of you. he is the one trying to take the drugs out of this country so our businesses can function. my mother-in-law came from china in 1928. the country was brain-dead on opium. she walked her grandfather to the opium house. the japanese took them over. if he wasn't getting the drugs out of our country we will not have a country because everybody wants to be a dishwasher just to get enough money to be able to buy the next fixed for drug. we have to have people with smart minds, drugs don't make

you smart. we've got to clean the country up before we can get anywhere before china. that's how they are eating our lunch. that's what's wrong with us. please, i beg get the people off the drugs. >> joy in savannah, georgia and i wonder if there is any parallel to this idea of use of power from the president yesterday signing these new tariffs against these three countries, of the larger idea to stop trafficking of drugs and things like that. guest: i don't mean to give the impression at all that somehow all of these executive order are legally questionable. and areas include trade policy, congress has delegated vast power to the president. there can be questions raised about this or that tariff, but president trump is on pretty firm ground in exercising

authority given to him by congress. that's generally true in the trade area. let me drive a larger point from what the caller just said which is to the extent president trump links otherwise questionable exercises of executive power to goals that most americans share, he has a good chance to expand executive power. to the extent he does it in a blended fashion and puts in question programs that everyone likes like social security, but to the extent he does some extremely broad actions that cross a lot of wires, then he is likely to fail. host: james in maryland, independent line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my whole thing is it seems like

we live in a tiered justice system. i feel like trump is really allowing us to see that criminals can actually live by different standards of rules. the whole time i was under the impression that america has a justice system that will take care of itself and it is not as such not only to the trump administration blame or give a lot of credit to the constitution, but it seems like when they do an executive order to do away with the second amendment, my bad, of the 14th amendment, there is no squabbles about this. it seems like the trump members are critical when it comes to his moves and actions and i don't understand the process. guest: i'm not sure, was the

question about having to do with birthright citizenship? host: he talked about that and the larger aspects of who gets protection under the law. i am paraphrasing. guest: i will respond in may be not helpful abstract way which is president biden did have the goal of trying to make people feel that the justice system was nonpartisan and he did this by appointing people like merrick garland that he thought would have the confidence of both parties. but i think it is apparent that the only real way to approach these issues in terms of something presidents actually accomplished is not simply to appoint people or say things, but actually bite the bullet and propose legislation so that we would have a new understanding of our justice system should

work. if you think the prosecutorial functions of the department of justice should really be above party and executed in a nonpartisan fashion, then you kind of have to make it formally independent in such a way that both parties would have confidence going forward. that would be changing the structure. in president biden didn't think about that pretty appointed a commission about the supreme court and it did produce some suggestions, but president biden was never interested too much in rocking the boat. but that caused -- that sort of came back to haunt him when the department of justice made a decisions that were seen as politicized. >> one more call from marion, ohio. democrats line. caller: my original question was on elon musk but it sounds like we don't have anything to say on

that. i guess my next question would be during trump's last term mcconnell was very good at blocking -- packing the court with were bubbly leaning judges. pretty much on all levels. so now that trump is basically the only guard rail against judges, what are the odds of them not making horrible decisions? on the issues that trump is trying to put forward that are unconstitutional. i would like to know if you think that our judges will actually do their job. i will take my comment offline. thank you. >> the baseline here. i will stick with what i see is the conventional wisdom among legal commentators that i respect, which is first let's remember, and viewed globally,

president trump lost a lot of cases in court in his first term. that is solid empirical evidence that the courts did not simply rollover for whatever he wanted. at the same time in some really high profile decisions including the immunity decision, the court also seemed to support trump down the line. that is why i highlight the importance of court opening the door on questions over removal. an ethic you will also see the courts stand up to president trump on the issue of birthright citizenship. i do not think there is much doubt about that. but the caller seemed really interested in these issues of appropriations and possible interference with the flow of the payment system. it is early days on that. it's why i have not had much to say about it. host: constitutional law professor.

>> joining us is dr. georges benjamin, executive director of american public health association. remind us of your group, what are the goals and who funds it. guest: we are the nation's national association of people interested in public health of professional society. it has been around since 1872. we are funded from membership dues, revenue from the annual meeting, revenue from our publications and some grants including federal grants. host: who are your members? guest: they are people who work in the state and local health departments who teach and do research at our nation's health centers, public interest groups like the diabetes association and other nonprofits interested in health, a lot of them small. host: as the executive director of the american public health association, is rfk junior

qualified to serve as health and human services secretary? guest: we believe he is the wrong guy for this job. we don't believe he has the proper training, the management skills and the judgment to do this job well and we saw that on full display during the two hearings he had this week. host: talk about proper training. what is needed? guest: somebody with a background in health. we have had a lot of attorneys in that job but they all had health experience. they have been legislators or they had a broad health experience in healthcare financing or health insurance. he does not have that. he is an environmental lawyer that has been in a very narrow focus area. environment is important for your health but he does not have the broad range of skills necessary for this job. host: management skills, you cited that. guest: hhs is almost a $2 trillion agency with 80,000 employees and 13 operating

divisions. it covers everything from before you are born to when you pass away. it is complex. and he at most has managed a couple of organizations on their board at their peak with a $30 million budget which is a rounding error in the budget for the department of health and human services. host: critics of rfk junior believe he does not know how medicare and medicaid work. do you share >> we are going to leave this here and go live to the headquarters of the treasury department, where democratic lawmakers have gathered to protest elon musk's access to the agency as well as being hosted by moveon civic action, indivisible, and working families party. >> i want to thank you for joining us.