47
29:13 Share

It's Today Explained. I'm Noelle King on the National Mall alongside... Hi, I'm Sean Ramos from here in Washington, D.C. It's Inauguration Day 2025, and Sean, it is...

Hold! What do you see? I see negative 20, 25 degrees. I see snow underfoot here on the grass we're standing on. I see the odd tourist taking a photo with a MAGA hat. I see the U.S. Capitol. She's all dressed up. She's wearing U.S. flags. Ad hoc amphitheater. It looks ready for inauguration. But, Noelle, I'm very concerned. There seems to be no one here. We are among the very few people on the National Mall at this time. Where is everybody?

Not sure. We've got porta-potties for everyone. Woodstock 99 levels of porta-potty, but not enough people here to use them. I'm worried about the porta-potties. Can we figure it out on today's show? Let's try and figure it out. What else are we doing? We're going to talk about how this year's inauguration is very, very different from 2016.

Xfinity here. How can we help? Hi. My daughter invited her entire class to her birthday party. Can my Wi-Fi handle it? Oh, well, at Xfinity, our latest gateways have tri-band Wi-Fi technology, letting you connect hundreds of devices at once. So if all the kids are watching stuff on their phones while their parents are sharing videos online... Yep, they can all do their thing and party their way. Oh, we are going to need a bigger camera.

Xfinity. Bring on the good stuff. Go to Xfinity.com to learn more. Restrictions apply.

Build a routine with Ollie that supports your wellness needs, like getting your daily vitamins and minerals with Ollie's Multigummies, or keeping your mood upbeat with all the vitamin D in Hello Happy. Give your gut health some support with probiotics, and wake up feeling refreshed after taking Ollie's sleep. Do wellness on your terms. Find Ollie at a Walmart or Target near you, or at Ollie.com. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Today Explained, Noel King and I have made it through security to Constitution Avenue. People appear to be heading north, Noel. We are heading with them. What's coming up on the show? Susan Glasser, reporter for The New Yorker, is going to tell us about how 2024 is very different from 2016. All right.

You know, I've been to a lot of different inaugurations here in Washington going back to Bill Clinton's. And, you know, 2016 was like nothing I've ever seen in Washington, D.C. It was...

almost like a sort of like an alien invasion. You know, the streets were deserted. Definitely not the largest inauguration crowd ever in Washington. It was just nobody knew what to expect.

It was Republicans as well as Democrats who not only didn't know what to expect, but had a profound sense of disruption and concern about it. Remember that Trump had been opposed by the vast majority of his own party in the Republican election.

primaries in terms of the establishment types, the elected officials. And, you know, for many of those elected Republicans here in Washington, they viewed this correctly, I think, as a sort of a hostile takeover by an outsider of their own party. And remember the famous comment from George W. Bush, who was sitting on the

the platform in his role as former president for the Trump first inauguration, he turned to Hillary Clinton, who was sitting next to him in her role as a former first lady, not in her role as the defeated opponent of Donald Trump. And he said to Hillary Clinton, that was some weird shit.

Referring to Donald Trump's famous American carnage inaugural address. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now. I was sitting there like just wow. Couldn't believe George W. Bush says to me, well, that was some weird shit. So eight years ago,

Everything is eerie and what the heck is going to happen and the crowds are not out in the same way that you might expect. In 2025, who is coming out to support Donald Trump that wasn't there last time? Who is notable this year? Well, there is a big change.

First of all, we can talk about the opposition to Trump or the lack thereof. And that's the other important point about 2016, right? Is that, you know, immediately a sort of resistance...

kicked in among Democrats, among people who were upset and appalled and worried about Trump's victory, there was almost immediate sense that we've got to resist this, we've got to stand up to this. There was the women's march, as you'll recall, immediately after the Trump inauguration. More than a million Americans, women, men, children among them, sending a message to President Trump on the day after his inauguration, women leading marches across this country,

And really around the world, the size of the crowd surprising even organizers. It had huge participation here. And so there was a sense of action being taken, I would say. And, you know, that this was something that, you know, could or would or would have to be gotten through for the next four years. And I think that that, for me, is the biggest difference now, eight years later. Not only is there no such massive public event,

kind of acts of resistance planned for the immediate aftermath of Trump's inauguration. But you have Democrats still embroiled in a game of finger pointing and blame game among themselves about why they lost the election. You have many business leaders and other types of people who would have, establishment Republicans who would have considered Trump anathema,

back in 2016, who are not only openly supporting him, but I think they've come to the conclusion that this is the new normal, not only of the Republican Party, but to a certain extent of the country, that Trumpism is not some one-off aberration, but an important factor for a long time to come in this country's politics.

Tell us about the types of corporations. So we hear that big business is getting behind Trump, at least symbolically, in this inauguration. What kinds of big business are we talking about and who represents them on Inauguration Day?

Since Trump's election in November, you've seen many of America's corporate leaders, of many blue-chip corporations, really, certainly ones that are not associated exclusively with Red America, chipping in, announcing $1 million contributions either from the corporation or from the CEO personally or from both of them. Mark Zuckerberg donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural committee. A day later, Jeff Bezos and OpenAI founder Sam Altman each donated $1 million of their own.

Other tech giants have too, including Google, Microsoft, and Apple, but what's- Toyota, joining other major auto companies like Ford and General Motors in making $1 million donation to President-elect Trump's inaugural fund. It's almost like it's a concerted message that's being sent to America's corporate elite, which is that if you don't pony up at least a million dollars for this inauguration, you do not have a seat at the table in this future administration.

You are an esteemed political reporter, so I don't know how much you've been paying attention to the cultural figures who are coming out for the inauguration, either to perform or celebrate. But do you have a sense, again, having seen this eight years ago, of who's

the culture will be present and how that may differ from the way it was last time? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I certainly don't remember seeing, you know, the village people reuniting to do, you know, covers of YMCA at inaugural balls eight years ago. It's hard to stay

And that speaks again to the fact that eight years on, Trump has created almost a whole alternate, not just alternate facts, but a sort of an alternate MAGA celebrity universe in which he has his favorite music playlists.

at his rallies that, you know, are as readily identifiable, very quirky, very unique to him as not just the village people in YMCA. But, you know, he's playing opera hits at his rallies when he has gatherings at Mar-a-Lago and he's wielding the iPad himself to play the music. So, you know, there's a set of MAGA celebrities now to go along with a much more clearly defined MAGA political fan base that helped him win this election.

Yeah, Carrie Underwood was the one who got me because Carrie Underwood is a popular country singer who probably eight years ago would have benefited from not letting anyone know what her politics are and perhaps even not associating herself with someone like Donald Trump. Maybe next time I think

Yeah, I mean, of course, one of the other big political stories, in my view, in 2024 is the sort of normalizing and mainstreaming of Donald Trump. And, of course, he can take this too far. It's very important to note that, you know, this was not the overwhelming electoral victory or shift in the country that Trump and his supporters can often portray it as, right? In just a number sense, this was one of the closest moments

presidential elections in the last hundred years. So, you know, that's important to note. But he's become just acceptable enough to a much larger chunk of the electorate than was the case in 2016.

Let me ask you lastly, my co-host Sean and I are running around all day. You're going to be running around all day for people who don't live in Washington, D.C., but want to be able to take away something from what they see today. What do you urge people to keep an eye on? One of the things about Donald Trump is how much people care.

tend to not really listen to what he's saying and to not really take him both seriously and literally. And I think if you listened to his inaugural address in 2016, you know, you really had some insight into the kind of disruption and the kind of negative impact

political figure that Donald Trump would prove to be over the next four years. And this is a moment, I think, that that should draw all of our scrutiny and understanding. Who shows up? Which Donald Trump shows up? Susan Glasser of The New Yorker. Thanks to her. OK, thanks to the cold, I can't feel my hands. Noelle and I are on the parade route, Pennsylvania Avenue. It's about quarter to 10 and it's like still more police than people.

I don't think he's going to have a super populated parade, Noelle. I'm worried. We have not found the crowd just yet. Sean, what's coming up in the second half of the show? You'll be happy to hear our old friend Ian Millhiser is coming up. What did the Supreme Court do? They did something about six months ago, Noelle, that might be very key to this Trump presidency. We're going to ask Ian all about it.

This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Upgrade your business with Shopify, home of the number one checkout on the planet. ShopPay boosts conversions up to 50%, meaning fewer cards going abandoned and more sales going cha-ching. So if you're into growing your business, get a commerce platform that's ready to sell wherever your customers are. Visit Shopify.com to upgrade your selling today.

Don't miss out on the last few weeks of football action with PrizePix, the best place to win cash while watching the playoffs. The app is simple. Pick more or less on at least two players for a shot to win up to 1,000 times your cash. Download the PrizePix daily fantasy sports app today and use code FIELD and get $50 instantly when you play $5. That's code FIELD on PrizePix to get $50 instantly when you play $5. You don't even need to win to receive the $50 bonus. It's guaranteed.

PrizePix. Run your game. Must be present in certain states. Visit prizepix.com for restrictions and details.

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. The new year brings new health goals and wealth goals. Protecting your identity is an important step. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, LifeLock's restoration specialist will fix it. Guaranteed or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health, and wealth part of your new year's goals with LifeLock. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com slash podcast. Terms apply.

Today Explained is back. Noelle King and I are at 7th and E Northwest Washington, D.C. Noelle, I think we're starting to figure out where these people are heading. We found the party. We found the crowd. It's not a huge crowd, but it's a crowd. It's a crowd, and they're going to Capital One Arena. Noelle, are the Wizards playing this afternoon? No, Sean. There's an inauguration. It's happening in the arena? No.

That's unprecedented. Of course, this president who's coming in, Noel, he loves to break with precedent. And the Supreme Court of ours might be setting him up to do a little bit more of that with their immunity decision from this past summer. Remember summer, Noel? Anyway, Ian Millhiser is here to tell us all about it. Perfect. Perfect.

The Supreme Court last July said that essentially Trump is allowed to commit crimes while he is president. It says that he is immune from prosecution for virtually any criminal act he commits using the powers of the presidency.

So there's going to be far fewer checks on Trump because there's a court that is extraordinarily sympathetic to him. And this court has already said to him that if he uses his office to engage in crimes, that's fine. Now, to be fair to the Supreme Court of the United States, which I know you love being, they didn't say Donald Trump can commit crimes. They said the executive, the commander in chief.

The president of the United States can commit crimes. In theory, in July of 2024, they were saying Joe Biden can go ahead and commit some crimes. That's right. And then Joe Biden pardoned his son for committing crimes. No, that's unrelated. Sorry. What exactly did the Supreme Court say, Ian? Essentially, they divided the sorts of crimes that the president can commit into three boxes.

So the first box is anything involving his constitutional authority as president. So like the power to veto, the power to pardon, anything that the Constitution says that the president is allowed to do. And there he's basically has total immunity.

That is a very scary box. A president would not be prohibited by statute from perjuring himself under oath about official matters, from corruptly altering, destroying or concealing documents to prevent them from being used in an official proceeding, from suborning others to commit perjury, from bribing witnesses or public officials. You know, one of the powers of the presidency is the commander in chief power.

And like, although the dissent pointed out like, hey, wait a second, this opinion seems to say that Donald Trump could send the military to kill his enemies. If the president decides...

The majority opinion did not repudiate that.

Another power that the court said explicitly is one of the president's constitutional authorities is the ability to investigate and prosecute crimes or investigate and prosecute wrongdoing.

I think that the president could potentially order other agencies with investigative power. So like if he doesn't like something that I write or something that I say on Today Explained, he could potentially order the IRS to open a tax investigation into Vox Media and nothing can be done to him. So like things involving his official powers, if it fits within his constitutional powers, he has basically –

immunity and that if it fits with some other power that the president has, the court said he has what's called presumptive immunity. It's unlikely that anyone's going to bring a prosecution anyway because it'd be such a pain to get over this hurdle that the Supreme Court hasn't defined and then to win in a Supreme Court, which has already said that Donald Trump is allowed to do crimes.

Okay, so essentially the president has immunity to do the things that the Constitution says he can do, correct? Yes, and then he has pretty broad immunity as well for basically anything involving his presidential power. Okay. So like Congress passes a wall saying that the president has the power to decide what the tariff should be. If like Donald Trump finds out that like one of his enemies is importing bananas—

and he imposes a bunch of tariffs on bananas in order to hurt this enemy, then like that would fall into that second box where it's not constitutional, but it's still a presidential power. And what the Supreme Court has said is that second box is it's not total nothing you can do immunity, but it's basically

It's what they called presumptive immunity. OK, so total immunity on constitutional power, presumptive immunity on presidential power. Yeah. You said there are three boxes or buckets here. What's the third? The third bucket is any crime he commits not using the official powers of the presidency. Wow.

Maybe he wants to go like falsify some more records in order to cover up a payment he made to a porn star. Like anything that he does that is a crime that you or I could commit. In theory, he could still be prosecuted for that. But there's two caveats to that. One is that the opinion also said that you can't use any evidence at trial.

That comes from things he did as president. So like if there's a meeting with the presidential aide where they're discussing a bunch of presidential stuff and he also says, oh, by the way, I want you to help me cheat on my taxes. You probably can't get that presidential aide to testify against Donald Trump. And then like the second caveat I'll just say to that point is the things that we're afraid of about Donald Trump aren't that he's going to commit normal crimes.

You know, I mean, I don't think that I'm going to go out on the street and that Donald Trump is going to mug me. What I'm afraid of is that he is going to use the powers of the presidency to commit crimes. That is what makes him uniquely dangerous. And that is the area where the Supreme Court has said the president basically can do whatever the hell he wants. Even in this era where we have.

a convicted felon becoming our president today, some of the things you're saying probably sound outlandish to people, that Donald Trump is going to jail you, Ian Milhiser, personally, or perhaps, you know, order the military to execute his enemies. And yet, since this decision came down last summer, the president has been trying to use it

In court, right? Can you tell us what's happened since July? Yeah. So two things have happened. I mean, well, first of all, just like I don't think it's very likely the president is going to personally try to is going to try to jail me. But like he is said that he he might try to jail someone like Liz Cheney, who's a former Republican congresswoman who spoke out against him. And Cheney was behind it. And so was Benny Thompson and everybody on that committee.

For what they did, honestly, they should go to jail. I think Hillary is very weak. I think she's pathetic. I think she should be in jail for what she did with her emails. There's something wrong with Kamala. And I just don't know what it is, but there is definitely something missing. And you know what? Everybody knows it. She should be impeached and prosecuted for her actions.

Where there are ambiguities is, again, what happens in that third bucket? What happens in that space where Trump is not using the powers of the presidency?

So his actual conviction in New York, the specific crime he was convicted of there was falsifying business records in his personal business in order to cover up the fact that he used his personal funds to pay hush money to a porn star before he was elected president. So nothing he did there has anything to do with his official actions as president.

But during the trial, there were presidential aides who testified against him. I believe that there might have been some documents that were produced while he was president that were used against him. And he was just in the Supreme Court saying that his New York conviction should be thrown out because the whole trial was invalid because, you know, the presidential aides testified and because there was evidence that was related to his presidency that was brought in at the trial. The good news there.

is that five justices decided to basically kick the can down the road on that case. Like they didn't rule against Trump. They just said, we'll deal with this later. Four justices would have given him immunity.

So like he already has four votes and he only needs five for the proposition that we should toss out his conviction for personal actions. He took with his personal money using his personal business before he became president of the United States. Like that's how much sympathy for Donald Trump there is on this Supreme Court.

But does he have a point that some of this investigation involved the presidency? I mean, here's the thing. Like talking about this presidential immunity doctrine is a bit like asking like if your daughter's imaginary friend likes ice cream. You know, it's just something someone made up. Like the presidential immunity doctrine did not exist. It

until July 1st of 2024. It's just something that six Republican justices made up, and they made it up recently. Why would the judiciary give the executive so much extra power? Doesn't the judiciary like its own power? Is it ceding power to the presidency? I mean, I think that the most sympathetic take I can offer on the Trump v. United States decision is that it's

There are six justices who have a very strong belief in a philosophy known as the theory of the unitary executive, which says that essentially like –

All powers that belong to the executive branch are situated to the president. Nothing can ever be done to limit the president's ability to exercise those powers. And so that explains why they said that the president is allowed to order the Justice Department to round up his enemies because Congress or the courts, if you believe in the unitary executive theory, aren't allowed to limit the president's control over the prosecutorial process.

I think it explains why they said – I mean there's a whole bunch of language in their decision about – well, if the president had to worry about being charged with a crime, he might do his job with less enthusiasm. He might be reluctant to do things because he'd be afraid of criminal charges. I mean the response I have to that is that there were 46 other presidents and none of them committed crimes while in office or at least were charged with crimes while they were in office. Nixon is the one exception.

And so, you know, it's just it's a very poorly reasoned decision. And, you know, why did the Supreme Court say in the Dred Scott decision that black people are, quote, beings of an inferior order? Why did they say in Korematsu that President Roosevelt was was able to round up hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans for the sin of having the wrong ancestor?

Why did they say in Plessy v. Ferguson that separate but equal is OK? Like sometimes the justices reach decisions that I just cannot understand the value system behind it. I mean I can tell you because I have studied this thing called the unitary executive, what the theory is behind it.

But I can't imagine how someone who has grown up in American schools and been taught American values can think that that decision is consistent with. Ian Millhiser, Vox.com.

Sean Romstrom and Noel King in line. In line with about 400 other people for the Capitol Arena, Sean. We're going to see Kid Rock sing Baba to Ba. God bless America. He's going to do all the hits. Maybe we'll see Hadi Mawadi and Avishai Artsy. They produce today's show. Maybe we'll see Amna Alsadi.

Who edited? Maybe we'll see. Laura Bullard? Laura Bullard. That's her up there. Oh my goodness. Andrea Christen's daughter, Patrick Boyd. The whole team's here. Four more years of Today Explained. Four more years.