1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,600 --> 00:00:12,440
Speaker 2: The Justice Department has filed a complaint accusing of federal

3
00:00:12,560 --> 00:00:17,320
Speaker 2: judge in DC of misconduct during hearings over President Donald

4
00:00:17,320 --> 00:00:22,160
Speaker 2: Trump's executive order calling for banning transgender troops from serving

5
00:00:22,200 --> 00:00:26,160
Speaker 2: in the military. The Trump administration has been ramping up

6
00:00:26,200 --> 00:00:30,480
Speaker 2: its criticism of judges over rulings blocking parts of his

7
00:00:30,560 --> 00:00:34,040
Speaker 2: aggressive agenda. Here's the White House Press Secretary.

8
00:00:34,680 --> 00:00:38,559
Speaker 3: District court judges and liberal districts across the country are

9
00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:44,640
Speaker 3: abusing their power to unilaterally block President Trump's basic executive authority.

10
00:00:45,280 --> 00:00:48,720
Speaker 3: We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather

11
00:00:48,760 --> 00:00:50,680
Speaker 3: than honest arbiters of the law.

12
00:00:51,400 --> 00:00:55,360
Speaker 2: The complaint to the d C Circuit's chief judge accuses

13
00:00:55,440 --> 00:00:59,640
Speaker 2: federal Judge An Arrayes of repeatedly violating the official code

14
00:00:59,680 --> 00:01:04,720
Speaker 2: of con for district court judges by inappropriately questioning a

15
00:01:04,760 --> 00:01:08,840
Speaker 2: government lawyer about his religious beliefs and trying to embarrass

16
00:01:08,920 --> 00:01:13,400
Speaker 2: him with a rhetorical exercise during an exchange about discrimination.

17
00:01:14,000 --> 00:01:16,920
Speaker 2: Judge Rayes, who's only been on the bench two years,

18
00:01:17,360 --> 00:01:21,679
Speaker 2: is currently weighing a request by six transgender service members

19
00:01:21,920 --> 00:01:26,040
Speaker 2: for a preliminary injunction that would put Trump's executive order

20
00:01:26,160 --> 00:01:31,600
Speaker 2: banning transgender troops on hold while their case challenging it proceeds.

21
00:01:32,280 --> 00:01:35,160
Speaker 2: Joining me is an expert in legal ethics, Stephen Geller

22
00:01:35,240 --> 00:01:38,200
Speaker 2: is a professor at and YU Law School. So the

23
00:01:38,280 --> 00:01:42,600
Speaker 2: AG's chief of staff, Chad Mazel, wrote this letter of

24
00:01:42,640 --> 00:01:45,720
Speaker 2: complaint to the chief judge of the DC's circuit. The

25
00:01:45,760 --> 00:01:50,000
Speaker 2: hearing has been described as heated at times, and reportedly

26
00:01:50,120 --> 00:01:53,840
Speaker 2: the judge repeatedly raised her voice. I mean, how far

27
00:01:53,920 --> 00:01:56,240
Speaker 2: can a judge go? Where's the line?

28
00:01:56,640 --> 00:02:00,280
Speaker 4: Well, there is no single line. Every incident to be

29
00:02:00,320 --> 00:02:05,160
Speaker 4: evaluated based on the facts in the incident. One of

30
00:02:05,160 --> 00:02:08,520
Speaker 4: the problems is what we don't have, and what Mizell

31
00:02:08,639 --> 00:02:14,720
Speaker 4: doesn't have, is an audio recording, because the audio recording

32
00:02:14,760 --> 00:02:19,959
Speaker 4: may reveal a context somewhat different from what we see

33
00:02:20,120 --> 00:02:23,080
Speaker 4: on a page. If we're talking about raising voices and

34
00:02:23,240 --> 00:02:28,519
Speaker 4: fiery language, an audio recording will help understand what exactly

35
00:02:28,639 --> 00:02:31,880
Speaker 4: is meant, and it will help us understand whether conducts

36
00:02:31,960 --> 00:02:35,440
Speaker 4: or speech that is allegedly a violation of the Code

37
00:02:35,440 --> 00:02:39,760
Speaker 4: of Judicial Conduct of federal judges was provoked by a lawyer.

38
00:02:39,840 --> 00:02:42,840
Speaker 4: That happens not so much now, but at one point

39
00:02:43,280 --> 00:02:46,720
Speaker 4: lawyers were much more willing to provoke female judges than

40
00:02:46,760 --> 00:02:50,760
Speaker 4: male judges. That's declined obviously in light of what's gone

41
00:02:50,800 --> 00:02:53,400
Speaker 4: on in the profession of the last twenty five years.

42
00:02:53,919 --> 00:02:57,600
Speaker 4: So the bottom line is there is no line. It

43
00:02:57,800 --> 00:02:59,560
Speaker 4: depends very much on context.

44
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:03,600
Speaker 2: So it appeared as if she wasn't getting the answers

45
00:03:03,639 --> 00:03:09,120
Speaker 2: that she needed, perhaps from the Justice Department's lawyer. For example,

46
00:03:09,400 --> 00:03:13,720
Speaker 2: she was asking him about what radical gender ideology means,

47
00:03:13,919 --> 00:03:17,280
Speaker 2: and he said he was loathed to speculate, and she says,

48
00:03:17,280 --> 00:03:19,760
Speaker 2: it's not like I randomly picked you off the street.

49
00:03:19,840 --> 00:03:23,840
Speaker 2: You're the government's representative here. So it seems like in

50
00:03:23,919 --> 00:03:29,320
Speaker 2: different ways she was asking questions that he either didn't

51
00:03:29,360 --> 00:03:32,360
Speaker 2: want to answer or couldn't answer right.

52
00:03:32,600 --> 00:03:35,760
Speaker 4: Well. It is on that topic that Mizelle is on

53
00:03:36,080 --> 00:03:39,280
Speaker 4: the weakest ground, because earlier this led it to the

54
00:03:39,360 --> 00:03:43,320
Speaker 4: Chief Judge. He says an issue he had during the

55
00:03:43,400 --> 00:03:48,840
Speaker 4: hearing was simply rightness and success on the merits close quote.

56
00:03:49,240 --> 00:03:53,600
Speaker 4: Those are not simple concepts, and looking into each of

57
00:03:53,640 --> 00:03:57,440
Speaker 4: those issues can warrant a judge asking for a lot

58
00:03:57,480 --> 00:04:01,760
Speaker 4: of information. Mizelle seems to think that the information she

59
00:04:01,880 --> 00:04:06,480
Speaker 4: asked about when outside the boundaries of the purpose of

60
00:04:06,520 --> 00:04:11,280
Speaker 4: the hearing. But the topics he describes, ripeness and success

61
00:04:11,360 --> 00:04:15,000
Speaker 4: on the merits are almost boundary less. They have very

62
00:04:15,000 --> 00:04:18,960
Speaker 4: few boundaries that where a judge might be inquisitive and

63
00:04:19,040 --> 00:04:23,039
Speaker 4: wish to note the lawyer's response. That's number one. Number two.

64
00:04:23,200 --> 00:04:26,320
Speaker 4: Even if the judge asks questions which to the lawyers

65
00:04:26,440 --> 00:04:30,160
Speaker 4: seem to be far afield of minor or no relevance,

66
00:04:30,360 --> 00:04:33,560
Speaker 4: that's not a disciplinary or ethical issues. The question of

67
00:04:33,640 --> 00:04:37,160
Speaker 4: the relationship between the judges question and the issues as

68
00:04:37,320 --> 00:04:41,600
Speaker 4: the argument is ultimately a question that the judge has

69
00:04:41,640 --> 00:04:47,000
Speaker 4: to answer for herself. It does not entail a rule

70
00:04:47,360 --> 00:04:53,000
Speaker 4: violation how the judge chooses to ask or answer those questions.

71
00:04:53,320 --> 00:04:55,920
Speaker 2: Some of the headlines and news articles about the hearing

72
00:04:56,120 --> 00:05:00,760
Speaker 2: were like judge bless Justice Department attorney. Judge which grills

73
00:05:01,279 --> 00:05:05,640
Speaker 2: Justice Department attorney? And we know some judges sometimes yell,

74
00:05:06,480 --> 00:05:08,880
Speaker 2: So let's say she did yell at him. Is that

75
00:05:08,920 --> 00:05:10,440
Speaker 2: an ethical violation?

76
00:05:11,200 --> 00:05:13,520
Speaker 4: No, no, it's not. I mean, you don't want to

77
00:05:13,600 --> 00:05:16,440
Speaker 4: yell at lawyers. You don't want lawyers yelling at the judge.

78
00:05:16,680 --> 00:05:20,240
Speaker 4: It doesn't help public confidence in the administration of justice.

79
00:05:20,360 --> 00:05:23,400
Speaker 4: On the other hand, we're dealing with human beings who

80
00:05:23,440 --> 00:05:27,640
Speaker 4: gets frustrated and angry. Both lawyers and judges may raise

81
00:05:27,720 --> 00:05:31,200
Speaker 4: their voice, they use language they later regret, and so

82
00:05:31,279 --> 00:05:35,520
Speaker 4: you have to create allowances for that. That's universally recognized

83
00:05:35,720 --> 00:05:39,440
Speaker 4: as something that will happen when you're dealing with a

84
00:05:39,520 --> 00:05:45,400
Speaker 4: human institution. So behavior along those lines standing alone will

85
00:05:45,440 --> 00:05:50,400
Speaker 4: not warrant any kind of response from the disciplinary mechanism.

86
00:05:50,760 --> 00:05:54,040
Speaker 4: It could be such that this judge routinely jack guises

87
00:05:54,240 --> 00:05:59,600
Speaker 4: or shows anger towards lawyers, is impolite, dis courteous overall

88
00:06:00,080 --> 00:06:02,560
Speaker 4: rate of time, and at some point they might be

89
00:06:02,640 --> 00:06:05,479
Speaker 4: need for the Chief Judge to step in in and

90
00:06:05,560 --> 00:06:10,000
Speaker 4: have a conversation, but that doesn't come through in one

91
00:06:10,040 --> 00:06:12,559
Speaker 4: appearance before the judge well.

92
00:06:12,600 --> 00:06:16,760
Speaker 2: In fact, this judge is known for her stern rebukes

93
00:06:16,839 --> 00:06:21,719
Speaker 2: of lawyers on both sides. Earlier this month, she rebuked

94
00:06:21,800 --> 00:06:27,080
Speaker 2: former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, who's representing the eight government

95
00:06:27,600 --> 00:06:31,240
Speaker 2: inspector generals who were fired, and she went so far

96
00:06:31,279 --> 00:06:34,440
Speaker 2: as to threaten the plaintiffs with court sanctions if they

97
00:06:34,440 --> 00:06:39,080
Speaker 2: didn't immediately withdraw their emergency request, which I thought was

98
00:06:39,800 --> 00:06:44,000
Speaker 2: odd because former solicitor generals usually garner a level of

99
00:06:44,080 --> 00:06:45,320
Speaker 2: respect from judges.

100
00:06:45,480 --> 00:06:48,240
Speaker 4: Judges have to realize that they have all the power

101
00:06:48,480 --> 00:06:52,360
Speaker 4: in the courtroom, so they can be quiet, they could

102
00:06:52,360 --> 00:06:55,680
Speaker 4: be reticent. They don't have to raise their voices. They've

103
00:06:55,720 --> 00:06:58,159
Speaker 4: got the power. They also have to realize that the

104
00:06:58,240 --> 00:07:01,640
Speaker 4: lawyers who are talking to them are representing the client.

105
00:07:01,760 --> 00:07:05,160
Speaker 4: They are not the using party. The lawyers are simply

106
00:07:05,440 --> 00:07:09,000
Speaker 4: making an argument, maybe an argument they disagree with, but

107
00:07:09,040 --> 00:07:12,960
Speaker 4: they're making an argument. And it's unfortunate when judges treat

108
00:07:13,080 --> 00:07:17,960
Speaker 4: the lawyer personally as an adversary of the judge, and unfortunately,

109
00:07:18,040 --> 00:07:21,520
Speaker 4: again that happens. One hopes that doesn't happen too often.

110
00:07:22,120 --> 00:07:26,640
Speaker 4: It's tolerable if it's rare, because again, it's a human institution,

111
00:07:27,320 --> 00:07:29,679
Speaker 4: but judges have to keep that in mind.

112
00:07:30,120 --> 00:07:33,240
Speaker 2: One of the things that Justice Department took issue with

113
00:07:33,840 --> 00:07:38,080
Speaker 2: was Reyes using an analogy during the hearing about what

114
00:07:38,240 --> 00:07:44,040
Speaker 2: Jesus would say if transgender people were banned from homeless shelters. Quote,

115
00:07:44,240 --> 00:07:46,480
Speaker 2: what do you think Jesus would say to telling a

116
00:07:46,520 --> 00:07:50,160
Speaker 2: group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless,

117
00:07:50,200 --> 00:07:54,200
Speaker 2: that we're not going to allow them into homeless shelters over.

118
00:07:54,000 --> 00:07:57,600
Speaker 4: The line that was extremely odd. Jesus should not come

119
00:07:57,680 --> 00:08:01,080
Speaker 4: up in an argument in court. Let it's about religion

120
00:08:01,680 --> 00:08:05,920
Speaker 4: or the religion clauses of the Constitution. On the other hand,

121
00:08:06,320 --> 00:08:12,320
Speaker 4: Trump said when he issued the executive order that he's

122
00:08:12,400 --> 00:08:20,760
Speaker 4: protecting quote Christians against affirming radical transgender ideology against their faith.

123
00:08:21,200 --> 00:08:26,320
Speaker 4: I mean Trump raised the issue of religion, in particular

124
00:08:26,440 --> 00:08:32,440
Speaker 4: Christianity and explaining his justifications for the executive order, and

125
00:08:32,480 --> 00:08:35,760
Speaker 4: so you could see where a judge would be concerned

126
00:08:35,760 --> 00:08:41,240
Speaker 4: that the impetus for the executive order was religiously based,

127
00:08:41,880 --> 00:08:46,760
Speaker 4: which would create constitutional problems, and choose to ask the

128
00:08:46,880 --> 00:08:51,040
Speaker 4: question of the DOJ lawyer that she did. Even then

129
00:08:51,120 --> 00:08:54,199
Speaker 4: she would have been better off not asking that question.

130
00:08:54,679 --> 00:08:57,480
Speaker 4: But in the mix of events, you could see where

131
00:08:57,920 --> 00:09:01,920
Speaker 4: a judge might have the religion dimension of the episode

132
00:09:02,440 --> 00:09:05,400
Speaker 4: in her mind. We should also recognize, I think it

133
00:09:05,480 --> 00:09:08,080
Speaker 4: is really important to say, as we look at this

134
00:09:08,400 --> 00:09:13,959
Speaker 4: letter and eventually perhaps read the transcript, we should recognize

135
00:09:14,000 --> 00:09:18,440
Speaker 4: that there are some reason not fully to credit the

136
00:09:18,679 --> 00:09:22,840
Speaker 4: alarm and complaint of the Justice Department. There is obviously

137
00:09:22,880 --> 00:09:27,400
Speaker 4: a foot an effort by the administration by Trump by

138
00:09:27,520 --> 00:09:32,320
Speaker 4: musk by vance to go after the courts. I mean,

139
00:09:32,480 --> 00:09:37,080
Speaker 4: it's quite clear that the administration sees other power centers

140
00:09:37,720 --> 00:09:42,679
Speaker 4: as inhibitory of its long range political goals, and one

141
00:09:42,840 --> 00:09:47,760
Speaker 4: such power center is the Jdiary. In addition, Republicans and

142
00:09:47,800 --> 00:09:51,280
Speaker 4: Congress have now introduced I think two articles of impeachment

143
00:09:51,360 --> 00:09:55,480
Speaker 4: is two different district judges based on their ruling, which

144
00:09:55,600 --> 00:09:58,840
Speaker 4: should not be a basis for impeachment. Their solutions to

145
00:09:58,880 --> 00:10:02,760
Speaker 4: a ruling that it is pleases is to appeal. But

146
00:10:02,800 --> 00:10:07,400
Speaker 4: the fact that the administration and its spokespeople and its

147
00:10:07,520 --> 00:10:12,559
Speaker 4: adjunct groups are going after the judges puts this letter

148
00:10:12,640 --> 00:10:16,560
Speaker 4: from Mazelle in a less charitable light then we might

149
00:10:16,640 --> 00:10:20,239
Speaker 4: otherwise read it. And I think that has to be understood.

150
00:10:21,120 --> 00:10:25,199
Speaker 2: She said we're dealing with unadulterated animis because of Trump's

151
00:10:25,240 --> 00:10:28,480
Speaker 2: two genders executive or and she said there aren't just

152
00:10:28,559 --> 00:10:31,600
Speaker 2: two genders. Is it unusual for a judge to come

153
00:10:31,600 --> 00:10:33,240
Speaker 2: out and make statements like that.

154
00:10:34,120 --> 00:10:37,600
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think it is unusual, especially since that issue

155
00:10:37,640 --> 00:10:41,040
Speaker 4: may become part of the litigation. Whatever it means, whatever

156
00:10:41,080 --> 00:10:43,160
Speaker 4: it means to say there are two genders or there

157
00:10:43,160 --> 00:10:46,000
Speaker 4: are not just two genders, that may become part of

158
00:10:46,040 --> 00:10:51,520
Speaker 4: the ultimate legal reasoning, So it was inadvisable to stay

159
00:10:51,640 --> 00:10:55,040
Speaker 4: flat out if the transcript reveals that that's what she did,

160
00:10:55,559 --> 00:10:59,960
Speaker 4: a proposition that may turn out to be in dispute

161
00:11:00,200 --> 00:11:01,640
Speaker 4: in the course of the litigation.

162
00:11:02,240 --> 00:11:06,200
Speaker 2: If you take this in isolation forgetting about the attacks

163
00:11:06,280 --> 00:11:10,240
Speaker 2: on judges and all that, how odd is it to

164
00:11:10,320 --> 00:11:15,079
Speaker 2: file a misconduct complaint after a two day hearing when

165
00:11:15,120 --> 00:11:16,920
Speaker 2: the judge hasn't even ruled yet.

166
00:11:17,120 --> 00:11:22,200
Speaker 4: Extremely odd. It's a knowing's interest, not the court's interest,

167
00:11:22,480 --> 00:11:26,280
Speaker 4: not the client's interest, not the lawyer's interest. To have

168
00:11:26,800 --> 00:11:29,000
Speaker 4: courtroom colloquy this way.

169
00:11:30,000 --> 00:11:32,920
Speaker 2: Is there something like a list of criteria that the

170
00:11:33,040 --> 00:11:36,640
Speaker 2: judge will use or a grading scale to determine if

171
00:11:36,640 --> 00:11:38,920
Speaker 2: she's guilty of misconduct or not.

172
00:11:39,320 --> 00:11:42,280
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, first of all, she's a new judge. That

173
00:11:42,400 --> 00:11:45,360
Speaker 4: has to be acknowledged. I think that a judge with

174
00:11:45,679 --> 00:11:49,880
Speaker 4: more years on the bench might have behaved differently, So

175
00:11:49,920 --> 00:11:52,520
Speaker 4: we have to consider that. But what will happen here

176
00:11:52,640 --> 00:11:54,720
Speaker 4: is maybe e streeen of us and we'll have a

177
00:11:54,760 --> 00:11:58,920
Speaker 4: conversation with her. That is what the judicial conduct rules envision.

178
00:11:58,960 --> 00:12:03,080
Speaker 4: That's what the discipline rules in vision. As an appropriate

179
00:12:03,520 --> 00:12:08,680
Speaker 4: resolution for this complaint. So at most, and maybe not

180
00:12:08,760 --> 00:12:13,480
Speaker 4: even that Shrinahasen will sit down with Judge Reyes have

181
00:12:13,520 --> 00:12:18,560
Speaker 4: a conversation about what may have gone wrong, what she

182
00:12:18,600 --> 00:12:22,280
Speaker 4: should be conscious of. Maybe that will happen, but that

183
00:12:22,360 --> 00:12:27,240
Speaker 4: will be the most significant reaction by the Circuit to

184
00:12:27,320 --> 00:12:27,840
Speaker 4: this event.

185
00:12:28,360 --> 00:12:30,360
Speaker 2: So there's no chance that he would take her off

186
00:12:30,400 --> 00:12:30,840
Speaker 2: the case.

187
00:12:31,559 --> 00:12:34,640
Speaker 4: Oh no, no, there's no chance he would take her

188
00:12:34,640 --> 00:12:37,200
Speaker 4: off the case. He himself cannot take her off the case.

189
00:12:37,400 --> 00:12:40,360
Speaker 4: You have to go through a hearing, and the judicial counsel,

190
00:12:40,400 --> 00:12:43,840
Speaker 4: which is a group larger than than him, might be

191
00:12:43,920 --> 00:12:47,000
Speaker 4: able to persuade her to leave the case. She's not

192
00:12:47,080 --> 00:12:50,320
Speaker 4: leaving the case unless she decides she wants to, or

193
00:12:50,400 --> 00:12:55,240
Speaker 4: unless the government now chooses to make a motion to

194
00:12:55,280 --> 00:13:00,679
Speaker 4: disqualify her based on actual bias or some other provision

195
00:13:00,880 --> 00:13:06,480
Speaker 4: of the disqualification rule. This complaint is not a motion

196
00:13:06,640 --> 00:13:11,600
Speaker 4: to disqualify. That may happen, and then she'll have to

197
00:13:11,679 --> 00:13:16,760
Speaker 4: address that. But her decision not to accuse herself would

198
00:13:16,800 --> 00:13:21,760
Speaker 4: be final unless the government can persuade the DC Circuit

199
00:13:22,120 --> 00:13:25,679
Speaker 4: to mandain this her or to take an interlocatory appeal

200
00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:28,040
Speaker 4: to get her off the case. I see that as

201
00:13:28,080 --> 00:13:31,880
Speaker 4: a real, cow fetched possibility. I don't think it will happen.

202
00:13:32,360 --> 00:13:34,960
Speaker 2: Do you think the fact that she's the first openly

203
00:13:35,600 --> 00:13:40,160
Speaker 2: LGBTQ judge in the DC circuit will play in.

204
00:13:40,160 --> 00:13:44,720
Speaker 4: Anywhere not overtly. No one's going to say that. I

205
00:13:44,760 --> 00:13:47,800
Speaker 4: won't say that. It's an obvious fact that people will

206
00:13:47,840 --> 00:13:51,719
Speaker 4: think about. Some people might speculate that she was seemingly

207
00:13:51,840 --> 00:13:56,679
Speaker 4: hostile to the government's position because of her own sexual orientation.

208
00:13:57,280 --> 00:13:59,319
Speaker 4: That may be true, it may be false, but it's

209
00:13:59,360 --> 00:14:02,120
Speaker 4: not going to be litigated. Well, maybe I should say

210
00:14:02,120 --> 00:14:04,560
Speaker 4: it could be litigated if there's a motion to accuse

211
00:14:05,000 --> 00:14:08,160
Speaker 4: based on her conduct at this hearing. The government, in

212
00:14:08,240 --> 00:14:13,000
Speaker 4: its motion has an add on argument that her inability

213
00:14:13,280 --> 00:14:18,000
Speaker 4: to rule without bias has been shown at the hearing

214
00:14:18,240 --> 00:14:23,840
Speaker 4: so far and is aggravated by her own position as

215
00:14:23,880 --> 00:14:28,640
Speaker 4: a lesbian. Then this government, certainly this administration, may choose

216
00:14:28,680 --> 00:14:31,320
Speaker 4: to make that point. I think it would be inadvisable

217
00:14:31,360 --> 00:14:35,160
Speaker 4: from a pure least strategic point of view, but I

218
00:14:35,240 --> 00:14:38,120
Speaker 4: don't put it past them, and I just want to.

219
00:14:38,120 --> 00:14:40,440
Speaker 2: Point out that, no matter what else she said during

220
00:14:40,440 --> 00:14:44,360
Speaker 2: the hearing, at the end, she complimented the Justice Department

221
00:14:44,400 --> 00:14:48,200
Speaker 2: attorney on his defense, and she declined to act quickly

222
00:14:48,480 --> 00:14:53,800
Speaker 2: on the injunction requested by the transgender military. She's going

223
00:14:53,880 --> 00:14:58,440
Speaker 2: to wait until the Defense Secretary issues his formal guidance

224
00:14:58,560 --> 00:15:02,760
Speaker 2: on how he'll implement Trump's ban. Another hearing on the

225
00:15:02,800 --> 00:15:07,240
Speaker 2: request has been set for March third. We'll see if

226
00:15:07,240 --> 00:15:10,200
Speaker 2: there are any fireworks at that time. Thanks so much

227
00:15:10,200 --> 00:15:13,280
Speaker 2: for being on the show. That's Professor Steven Gillers of

228
00:15:13,480 --> 00:15:17,240
Speaker 2: NYU Law School. President Tromp has long pushed the idea

229
00:15:17,280 --> 00:15:20,920
Speaker 2: that the United States will buy Greenland from Denmark. He

230
00:15:21,040 --> 00:15:23,960
Speaker 2: talked about it during his first term in twenty nineteen.

231
00:15:24,480 --> 00:15:27,520
Speaker 5: Essentially, it's a large real estate deal. A lot of

232
00:15:27,600 --> 00:15:31,800
Speaker 5: things could be done. It's hurting Denmark very badly because

233
00:15:31,840 --> 00:15:35,040
Speaker 5: they're losing almost seven hundred million dollars a year carrying it,

234
00:15:35,760 --> 00:15:37,800
Speaker 5: so they carry it at a great loss.

235
00:15:38,480 --> 00:15:40,480
Speaker 2: And reiterated it last month.

236
00:15:41,080 --> 00:15:44,440
Speaker 6: People really don't even know if Denmark has an illegal

237
00:15:44,520 --> 00:15:47,400
Speaker 6: right to it, but if they do, they should give

238
00:15:47,440 --> 00:15:50,120
Speaker 6: it up because we needed financial security. That's for the

239
00:15:50,120 --> 00:15:52,600
Speaker 6: free world. I'm talking about protecting the free world.

240
00:15:52,960 --> 00:15:56,880
Speaker 2: Tromp has also been threatening to reassert US control over

241
00:15:56,920 --> 00:16:01,200
Speaker 2: the Panama Canal accusing Panama of charge high rates to

242
00:16:01,360 --> 00:16:02,640
Speaker 2: use the ship passage.

243
00:16:03,200 --> 00:16:07,880
Speaker 7: If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous

244
00:16:07,920 --> 00:16:11,640
Speaker 7: gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand

245
00:16:11,680 --> 00:16:14,960
Speaker 7: that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States

246
00:16:14,960 --> 00:16:20,680
Speaker 7: of America in full, quickly and without question.

247
00:16:21,160 --> 00:16:24,360
Speaker 2: And he now says that the US will not own Gaza,

248
00:16:24,560 --> 00:16:26,000
Speaker 2: but rather we'll take it.

249
00:16:26,320 --> 00:16:27,400
Speaker 1: We're not going to buy anything.

250
00:16:27,400 --> 00:16:29,120
Speaker 8: We're going to have it, and we're going to keep it,

251
00:16:29,200 --> 00:16:30,640
Speaker 8: and we're going to make sure that there's going to

252
00:16:30,680 --> 00:16:33,560
Speaker 8: be peace, and there's not going to be any problem,

253
00:16:33,600 --> 00:16:36,920
Speaker 8: and nobody's going to question it, and we're going to

254
00:16:37,640 --> 00:16:38,680
Speaker 8: run it very properly.

255
00:16:39,080 --> 00:16:42,200
Speaker 2: Of course, Trump has also said he'll make Canada the

256
00:16:42,240 --> 00:16:46,240
Speaker 2: fifty first state. The leaders of Denmark, Panama, and Canada

257
00:16:46,440 --> 00:16:50,560
Speaker 2: have all shot down Trump's annexation notions. Joining me is

258
00:16:50,600 --> 00:16:54,200
Speaker 2: an expert in international law. Monica Hakimi, a professor at

259
00:16:54,200 --> 00:16:58,600
Speaker 2: Columbia Law School, start by telling us what the international

260
00:16:58,800 --> 00:17:03,160
Speaker 2: law is regarding annexation of another country.

261
00:17:03,720 --> 00:17:09,360
Speaker 1: Well, international law establishes pretty absolute prohibition against annexations, which

262
00:17:09,480 --> 00:17:12,920
Speaker 1: can be defined as the forcible taking of the territory

263
00:17:13,359 --> 00:17:16,480
Speaker 1: assigned to another state or similar such entity.

264
00:17:16,880 --> 00:17:20,639
Speaker 2: And how long has that concept been part of international law.

265
00:17:20,960 --> 00:17:23,959
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good question. There's some debate about it.

266
00:17:23,960 --> 00:17:27,600
Speaker 1: It was a long time coming. International law used to

267
00:17:27,640 --> 00:17:31,600
Speaker 1: actually permit or at least condone annexations, So it used

268
00:17:31,640 --> 00:17:34,760
Speaker 1: to provide that a state that established control over a

269
00:17:34,880 --> 00:17:38,639
Speaker 1: territory was entitled to sovereign title over that territory. But

270
00:17:39,240 --> 00:17:42,600
Speaker 1: through a process of normative development that took basically over

271
00:17:42,640 --> 00:17:47,719
Speaker 1: one hundred years, and that solidified I would say in

272
00:17:48,160 --> 00:17:52,720
Speaker 1: really nineteen seventy, after World War Two, and after the

273
00:17:52,800 --> 00:17:57,080
Speaker 1: wave of decolonization that followed it, with what's known as

274
00:17:57,080 --> 00:18:00,199
Speaker 1: the UN General Assembly Declaration of Friendly Relations. And that

275
00:18:00,280 --> 00:18:03,960
Speaker 1: is when I would say the prohibition in its most

276
00:18:03,960 --> 00:18:08,240
Speaker 1: absolute and clearest form finally really solidified. Others would date

277
00:18:08,280 --> 00:18:11,240
Speaker 1: it back to the un Charter itself, because the un

278
00:18:11,359 --> 00:18:14,200
Speaker 1: Charter did, of course make significant moves in this respect

279
00:18:14,240 --> 00:18:17,400
Speaker 1: as well. I just think that the un Charter left

280
00:18:17,480 --> 00:18:19,800
Speaker 1: some questions open, and in fact, I demonstrate in some

281
00:18:19,840 --> 00:18:22,919
Speaker 1: research that I've recently done with Ingrid Bronk at Vanderbilt

282
00:18:23,119 --> 00:18:25,320
Speaker 1: that the un Charter did leave a few questions open

283
00:18:25,720 --> 00:18:28,600
Speaker 1: that then tended to get sorted out in the process

284
00:18:28,640 --> 00:18:32,800
Speaker 1: of decolonization and with the nineteen seventy Friendly Relations Declaration, when.

285
00:18:32,680 --> 00:18:36,960
Speaker 2: Was the last time that the US annexed another country

286
00:18:37,080 --> 00:18:37,919
Speaker 2: or a territory.

287
00:18:38,560 --> 00:18:40,840
Speaker 1: No permanent member of the Security Council, and that of

288
00:18:40,840 --> 00:18:45,200
Speaker 1: course includes the United States ever used force to forcibly

289
00:18:45,280 --> 00:18:48,000
Speaker 1: ennect the territory of another state until Russia did in

290
00:18:48,000 --> 00:18:50,280
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen against Korea in Ukraine.

291
00:18:50,400 --> 00:18:52,960
Speaker 2: Let's talk about the areas or countries that Trump is

292
00:18:53,080 --> 00:18:58,760
Speaker 2: interested in individually, since they all present different circumstances. So

293
00:18:58,920 --> 00:19:02,639
Speaker 2: he's pushed the idea that the United States will buy

294
00:19:02,840 --> 00:19:07,040
Speaker 2: Greenland from Denmark, talked about it first in twenty nineteen,

295
00:19:07,160 --> 00:19:12,080
Speaker 2: and he's talking about it recently. And Greenland is self governing,

296
00:19:12,400 --> 00:19:17,680
Speaker 2: but Denmark handles its foreign policy and national defense. Right now,

297
00:19:17,720 --> 00:19:21,600
Speaker 2: Greenland and Denmark are opposed to that notion, But for

298
00:19:21,760 --> 00:19:25,320
Speaker 2: argument's sake, let's say they did. Is that doable a purchase?

299
00:19:25,840 --> 00:19:29,719
Speaker 1: Well, international law actually permits transfers of territory with the

300
00:19:29,760 --> 00:19:35,320
Speaker 1: consent of both parties. So if Greenland or Denmark, which

301
00:19:35,359 --> 00:19:41,160
Speaker 1: conducts its foreign policy, decided to consent to the transfer

302
00:19:41,200 --> 00:19:45,320
Speaker 1: of territory, then there arguably would be an argument that

303
00:19:45,320 --> 00:19:50,119
Speaker 1: that would be permissible through some exchange of cash. But

304
00:19:50,920 --> 00:19:53,359
Speaker 1: it's clear that neither Greenland nor Denmark is interested in

305
00:19:53,359 --> 00:19:56,200
Speaker 1: that deal. And so to the extense that the President

306
00:19:56,320 --> 00:20:00,920
Speaker 1: continues to make threats that he will, you know, get

307
00:20:00,920 --> 00:20:04,600
Speaker 1: Greenland in one way or another, then that is clearly

308
00:20:04,640 --> 00:20:08,000
Speaker 1: an exercise of coercion and an effort to circumvent these

309
00:20:08,600 --> 00:20:13,160
Speaker 1: really settles and fundamental norms of international law that provide

310
00:20:13,160 --> 00:20:14,920
Speaker 1: for the sanctity of territorial borders.

311
00:20:15,440 --> 00:20:19,679
Speaker 2: Trump has also been threatening to reassert control over the

312
00:20:19,720 --> 00:20:23,160
Speaker 2: Panama Canal, and the President of Panama has said every

313
00:20:23,240 --> 00:20:27,080
Speaker 2: square meter of the Panama Canal is Panama's and will

314
00:20:27,160 --> 00:20:30,000
Speaker 2: remain so. So tell us a little about the history

315
00:20:30,000 --> 00:20:31,000
Speaker 2: of the Panama Canal.

316
00:20:31,280 --> 00:20:33,840
Speaker 1: Basically, you know, we continue to hold on to the

317
00:20:33,880 --> 00:20:37,000
Speaker 1: Panama Canal and then through a series of treaties, handed

318
00:20:37,000 --> 00:20:39,600
Speaker 1: it back over to Panama and provided that the canal

319
00:20:39,680 --> 00:20:42,960
Speaker 1: should be used for you know, there should be a

320
00:20:42,960 --> 00:20:45,679
Speaker 1: certain non discrimination use of the canal. But it is

321
00:20:45,760 --> 00:20:50,240
Speaker 1: no longer sort of subject to US authority or sovereignty.

322
00:20:50,280 --> 00:20:54,200
Speaker 1: It is instead subject to Panamas. And if Trump were

323
00:20:54,240 --> 00:20:59,200
Speaker 1: to seed the canal and take it as again sort

324
00:20:59,200 --> 00:21:02,359
Speaker 1: of like a US property that would again be in

325
00:21:02,440 --> 00:21:05,760
Speaker 1: violation of the prohibition of annexations.

326
00:21:06,119 --> 00:21:08,800
Speaker 2: You would have to send troops there, which would involve

327
00:21:09,080 --> 00:21:10,679
Speaker 2: a congressional resolution.

328
00:21:11,119 --> 00:21:14,840
Speaker 1: There's been some debate for the past couple decades, i

329
00:21:14,880 --> 00:21:18,760
Speaker 1: would say, about the exact allocation of authority between the

330
00:21:18,800 --> 00:21:23,240
Speaker 1: President and the Congress on decisions to deploy military forces abroad.

331
00:21:24,040 --> 00:21:28,840
Speaker 1: The Executive Branch has long, and I would say, with

332
00:21:29,000 --> 00:21:34,800
Speaker 1: increasing insistence, taken the position that it may deploy troops

333
00:21:35,000 --> 00:21:41,240
Speaker 1: abroad without a congressional declaration of war in many circumstances

334
00:21:41,280 --> 00:21:44,920
Speaker 1: that don't amount to what sort of by common parlance,

335
00:21:44,960 --> 00:21:48,280
Speaker 1: might be thought of as like a full throated troops

336
00:21:48,320 --> 00:21:52,760
Speaker 1: on the ground, long in duration war. And so if

337
00:21:52,800 --> 00:21:55,000
Speaker 1: the United States were to conduct a sort of some

338
00:21:55,119 --> 00:21:58,760
Speaker 1: kind of surgical operation, it would be within what the

339
00:21:58,800 --> 00:22:01,919
Speaker 1: executive branch has aimed as being within his authority for

340
00:22:02,000 --> 00:22:04,560
Speaker 1: some time now. To say that the executive branch has

341
00:22:04,560 --> 00:22:06,359
Speaker 1: claimed it does not mean to say that it is

342
00:22:06,400 --> 00:22:09,000
Speaker 1: actually the lot, just that the Supreme Court has not

343
00:22:09,680 --> 00:22:12,120
Speaker 1: weighed in on the question of exactly how to define

344
00:22:12,119 --> 00:22:16,000
Speaker 1: the scope of the presidents versus the Congress's authorities in

345
00:22:16,040 --> 00:22:16,520
Speaker 1: this space.

346
00:22:16,680 --> 00:22:18,920
Speaker 2: What about Trump's plans for Gaza, that.

347
00:22:18,960 --> 00:22:23,080
Speaker 1: Too, would be a clear violation of the prohibition of annexations.

348
00:22:23,080 --> 00:22:27,080
Speaker 1: In fact, the International Court of Justice just issued an

349
00:22:27,119 --> 00:22:34,080
Speaker 1: opinion in June asserting that Israel's conduct in relation to

350
00:22:35,440 --> 00:22:38,280
Speaker 1: the West Bank and to a lesser extent, but still

351
00:22:38,320 --> 00:22:43,320
Speaker 1: the Gaza Strip, amounted to an annexation and violation of

352
00:22:43,359 --> 00:22:47,760
Speaker 1: international law. And Israel at least has a historical claim

353
00:22:48,160 --> 00:22:50,199
Speaker 1: in a way that the United States, of course does not.

354
00:22:50,920 --> 00:22:53,959
Speaker 1: But the same principle would apply to the United States.

355
00:22:54,000 --> 00:22:55,880
Speaker 1: Just as Israel may not take that land as its own,

356
00:22:55,920 --> 00:22:57,600
Speaker 1: neither may the United States.

357
00:22:57,640 --> 00:23:01,080
Speaker 2: Coming up, we'll talk about what these annexations plans could

358
00:23:01,160 --> 00:23:05,880
Speaker 2: mean for the stability of international relations. I'm June Grosso

359
00:23:06,080 --> 00:23:10,320
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg. I've been talking to Columbia

360
00:23:10,440 --> 00:23:14,680
Speaker 2: Law School professor Monica Hakimi about President Donald Trump's talk

361
00:23:14,720 --> 00:23:21,040
Speaker 2: about annex Saint Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Gaza, for example. Recently,

362
00:23:21,119 --> 00:23:24,400
Speaker 2: Trump said that the United States will not own Gaza,

363
00:23:24,720 --> 00:23:26,880
Speaker 2: but will take it and take care of it.

364
00:23:27,359 --> 00:23:30,800
Speaker 6: With the United States being in control of that piece

365
00:23:30,840 --> 00:23:33,400
Speaker 6: of land, a fairly large piece of land, you're gonna

366
00:23:33,400 --> 00:23:35,959
Speaker 6: have stability in the middle East for the first time,

367
00:23:36,680 --> 00:23:40,600
Speaker 6: and the Palestinians or the people that live now in

368
00:23:40,680 --> 00:23:43,120
Speaker 6: Gaza will be living beautifully in another location.

369
00:23:43,200 --> 00:23:44,680
Speaker 8: They're going to be living safely.

370
00:23:44,720 --> 00:23:47,879
Speaker 6: They're not going to be killed, murdered and having to

371
00:23:47,960 --> 00:23:49,400
Speaker 6: leave every ten years.

372
00:23:49,760 --> 00:23:53,360
Speaker 2: The talks about Gaza in the White House between Trump

373
00:23:53,560 --> 00:23:57,800
Speaker 2: and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nettan Yahoo didn't seem to

374
00:23:58,119 --> 00:24:01,399
Speaker 2: include the notion of other country objecting.

375
00:24:01,640 --> 00:24:03,639
Speaker 1: One of the things that I think is really worth

376
00:24:04,200 --> 00:24:08,879
Speaker 1: underscoring here is that the United States is now not

377
00:24:09,080 --> 00:24:12,480
Speaker 1: only threatening to act a violation of international law, and

378
00:24:12,480 --> 00:24:15,240
Speaker 1: not just of any international law. But again, the prohibition

379
00:24:15,240 --> 00:24:19,440
Speaker 1: of annexations is really foundation to the contemporary legal system.

380
00:24:19,960 --> 00:24:22,840
Speaker 1: And I would say to you the way many people

381
00:24:22,920 --> 00:24:26,280
Speaker 1: understand the world, which is organized around a set of states,

382
00:24:26,320 --> 00:24:29,399
Speaker 1: each of which has authority to make most decisions in

383
00:24:29,440 --> 00:24:31,520
Speaker 1: its own orders and then to enter into agreements with

384
00:24:31,560 --> 00:24:35,240
Speaker 1: other states on their relations with one another. The prohibition

385
00:24:35,280 --> 00:24:40,200
Speaker 1: of venexations undergrads that entire legal and political structure. Because,

386
00:24:40,240 --> 00:24:43,119
Speaker 1: of course, if states may just take the territory of

387
00:24:43,160 --> 00:24:47,399
Speaker 1: other states, then all of the pretenses of sort of

388
00:24:47,400 --> 00:24:50,440
Speaker 1: having independent states, each which governments authority in its own

389
00:24:50,480 --> 00:24:54,199
Speaker 1: territory becomes much much more fragile to the extent that

390
00:24:54,320 --> 00:24:57,879
Speaker 1: it is realizable at all. So this is a really,

391
00:24:57,920 --> 00:25:03,760
Speaker 1: really foundational norm of our current world order, and in

392
00:25:04,119 --> 00:25:08,439
Speaker 1: making these claims that we are going to no longer

393
00:25:08,480 --> 00:25:11,399
Speaker 1: abide by it, we are no longer asserting that we're

394
00:25:11,440 --> 00:25:15,639
Speaker 1: going to violate this very very foundational norm. But we

395
00:25:15,720 --> 00:25:18,560
Speaker 1: are also in at the same time, saying that we

396
00:25:18,600 --> 00:25:22,280
Speaker 1: are no longer going to do what we historically have

397
00:25:22,480 --> 00:25:26,520
Speaker 1: done the lion's share of doing, which is to put

398
00:25:26,560 --> 00:25:29,400
Speaker 1: in place a security architecture that is going to ensure

399
00:25:29,720 --> 00:25:32,000
Speaker 1: that others don't violate this norm. So at the same

400
00:25:32,040 --> 00:25:34,760
Speaker 1: time that we are saying we are going to you know,

401
00:25:34,800 --> 00:25:38,000
Speaker 1: we might take Canada, we might take Greenland, we might

402
00:25:38,080 --> 00:25:41,600
Speaker 1: take Gaza, we are also saying and we're not going

403
00:25:41,640 --> 00:25:46,440
Speaker 1: to protect you know, Europe or Ukraine from others who

404
00:25:46,560 --> 00:25:49,400
Speaker 1: might want to take those that territory. And so we're

405
00:25:49,440 --> 00:25:52,600
Speaker 1: sort of doing a one two punch simultaneously, which is

406
00:25:52,640 --> 00:25:58,520
Speaker 1: what is so incredibly destabilizing about the way in which

407
00:25:58,520 --> 00:25:59,960
Speaker 1: the United States is conducting itself.

408
00:26:00,040 --> 00:26:04,520
Speaker 2: Else right now, as you've said, annexation or seizing other

409
00:26:04,600 --> 00:26:07,320
Speaker 2: countries is not the world order that we're used to,

410
00:26:08,280 --> 00:26:11,240
Speaker 2: but is there a danger that it could become more prevalent.

411
00:26:11,840 --> 00:26:14,280
Speaker 1: I am on record as saying, you know, my view

412
00:26:14,359 --> 00:26:16,520
Speaker 1: is I think it's very, very often when people think

413
00:26:16,560 --> 00:26:20,720
Speaker 1: about law and international law to focus on the ways

414
00:26:20,720 --> 00:26:25,000
Speaker 1: in which it is limited in its enforcement capabilities, especially

415
00:26:25,000 --> 00:26:29,040
Speaker 1: in the face of powerful actors acting and violation of it.

416
00:26:29,680 --> 00:26:33,479
Speaker 1: But a more fundamental aspect of the international legal system

417
00:26:34,119 --> 00:26:37,800
Speaker 1: is the way in which it has been established and

418
00:26:37,880 --> 00:26:44,000
Speaker 1: maintained disproportionately by and disproportionately for the benefit of but

419
00:26:44,080 --> 00:26:47,760
Speaker 1: are clearly not exclusively for the benefit of the United States.

420
00:26:48,040 --> 00:26:51,520
Speaker 1: So now the United States has both doing both simultaneously.

421
00:26:51,560 --> 00:26:54,720
Speaker 1: It's not only acting and consistently with certain norms, which

422
00:26:54,960 --> 00:26:57,600
Speaker 1: you know it has long done and been criticized as

423
00:26:57,640 --> 00:27:00,760
Speaker 1: doing in discreete contexts at a time the two thousand

424
00:27:00,760 --> 00:27:04,199
Speaker 1: and three Irack Wars probably the most obvious examples. But

425
00:27:04,280 --> 00:27:08,399
Speaker 1: it is also taking lots of steps to no longer

426
00:27:08,480 --> 00:27:11,320
Speaker 1: do the sort of support that it is historically done,

427
00:27:11,600 --> 00:27:15,520
Speaker 1: and that support has been like critical to maintaining this

428
00:27:15,600 --> 00:27:18,680
Speaker 1: basic world order in which again we have a bunch

429
00:27:18,680 --> 00:27:21,679
Speaker 1: of states independent, you know, formally independent of one another,

430
00:27:21,760 --> 00:27:24,879
Speaker 1: each with authority in its own territory, and I think

431
00:27:25,240 --> 00:27:27,520
Speaker 1: the implications for the kind of world that we're going

432
00:27:27,560 --> 00:27:32,320
Speaker 1: to see in the next sort of ten years are extraordinary,

433
00:27:32,400 --> 00:27:35,399
Speaker 1: and that most Americans don't quite appreciate the extent of it,

434
00:27:35,560 --> 00:27:39,240
Speaker 1: because most, I think, tend to assume that what happens

435
00:27:39,240 --> 00:27:42,160
Speaker 1: outside our borders is very much shielded from what happens internally,

436
00:27:42,520 --> 00:27:46,159
Speaker 1: and that what happens outside is more or less stable

437
00:27:46,200 --> 00:27:47,600
Speaker 1: because it has been for a while.

438
00:27:48,119 --> 00:27:51,880
Speaker 2: Give me the worst case scenario in the next ten years.

439
00:27:52,680 --> 00:27:57,120
Speaker 1: Worst case scenario maybe World War three, maybe nuclear war.

440
00:27:57,720 --> 00:28:04,760
Speaker 1: Other bad case scenarios include the return of constant just

441
00:28:05,760 --> 00:28:12,320
Speaker 1: territorial and other conflicts without any sense of shared principles

442
00:28:12,359 --> 00:28:15,959
Speaker 1: or norms or understandings of how states and other entities

443
00:28:16,040 --> 00:28:19,919
Speaker 1: might work collaboratively together, and certainly not on issues that

444
00:28:20,000 --> 00:28:24,160
Speaker 1: are like existential threats like climate change. Another possibility might

445
00:28:24,200 --> 00:28:27,760
Speaker 1: be spheres of influence, in which the United States tries

446
00:28:27,800 --> 00:28:33,240
Speaker 1: to dominate particular other actors. Russia tries to dominate Central

447
00:28:33,400 --> 00:28:37,360
Speaker 1: and Eastern Europe, and China tries to dominate and ends

448
00:28:37,440 --> 00:28:40,480
Speaker 1: up dominating much of Asia, including many who now have

449
00:28:40,560 --> 00:28:43,240
Speaker 1: close ties to the United States. Massive bloodshed in the

450
00:28:43,240 --> 00:28:45,480
Speaker 1: Middle East in an effort to redraw the map, many

451
00:28:45,520 --> 00:28:48,560
Speaker 1: of whom in the region are quite unhappy with the

452
00:28:48,600 --> 00:28:51,240
Speaker 1: current map. So there are lots of bad case scenarios

453
00:28:51,240 --> 00:28:53,680
Speaker 1: that one really imagine. It seems to me this is

454
00:28:53,680 --> 00:28:54,600
Speaker 1: not like science fiction.

455
00:28:54,760 --> 00:28:54,920
Speaker 2: Now.

456
00:28:54,960 --> 00:28:59,160
Speaker 1: These scenarios are all sort of within the realm of

457
00:28:59,160 --> 00:29:02,520
Speaker 1: possibility of the t onlines that we're seeing continue.

458
00:29:02,040 --> 00:29:04,760
Speaker 2: So sort of as an indication of what can happen.

459
00:29:04,840 --> 00:29:09,560
Speaker 2: Let's talk about Ukraine. And we saw Trump and the

460
00:29:09,640 --> 00:29:13,160
Speaker 2: Russians meeting and Ukraine wasn't even in the room at

461
00:29:13,200 --> 00:29:14,040
Speaker 2: that time.

462
00:29:14,280 --> 00:29:16,640
Speaker 1: And that's you know, that's problematic if you take seriously

463
00:29:16,840 --> 00:29:20,000
Speaker 1: these like basic tendents of statehood to which I referred earlier,

464
00:29:20,320 --> 00:29:23,480
Speaker 1: which are like, this is Ukraine's business, Ukraine ought to

465
00:29:23,480 --> 00:29:27,920
Speaker 1: have a say, and what happens internally. It's also problematic

466
00:29:28,440 --> 00:29:32,160
Speaker 1: just for reasons of you know, basic transparency and governance.

467
00:29:32,360 --> 00:29:35,640
Speaker 1: It's really hard to know as an American what it

468
00:29:35,720 --> 00:29:40,080
Speaker 1: is the government is trying to accomplish or why. It

469
00:29:40,120 --> 00:29:43,960
Speaker 1: seems clear that it is fundamentally changing its disposition towards

470
00:29:44,000 --> 00:29:49,440
Speaker 1: the world without explaining what its endgame is exactly, but

471
00:29:49,520 --> 00:29:52,280
Speaker 1: instead trading and information. So there are certainly sort of

472
00:29:52,320 --> 00:29:56,240
Speaker 1: like also problems as Americans for what is happening. And

473
00:29:56,320 --> 00:30:03,000
Speaker 1: of course Europe is extremely concerned that with the realliance,

474
00:30:04,040 --> 00:30:05,960
Speaker 1: what the US seems to be doing with some kind

475
00:30:06,000 --> 00:30:10,280
Speaker 1: of realliance with Russia, that Europe's own security will seriously

476
00:30:10,320 --> 00:30:12,000
Speaker 1: be at risk. And you know, jud and I say

477
00:30:12,040 --> 00:30:15,480
Speaker 1: all of this cognizant of the very real concerns that

478
00:30:15,480 --> 00:30:19,920
Speaker 1: many Americans have about the extent of our security commitments

479
00:30:20,160 --> 00:30:23,080
Speaker 1: around the world. And I myself think, you know, like,

480
00:30:23,120 --> 00:30:26,760
Speaker 1: these security commitments are over extensive, and we need to

481
00:30:26,800 --> 00:30:30,560
Speaker 1: find ways to shift the burden sharing balance for sort

482
00:30:30,600 --> 00:30:33,760
Speaker 1: of like the collective defense of states with whom we

483
00:30:33,800 --> 00:30:39,040
Speaker 1: have close relationships and in cultural, economics, political and other ties.

484
00:30:39,600 --> 00:30:43,320
Speaker 1: It's just that this is being done extraordinarily dramatically and

485
00:30:43,320 --> 00:30:47,560
Speaker 1: in ways that are likely to leave many with whom

486
00:30:47,560 --> 00:30:50,560
Speaker 1: we do have those close relationships very very seriously at risk,

487
00:30:51,640 --> 00:30:52,600
Speaker 1: include in the Ukraine.

488
00:30:53,160 --> 00:30:56,280
Speaker 2: Well, it's the same philosophy that's being used in the

489
00:30:56,360 --> 00:31:01,120
Speaker 2: United States sort of do everything quickly and break things

490
00:31:01,160 --> 00:31:04,360
Speaker 2: if you have to, and then see what the consequences are.

491
00:31:04,760 --> 00:31:07,360
Speaker 2: Are the courts going to hold you back? It seems

492
00:31:07,360 --> 00:31:09,840
Speaker 2: like the same kind of philosophy, only you're dealing with

493
00:31:09,920 --> 00:31:12,960
Speaker 2: other countries and international order.

494
00:31:13,320 --> 00:31:16,080
Speaker 1: Yeah, I completely agree, and I think actually the two

495
00:31:16,440 --> 00:31:22,640
Speaker 1: are deeply, deeply connected because so much of our domestic, legal, political,

496
00:31:22,680 --> 00:31:26,959
Speaker 1: economic systems are in fact and twined with an international

497
00:31:27,000 --> 00:31:30,000
Speaker 1: system in which the United States played a particular role

498
00:31:30,040 --> 00:31:34,360
Speaker 1: and did particular things, and so breaking the international is

499
00:31:34,520 --> 00:31:37,000
Speaker 1: also a useful way of breaking the domestic and vice versa,

500
00:31:37,120 --> 00:31:40,080
Speaker 1: those two things. You know, the breaking of one facilitates

501
00:31:40,120 --> 00:31:40,920
Speaker 1: the breaking of the other.

502
00:31:41,920 --> 00:31:46,120
Speaker 2: So let's say after four years a president is elected

503
00:31:46,240 --> 00:31:50,440
Speaker 2: who wants to go back to NATO and the old

504
00:31:50,560 --> 00:31:54,480
Speaker 2: world order. Can what Trump's done in these four years

505
00:31:55,240 --> 00:31:55,960
Speaker 2: be reversed?

506
00:31:56,640 --> 00:32:00,600
Speaker 1: My view is that it will be extraordinary only difficult,

507
00:32:00,680 --> 00:32:03,520
Speaker 1: is not impossible to try to recreate what has been

508
00:32:03,560 --> 00:32:08,720
Speaker 1: broken in four years, both domestically and internationally. I think

509
00:32:08,880 --> 00:32:13,400
Speaker 1: it's very, very unlikely that, for example, Europe is going

510
00:32:13,480 --> 00:32:16,280
Speaker 1: to trust the United States or be in a position

511
00:32:16,320 --> 00:32:19,880
Speaker 1: to continue working as closely with or even dependence on

512
00:32:20,320 --> 00:32:22,880
Speaker 1: the United States in the same way that it has been,

513
00:32:23,800 --> 00:32:26,760
Speaker 1: and so we're going to have to figure out how

514
00:32:26,800 --> 00:32:29,320
Speaker 1: to create something different at that point and move in

515
00:32:29,320 --> 00:32:32,920
Speaker 1: a different direction. Already, we're saying Europe distancing itself from

516
00:32:32,960 --> 00:32:36,120
Speaker 1: the United States, trying to figure out how it's going

517
00:32:36,160 --> 00:32:39,560
Speaker 1: to reorient itself in light of what it increasingly sees

518
00:32:39,600 --> 00:32:41,720
Speaker 1: as an adversary in the United States as opposed to

519
00:32:41,760 --> 00:32:42,240
Speaker 1: an ally.

520
00:32:42,640 --> 00:32:45,080
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for coming on the show, Monica. That's

521
00:32:45,120 --> 00:32:49,040
Speaker 2: Monica Hakimi, a professor at Columbia Law School. And that's

522
00:32:49,080 --> 00:32:51,680
Speaker 2: it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

523
00:32:51,720 --> 00:32:53,840
Speaker 2: you can always get the latest legal news on our

524
00:32:53,840 --> 00:32:58,000
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

525
00:32:58,160 --> 00:33:02,280
Speaker 2: and at www dot com, Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast,

526
00:33:02,520 --> 00:33:05,400
Speaker 2: Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law

527
00:33:05,480 --> 00:33:09,400
Speaker 2: Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm

528
00:33:09,440 --> 00:33:11,880
Speaker 2: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg