Apologies for the light posting this week. It turns out that having a new puppy in the house is quite time-consuming!
However, I wanted to tell you about a new series here at Telos News that launched this week: Telos Master Class.
Donald Trump proposes a lot of crazy stuff (by design, if you believe Steve Bannon). And the most challenging aspect of covering the Trump administration is distinguishing between radical proposals that deserve to be taken seriously and those that we’ll likely never hear about again.
It’s not always easy to tell the difference.
Initially, I might have put turning Gaza into an American resort in the “take-seriously” category and acquiring Greenland in the “he’s just trolling us” category, but it turned out to be the reverse. There was no follow-up on Gaza, while Trump seems obsessed with Greenland and has put political capital and governmental resources to work pursuing it.
Some people roll their eyes at Trump’s talk of a third term. I think he’s serious.
But even when you’ve decided what’s truly important, it’s difficult to grasp the details of every issue on that list.
The Telos Master Class Series is designed to address that. These are in-depth interviews with key experts on a single major issue arising from Trump’s radical agenda.
First up is my Tuesday discussion with Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck about habeas.
Whether or not to cover habeas is a classic Trump-era dilemma. A week ago, Stephen Miller, citing the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, floated the idea that the president could suspend habeas corpus. If a senior aide to Biden had said that, we would still be discussing it 24 hours a day, Biden wouldn’t be asked about anything else, and there would be threats of impeachment coming from Republicans in Congress. In the Trump administration, proposing the suspension of a basic constitutional right was a typical Friday.
The case for taking it seriously was dramatically strengthened on Wednesday when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem echoed Miller’s comments during congressional testimony. Noem’s false statement that suspending habeas “is the president’s prerogative to pursue” was even more notable because she was asked about it by a sympathetic Republican congressman who seemed to agree with the sentiment.
In our conversation, Vladeck guides us through the history of habeas, explains how previous presidents, Congresses, and federal courts have interpreted the Suspension Clause, and outlines why we should all be deeply concerned if the Trump administration actually attempts to suspend habeas for certain categories of immigrants.
For more from Vladeck, check out his excellent work on Substack at One First.
We have several more of these master class conversations posting soon:
Elizabeth Goitein on emergency powers (recorded on Wednesday)
Paul Krugman on Trump’s trade war (recording later today)
Steven Levitsky on competitive authoritarianism (recording on Monday)
I would say that I hope you find these conversations enjoyable, but given the subject matter, that may not be the most suitable word. However, I hope you appreciate them and consider them reasons to upgrade to a paid subscription if you haven’t already done so.
Finally, please send me a note if there’s a big issue you’d like us to cover in this series: telos@telos.news
Thanks!
— Ryan
P.S. Here’s a bonus pic of Bodhi this morning lounging at Tatte while I squeeze in a few minutes of work:
Share this post