>> All right. Doctor Robert Golden, thanks very much.
>> Thank you. >> As to the NIH funding cuts,
the universities of Wisconsin president said taking a meat
cleaver to funding is wrong. Well, it's happening throughout
U.S. Agencies at the hands of Elon Musk and President Trump.
And now there are calls to impeach judges who are
temporarily blocking some of the cost cutting moves. Is any of
this constitutional, given the separation of powers? We turn to
conservative attorney Rick Esenberg, president of the
Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. And thanks very much
for being here. >> Thank you for having me on.
>> So how do these moves to eliminate agencies and spending
square with the separation of powers under the Constitution?
>> Yeah, I think it's fair to say that the answer is mixed.
There are some things that the president clearly has, or a
reasonable argument can be made that he ought to have the power
to do. And there are some things that are more problematic. You
mentioned the unilateral reduction in overhead costs for
us. NIH grants. That probably violates a statute and that
Congress can constitutionally impose on the president. There's
other instances where the president is pausing funding to
review the way that a congressional mandate is being
carried out, which are defensible. There are yet other
areas where we don't know what's going to happen. I mean, there
are tweets in which, you know, claims are made that USAID can
be is going to be abolished. You probably can't do that. But can
you redirect its funding consistent with congressional
appropriations? Yeah, you probably can do that. So this is
why I say that all of this stuff is dependent upon the particular
context in which it arises, and precisely what's being done. And
in some instances, we don't really know yet. And the
criticism that we're hearing is premature. And yet other
instances, the criticism is well taken.
people like Musk saying that judges are abusing their power
and calling to impeach them for making decisions, like around
temporary injunctions? >> Well, I think that's
ridiculous. I mean, I think that there are always going to be
disputes about the extent of executive authority. There are a
whole sorts of disputes during the Biden administration where
the president, you know, claimed the right to be able to
unilaterally do a bunch of things and litigation ensued and
the courts ruled. And oftentimes the Biden administration lost.
Sometimes it won. And I think the same thing is, is going to
happen here. And I think to say that judges who disagree or have
a different view of what the law requires ought to be impeached
for their, you know, for trying to do their jobs is something
that I, I can't endorse. And I'm not I'm not on board with.
>> So there is reporting that the Trump administration has
been flouting judges orders. How perilous is that or is it?
>> Well, I don't know that they have been flouting judges
orders. I mean, I think you had a tweet. I think it was a tweet
by JD Vance, which, you know, people have interpreted as
expressing an intent to flout judicial orders. That would be
wrong. On the other hand, you have comments by, you know,
President Trump and the Oval Office that he always abides by
judicial orders. And so, you know, there can sometimes be and
have sometimes in American history been conflicts between
the executive and the judicial branch about, you know, the
extent of judicial authority. But as a general rule, I think
that the executive, the president of the United States
controls the executive branch, the of the United States does
not control the government. There are going to be disputes
about where the boundaries between these things lie and
those disputes. And there's a dispute, those disputes are
ultimately to be resolved by the judiciary. That's our separation
of powers. And I think that that's what we ought to have
guide us as we go forward in the argument about all of this
stuff. >> Indeed. Rick Esenberg, thanks