Executive Functions Chat

Jack interviews Caleb Nelson, the Emerson G. Spies Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, about his working paper, “Against the Dictatorial Presidency.” They discuss the modern history of unitary executive theory, Nelson’s criticisms of the theory in Slaughter, the relevance of the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the dangers of Slaughter, with special focus on the civil service. Goldsmith and Nelson close by discussing the Court’s unexplained Fed carve-out, with Nelson lamenting the Court’s selective willingness to consider consequences in crafting the unitary executive.

Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith discuss Jack’s October 19 piece on Senator Elissa Slotkin’s recent viral remarks at the University of Chicago, where she said she wanted accountability for the people who enabled President Trump, at least in part with the goal of sending a “deterrence message” to new graduates who might consider working for the administration. Jack explains why he thinks Senator Slotkin’s remarks were imprudent, and why he finds the prevailing reaction from pro-Trump quarters hypocritical. Bob presses on whether congressional investigation is different from weaponizing law enforcement, and whether worry about retaliation could lead to the most lawless conduct going unanswered. They also discuss Jack’s prediction that Trump will issue thousands of pardons, his case for prioritizing transparency, and why it is, and will continue to be, incredibly challenging for either side to de-escalate.

Bob Bauer interviews Francis Fukuyama, the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and author of The End of History and the Last Man. They discuss his new memoir, In the Realm of the Last Man, which, among other things, seeks to address misconceptions about the argument for which he is best known and to depict his intellectual arc; how excessive proceduralism fetters American government and drives voters toward populist candidates; whether reform would take a crisis; why Fukuyama posits that the post-Trump years may bring civil service and permitting reforms that were previously out of reach; and the necessity of educating young people on liberal values. Bauer and Fukuyama close by discussing changing one’s mind: the psychological barriers to it (particularly in an insular group setting), the liberation that expressing it can bring, and the interpersonal costs it involved in the case of Fukuyama’s departure from the neoconservative movement.

Jack interviews attorney and historian Catherine Grace Katz about her new book, Shadow Before the Flame: The Hindenburg Disaster and the Prelude to War. They discuss how a 1925 U.S. ban on helium exports required German airships to fly on flammable hydrogen, leading to the famous 1937 explosion over New Jersey. They also cover the Nazi takeover of the struggling Zeppelin company and the subsequent use of its airships as propaganda tools, and the later controversy surrounding whether to sell helium to Germany even after Congress relaxed the export ban. Katz closes by noting parallels to AI and other dual-use technologies, the necessity of balancing civilian risk against potential benefits, and the hubris that often accompanies large-scale innovation.

Bob interviews Nate Persily, the James B. McClatchy Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and co-director of the Stanford Law AI Initiative, about artificial intelligence and democracy, with particular attention to elections. They discuss what’s driving American anxiety about AI, why Republican and Democratic users alike rate AI models as left of center, and why Persily thinks the greater danger from deepfakes is not voters who are fooled but voters who stop believing what’s true—the “liar’s dividend.” They also take up the risks of relying on chatbots for voting information, state laws requiring disclosure of AI in political ads, and why Persily, though not “an unrepentant doomer,” thinks the time to regulate AI may be running out rapidly.

Bob Bauer interviews Tammy Patrick, Chief Executive Officer for Programs at the Election Center and former Federal Compliance Officer for the Maricopa County Elections Department, about how election officials are preparing for the midterm elections. They discuss differences between an imperfect election and an illegitimate one, the decentralized patchwork of thousands of local offices that administers the vote, the checks set up to constrain partisan officials or rogue insiders, and why federal intervention now tops the list of concerns for many officials. Tammy closes with advice for voters: make a plan, vote early, and don’t mistake a slow count for a rigged one.

Jack and Bob discuss the legality of the three advertisements praising President Trump that have recently aired with the tag “Paid for by the U.S. Government” and were reportedly paid for with Department of Homeland Security funds. They explain why the advertisements run afoul of the annually enacted appropriations rider barring the use of public money for publicity or propaganda purposes, and examine how the Government Accountability Office’s categories of impermissible propaganda apply to each of the three ads. They also touch on the less-clear relevance of the Hatch Act, why the applicable enforcement mechanisms are unlikely to be used, and what might explain an administration with ample party funds spending public money on advertisements that leading members of its own party have criticized.

Jack Goldsmith interviews John Coates, the John F. Cogan, Jr. Professor of Law and Economics at Harvard Law School and former general counsel of the Securities and Exchange Commission, about Trump Media’s sale of early access to the president’s Truth Social posts—up to $100,000 a month for a roughly 50-millisecond head start on market-moving announcements. They discuss how the arrangement differs from the low-latency data feeds Bloomberg and Dow Jones lawfully sell, how the STOCK Act applies the insider trading laws to the president by name, and who may bear legal risk: the subscribers, the president, or both. They also take up potential enforcement by a future administration, under New York’s Martin Act, or through private suits.

Bob Bauer discusses the Supreme Court’s order declining to stay the injunction against the Postal Service’s ballot-mail rule, issued the previous evening over a brief concurrence from Justice Kavanaugh and a longer dissent from Justices Alito and Thomas. He reads the Court’s order as a possible signal that eleventh-hour executive interventions in the electoral process would meet skepticism; notes the measure of bipartisanship in the record, including red-state election officials who told the Court the rule could not be implemented in time; and cautions that the rule’s application to the 2028 (and later) elections remains an open question.

Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith cover three sites of Republican pushback against the administration's election interventions: the Missouri dispute over which congressional map governs November, Justice Department election monitors in Wyoming, and a Supreme Court brief from 38 current and former election officials, several from deep-red states, arguing the mail-ballot rule cannot be implemented in time for the midterms.