We Can Do Hard Things with Glennon Doyle - Finally Democracy Fighting Back! | Jessica Yellin on Hope from SCOTUS & Harvard

Episode Date: April 24, 2025

405. Finally Democracy Fighting Back! | Jessica Yellin on Hope from SCOTUS & Harvard  This week, Amanda is back with friend of the show, Webby Award Winning Journalist, Jessica Yellin, to break down what’s happening in America and why this week there are a few stories to feel good about.  -The alarming deportation case making headlines and how the courts are pushing back -Why Harvard’s refusal to comply could set a powerful precedent for free speech -The surprising way Wall Street is turning on Trump and what it signals -What’s really going on with Hegseth and why his unraveling matters Jessica Yellin is the founder of News Not Noise, a pioneering Webby award-winning independent news brand -- dedicated to helping you manage your  “information overload.” She is the former chief White House correspondent for CNN and an Emmy, Peabody and Gracie Award-winning political correspondent. You can follow her on Instagram at Jessica Yellin.

And also, to get real time, clear and brilliant reporting, go to substack.com and search for her page newsnotnoise and subscribe there. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From early morning workouts that need a boost, to late night drives that need vibes, a good playlist can help you make the most out of your everyday. And when it comes to everyday spending, you can count on the PC Insider's World Elite MasterCard to help you earn the most PC optimum points everywhere you shop. With the best playlists, you never miss a good song. With this card, you never miss out on getting the most points on everyday purchases. The PC Insider's World's Elite MasterCard, the card for living unlimited.

Conditions apply to all benefits. Visit pcfinancial.ca for details. It is getting very close to book release time. Our new book, We Can Do Hard Things, Answers to Life's 20 Questions comes out on May 6th. You can pre-order We Can Do Hard Things anywhere you get your books, or you can go to treatmedia.com. You can also join us for a virtual event that we're doing on publication day.

You guys, we're doing a live virtual event. Because since the tour sold out so quickly, lots of you were sad to not be a part of it and we can't stand your sadness. So we're hosting a virtual event to support those who could not get tickets and to support our beloved local independent bookstores. All the proceeds from this virtual event

are going to these local bookstores. They show up for us, we're showing up for them. May 6th, if you pre-ordered the book from an independent bookstore, you don't have to buy it again to come to the event. Please register for the event by uploading your indie order at treatmedia.com and just click the option that says I've already pre-ordered from another indie. Okay we'll see you there.

Hello, everyone. Welcome to We Can Do Hard Things. Today we are regrouping once again with the phenomenal Jessica Yellen to talk about what we need to know in the world. And we do it in this hour so that we can spend the rest of our one wild and precious life doing life-affirming things, figuring out what we can do to impact the world, and not riding the roller coaster of intentional chaos that is whirling all around us. So today, I have just come back into the country after around 10 days out of it with my family. And I've got to tell you, Jessica, it was a little bit nice to not be monitoring the

news every five minutes. So I feel really good about what we're doing here once a week to keep people informed while not having to follow every single story, every single minute, because I think it might be the way to do it. I love that. I think so, right? Don't you feel more normal kind of? For lack of a better word. Yes, I feel like, well, not my normal, which is my own internal chaos. Like that, at least I am responding to the tollment of being me as opposed to the tollment of being me and the intentional chaotic tollment of the environment and I think there is a connection between

those two. So if it felt nice for a weekend it made me think let's keep doing this because people need to know, we need to know what's going on and what's important and what's distraction and what's real. And we also need to not be consumed by it. It's like consume the news, but not be consumed by the news is what is ideal. I love that. I think you seem just sort of vibrant in a way that's, you know, a shift, right? This weekend, I tried to turn off the news mostly and put down my phone. And I reached out to friends I don't see that often.

And I hung out with two friends I don't actually go visit that much. They're in my city. I just, you know, you get in your little rut. And it just felt like a plant being watered. I just, I kind of feel like I got springier and more present and able to deal. So I definitely recommend, I can't imagine 10 days must have felt like a lifetime of therapy. It was, it was. And I think that it's cool too, because it's not only good for us. It's like if we don't have a sense of springiness, if we don't have a sense of springiness and if we don't have a sense of connectedness

with people and community with people, then we can't actually do the things that we're gonna need to do to resist all of this. It's actually, it's not selfish. It is helpful to the process to connect with people and have a little joy and have something to defend when that is under threat. So I got back, let's talk about what the heck went on. I wanna talk to you about from my reinsertion in America,

what my initial reaction of looking at the news was. I can't imagine. And I was like, wow, okay, I leave you people for 10 days. And I come back and the president is talking about, let's build more prisons so we can ship Americans to El Salvador. It was shocking. So let's talk about that,

but we're also gonna talk about the things that happened, but also there are really exciting signs of life, kind of evidence of dissent, evidence of a little bit of the wheels getting wobbly underneath the administration in each of the areas. And I feel like there's some excitement there. Yeah, and signs that our institutions are holding and pushing back.

Yes, yes, yes. Bad news is our institutions are being tested. Good news is our institutions are mostly kind of sort of endeavoring to hold. Endeavoring. So, okay. Endeavoring to hold. So I will tell you what I saw and then you tell me what happened. But when I came back, I saw that Mr. Obrego Garcia, who is the father in Maryland, who was summarily removed.

And the administration said, whoops-a-daisy, that was a mistake, but nothing we can do to get him back. What I saw, and tell me what happened, was that there was pushback to get him back since he has not been accused of any crime, and a judge said he cannot be deported. He was legally protected here in the US. That the court wants him back.

And Trump said, hey, bummer, would love to do it, but just can't because now he's under the authority of El Salvador. And so whoops-a-daisy, we can't get him back. And then he's sitting with El Salvadorian president who says, yeah, sorry, there's nothing I can do to get him back. And then he's sitting with El Salvadorian president who says, yeah, sorry, there's nothing I can do to get him back. And Trump and him are together saying that,

even though it's very clear that if Trump told him to bring him back, he would. And then Trump says to him, those prisons where those people are being held, which by the way we are paying exorbitant sums to house these people. I'm gonna need you to build more of those because I would like to send homegrown bad guys, which means American citizens, who are bad also to you. What the hell is that? I know it's like.

That is so scary. I mean, this is like playbook stuff where you can just pick up people, make them leave, and then say there's nothing we can do to get them back without any kind of trial or accusation or anything. So what is happening there? What is the response of other people in power? What is the response of the court?

What is happening? Because then there was a Supreme Court ruling, like just what happened? So it's a lot as you're conveying and there's two different kind of categories of pushback against what the administration is doing with these removals. The first one has to do with Abrego Garcia himself.

The second one has to do with the use of the Alien Enemies Act and deportations of Venezuelans. Remember, Abrego Garcia is El Salvadoran, not Venezuelan. So he's in a different category. So let's talk about Abrego Garcia. It's been absolutely amazing to see how people have rallied, have understood the stakes of this, both for this one human life and for what it means for the country as a whole, if his disappearance is allowed to stand. So on Abrego Garcia himself, because he was removed to El Salvador and he's El Salvadoran, Bukele, the leader, and

Trump have been pretending that it's a different case, a different situation where he's home. So the US has no authority to have him back. And he's under the control of his president who decides, Bukele. But as you rightly say, he had protected status in the US, is a human being who was entitled to due process. And so lawyers went to court and we've seen two actions. One is that the Supreme Court first said that the government has to facilitate his return, meaning take active steps to try to get him back because he's entitled to due process. Like if there is a version of events where he could be deported,

but that would have to go through the courts and he wasn't given them. So they said, you have to facilitate his return. They use this funky language where they said, Oh, a lower court said you have to facilitate and effectuate, but we don't know what effectuate really means. So facilitate his return. We're going to make effectuate problematic. The government clung to that part of making effectuate an issue and use that to pretend they don't have to do anything.

So they have been like a child pretending it doesn't have to eat dinner, whatever, dragging its heels. And eventually what's happened to fast forward is this has gone through the courts. Another court with one of the most conservative judges in America, a guy who objected to giving rights to detainees at Gitmo, said, yeah, you know what? It's cool to keep people at Gitmo, no problem. They don't have special rights. Took the exact opposite stand here and wrote what is an absolutely beautiful decision,

saying effectively, this man is entitled to due process under our constitution. He kind of said, I beg you, Trump administration, to understand that if you don't give him due process, we are in a state of anarchy where everything about American law falls apart and any one of us could be taken to a gulag overseas and locked up for life. Please don't destroy American democracy is effectively how his decision is written. I'm paraphrasing.

This is Judge Wilkinson. Harvey Wilkinson. Is the one who did, yeah. He is not one who would be at the top of your list of what the right would call activist judges. He has been, you know, staunchly. Well, activists for them. Activists for them, right?

That's what I mean. Like where it's like, oh, these guys are, I mean, he was full on in support of the Bush administration theory of what they could do when Guantanamo Bay was happening. So that's really remarkable that he came out and did that. So that was the first thing. Wilkinson issues that decision, which

was like a shot in the arm to everybody who's been troubled about this. And then Chris Van Hollen, the senator from Maryland, who is the representative, he's the senator for Kilmario Obrego-Garcia, decides to fly down to El Salvador and try to see his constituent, which I have to say, like, it was a beautiful thing. At that point, Bukele had just sat in the Oval Office

with the president. They were bros. They were talking about doing all these extra judicial things. They were basically yucking it up. Like, they were sort of laughing at all of us and at Obrego-Garcia. And at all of us and at a Borgo Garcia. And at the Constitution. And at the Constitution. It was gross.

But really suggesting that in cahoots, we will start deporting Americans into gulags. And so there's a way in which Chris Van Hollen could have, you know, we don't know what could have happened to him. So he goes down to El Salvador in what I think was courageous and tries to get into the prison to see him. They won't let him in. Now keep in mind, Kristi Noem did her like insta-friendly photo shoot there.

Others were allowed in, no problem. But a sitting US Senator asked to see his constituent and is barred from entry. He even drives there and is redirected. All these things, right? He sees other traffic going in and says,red from entry. He even drives there and is redirected, all these things, right? He sees other traffic going in and says, you can't. He goes to meet with the vice president and the vice president of the country says, sir, we are holding him here under the orders

of the Trump administration. Now that's important because Trump has said, we have no ability to get him back because he's an El Salvadoran citizen. So it's up to Bukele. Bukele's number two is saying, no, no, it's up to Trump. But at this point, Van Hollen stays a few days and has to head home without seeing Abrego Garcia.

They won't let him in. And then in the last moment, he gets a call and the government says, we won't let you see him in prison under his conditions, but we'll bring him to you at your hotel. So they give him brand new clothes. like they clearly went to a store, give him clothes, put him in a baseball cap, and bring Abrego Garcia to Chris Van Hollen. And there are these photos of them sitting together talking.

And everybody's like, the critics have said, it looks like Abrego Garcia is living the life, right? Like he's at a hotel, he's got a seeming margarita near him, which he doesn't touch. Anyway, Van Hollen finds out the chain of events. Abrego Garcia had been taken. He wasn't allowed to call his family. He was put on a plane, chained, taken into this place. He said that in the prison, he was kept in a space where he didn't fear for the other

prisoners with him, who were about 25 men in one cell. But there were others who were cat calling at him and screaming things at him and he did have fear. And the very reason he was given protective status in America is because he was under direct threat from a gang there that was threatening to kill him. So he is now back in a prison with presumably also the gang members from whom our judicial system was saying he needed protection, required

protection. Totally. So yes. Wild. I mean, this guy's living a nightmare. So since Van Hall, he says that after Van Holland arrived, they removed him to a different prison, a separate facility, something that's less high max security. So presumably now he's got all these global eyeballs on him. They want to make sure he stays alive, is my guess, right? Van Hollen leaves, comes home, holds a press conference, says, we're going to continue to press for his return, shares all this information.

And a lower court judge says to the government, you need to take active steps to facilitate his return. Judge Harvey Wilkinson said in his decision, facilitate is not a passive word. It means do something. So for the next two weeks, I'm going to order you, the Trump administration, to tell me what you are doing, and I want the names and details of who is responsible." So that's what's unfolding over on one side, right, for the Kilmar Abrego Garcia. And his wife has now been moved to a safe house.

I think the New York Times is reporting for her own security. And so we're seeing all that still unfold, right? Over on the other side, we're taught the Alien Enemies Act, there's a question about whether that can be used to remove all these Venezuelans. Again, the purported gang members. And the judge in that hearing said, you, members of the Trump administration, have defied me and you are in contempt of court. And I'm going to use the power of the judiciary to hold somebody in contempt, but I don't know who because you won't tell me anything. So you better tell me who was responsible for flying that plane of men over against

my orders. And if you don't, I can name a special prosecutor to find that out. So that's where that state of play is. Meantime, as all this is happening, on Friday night, very late, the ACLU files an emergency request to the Supreme Court and to the appeals court. They just went to every single court they could find and said, there is a bus with almost 30 men on a North Texas detention center's grounds

that is about to drive to the airport and take more people to that prison in El Salvador against your orders, please bar them from doing this. And at almost 2 a.m. on Saturday morning, the Supreme Court did the most rare and remarkable thing. They were up late at night. I mean, I said, you know, when the Supreme Court pulls an all nighter, you know something extraordinary is happening. I mean, I said, you know, when the Supreme Court pulls an all nighter, you know, something extraordinary is happening. I mean, I have like, it might be the lawyer in me, but I have like the equivalent of like tearing up goosebumps when like a court does what a court is intended to do. It just feels like it's so beautiful. It's a salve in these moments to hear, okay, what did they do?

I know it's like it's working. It's working. So by a 7-2 decision, the court gave the most unambiguous order and they said, effectively, you are barred from removing any of these people from the United States until further notice of this court. Period. They didn't use any language that can be played by the administration nor was there any ambiguity. They didn't even offer a legal rationale. They're just like, we're saying you stop. And the other piece of this that I really want to emphasize to everybody who's been really anxious about the constitutional crisis is that the Trump administration blinked and they did not fly these people out. That is not to say that they're not going to test and push,

or we won't see the crisis happen, but we remain on the cusp for now they are adhering to the orders of the court. So that's like an exhale moment in this small way, right? We have to take the small wins. I'll add that that decision was 7-2. No surprise Alito and Thomas were the dissenters who flagrantly want to violate the Constitution. They said that, oh, the Supreme Court's rushing to this decision, you don't need to move so fast. Let the lower courts hear this first.

In other words, let them be removed so that the administration can say, oh, bummer, if you only you had told us first, we would have been able to do something, but we can't now because they've already been removed. So that is hogwash with the idea of let the lower courts figure it out. This is the very definition of irreparable harm. That is what an order like this is supposed to prevent. So thank God that the Supreme Court did that. And so then they complied.

Have they made any statements or we just know from ASOU that the bus didn't go? Oh no, the White House has said that this is, you know, an egregious overreach, the messaging and MAGA world on X with Elon Musk and now Bill Ackman, who's like this billionaire donor who's now like messaging that gets repeated by the White House. The big X message is the court's asking

that we give every single person involved due process. And if they all have to have a hearing, this will take forever. So I posted on Instagram just to make it clear to everybody that the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution says due process shall be granted to every person. Not every citizen, every person. It is quite literally what is mandated in our system. So what the president's railing over is just how America works. Right. What he's saying is the constitutional protections provided in the formation of our

government make it very inconvenient and inefficient for me to deny everyone their rights. And therefore I strenuously object. Yeah. It's supposed to be wildly inconvenient and time consuming and inefficient to take away someone's life and liberty. That is intentional. So the ACLU has filed a subsequent request to the Supreme Court saying, would you please

expand your order so that the administration understands they may not remove anyone under the Alien Enemies Act. And the language they used, I'm going to get it, you know, this is imprecise, but they said is, please stop them before they remove people into a faraway prison where they will face torture, isolation, and no hope of ever seeing freedom again. Possible death and no hope of freedom again. I mean, it's horrific. So the Trump administration has said to this both, you're slowing us down and this is ridiculous. you should let it go to the lower courts. And as of now, now that's where I think it stands. However, the minute we finish our podcast, something completely different could happen. As of now, the ACLU is the voice I

trust on what is happening with the men. So far, they have not reported any other men being removed since the court's order. The more you know about American history, the better you can understand things today. But let's face it, sometimes the way history is taught kind of sucks. So let me tell you about my podcast, History That Doesn't Suck. I'm Professor Greg Jackson, and I'd like to tell you a story, not give you a lecture. Stories about real people and events narrated as if it's happening in real time. History That Doesn't Suck is accurately researched and presented with cinematic music

and sound to bring the stories to life. Each episode is a continuing chapter in the epic story of America decade by decade from the nation's founding to the 20th century. Start at the beginning or jump in somewhere along the way. Our nation has a rich history that goes deeper than just presidents and politicians. I also chronicle great achievements of the American people in science and industry sports and entertainment and the sacrifice of soldiers on the battlefield. The promise is in the title, History That Doesn't Suck with Professor Greg Jackson, available on the free Odyssey app or wherever you get your podcasts.

I would like to take a moment of appreciation for the ACLU doing incredible institution protecting, liberty protecting, vital work right now. I mean, the organizations like ACLU, like Democracy Forward, who I know you are interviewing this week, Sky Perryman of Democracy Forward. She's a giant of an American hero. And the work that those organizations and those like them are doing right now, we will be looking back on history at this moment

and saying, those are the ones who allowed us to save ourselves. So if you are someone who is worried about this, if you are someone who does not know what to do, look at these organizations like ACLU, like Democracy Forward, look and invest in that because that is an investment in the protection of our liberties.

And I'm so grateful for them. May I add one thing? I interviewed the lawyer who's leading some of these efforts, these efforts at the ACLU, Ben Wisner last week, and he is somebody I went to college with. And we were friends when we were 20 years old. And he was that guy then. Do you know what I mean? You'd find him at lunch and he would be very concerned about something. You'd start talking about it. He would explain it in these ways where you're like, gosh, this combination of powerful intelligence

and compassion and an understanding of how the system works. And I just wanna say thank you, Ben, for what you're doing. And also these people are out there who are really doing something. And listening to how they see the world and what they think, you don't have to agree with everything. Some things he says I don't agree with, but you don't have to agree on all of it

to really appreciate what they're doing to fight for our rights. That's right. And the point is the ability to express what you believe freely and without retribution from power is what all these people are trying to defend. That is democracy. It is if someone says something that I very much disagree with, these organizations are protecting their right to do it. That's the point. And that is the ideals and the reality that is under threat right now in a very real way, especially as we are not just surmising

that maybe this is where this path is going with disappearing of people. Trump is saying that out loud in front of reporters saying, I want this to be extended. I want more prisons. I want homegrown people to be able to send there. This is a real threat. And so these organizations fighting back, the courts holding the line unequivocally in these cases is a real reason to feel good and to support them. Can I add one thing, which is in my conversation with Ben Wisner of the ACLU,

which by the way, people can listen, it's on Substack. It's still up there. News Not Noise on Substack. Plug, plug. Ben's interview is up there and also you really want to hear from Sky at Democracy Forward. That's happening this week too. So go to Substack, News Not Noise

and hear from all of these heroes. They're doing the work. So go to Substack News, Not Noise, and hear from all of these heroes there doing the work. So Weisner, Ben Weisner said, you know, I'd spoken to him right when Trump was elected, and we had a personal conversation. He was sort of, sounded quite downcast. This conversation, he said, our courts are working, our system's holding.

And it was so encouraging to hear it from him. He's like, so far, I mean, this decision by Harvey Wilkinson, he could not have put it in more clear terms that so far, what they're meant to be doing is happening. So that really gave me some oxygen. And I think you just made the perfect transition to another story that's happening right now. Tell us. We want all the oxygen we can get story that's happening right now. Tell us. We want all the oxygen we can get, Jessica. Give us more oxygen, please.

Which is you talked about suppressing different viewpoints and the freedom to speak and have disagreements in this country. And we're seeing that clash take place between the administration and the universities, right? Before I left, it was very disheartening. It seemed like, you know, Columbia had caved to the threats of the Trump administration. Other law firms and universities were just basically, it seemed like caving. I came back and God bless them, but Harvard seems to be not doing that. What are they doing?

I know somebody posted, there was a meme going around saying, nation shocked, it's on Harvard's side. I mean, this is the world. I'm like, well, great Harvard. I didn't see it coming, but way to be a good guy. So let me start here. Project 2025 has had a plan to attack American universities. They see the universities as incubators of progressive thought and incubators of progressive

leaders, both things. So Project 2025 and the Right had this plan to go after universities to strip the progressivism out of them. And this is, we should say historically, this is a like 101. When you're trying to have an authoritarian regime, you go after the places that educate and incubate wider thinking ideas because you don't have control over those ideas.

You want to have control over ideas and thought and you want it to be the way you want it. So you can't have people free thinking. That's not a thing that can happen. It's a fascism playbook and this is not, I'm going to use a word that might be contested, but it's before there was even conversation of quote woke, right? It's not about languishing, policing in the classroom. This is about something much deeper about thought, right? And- This is like hundreds and hundreds of years

of this being the playbook. So they've wanted to attack the universities. And then we saw what we saw in the last few years where there became academic discussion of, are we able to have free speech on these campuses, contested viewpoints, all those issues, right? We know that debate. And they have now used that, appropriated that conversation, and specifically the conversation

about anti-Semitism, to say that they want to clean anti-Semitic strains out of the universities. And it is my fervent belief, and I'm not alone in this, that that is a pure fig leaf for allowing them to do what they've wanted to do all along. And there's sound of JD Vance saying, you know, we need to clean out this hotbed of liberal thought at these universities. So they're saying it's about protecting

against anti-Semitism, but you're saying that they are actually just using that as an excuse to do the thing that they wanted to do, which is have control. Yes. So what they specifically want, they sent Harvard a list of demands that include things like you need to create an audit board that's an outside audit board to study. I can't remember these, you know, what you're teaching and who's allowed to teach it. And you need to send the data of everybody you

accept, but also who you reject to the federal government. And you need to eliminate anything that has a whiff of anything we consider to be DEI by their inscrutable and broad and unknowable terms, or you're at risk of losing any federal funding. It's essentially putting the school under federal control so that they get to do what they say the schools are doing, which is determine what you can teach based on political point of view. Harvard had been talking to this administration about, yes, there is a fair conversation to be had about some of the challenges that are happening on campuses.

You do give us a lot of money. The federal government has a right to say, based on their funding, you can make some changes. Universities want to figure out how do we strike this balance between freedom of speech and making sure everybody is and feels safe. That's a fair conversation. But the Trump administration then sent Harvard this list of demands that included those wild things that I mentioned, data, audit board. And Harvard looked at that and said, there's no way we can comply with this. This is outrageous. And they said no. this is outrageous. And they said no. And rather than just cower, Harvard issued a public statement written by the president and said this is unreasonable and released the specifics of

what they had been asked to do. Ooh, they made it public. Ooh, that's good. And then what ensued over the course of the last week was a back and forth where Harvard continued to refuse to comply and the administration took away one billion in funding, two billion in funding. Then Trump threatened their tax exempt status. Then Trump threatened another billion, three billion now, I think is threatened and tax exempt status. Harvard gets $9 billion of funding

from the federal government. And keep in mind, this is for things like cancer research. It's not like Fulbright scholarships for kids, whatever. Yeah, it just has background. The reason that the government gives universities funding is because what comes out of that funding is that theoretically, it's the same reason that the government gave Elon Musk billions of dollars. The idea that if we give this money to these people

who are super smart, out of it will come things that are good for our nation, Elon. So that's why he got those things, right? Now we get a rocket ship, great. This, what we get when we invest our federal money in universities is things like vaccines, research. These primarily go to the hospital units of the universities and they are for the collective good. So when he says, I'm withholding $3 billion from Harvard, what he's saying is, I am withholding

the promise of the results of the research of some of the smartest people in the world, which will benefit our nation and our globe. So that's what he's playing. Those are the dice he's playing with. Yes. And what's happened is that Harvard has now filed lawsuit

against the Trump administration, saying that this is an attempt to silence their academic freedom and to take away their academic freedom and silence diversity of thought, a threat to free speech, really, and that they're using federal funds unconstitutionally because they were approved by Congress.

The reasons this is meaningful is, first, Harvard is, I can't remember if today it has today it's always had the largest endowment of any university. I think that's still the case. It does still. So they're sort of in the strongest financial position to weather the storm and endure whatever retribution the administration visits on it. And there's also this perception that Harvard has played this leadership role.

And so by doing this, they are sort of going first. And there's, you know, a thought that maybe other universities might join their suit or file their own suits. I know, you know, separately, is it called the big 10? Some of the big universities that are big sports universities also banded together. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, big 10. I was like, I only know that in the sports context. Yes. They also banded together and said, we're going to form a pact to protect one another. If one of us is attacked, we will all stand. They're their own mini NATO. So I think that there's, we're starting to see this pushback. And there's also this,

Trump has said that they're coming for the elites, you know, taking on Harvard is a formidable challenge in court. There are some strong thinkers on their team. Yes. So the model for this is beautiful because it's similar to what I think on like the micro level, which is that if, you know, I know Harvard has not done a lot of good things over history. I'm not trying to like whitewash that, but what I'm saying is it's beautiful when those who can withstand the pressure most, those who have the most privilege,

who can take it, actually do. And step up to the front because that becomes, you know, an umbrella of protection under which they can gather those who might not be able to stand alone against that kind of threat. And so that's a wonderful thing. And I hope that other universities do join. Or even whatever they argue in court and whatever decision they get could be applied in theory to other universities. And I want to note that this is not, what I'm describing is not sort of a Democrats versus Republicans dynamic. This is Trump versus everyone else. There are a lot of Republicans who are offended by what's going on in the attack on the universities, many of whom thought that there was needed reform, but understand this to be profound overreach.

So, we're in a real unprecedented terrain for America. We have a little bit left and I want to talk about some other kind of breaths of oxygen that we're seeing. Our friend, Hegseth, you will know him from various things such as constantly sending secure military operations over signal. He was interviewed by Fox. Was it Fox this morning? Yes. And was introed as the former Secretary of Defense.

And then the guy who was interviewing him corrected himself and was like, oh, current. So is this a sign that Hegseth is in trouble? Drip, drip, drip. Yes. Basically, his people around him have started taking out the trash on him. His pentagon has sprung a leak and it's not getting filled. So what's happened is over the course of the last, I think, 10 days, they fired four of his most senior advisors. And then all of a sudden, all these very damaging leaks start coming out. How does that happen? Coincidence? I think not. So, one of the leaks is that that very famous signal chat wasn't a one-off. It turns out there was another

signal chat all along. He had established his own signal chat with his wife, his brother, his personal lawyer and others, in which he shared very sensitive information. And NBC reported today that it was information obtained from a general. So even if they tried to pretend it wasn't serious, it was. And again, you know this better than me, but it's basically, you know, you talk to service members and they say if any one of us had done that, not only would be summarily dismissed, we would also be court-martialed and all the rest.

Yeah, criminal investigation, you could be in. Yeah, it's a very, very serious thing. And a former Trump administration official is now left, but is quite maga and loyal, wrote a piece saying that the Pentagon is in total disarray and chaos. A Republican member of the House didn't explicitly call for Hegset to go, but said he can't do his job.

And then someone leaked yesterday that the Trump administration is looking for a replacement. So Trump is going to say, I've got his back. He is saying, I'm staying, I'm not going. He's doing that whole press tour. He's acting rageful. He had a meltdown at the Easter egg hunt at the White House lawn. I mean, those are stressful. You're looking for the Easter eggs.

You can't find the Easter eggs. You send a signal chat about secret operations and then you just lose your shit. It's totally typical. The internet has having a very good time by posting Pete Hegseth POV and it's all pictures that are blurry as if, you know. Yeah. So anyway, that's Hegseth. I don't expect him, he may not be around in his job

by the next time we record. All right, well, there's always hope. Also in a development we never saw coming, the Wall Street bros, even though Trump was their guy, be damned with all the civil liberties that are under threat. At least he was always going to be doing what's right for the markets. How are the Wall Street bros feeling these days? Full on freak out.

Miserable. They're seeing their therapist several times a week. They're doing an extra lap in their triathlon. It's not good for them. Long story short, even though Trump backed off tariffs, those extra high tariffs on 70 countries, he has still imposed a 10% across the board tariff on most of the globe. He continues to say he's threatening to replace the Fed chair. Both of these things mean there's profound instability about the future, which makes

it very hard for businesses to plan literal things like, if everything's 10% more, can I buy a new machine for X? Can I hire that person I wanted to hire? Without panicking people, I just think we should say, and we'll talk about this more another time, there are trucks that are traveling empty. There are ships that are sailing empty. There are goods that are on the dock that aren't being brought in because they have to re-tag everything.

Imagine millions of items that were tagged for sale now have to be added new price tags. All of this is cascading and it's gonna lead to supply shortages, it's going to impact businesses. And it means that investors who invest, the stock market is really a bet on the near future of our economy.

They don't know what the near future of our economy is. They don't have faith in Trump keeping things stable. There's so much volatility that not only is the market going up and then down, down, down, down, and then rebounding a little and then down even further, but the bond market is doing that too. And without getting into the weeds, the bond market is the safety valve, backstop, stable as a rock, safest place you can park your money. And so the bond market is sort of the insurance that America is a safe place to invest.

Yes. If your apples and your metas and whatever those investments, those stocks are a short-term bet on how the economy is going. Bonds in some ways are the long term level of confidence in our economy, right? Like, well, we might go up and down over here, but in the long run, America is going to be a stable bet. And that's what bonds are for.

So that is, I don't wanna ride the wave, but at the end of the day, I know they'll be stable and coming through. That is now going down, which is what woke him up about tariffs, right? It's the thing that started getting wobbly when Trump did tariffs. And it's not merely that he imposed tariffs, it's that he imposed them in such an erratic way. that he imposed tariffs, it's that he imposed them in such an erratic way. He said they're on, he said they're off. There was no logic or theory to what he was applying a tariff at what rate to. In other words, America doesn't seem so state. Part of why we've been such a safe haven for investments is because our democracy has been solid as a rock. Our judicial system is trusted and sturdy. Our government follows the law.

Our Congress acts effectively. The checks and balances work. And so it's not like investing in a country where you don't know if a new government will be there a year, or you don't know if the Fed chair will be fine. We're stable. We're boring. They want to measure boringness.

Trump is profoundly not boring and that is bad in business. And so it's punched Wall Street in the gut. And what you were referencing earlier is that the Wall Street Journal had a headline this week on its front page that showed the Dow with its crazy downward slope that day and said the Dow is on track for its worst April since the Great Depression. Them's fighting words from a Rupert Murdoch-owned publication that caters to Wall Street. So CNBC is apoplectic these days in general. Wow.

Yeah, it also just makes me think if the global markets are backing away from the US dollar, like where are they going? Because it isn't just our loss. It's the what kind of alliances and what kind of strengths are we making happen other places in the globe that are bad for us. If you're going over and saying, well, China is looking pretty stable right now. That's double bad for us. Totally. At the end of the day. Okay. Real quick, tell me. So the bond market going not well, Trump wants the Fed chair to lower rates to basically cover his ass so that people don't feel it as much. The Fed chair does not want to lower rates because he's an independent actual economist who knows things.

And so he says, if I lower rates, inflation will go way up. And Trump says, I don't give a shit about that. I just don't want people being mad at me. And so now Trump is calling the Fed share a loser. Tell us just in a couple of sentences, what's the purpose of a Fed chair? My understanding is that they've always been independent precisely for this reason that we need an independent voice of reason who understands the

economy and will act accordingly. What is happening there? Can Trump fire him? So technically the Fed chair sets monetary policy, which means basically what are our interest rates and at what rate can banks and major, major institutions also get and move money. They set some regulations and stuff like that. So it allows not just things like your mortgage rate and little like your credit card interest rates, but also behind that is like Bank of America can borrow a billion dollars, low cost or high cost, right? It's that they decide those things.

And the reason he's supposed to be independent is so that they're not responsive to political pressure. So they don't lower rates because the president wants ass cover, right? Precisely this case. They don't lower rates because the president called them a big loser. Correct, Amando.

But the truth is, if the president wants him to go and says, I want you to step down, one would expect he'd go. But it's also possible that the entire Fed would resign with him. That the chairs of the other banks, the Federal Reserve boards, that they would all vacate in protest of this violation of their sacrosanct independence. And that's another reason why bonds fell

when Trump called him a big loser, is because the world also wants an independent person in there that's making the best decisions for the economy. If he were to put somebody in who was just gonna do exactly what he wanted, that would ironically be bad for the markets because the outside world and US investors would say, I don't trust that as far as I can see.

I'm going to further back away from the dollar because now they're just doing it whatever this guy says they should do. So this is not a good situation. Yeah, it's a lot. Is he responding to the Wall Street boys? Do you think he's scared? Are there reports of like, he might react in a way

to try to save Wall Street's view of him? So it's a mixed response. He pulled back on those higher tariffs for 90 days because the bond market was going wobbly. And so that was a response to what's happening in the markets. At the same time, he's proven surprisingly resistant to changing his tariff policy overall. And Jamie Dimon, the head of JP Morgan Chase,

who's highly respected, Bill Ackman, who's one of his top donors and a billionaire. I can't remember a third. There were three voices that were begging him to change tariff policy. And Trump has posted that people who are against tariffs are bad at business. At the same time, he did do the 90-day pause.

So we're seeing a little bit. We talked in one of our first episodes about how there are these different constituencies around Trump that at some point are going to clash. And two of the constituencies we talked about were the Silicon Valley guys who want chaos, some of those people who want to create chaos, and then the Wall Street people who don't. And I think we're starting to see some of that come into conflict. And as a teaser for future conversations, we're starting to see a little bit of that conflict happen

in other areas of the Trump kind of coalition. And I wouldn't be surprised as we hit the 100 day mark next week, if all of this starts to fray and slow down, if his actions start to slow down and his coalition starts to fray and slow down, if his actions start to slow down and his coalition starts to fray more quickly? Well, we will wait and see Jessica and then we will tell the good people about that in the form of more oxygen.

So, I can't wait to hear your interview with Sky and tell her we love her and are grateful. And now you know what you need to know. Go forth, support those organizations that are supporting us, and go live your life. You know what you need to know and we will see you next week and tell you more. Thank you, Jessica. Thank you. Thank you. If this podcast means something to you, it would mean so much to us. If you'd be willing to take 30 seconds to do these three things, first, can you please follow or subscribe to We Can Do Hard Things?

Following the pod helps you because you'll never miss an episode and it helps us because you'll never miss an episode and it helps us because you'll never miss an episode. To do this, just go to the We Can Do Hard Things show page on Apple podcasts, Spotify, Odyssey, or wherever you listen to podcasts, and then just tap the plus sign in the upper right hand corner or click on follow. This is the most important thing for the pod. While you're there, if you'd be willing to give us a five star rating and review and share an episode you loved with a friend, we would be so grateful. We appreciate you very much. We Can Do Hard Things is created and hosted by Glennon Doyle,

Abby Wambach, and Amanda Doyle in partnership with Odyssey. Our executive producer is Jenna Wise Berman and the show is produced by Lauren LaGrasso, Alison Schott and Bill Schultz.