Trump a Dangerous Demagogue? Supreme Court SILENT as America Faces Its Biggest Threat

Is Donald Trump simply a political force or something far more dangerous?
In this explosive episode of SOS America, Charles Feldman sits down with leading constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky to confront a provocative question: Is Trump a demagogue and a genuine threat to the United States?
They explore:
What it actually means to call a leader a demagogue
Whether Trump’s actions are testing or breaking the U.S. Constitution
Why the Supreme Court appears cautious, divided, or even silent
Whether Trump alone is responsible, or if deeper systemic issues are at play
This conversation goes beyond headlines to examine power, accountability, and the future of American democracy.
👇 Sound off in the comments:
Is Trump the problem or a symptom of something bigger?
#Trump #Demagogue #SupremeCourt #SOSAmerica #USPolitics #Democracy #News

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

I think we're seeing a threat to democracy unlike anything this country has ever experienced. We've never had a president who so clearly ignores the constitutional laws of the United States. We've never had a president who tries so hard to aggrandize his executive power. We've never had a president who's trying to use the powers of the office for retribution and to punish enemies like we're seeing now. We've never had a president to tack the judiciary with the kind of language that President Trump has used. So I think we all have to be very afraid at this moment for the future of our democracy.

SPEAKER_00 1:06

I brought back with me, uh it somehow sneaked into the country, into the U.S. I brought back a South American cold. And so I'm like sitting here with, I've got, let's say, I've got honey, I've got this junk that I take uh for the cold. Um, so if I sneeze in the middle of the podcast, uh, excuse me, um, and I keep thinking when I came back with the cold, Donald Trump wants to uh, you know, he wants to deport, it seems like just about everything. I wish he would actually deport my cold back to South America. I would be very grateful if he could do that one. Um but it also made me think, uh, the cold and all the stuff that I have, that it's it's sort of metaphorically, I think, where the United States is now. I think we are in many ways a sick society uh and maybe in need of some very strong medicine. And so I want to get into that with my next guest, who was also, for those of you who have been following this podcast for the past, what, oh, eight months, I think now. Uh, he was our first guest. Uh, and I thought it would be a good time to kind of circle back and see where he thinks we are now, some eight months after we first sat down for a discussion. So welcome back to uh Erwin Chemarinsky. There's my cold again, sorry. Erwin Chemarinsky, who's the dean of the Berkeley School of Law. That's at the University of California. He is a very noted constitutional law expert, author of many, many books. Erwin, thank you very much for being with us again. It's always a pleasure, and I hope you feel better soon. Thank you. Um, so maybe it was a bit of a stretch. Uh, my my saying that maybe my cold and the need for cold medication is a metaphor for where the United States is now, but maybe it isn't much of a stretch. What do you think?

SPEAKER_01 3:11

I think we're seeing a threat to democracy unlike anything this country has ever experienced. We've never had a president who so clearly ignores the constitutional laws of the United States. We've never had a president who tries so hard to aggrandize his executive power. We've never had a president who's trying to use the powers of the office for retribution and to punish enemies like we're seeing now. We've never had a president attack the judiciary with the kind of language that President Trump has used. So I think we all have to be very afraid at this moment for the future of our democracy.

SPEAKER_00 3:51

Now, those are very strong words uh when you say that we should all be uh afraid. It actually reminds me of what was the, I forget now, the the movie with the uh promotional uh, you know, the sign, not the signs, the posters would say be afraid, be very afraid. Uh, but it kind of sounds like what you're you're saying is is the same. Okay, so so let's say we are afraid. Um so what do we do about being afraid?

SPEAKER_01 4:18

Well, it's just three things. First, I think it's very important that people be informed and help to inform others. I've heard too many people say the news is just too depressing. I'm not gonna read or listen to it. We can't afford that at this moment in time. And I think we have an obligation to help inform others. We do a poor job of civic education in this country. More people can name some of the seven dwarfs than can name Supreme Court justices. Only half the people can describe how a law is adopted in Washington. A third of the people don't know the three branches of the federal government. So I think there's really an obligation for us to go into middle schools and high schools and rotary clubs and city clubs to help discuss these issues and to inform people.

SPEAKER_00 5:09

Actually, there was there's dopey, was there, and and sleepy and or I don't know. Do you do you remember them? I I can't, I'm trying to remember them.

SPEAKER_01 5:17

Oh, I can't name the Supreme Court justices, but of course it's my feel.

SPEAKER_00 5:22

I'm I'm glad you can. Um but I'm but I'm sure you're right. I'm sure that most most people uh cannot. Um so let me just say the other thing.

SPEAKER_01 5:31

Second, I think people need to get involved. There are so many organizations that are involved from a variety of perspectives in challenging what's happening now. And third, I think it's really important that people speak out. Democracy won't die except in silence. And so I think it's important that people write to members of Congress and the Senate, to write letters to the editor, to attend rallies. Um we've never seen anything like this. I uh what I've come to appreciate is how fortunate our country has been to go this long in its history before we've had a president who's this kind of a demagogue, before we've had a president who pays so little attention to the constitutional laws.

SPEAKER_00 6:17

Uh I mentioned, of course, that that you were you were the first guest uh on this podcast some eight months ago. Um and since that time, you have already ticked off some of the things uh that have happened just in the eight months since we spoke to you last. Uh, you know, the systematic, for example, killing of people on on boats that may or may not be uh a threat to the United States, but that President Trump has declared without evidence are um the uh now war in the Middle East with Iran, that he failed to get any kind of congressional consultation, let alone approval for um the positioning of military troops that are still ongoing, by the way, in Washington, D.C. There's still very much a presence in that city in the streets. Um a lot of that has happened just in the past eight months. When we spoke back then, I think it's fair to say to characterize your feeling then as you were maybe cautiously optimistic that we would work things out. I think that's a fair assessment of where you were eight months ago. Uh if I'm right about that, uh, has your assessment changed in the past eight months for the things that I just ticked off, plus a myriad of other things that we haven't ticked off yet?

SPEAKER_01 7:47

I remain optimistic, but I'm very concerned, as you can tell from what I'm saying, that take the example that you mentioned. I don't think we've ever been in a war in American history where there was less consultation with Congress and no semblance of approval at all. For the war in Iraq, there was the congressional authorization. For the Vietnam War, there was the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. It's still hard to even explain why we're doing this. And it's a war that's cost billions of dollars, it's led to loss of life, it's created great harm throughout the Middle East. So this isn't something we were even contemplating when we talked, when you were starting your podcast.

SPEAKER_00 8:35

And yet, is it fair to just blame Donald Trump? It seems like there are an awful lot of co-conspirators to to this. Uh everyone from members of the Supreme Court that have consistently issued these sort of uh what are they, what do they call executive? No, no, he does executive orders.

SPEAKER_01 8:57

Emergency rulings, shadow documents, emergency rulings.

SPEAKER_00 9:00

Thank you. Yes. Uh where they don't have any hearings, they don't issue any explanations for their ruling. They just sort of give a stamp of approval and say, yeah, go ahead while it works its way through the court system, which they know is going to take months and probably years to resolve. And they know that they're not stupid people in the Supreme Court. Um so uh they're co-conspirators. Congress, they are to a large degree co-conspirators, especially obviously the Republican Party that has failed to challenge for the most part just about anything that Donald Trump has been doing as president. And even the press, uh, and not just Fox News, even the press, I think there's much evidence in the past eight months since we first talked of the press engaged in a degree of self-censorship because they're worried about their parent company's corporate mergers. They're worried about getting nasty, I guess, emails uh because they ask uh too many tough questions. So there are an awful lot of people who are contributing to this, aren't there? I completely agree.

SPEAKER_01 10:16

Let's take them in order. The Supreme Court, since January 20th, 2025, there have been 26 matters before the Supreme Court challenging Trump administration actions. Twour of them have been on the Supreme Court's emergency docket, two have been with full briefing and arguments. And the Supreme Court has signed with Trump in 22 of 26. But some of the ones where they've ruled against him are important. They struck down his tariffs as being illegal. They ruled that the president could not send troops to cities or federalized state national guards. So it the court has largely approved what President Trump has done, but it hasn't been a complete rubber stamp either. And I'm hopeful the Supreme Court's gonna say that President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. Congress has been totally missing in action. Congress could have said when it comes to the war in Iran, we have to be consulted, we're not appropriating more money unless it's congressional approval. This is required by the Constitution, and the Congressional Republicans have been absolutely unwilling to be a check. But Congress has been unwilling to be a check with Trump administration so far about anything. Congress has its lowest approval rating in history right now. I just saw a poll that it was 16, and I wondered if that was 16 people or 16 percent. I think that you're right in terms of capitulation by others. Um I think of the law firms, four law firms fought back, and so far one in court, nine law firms gave in and pledged almost a billion dollars of legal services to causes favored by Donald Trump. Of the universities that have been targeted, only one, Harvard has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. In many Columbia, Cornell, Northwestern have just caved in with agreements that really compromise their basic values. You know, we all learned on the playground if you give into a bully, you only make it worse. And I think there's been too much of that and not enough courage that we've seen so far.

SPEAKER_00 12:33

I also mentioned the press. Uh do you see the press becoming more reticent uh about challenging the Trump administration?

SPEAKER_01 12:45

I think it's difficult to speak of the press as if it's homogeneous. Especially in the world of internet and social media, there are so many different press outlets, and there are many that have not in any way given more deference to the Trump administration. Take the New York Times, for example, that it certainly isn't pulling its punches, it's reporting very aggressively, it's editorializing very aggressively. On the other hand, and this is difficult because I'm a contributing writer to the opinion section of the Los Angeles Times, it's eliminated its editorials. There are no editorials from the LA Times criticizing or they've been appraising the Trump administration or about anything else. The op-ed page has shrunk. Look at what's happened to the Washington Post. So, in that sense, I see effectively what you're talking about. Um and then there's media that I think are just very supportive of whatever Trump does, Fox News being an example.

SPEAKER_00 13:49

Why do you think that all of these uh individual and and collective uh uh uh members of American society uh are so willing, apparently, to tow the Trump line? Why it you know, it used to be the explanation was for Congress, for example, well, they're doing it because they're worried that Trump is gonna throw his support to an opponent and they're gonna get tossed out of their, you know, their nice uh cozy uh seat in Congress with all the perks that go with being in Congress. Okay, I kind of get that. Uh, but the Supreme Court, you know, uh they have their jobs for life. They don't have to worry about uh constituents rebelling against them. What accounts for that? What accounts for those members of the press that aren't as vigorous in their reporting as the say the New York Times? Because New York Times, as powerful as it is, A is only one outlet, and B, if you take a poll of Americans, many Americans don't trust the New York Times either.

SPEAKER_01 15:01

I don't know the answer to your question, and I don't think it's the same answer for all of the institutions. So, for example, I think for members of Congress, it's just what you say. Republicans are very afraid that if they challenge Donald Trump, he will support those who are targeting them when it comes to re-election. We people remember what happened to Liz Cheney or to Kissinger in Illinois, um, where those who oppose Trump and supported his impeachment then get voted out of office. And he has tremendous hold over the Republican Party. And I'm a constitutional law professor, not a political scientist. It's interesting to think about why that is. Um, I think the question with regard to the media is a different one. Um, you know, why did Jeff Bezos for the Washington Post and Patrick Sun Shank for the Los Angeles Times refuse to allow the papers to editorialize in 2024 against Donald Trump? Why have they so changed the editorial pages to not have the kind of writing that used to exist and existed until this Trump administration? I think for universities, the answer is they're very afraid. I think universities are afraid that if they sue the Trump administration, he will retaliate and cut off even more funding and harm them even more. But all of it leads to, to me, uh, real concern about the lack of courage and the lack of people challenging and fighting back.

SPEAKER_00 16:33

What about other world leaders? Uh I mean, every now and then, you know, you hear sometimes it's leaked uh about it, uh, you know, and and and sometimes they actually are very open about it, whether it's the prime minister of of the UK or the president of France. Um but for the most part, they they too seem to be somewhat complicit. They could be much more vigorous, especially with the war in the Middle East now. They could be much more vigorous in saying, look, what the United States is doing is just wrong. Yes, Iran's a terrible regime. Nobody's gonna argue with that, but there are right ways of doing things, and in this country, of course, constitutional ways of doing things. And that's not what has been happening. But but why do you think there's that failure too? I mean, it just what I'm getting at, Erin, is it seems like there are an awful lot of people, and it can't just be that there, I mean, there are they all that afraid of Donald Trump that every one of these people uh they just cower in the corner because they're so fearful that Trump is going to say something nasty on his own social media? Is that it?

SPEAKER_01 17:47

No, and of course, when we talk about world leaders being out, what you admit it is the Pope. The Pope has been very outspoken, especially against the war in Iran, but also against what Donald Trump and especially Pete Hags has to done, trying to defend the war in Iran in religious terms. And I can't remember a Pope speaking so directly about the president or American political actions we've seen. Of course, it's not coincidental that this is the first Pope to be an American.

SPEAKER_00 18:21

He grew up on the Chicago. Yeah, yeah, I was gonna say maybe he just feels because he's uh uh from what Chicago isn't um maybe he just feels that he's more uh equipped to discuss American politics because he's an American and voted, presumably, for years.

SPEAKER_01 18:40

We grew up about four miles apart. I grew up in a hundredth on the south side of Chicago, and he grew up in 135th or so. Um, so that may be why, but I do think it's really important um in that regard. I think for other world leaders, they understandably are always thinking about what's best for their country. And the United States is very powerful, but where we will come out of the Trump administration in terms of things like NATO, in terms of alliances with foreign countries, it's impossible to know at this moment in time. But there's no doubt that President Trump has greatly frayed any alliances and bonds that we have with foreign nations.

SPEAKER_00 19:22

I remember when I was growing up and in school, uh and when they did have actually civics courses, which I guess they don't have now. Um, and I remember all these discussions with various teachers and then later on professors about how you know the brilliance of our constitutional system, because it's you know, the four father fathers were uh were good about putting in checks and balances and uh but clearly they screwed something up uh because the system of checks and balances is definitely not working.

SPEAKER_01 20:00

I I agree with that. When I teach constitutional law, which I'm doing this semester, I always have the first class talk about what I think part of the elegant brilliance of the Constitution was is it was to take two branches of government to do any major action. So to adopt a law, Congress and the president have to be involved, to put somebody in prison, the executive has to bring the prosecution, the court has to convict, to make somebody a federal judge or an ambassador or a cabinet official, the president has nominated, the senate has to confirm, to go to war. Congress is supposed to declare war, and then the president can wage war. What we've done over time, and on steroids since January 2025, is allow the president to act without meeting the actions of a second branch of government. We've never seen a president try to do so much by executive order that at any other moment would have seen to acquire a legislation. And I think this is the culmination of a trend that began really in the Depression and after World War II. But it is very troubling and it's an abandonment of, to me, the elegance of saying, let's have two branches of government involved before we do anything major.

SPEAKER_00 21:15

So if you had to rewrite the constitution to prevent the situation that we currently find ourselves in, what would you do?

SPEAKER_01 21:24

I don't think that the flaw is in how the constitution is written in this regard. There are other things that I would rewrite the constitution to change, like the Electoral College and two senators per state. But what I would do is have the Supreme Court much more aggressively enforce the separation of powers and checks and balances in the Constitution. For example, I think the Supreme Court should have a case before it and declare unconstitutional what we're doing in the war in Iran, because there is no congressional approval or congressional declaration of war. Unfortunately, what the Supreme Court has done over Time is say we're not going to get involved in matters of war powers and foreign policy. I would have the courts declare unconstitutional the president's refusing to spend billions of dollars of federal funds approached by Congress because Congress has the spending power. President doesn't get another veto by impounding funds and refusing to spend funds. And so I can go through a whole list of things where I don't think the flaw is in the structure of the Constitution. I think the flaw has been the willingness of the courts to give the president more power, undermining checks and balances and ignoring this elegant structure. Two branches should be involved for any major action.

SPEAKER_00 22:40

I know you're a professor and not a clairvoyant, but uh where do you think we're headed in the next what year and a half of this particular administration?

SPEAKER_01 22:50

I don't know. When we spoke eight months ago, I didn't imagine that President Trump would launch the war in Iran that is so very destructive that it's hard to see anything good that's gonna come from it. Um and so I think that nothing else Donald Trump is unpredictable. Susie Wiles, his chief of staff, said in November of 2025, he believes he can do anything, literally anything. And when his chief of staff is saying that and we observe his actions, it makes it so hard to predict. But I I will say the three things, the three things that I mentioned in the beginning, I think we're gonna continue to see is paying no attention to the constitutional laws. I think we're gonna see his continue to do everything he can to increase executive power. I think he wants to use his powers for the sake of retribution and to go after his political enemies. And I think he's gonna continue to attack the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, when it rules against him.

SPEAKER_00 23:51

I I know your time uh today with us is is brief, so I thank you very much for sharing uh some of your time with us. It's always a pleasure to talk with you, Erwin Chemarinsky, as I said, the Dean of the Berkeley School of Law at the University of California. Um, and for those of you who watch or listen to this podcast, uh we of course always invite you to subscribe if you would like. It's free. Comments are appreciated as well. Until the next episode of SOS America, I'm Charles Feldman. Take care.