[00:00:00] Welcome to Discourse where we cut through the noise and make sense of the chaos. I'm your host, Wayne Unger. I'm a law professor and former Silicon Valley nerd, and I've spent years breaking down complex topics into digestible takeaways. And on this podcast, we'll take a deep dive into the pressing issues shaping our world in law.

Politics, technology, business and more. No echo chambers, no corporate influence. Just thoughtful analysis and respectful civic dialogue because understanding different perspectives isn't just important. It's necessary. Let's get started.

Alright, welcome back to Discourse. I'm your host, Wayne Unger, and we are recording the first part of today's episode on Thursday, August 14th at 11:30 AM. And as always, things may have changed since. I mentioned that we are recording the first part of today's episode on August 14th. The second part of today's episode was recorded over a week ago.

And so we apologize if there is any contradiction between the first half and the second half. Just know that the recordings were done in [00:01:00] two separate takes. Let's begin, of course, with our headlines.

There is a lot going on. So much to talk about. Unfortunately, we need to keep the episode at a certain length so I won't be talking about everything that there is to talk about. Let's start first, and this is just kind of my pet peeve as I look at the photos. Let's start with how Donald Trump has redecorated the Oval Office, and I think I'm gonna put it this way.

He has vomited gold everywhere. He has turned the Oval Office into this gold shrine where there's now gold everywhere you look in the Oval Office, it's one thing to have like a bust of somebody and have that in gold, and it's another thing to put gold trim everywhere in the Oval Office, like there's even gold trim on the door that [00:02:00] leads into the Oval Office that wasn't there before, and I understand him it is his office. I mean, it's the people's office. Yes. The White House does res, you know, belong to the government and not him personally, but he's the current occupant of the office and he can decorate the office as he sees fit. I will say that, but I will also say that perhaps, perhaps he should use an interior decorator because that gold that, or you know, that, that that is on the fireplace and on the mantle, on the door, on the trim on this, everywhere you look there is gold.

That is atrocious in my opinion. It just, to me, and with all due respect to any individual, any listener who has this type of sign or signs hanging in their home, to me it looks [00:03:00] like one of those signs that you would buy any home goods store or a target that says live life love as an example, or this is where people eat for the kitchen.

Those are just mass produced and they lack character. In my eyes, I wouldn't 'em up in my home. I understand and kind of respect those who make those decisions to put 'em up in your home. But that's what it looks like to me is this office doesn't look like a respectable office anymore. It just, it looks like gold has been vomited everywhere and somebody has gone to, you know, the target and has purchased a thousand of these live, laugh, love signs and have just put 'em all over the walls.

Alright, that's just my mind. Pet peeve on, on decorating. Uh, and [00:04:00] with that out of the way, let's get at what is actually news because that is not actually news. So Trump is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin tomorrow on Friday, August 15th. And by the time you hear this episode, chances are that meeting will have been completed.

But I will say that this is according to the White House, a bilateral meeting between the Russian president and the United States President, and they're talking about the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

Now, the United States is not a first party to that war. We're not actually involved in that war. It is not a war between Russia's troops and the United States' troops. Rather, we're kind of a third party to the war insofar as we've been supporting Ukraine as Ukrainians fight Russian aggression. So with that said, [00:05:00] I question why isn't Ukraine a part of that discussion?

Now, the White House has said it's a listening session that Donald Trump is going to listen to Putin and his demands. But Putin has publicly announced some of his demands. There may be, to be fair, there may be, uh, uh, demands that he has not yet announced. One of those demands is the annexation of Ukrainian territory.

Putin demands as a part of a ceasefire agreement that he get. That Russia gets some part of the Ukrainian territory, and President Zelensky of Ukraine has demanded that cannot be part of the deal. He will not give up an inch of Ukrainian territory. And I mention this because of course, we don't know what [00:06:00] Donald Trump is going to do, say, commit to promise, et cetera.

At that meeting on Friday, August 15th, coincidentally happens to be in Alaska, by the way, which used to be part of the Russian Empire.

But in my eyes, this is really about sovereignty. Russia attacked a sovereign nation. It was the aggressor here, not Ukraine. Ukraine was not the initial aggressor. Ukraine has been defending itself from Russian aggression, and so if this is about Russian aggression into a sovereign nation, then it's really about the respect for sovereignty in the 21st century, in this post-World War II world order that the United States had a heavy hand in creating.

And that post-World War II order that again, the [00:07:00] United States has have a heavy hand in creating, says that we should all, every country around the world should respect the sovereignty of every other country around the world. And the Trump administration has been parading sovereignty as the fundamental basis for its immigration policies.

We have heard this from Trump administration officials. We have heard this from Trump himself that part of the reason why we want to protect our borders, to seal our borders is because it's about our sovereignty. And so if the Trump administration truly cares about a country's sovereignty as it does of the United States, then one would think that the Trump administration would reject any threat to the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian territory.

And so if Putin [00:08:00] demands a part of the Ukrainian territory as part of a ceasefire, in my eyes, a Trump administration that parades sovereignty around as it should, by the way. That parade sovereignty around should say, absolutely not Russia. You cannot have any part of the Ukrainian territory because it's Ukraine's and it's about sovereignty, and you violated that sovereignty, Russia, when you became the initial aggressor in this issue.

Those are my thoughts. We'll see, of course, what happens on the Friday, August 15th summit in Alaska. We'll see if Trump makes any concessions or if Trump makes a bunch of demands. We'll see what Russia agrees to or doesn't agree to. We'll see whether it actually becomes a listening session or something where some sort of preliminary agreement is formed.

Unfortunately, [00:09:00] for Ukraine is we have, as the United States, an incredible amount of leverage in the conflict. So where if the United States, if President Trump agrees to something with the Russian President, president Putin, we carry a huge amount of leverage when we go talk to Ukrainian President Zelensky, because we have been so supportive of the Ukrainian side of the conflict.

Now it's not just us to be fair, it's the rest of nato, it's, it's many European countries as well who have been sending aid and military weapons and, uh, other forms of support to the Ukrainian government. So we have a heavy hand here to where we could force Ukraine into a ceasefire that they don't necessarily agree with because we can force their hand with the amount of leverage that we have and the leverage that we [00:10:00] have over European nations as well, who are once again supplying aid to Ukraine.

So hopefully. Hopefully, we don't use that leverage to force Ukraine into a deal that it doesn't want and it doesn't like. Again, we'll see. By the time I record the next episode to this podcast, chances are we'll have some answer out of that summit that I can share with you all and then of course, also share my commentary regarding it.

The last thing I'll say on this is, and this was breaking this morning from NBC News. Here's the headline, Putin praises trump's energetic and sincere peace efforts ahead of the Alaska Summit, and the sub headline is Russia's Vladimir Putin sounded positive on the eve of his talks with President Donald Trump in Alaska saying that he believed that he was making quite energetic and [00:11:00]sincere efforts towards peace in Ukraine. I agree with that insofar as the Trump administration has shown, in my opinion, energetic and sincere efforts towards a peace deal in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. I agree with that characterization, but I question why is Putin saying this now on the eve of those talks?

Well, there are a couple of things that we know. Number one, Putin is no dummy. Number two, Trump responds well to flattery and I would think that Putin, again, not being a dummy, you may I denounce him. I disagree with him, but I will admit that I think he's not dumb. Putin is putting this language out into the world to make sure that Trump hears it, that he is being energetic and [00:12:00] sincere with finding a peace deal, and perhaps perhaps it's part of Putin's ulterior motive to flatter Trump ahead of that Alaska summit to get him to agree to something or to put public pressure on him to where if he does not, if Trump does not negotiate some sort of peace effort, it looks bad on Trump.

Right? Think of it this way. The Trump administration has been for the last several weeks, parading around this kind of new nickname for Donald Trump, and it is Donald Trump, the Peace President and the Trump administration has really been quite proud of. Its ability to reach peace deals, ceasefires for various conflicts around the world.

And I'm not trying to degrade those agreements. I'm not trying to [00:13:00] de any peace deal regardless of the administration. Any deal that ends hostility, that ends people dying, I think is a good thing, right? So long as , that agreement is reached with mutual understanding of the people involved in that conflict.

So here, president Putin may be putting language out into the world like quite energetic and sincere efforts, as he has said on Thursday, August 14th, to either force Donald Trump through public pressure to reach a deal. Or embarrass the Trump administration and Donald Trump himself if he is unable to reach a deal by saying, oh, well, Donald Trump is quite energetic and sincere with trying to drive a peace deal in Ukraine.

But he was unable to do that, [00:14:00] thus he is not the peace president. Those are my thoughts on what's happening. Critics of the Donald Trump administration, myself included, to be fair, have said in many ways that Trump is played by autocratic totalitarians around the world, and that's Putin, and that's also North Korea's leader.

And so this seems to be part of the play of Russian President Vladimir Putin, that he is playing Donald Trump and that Donald Trump is falling into that. Now, don't get me wrong, there are many things that I say on this podcast and on my social media platforms for this podcast, which by the way, if you're not following us on TikTok and Instagram, please follow us on TikTok and Instagram.

The podcast, on TikTok, it's at Discourse [00:15:00] Podcast one, and on Instagram it's at Discourse podcast. Okay, that's my, that's my plug for the social media platforms where I publish short form videos about what is happening in between the Long Form podcast episodes. Switching gears back to Putin and Trump

certainly appears that Poin is playing Trump, and there are lots of things that I say on this podcast and on my social media platform on, on the social media platforms, in my short form videos, whereas oftentimes I say, I want to be wrong. I want to be wrong. I want to be wrong about Putin playing Trump.

But nonetheless, I think he is. And candidly, I don't think I'm wrong on that. So food for thought. Let's switch gears now and talk about inflation and jobs and that really just the whole state of the [00:16:00]economy. Economic reports are signaling some economic headwinds. And the economic reports that I'm referring to are the jobs report and inflation reports.

So let's start with the jobs report. The Bureau of Labor Statistics within the Department of Labor is the kind of single source of jobs data that we turn to as an economy . And we rely on the statistics that the Bureau of Labor Statistics or BLS puts out. Now, At the beginning of August, August one, the Bureau of Labor Statistics published a report for the July jobs data July, 2025, and in that report they also revised the May and June data.

In short, those revisions significantly reduced the previously reported numbers from those months, something like 250,000 less jobs were [00:17:00] created than initially reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Now, it is completely normal, to be very clear, it's completely normal for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to revise its numbers.

It's normal because as more data is collected as individual states collect more data, and then they send that to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Revises their previous estimates. In that revision released on August one, something like 250 to 260,000, I'm going off the top of my head here, so bear with me.

250 to 260,000 less jobs were actually created to where really we only have five digit job growth number. So it was something like 19,000 or 33,000, somewhere in there, right? Five digits. The job growth over the last three months has not been very high. It's been very [00:18:00] five digit number, right? Very low.

And this apparently upset Donald Trump when the report was released on August 1, I think it was the next day, or maybe it was the same day. He terminated as is his constitutional authority to do so. By the way. He terminated the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, so

this certainly suggests that he terminated the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because he did not like what the Bureau of Labor Statistics said, and it is his heavy hand. Donald Trump's heavy hand in trying to control the information that is coming from his administration,

what I mean by that is I don't like the data that you just put out Bureau of Labor Statistics, so I'm gonna terminate the person that's responsible for putting out that data and I'm gonna install somebody who is going to have a loyalty to me [00:19:00] as Donald Trump. Who is going to help put me put, put the narrative that I want out into the world.

So not surprisingly, Donald Trump wants the narrative to be that whatever he's doing is showing positive economic effect, that the economy is growing like it's never grown before. That jobs are increasing, that manufacturing is coming back to the United States. He has built a massive platform, political platform on he is great with the economy.

That's his basis. For example, That is his basis for the tariff policies, that it is in the best interest of the American economy to implement these tariffs. So anything that challenges the narrative that Donald Trump wants regarding the economy is, as he'll probably put it a hoax, is false, is fake news.[00:20:00]

But the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has been a non-partisan or an apolitical reporting institution. They'll report information even if the President of the United States doesn't like the information. As they should, by the way, because so much is dependent on that information, those statistics that the BLS puts out there.

We make a substantial amount of decisions based on the data that the Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes. For example, I imagine, I have no actual knowledge of this to be fair, but I imagine that many businesses in the United States make decisions around the jobs data, the jobs report, to where if I operated, say a medium sized [00:21:00] national company in the United States, and I saw that job growth was weakening, that it was decreasing in the United States, I would say, well, what is happening in the global economy and the United States economy that is causing a slowdown in job growth?

I would begin to question whether I should continue to hire for my company or whether I should pause my hiring as well, because there's economic headwinds that perhaps other people are seeing that I'm not seeing yet. Right? That's how I would use the data.

My point here is this, the Bureau of Labor Statistics cannot be led by a partisan loyalist, or if it is led by a partisan loyalist, the Bureau of Labor Statistics must stick true to its mission and its objective.

It must stay true to its mission of publishing [00:22:00] unbiased data that truly reflects what's happening in the economy. Now, Donald Trump has appointed, the Heritage Foundation, economist to the role.

So many reports, including NBC News, have said that Trump seeks to nominate EJ Antoni, who is currently an economist for the Heritage Foundation. If you haven't heard of the Heritage Foundation, it is the foundation that led the drafting of Project 2025.

It has had a heavy influence into Donald Trump's administration and Donald Trump's policies and the actions of the Trump administration since he was inaugurated back in January. So according to NBC News, EJ Antoni, the economist from the Heritage Foundation, who has been nominated by Trump. [00:23:00] To be the new BLS head.

According to NBC News, EJ Antony appears in numerous videos posted on social media of the crowd, on the Capitol grounds on January 6th, 2021, the violent crowd that attacked the United States Capitol. Now, EJ Antony, the nominee for the Bureau of Labor Statistics must be confirmed by the United States Senate.

While the president has the power to appoint senior officers of the executive branch, those senior officers are subject to Senate confirmation. And I'm saying this, well, one, to refresh our memories, but two, because if EJ Antoni must go before the Senate for confirmation. [00:24:00] Many of those senators, the current sitting senators of the United States Senate were in the capitol on January 6th, 2021, when the violent mob attacked it.

And these were the senators who had to take cover. They were evacuated, they were led to secure areas of the capitol. And some famous videos from that day show, Mitt Romney, for example, running away from the conflict and Missouri Senator Hawley also running away from the violence that was occurring that day. So senators were literally running away from the violence that was happening on the Capitol steps on January 6th, 2021. And EJ Antoni is seen in videos being at the capitol that day. So EJ Antoni [00:25:00] was a part of the violence that happened on January 6th that caused senators and representatives to see cover. In my eyes, if I was a United States Senator,

There's no way in hell that I'm going to vote to confirm EJ Anthony. There's no way in hell. The reason for it is if I was fearing for my life that day, such that I was evacuated from the chamber and I sought refuge in some secure area of the Capitol, if I was running for my life as an example, if I was trying to run away from the violence and EJ Antoni was a part of that violence, there's no way in hell I'm gonna vote to confirm him.

So of course, it has yet to be seen whether EJ Antoni has the votes to be confirmed from the United States Senate. But I would say [00:26:00] that if any Republican senator is debating whether they're going to vote to confirm him, oh, that's a shame. That's a real shame. Because EJ Antoni was a part of the violence that day that led you Republican senators to take cover.

Related to the jobs data is some of the data that we're seeing on inflation. So we're seeing that inflation is either remaining constant at 2.7% or it's increasing depending on what information is in that statistic regarding inflation. So for example, if we remove energy and food from the inflation statistics, because energy and food are tend, tend to be more volatile, then inflation has actually ticked up above 3%.

But. Let's remember what [00:27:00] inflation is. Just as a fundamental concept, inflation is the rise in prices. And so if that is a metric of an increase in prices, anytime it is positive, like what the latest report said, 2.7%, if we account for both energy and food, if it's at 2.7%, that means prices are increasing at 2.7%.

Prices continue to go up. Now, if we remove energy and food, the volatile categories of inflation, inflation has actually increased, meaning the increases in prices have actually accelerated to something over 3%. Now, another report, according to CNN, says that wholesale prices have risen sharply. So I'm gonna read from their story here.

Their article [00:28:00] quote, costs were sharply on the rise for producers and manufacturers in July of 2025, A sign that higher prices could soon filter down to American consumers US inflation on the wholesale. Well, it picked up steam last month with prices rising by the fastest monthly pace since June of 2022.

Data showed on Thursday, August 14th, the latest producer price index, which measures the average change in prices paid to producers jumped by 0.9% from June, lifting the annual rate to 3.3%. According to once again, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the PPI, The Producer Price Index, serves as a potential bellwether for prices that consumers may see in the months ahead.

So let's talk about how and why we're seeing increases in inflation for a second. Back in April, As I've said many times, I've detailed this many times on this [00:29:00] podcast. Back in April, Trump announced what he called the Liberation Day tariffs. But many have said, well, we haven't seen the increase in prices that many economists predicted and many news organizations reported after that Faithful Day in April.

And that is somewhat true. We have not seen an uptick in inflation immediately after that Liberation Day tariff announcement. And I think a part of that is because many of those Liberation Day tariffs were actually postponed. So yes, he announced them back in April, but they didn't go into effect.

He has kicked the can down the road. He being, and Donald Trump has kicked the can down the road multiple times now, most recently, just this last week with China. And he has kicked the can down the road saying [00:30:00] we're gonna give them, other countries, the opportunity to negotiate trade deals before we actually implement these tariffs.

And that the tariffs were in part to get people to the table. And to a certain extent, the Trump administration has announced several trade deals since the Liberation Day back in April. But funnily enough, we have yet to see the text of those trade deals. And I'm one to say, well, if the trade deals affect the American economy and Americans, then Americans are entitled to see the text of those trade deals because it affects us.

You as a government representative, are out there negotiating these trade deals on our behalf, and so we should be able to see 'em, but we haven't seen 'em. So it really puts into question in my eyes, whether these trade deals actually exist, whether they're serious or not, or whether they're just headlines.

[00:31:00] Anyways, back to this. Now that we're several months removed from that Liberation day, more and more tariffs have been put into place. And just this last week, just here in August, most of those Liberation Day tariffs have now triggered, meaning that most of them have gone into effect, and now that the tariffs have gone into effect and manufacturer, producers, American importers, et cetera, now that they have exhausted their inventory that they built up in anticipation of those tariffs, now we'll begin to see the increases in prices hit.

So if any Republican Donald Trump or any congressional Republican say that his tariff policies that Trump's tariffs policies have not led to an increase in prices, well, I say it's still too early [00:32:00] to tell because most of those tariffs were postponed. But now that they're starting to go into effect, and now that inventories that were built up in anticipation of the tariff policies, now that those inventories begin to dwindle, American companies are now forced to go back abroad, purchase their goods, and to import them here in the United States under the tariffs.

Now that many of the tariffs have gone into effect, which means those American companies, those importers, those manufacturers, those those producers, they will now start paying the tariffs as soon as those goods hit the dock. And Trump's own treasury secretary has finally admitted that the tariffs are paid once the goods hit the dock, and they are paid by American importers.

So for the Republican party and especially Donald Trump, who for now months have said foreign countries will pay the tariffs, [00:33:00] well that is just fundamentally a lie because the tariffs are paid by the importers. Now, there's an argument to be made, and it's been made that the tariff is really going to be paid by the foreign manufacturer because they'll somehow rework their numbers and sure, whatever.

But most of the tariffs will be paid by American producers, American importers. Now that American companies are facing these tariffs, they have to pass those costs on because they are for-profit businesses. So basic business. Your pricing strategy needs to incorporate your costs because if you don't cover your costs in whatever price it is that you're selling a good or a service to a consumer for, then you're running at a negative, right?

You're, you're losing money, a cashflow negative technically. And so if you're running at [00:34:00] a negative, you can only do that for so long because the money needs to come from somewhere. Case in point, if I am purchasing goods from China to resell here in the United States, and I'm paying a hundred dollars for a widget, and now with the tariffs, I'm making up these numbers, by the way, with the tariffs.

If the tariffs now increase that to $120, and I was previously selling those goods at $110, making a $10 per widget profit if the price increases. To one 20, excuse me. If the cost of that good increases to one 20, then I also need to raise the price to reflect that increase in costs. Because if I don't, if I continue to sell the good, the widget at $110, but now it costs me $120 to get that good to the United States, I'm running at a loss of $10 per widget and I can [00:35:00] only take that loss for so long before I run outta cash.

And I have to close shop . So I have to increase the price . If I wanted to make $10 per widget and now it costs me $120, well I'm going to raise my price to $130 to keep that same margin of $10 per widget. So that is the economic reality that we're all facing as tariffs continue to be implemented as tariffs continue to increase for that matter.

'cause Donald Trump is just randomly increasing tariffs. With Brazil, with India, then I need to raise prices as an American producer, as American importer, as an American reseller, and that's what we're beginning to see. So prices are beginning to increase. Inflation. Reports are showing that prices are increasing because tariffs are beginning to hit.

And because producers, American companies are now having to face these higher [00:36:00] costs and they have to pass 'em along.

Now Trump administration officials have reported or have, have argued publicly that American companies have chosen to take the hit of the increase in costs through their gross margins. In other words. Let me give another example. If a good, again, a widget that I import from China previously costs a hundred dollars, cost me a hundred dollars to get that good to the United States and to resell it, and I'm reselling it at one 20.

Well, if with the tariff the cost now increase from 100 to one 10, my previous margin of $20 per widget, 'cause again, I'm selling it at a price point of one 20, if the cost has increased by $10, then my margin has now decreased. If I continue to sell it at one 20, it has decreased to $10. So instead of making $20 per [00:37:00] widget, because it previously cost me a hundred dollars and now it's cost me 110.

So now I'm only making $10. My margin has taken a hit, and I can continue operating that way if I wanted to. I can continue operating 'cause I'm still making a profit. Yes, it's a reduced profit, but I'm still making a profit. Trump administration officials have said that many American companies have decided to absorb the tariff cost by reducing their margin.

But in a previous episode, which I encourage you all to go back and listen to, I said that the true cost of tariffs. There are many industries in the United States that have thin margins. Consider the grocery industry as an example here. As I stated in that episode, the grocery industry.

Grocery [00:38:00] stores maintain notoriously slim margins. Restaurants maintain notoriously slim margins, automobile manufacturers, Ford, gm, et cetera. Even those American companies, they still maintain relatively slim margins, and there's only so much margin that the company can absorb before it is forced to increase prices.

If a grocery store only makes $1 on every bag of coffee that it sells, that's I only have $1 to play with. So if the cost of that coffee increases by more than a dollar, I now need to raise the price of that coffee. Otherwise, I'm gonna operate at a loss for that coffee, if that, if that's what I'm selling.

Let's look at Brazil for a second. Donald Trump has put something like a 50% tariff on Brazil, not because we operate a trade deficit with Brazil. We actually operate a trade [00:39:00] surplus with Brazil. We export more to Brazil than we import from Brazil. Trump has put a tariff on Brazil because he doesn't like how the Brazilian government has treated its previous president.

Its previous president is now under prosecution for trying to overturn the last election. Boy, does that sound familiar? And so of course, of course, Trump has sympathy towards him. So now that we face something like a 50% tariff rate for everything that's coming out of Brazil, if coffee is one of the top exports out of Brazil, then we're going to see increases in coffee prices here in the United States.

That is just how these increase in costs flow down and ultimately lead to an increase in price. Not every company, not every industry can absorb a increase in costs because their margins are so thin. [00:40:00] That's the reality in which we face,

and this isn't something that Donald Trump can control. I mean, he can control. The tariffs, even though I argue that he uncon it, it, it is against the constitution because tariffs are taxes and the taxing power falls to Congress. But Donald Trump is invoking some statutory authority to enact these tariff policies, even though I think that that statutory authority does not extend to tariffs and that tariffs of this economic magnitude.

Well, if anything, it's a major question, but maybe that's a topic for another conversation. My point here is this, we will continue to see prices increase so long as we continue to have these tariffs and Trump's on, again, off [00:41:00] again tariff policy, this kind of bipolar tariff strategy that he seems to be implementing.

Oh, today I feel. Like putting a 50% tariff on Brazil because I don't like the way in which the government is now treating its past president. Well, that is hurting American consumers because we face the increase in prices.

And why has job growth? So let's talk about kind of both of these economic topics together for a second. We face stagnation in job growth because of the economic uncertainty. As a business. Again, this is kind of like business 1 0 1, maybe it's 2 0 1 to be, to be fair, as a business, I want predictability. I want stability.

I want linearity.

I want to be able to say. That I'm gonna make so much money and I'm gonna put that money over [00:42:00] here. I'm going to invest it over here. I'm gonna put that towards people. I'm gonna put that towards capital. I'm gonna put that towards operating expense. I want predictability and stability so that I can plan. Tariffs cause incredible disruption.

If I don't know how much a good is going to cost me moving forward because the tariff policy is so chaotic, then I'm going to sit back and wait. I may defer hiring somebody because I don't know whether I now need to spend that money on acquiring the good. But if the good's price, if it, if it costs me a hundred dollars and I know that that price is gonna be stable, that cost of a hundred dollars is gonna be stable, then I can predict that I can afford to hire another employee.

If that cost is gonna increase to $150, I may need to transfer the money that I was going to spend on [00:43:00] hiring a new employee to pay for the increase in cost of a good. All of this plays together. We're seeing stagnation in job growth because there is so much unpredictability in tariff policy, and because there's so much unpredictability in the tariffs, that means there's so much fluctuation in cost of goods and services that I now need to sit back and wait.

I can't make some decisions financially because many things are unpredictable now as a finance person, now I'm not a finance person to be clear, but I have done enough in business to know this. A finance person wants predictability and linearity so that they can plan. When we don't have predictability and linearity, I can't plan.

Thus, I hold off on many decisions because I don't know what's going to [00:44:00] happen. This economy that we are seeing today, stagnation in job growth and increases in inflation, is directly traceable to Donald Trump's tariff policy. Period. Period. Full stop. Because his tariff policies have injected so much unpredictability and chaos into global markets, into financial markets, to where, as a business I'm not able to plan.

It's unpredictable. So I'm not gonna make a, any kind of investment decisions in the long run. This is Trump's fault.

 The last headline that I'll mention because this is somewhat related to the second half of this episode, A B, C News is reporting, and I'll read from their tweet quote, the White House plans to conduct a [00:45:00] wide ranging review of the Smithsonian Institution's Museum exhibitions, materials and operations to ensure that the museums align with President Trump's view of American history.

A White House official confirmed. Oh boy. In the second half of this episode, I'll talk about a level of independence and separation that is necessary between the federal government and higher education institutions. Yes, the Smithsonian Institution has a relationship with the federal government, but that level of separation and independence must also exist between the federal government and the Smithsonian.

Because the a museum's responsibility is to kind of report history. If you think about it, right here is the space shuttle. Here is what President Reagan did at the Reagan Museum, right? Like they, [00:46:00] they document and present history. Thus, it is imperative that a museum document and present history in an unbiased way.

Now, if this report is true, that the White House plans to conduct a wide ranging review of the Smithsonian, its exhibitions, its materials, and its operations to quote, ensure that the museums align with President Trump's view of American history. This suggests that President Trump seeks to amend. The narrative of American history that the Smithsonian is currently presenting.

And this is extremely troubling because when

the leader of a nation amends the history of a nation to drive a narrative that he [00:47:00] or she wants to drive, that is a dangerous road that we go down.

If we think about this in the most fundamental level here, autocrats, authoritarians, totalitarians, it is a common theme amongst them all. They seek to control the information that is disseminated to its people. If you can control what a population receives, what information a population receives, then you can control their thought in some way to a certain extent.

This is why we have the First Amendment, which I'll talk about in the second half of this episode.

The First Amendment is designed to promote self autonomy, independent thought, independent belief, and an informed electorate so that the whole American experiment of self-governance where the people elect their governors and the people are the sovereign, [00:48:00] well, that whole American experiment comes crumbling down.

If the government controls what the people believe, because then the people are not making informed independent autonomous decisions, including who they vote for.

It is not the government's role, and this is what the First Amendment is designed to protect. It is not the government's role to dictate what information is disseminated. To the American people who are then tasked with voting for their leaders, And when we allow something like this, again, if the reporting from a, b, c news is correct, when we allow President Trump or any national leader to shape the historic narrative with a partisan [00:49:00] lens,

we run the risk of the fundamental American experiment crumbling into autocracy, totalitarianism, and. It is so far, so far from what the framers actually intended. Now, it's a pet peeve of mine, be my final comment. It's a pet peeve of mine when people say, oh, the framers wanted this, or the framers wanted that.

Well, unless they wrote it down, how the heck do you know?

Now, in my line of research as a constitutional law professor, I have read a lot of what the framers actually wrote. James Madison, George Washington, Alexander, Hamilton, et cetera. I have read what they wrote down, and so I can say confidently that the framers did not intend for the national leader [00:50:00] to control the information that's disseminated to its people because that is what was happening.

In England at the time under the crown. Part of the reason that the United States at the time the colonies rebelled was because they were being punished. For example, for criticizing the crown. They were being punished for their speech, for their criticism of the crown. You could not criticize the crown. And the crown.

The monarchy controlled so much of the information that was being disseminated. So the framers of the United States Constitution very much recognizing that you should be able to criticize your government because the people are the sovereign. So the people get to elect their government and give consent to be governed.

Free information needs to flow so people can receive kind of true accounts of what's going [00:51:00]on and then make informed decisions. The public, the American people have been provided tools to check the federal government and to check state governments as well.

But there are intentional checks and balances built into the constitution, put there by framers and by the first Congress of the United States so that the public can control as they're meant to their government. So when we begin to shape historical narratives with partisan lenses, we run the risk of it being so anti firstt amendment.

So anti-constitution, so anti what the framers actually intended, that the whole American experiment could crumble.

Now, with [00:52:00] that, let's get into the bulk of today's episode.

 We are recording today's episode at 8:00 PM on Wednesday, August 6th. And of course, as always, things may have changed since. On today's episode, Harvard has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. Plus, there are several settlements that the Trump administration has reached in the last six months with law firms, universities, and media organizations.

What are Harvard's First Amendment claims in this lawsuit against the Trump administration, and do they have any merit? What about these settlements? Why are organizations bending the knee to Trump

By now, you have likely heard that the Trump administration has launched several investigations against several Ivy League universities, and two of those universities recently reached settlement agreements with the Trump administration.

The first one was [00:53:00] Columbia University, and the second was Brown University. But Harvard has taken an entirely different approach. Instead of settling, Harvard has filed suit against the Trump administration claiming among other things that the Trump administration is violating Harvard's First Amendment rights.

In the last week or so, several rumors have started flying. That Harvard was in settlement negotiations with the Trump administration, and to be clear, I have no actual knowledge whether that is true, but just several days ago, the president of Harvard University, Alan Garber, told Harvard's faculty that a settlement is not imminent, and he went on to deny that the university is considering that rumored $500 million settlement with the White House.

According to The Guardian and according to Harvard's own newspaper. So what is next for Harvard and its lawsuit against Trump? And why is Trump targeting [00:54:00] Ivy League institutions and non Ivys too? In fact, it just announced that it was investigating UCLA, perhaps one of the biggest and most notable public institutions that have caught Trump's radar.

Well, to answer these questions, let's begin by recapping. Settlements with Columbia and Brown. Back in July, Columbia University reached a $221 million settlement with the Trump administration to restore federal funding that the Trump administration froze amid allegations that the university was not doing enough to combat antisemitism.

According to NPR, the settlement has since restored Columbia's access to some $1.3 billion in federal funding, which likely includes federal research grants for future scientific and even non-scientific research. As a part of that settlement, Columbia [00:55:00] University did not admit any wrongdoing. But I note that no admission of wrongdoing is typical in settlement agreements.

In fact, I'd say that no fault provisions are the norm in settlement agreements, rather than the exception. And the settlement commits Columbia to follow through on its earlier commitments, including, for instance, naming new faculty members with joint positions in both the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies.

And the departments of the fields in economics, political Science, and the University School of International and Public Affairs. It also included provisions like amending its anti-discrimination policies to include the definition of antisemitism, naming coordinators to respond to antisemitism allegations specifically, and

a new administrator to serve as a liaison to students and advise on ways to improve and support Jewish students providing additional [00:56:00] university-wide training on antisemitism. And the last provision, reaffirming Columbia's zero tolerance policy for discrimination and harassment. This is all according to NPR.

Now, what does Columbia get in return for those commitments and agreed to obligations? Well, it gets its federal funding restored with the agreements according to NPR. The Trump administration will restore access to billions of dollars in federal research funding and several contracts that the government had previously terminated with Columbia.

What else was in the settlement? Well, according to NPR, the settlement agreement provides that the federal government will have no authority over faculty hiring, university hiring, admissions decisions, or the content of academic speech. But Columbia agreed not to use race, color, sex, or national origin in hiring decisions across all schools, departments, and programs.

Now, several days ago, brown University reached a similar settlement with the Trump [00:57:00]administration and per a press release from Brown, and I quote.

Brown University reached voluntary agreements with the federal government to restore funding for the university's federally sponsored medical and health sciences research and resolve three open reviews assessing Brown's compliance with federal non-discrimination obligations.

The agreement will reinstate payments for active research grants and restore Brown's ability to compete for new federal grants and contracts, while also meeting Brown's core imperative of preserving the ability for its students and scholars to teach and learn without government intrusion.

Brown University expressly emphasized that the settlement agreement would allow it to preserve its academic independence and further its academic mission.

Now, as a part of the deal, brown committed to pay $50 million in grants over 10 years to workforce development organizations in Rhode Island, which according to [00:58:00] Brown, aligns with its service and community engagement mission. Brown also made clear that the agreement does not include any payments or fines to the federal government.

Unlike. What we find in Columbia's deal, and if that wasn't clear enough, brown also enumerated the provisions of the voluntary agreements to likely dissuade any criticism about the agreement. It stated that the settlement contained provisions that, number one, affirm that the government does not have the authority to dictate teaching, learning, and academic speech.

Number two, restore Brown's medical and health sciences. Research, funding and ability to compete for federal grants.

Not surprisingly, both settlements have triggered much criticism in a joint press statement. The A CLU of Rhode Island GLAD Law and the Rhode Island Center for Justice criticized the agreement. The president of the American Association of University [00:59:00] Professors also criticized the Columbia deal specifically.

He said, according to higher ed dye, which is an independent news outlet that tracks issues in higher education. Never in the history of our nation has an educational institution so thoroughly bent to the will of an autocrat. He also said this settlement subverts our democracy to the Trump plan, to target the pillars of our democracy, the judiciary, the free press, and our education systems.

Columbia Brown and Harvard are not the only universities facing the spear of the Trump administration according to WHYY. Other schools that have been or are currently on Trump's radar includes Cornell, Northwestern, duke, and Princeton.

And as I just mentioned, UCLA. Those are just to name a few of the universities. And these universities have faced Trump's [01:00:00] kind of modus operandi or MO here, which is freeze the federal funding, which gets the university to the negotiating table and then force the universities to adopt Trump desired policies.

But the university that has seemingly rejected Trump's MO is Harvard. Back in April, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration arguing that its freeze on federal research funding is unconstitutional and unlawful. According to Harvard's complaint, and I'm quoting directly from its lawsuit quote, in recent weeks, the federal government has launched a broad attack on the critical funding partnerships that make invaluable scientific advancement in the pursuit of knowledge possible. To date the government has with little warning and even less explanation.

Slashed billions of dollars in federal funding to universities across America. Harvard also notes in its complaint [01:01:00] that Harvard had already agreed to some of the demands from the Trump administration prior to the filing of its lawsuit. According to the complaint quote, the government dictated that Harvard reform and restructure its governance to reduce the power of certain students, faculty and administrators.

It required that Harvard hire a third party auditor to evaluate the viewpoints of Harvard's student body, its faculty and its staff, and then based on the results of that third party's evaluation, Harvard must hire a critical mass of new faculty and admit a critical mass of students to achieve viewpoint diversity in each department field and teaching unit.

Furthermore, again, I'm reading directly from the complaint. The complaint says the government demanded that Harvard terminate or reform its academic programs to the government's liking. In short, as Harvard puts it, the federal government demanded the [01:02:00] university allow the government to micromanage the academic institution or jeopardize the institution's ability to pursue medical, breakthrough, scientific discoveries and innovative solutions.

Harvard's response to the Trump administration's efforts was quote, the university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. No government, regardless of which party is in power, should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can OMI and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.

Let me pause for a second and just note that. If you've been following along Harvard's lawsuit, its allegations are fundamentally different than what say Brown has publicly acknowledged. Brown has publicly acknowledged that its voluntary agreement does not interfere with its independence, its academic [01:03:00] independence.

Harvard on the other hand, steps right out there and says, yes, the Trump administration is meddling improperly and unlawfully in our academic independence. So let me pause for a second and add a disclaimer.

As many of my listeners know, as you all know, as am a full-time law professor, and I am in this industry of higher education, so I subscribe. To the principles of academic freedom and the level of separation erected between the federal government and higher education institutions. I also teach the First Amendment, and in general, I am a strong supporter of First Amendment rights and liberties.

So this is my worldview. This is how I'm looking at the fight between the Trump administration and higher education institutions. And I say that just to make sure that we are all on the same level here. And as a First Amendment professor and scholar, of course, I am deeply interested in Harvard's First Amendment claims [01:04:00] against the Trump administration.

Perhaps it would be beneficial for me to describe my view on higher education's role in society. With that laid as a foundation, Then I think I'll be best able to explain why we generally want some level of separation between the federal government and universities.

So what is the role of higher education institutions? The first thought that you might have teaching? Right. And yes, higher education institutions, colleges, universities, we teach, universities, teach students, but that's not. The only component, that's only one component. In fact, many universities are also engaged in research, and this is somewhat easier to understand from a hard sciences perspective.

So let's take an example from Harvard here with respect to hard sciences. Harvard researchers study infectious diseases as an example to better [01:05:00] understand and address the global threat of multi-drug resistant infections. They develop new tools for global pandemic prevention, discover new therapeutic antibodies and small molecules to treat or cure viral diseases, and they develop enhanced approaches to monitor disease outbreaks and to predict patterns of spread. Other universities and perhaps Harvard too, have innovated in materials sciences, artificial intelligence, mobile computing, and the list of course, is never ending. These areas of research have all contributed to the development and advancement of say, smartphones.

Like the iPhone and Android devices that pretty much everybody has these days. According to the Association of American Universities, the touchscreens on smartphones were made possible by Samuel Hurst at the University of Kentucky, who developed the technology in 1971. [01:06:00] Now multi-touch functionality specifically.

Well, that was developed by Wayne Westerman and John Elias at the University of Delaware with funding from the National Science Foundation or NSF for short. Now, Westerman and Elias went on to found a company called Finger Works, which was eventually acquired by Apple, and that's how multi-touch functionality came to the iPhone.

Of course what that research looks like varies from school to school or discipline to discipline. Engineering professors and researchers like say, Westerman and Elias, might invent a particular technology like multi-touch functionality. Professors and scholars in the hard sciences might investigate infectious diseases, as I previously mentioned about Harvard, and of course as a law professor.

I don't conduct scientific studies, nor do I try to invent the latest and greatest computer chip. So what does [01:07:00] research look like in my area, or if I broaden that for a second, what does research look like for any discipline that likely falls under the broad category of say, liberal arts? Well. We research and write.

Historians, for example, might spend months or years gathering historical materials on the Civil War to publish a book that details the bloodiness of the battle between the North and the South.

To do this, Civil War historians might uncover never before seen or read letters between soldiers and their spouses, As an example, letters that describe the cruel aspects of war. In political scientists, As another example, well, they might interview individuals who worked on the Trump campaigns to identify how this Trump.

Political rise occurred. Law professors like me might identify the latest developments in the law and predict where the law must go from here. So [01:08:00] speaking of my own research, it focuses on the intersection between constitutional law and emerging technologies with a particular focus on data privacy and security issues.

So my present work considers the rise of neuro technologies and the risks associated with large scale collection of neural data, and that is data about the brain's activities and then of course proposing the legal frameworks to protect the privacy of that data. That is my work, that is my research, and in all of these examples, there's a common thread.

University faculty and researchers add knowledge to the world that that is fundamentally what we do. We impart our knowledge by teaching students, sharing what we know, what we understand, and what we appreciate. We also add knowledge to the world through our research. A KAR scholarship for researchers like Westerman and [01:09:00] Elias from the University of Delaware.

You know those guys who invented multi-touch functionality. Well, they added knowledge to the world quite clearly. In their case, they added a technology to the world that has fundamentally shaped how users engage with devices today. Sociologists add knowledge to the world by conducting studies and observing behaviors.

Consider BF Skinner as an example. Well, he was a professor of psychology at Harvard University and during his time at Harvard, he developed behavior analysis or behaviorism. Which I will not attempt to summarize here. I am not a psychologist, but I will say his work was inspired by work that occurred outside of the United States by Ivan Pavlov as part of his research in physiology.

Now, Pavlov introduced the world to classical conditioning. You might recall Pavlov's dogs. Well, Pavlov was a professor of physiology and at one point a professor of [01:10:00] pharmacology. Pavlov performed the bulk of his research at the Institute of Experimental Medicine, and it was Pavlov's work that BF Skinner built upon.

In my most recent work, I show how the First Amendment guards against governmental access to the data generated by neuro technologies, which is particularly important as we get closer and closer to mind reading, becoming a reality. For those of you who think that that's mere science fiction, I hate to break the news.

We are getting closer and closer to being able to actively in real time, decode brain signals. All of that is a long way of saying this. Universities around the world, their role in society is to add knowledge to the world. That is my view of our role. But of course, not all knowledge is created equal or treated equally for a lack of a better term.

And so what do I mean by that? Well take [01:11:00] evolution as an example. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace conceived the scientific theory of evolution, which is of course, the explanation for why organisms are adapted to their physical and biological environments.

Darwin, of course, being the more famous of the two. Now, while Darwin wasn't a professor per se, I mentioned him to illustrate my point about how not all knowledge is created equal or treated equally. See, Darwin's theory of evolution has been consistently challenged by creationism. That is the theory that the universe and all life forms were created by divine action.

Many Christian fundamentalists view the theory of evolution as blasphemy with some fundamentalists going so far as to say, attempt to scrub it from the world by pushing creationism. And in this way some fundamentalists view evolution as [01:12:00] a threat to the religious teachings of creationism. Not all knowledge is treated equally in this way.

Consider climate change as another example, climate change knowledge. I think universities are united in what the science says that the climate is changing and it is caused by all kinds of human activity. More specifically, climate change is causing all kinds of disruptions to weather patterns, global migration patterns, natural disasters and the like.

Countless researchers and scholars at universities around the world agree on this, but there are many who still view their claims as a China driven hoax. Just ask President Trump, who has publicly stated this and repeated this. And still to this day, there are many conservatives, many Republican, congressmen and congresswomen, for instance, who claim that climate change isn't a thing, that it's not [01:13:00] real.

And let's continue with this climate change example for a second to many conservatives, information, data, and research studies about climate change is knowledge that they otherwise do not want perpetuated and disseminated. It is knowledge that many conservatives want to, for a lack of better term, kill.

So to speak, and researchers and scholars at countless universities have added this knowledge to the world, knowledge about the existence of climate change and its effects, its consequences that, and it's this knowledge that many far right conservatives passionately oppose and perhaps do not want shared at all.

But nonetheless, if the role of higher education is to add knowledge to the world, no matter how favored or disfavored that knowledge is, no matter how that knowledge might be received or rejected by members of society, no matter how politicians might respond to that [01:14:00] knowledge, that work must continue.

University, higher education research must continue. That is the role of universities to add knowledge to the world, even when that knowledge is not popular or well received, and this is why there ought to be a degree of separation between the federal government and universities. University researchers and scholars, professors, and the like, require some level of independence to pursue the acquisition.

And the development of knowledge to conduct that research that might be rejected by politicians because that knowledge could threaten the existence of key industries, such as the oil industry with respect to climate change research. Now, that said, it is in the best interest of the federal government to fund university research because that research could lead to say new technologies, insights, strategies, et cetera, that actually advance governmental interests.

Consider how biometric [01:15:00] research, as an example, has enabled faster border crossings and immigration checks, which in turn reduce personnel costs. When we erode that degree of separation between universities and the federal government, however, it threatens the academic independence that ought to be protected and preserved. That academic independence and that academic freedom, which is required for universities to add knowledge to the world, even if that knowledge is disfavored, unpopular or not well received.

So let's turn back to that climate change example for a second. NPR reports that the Trump administration has asked NASA and its employees to draw plans to end at least two major satellite missions. If these plans are carried out, one of the missions would be permanently terminated and the satellite would just burn up in the atmosphere.

The data [01:16:00] collected as a part of these missions. While that data is used by scientists, oil and gas companies, and even farmers, all of whom use that data to stay informed about carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, they are the only two federal satellite missions that were designed and built specifically to monitor.

Planet warming greenhouse gases. And while it is unclear why the Trump administration wants to terminate these missions and to terminate the data collection about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, if this reporting is true, then this suggests that the Trump administration is attacking climate change by killing the source of the data that is used by scientists to prove that climate change is happening.

This is why a degree of separation is necessary between the government and higher education. But to be clear, I am not advocating for complete [01:17:00] separation because the government and higher education institutions are dependent on each other. As I mentioned before, universities depend on federal government funding to fund research, and government also depends on universities to discover new methods, new technologies, new concepts, to invent new things that the government can use and deploy.

And given universities' role in society, which is again to add knowledge to the world, how does Harvard's First Amendment claims come into play? Consider this just as universities need a degree of separation and independence when it comes to the research. Universities also need free speech protection to disseminate and promote that research, to disseminate and promote ideas, theories, and arguments that perhaps are disfavor in the government's viewpoint or outright contrary to government interests.

In its lawsuit, Harvard claims that the Trump administration threatened Harvard's Federal funding [01:18:00] unless Harvard restructured its internal governance changed its hiring and admissions practices to strike the Trump administration's preferred balance of viewpoints

and modifying what it teaches its students to align with the Trump administration's views. In other words, according to the complaint, the Harvard complaint, the lawsuit, the Trump administration wielded the threat of withholding federal funds in an attempt to coerce Harvard to conform with the government's preferred mix of viewpoints and ideologies.

And when the Trump administration did in fact freeze those federal funds, according to the Harvard lawsuit, this constituted a violation of the First Amendment, and I agree with that. The Trump administration retaliated against Harvard by freezing the disbursement of federal funds, funds that were likely already appropriated by Congress and or awarded by federal agencies like the NIH for.[01:19:00]

Harvard's refusal to conform its practices to what Trump wanted, and the Supreme Court has ruled on academic freedom and its relationship under the First Amendment. The complaint, the Harvard complaint cites a case decided in 1967 that concluded that academic freedom is a special concern of the First Amendment, and as such, academic freedom receives heightened protection.

And it is this academic freedom that protects students, teachers, and their host institutions as well. Well, why, let's get into that. Consider the purpose of the First Amendment. As justice all of our Wendell Homes famously penned the First Amendment is about promoting a marketplace of ideas where ideas, thoughts, opinions, and beliefs all compete

for acceptance in the marketplace where the United States, as the framers intended, adopted a form of government where the governed elected governors, a form of [01:20:00] government where the people, the citizens, grant, public officials and public institutions, the authority to act those powers that are vested in those public institutions.

And in order for this whole kind of self-governance thing to work. The governed need to be informed about their governors, what the politicians are doing, the policies that they seek to implement. Voters need to know what is going on in order to make informed decisions, in order to make informed votes, and it is critical for voters to discuss the issues, policy positions, the various candidates, et cetera, to inform their votes, the demands, the requests, et cetera.

The press must have the freedom to inform the people. The press keeps power hungry politicians in check by exposing any abuses of power and any corruption, the people [01:21:00] must have the right to free expression so that the people can express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction about what is going on.

That the people can protest their grievances and make their voices heard. Put simply the First Amendment in my eyes, is about knowledge acquisition, personal autonomy, and self-governance. It is necessary for a democratic republic to function as it is designed to function. So when government threatens an institution for its speech, its research, its policy positions.

Well, that in my view, is a threat to democracy. It's a threat to knowledge acquisition and knowledge dissemination. It's a threat to the marketplace of ideas. If a university's role is to add knowledge to the world, and the government steps into coerce a particular message or ideology that [01:22:00] threatens voter's ability to self-govern, let's think of it this way.

Just as the First Amendment protects your right to express your political beliefs, it protects your political speech. It also protects your ability to collect and gather information. This is an implied protection under the First Amendment. Think about it for a second, for a person to formulate a political position, belief, idea, thought, et cetera.

That person needs to collect information to gather knowledge. Consider one of the largest protests in this century, the protest that immediately followed George Floyd's murder without any question. Those protests were citizens and non-citizens exercising a first Amendment right to protest. Now, of course, I am not talking nor endorsing those protestors who turned violent and vandalized property or attacked others.

I am talking about the millions [01:23:00] of protesters who took to the sidewalks in the streets across the country, holding signs, wearing shirts, wearing ribbons. To denounce the killing of George Floyd. Now consider this, these protests would not have occurred, but for the video that went viral, the millions of individuals who protested after George Floyd's murder, well, they needed the knowledge that the tragedy occurred. They acquired that knowledge by seeing that video protesters would have nothing to protest if they didn't know that the murder occurred. Thus, it is inherent in the First Amendment that we have a right to receive information, to be informed.

We have a right to receive and view the video of George Floyd's murder, and it's that video that sparked the protests, not just in the United States, but around the world, [01:24:00] authoritarian and totalitarian governments. Well, they often want to control the dissemination of information to its people. It is the control over that information that perpetuates government abuse and government's absolute authoritarian or totalitarian power.

Let's return to George Floyd for a second. The police officer who held his knee on George Floyd's neck was convicted of murder. Derek Chauvin was his name, and he was tried and convicted for killing George Floyd. Chauvin was a public official. He was a police officer. He was at the time the government. He was a government actor.

He was acting on the behalf of the government. So imagine for a second if the Chauvin Floyd confrontation was never recorded without that recording. As I mentioned before, millions of people likely would have been [01:25:00] unaware that a police officer killed a black man in Minnesota that day. So no protests. If George Floyd's murder had not been recorded that day, likely no protests, and it's likely that the government police officer Chauvin, in this case would not have been held accountable. Here. The collection of information, the recording itself of that confrontation and the subsequent murder that occurred coupled with the dissemination of that information, that video going viral on social media, all of that together made government accountability possible. That's the purpose of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects your right to record a police officer, a government official carrying out their official duties. The First Amendment also protects your right to distribute or disseminate that recording just as it protects your right to denounce and [01:26:00] protest the killing of George Floyd. Now consider it from the government's perspective.

Did Officer Chauvin want that recording distributed? Certainly not. You know, I think that's a very safe, reasonable statement because it eventually led to his murder conviction. An authoritarian or totalitarian government would do everything in its power to prevent the distribution of that video that documents one of its own, a law enforcement officer killing a citizen.

And if that video gone out. Then the authoritarian or totalitarian government would do everything in its power to stop the spread of that video. It is the control over information that perpetuates absolute power. And in our case, the First Amendment protects us, the American people, and even non-citizens.

From authoritarian and totalitarian rule. It's a guard against [01:27:00] absolute power. It protects the mere idea of America that the revolutionaries fought for and the framers ultimately created, which was a system of government where the people are the sovereign. So when government coerces the development of knowledge that poses a risk to democracy.

When government coerces institutions to disseminate only the knowledge that it wants disseminated, that's a risk to democracy. When government manipulates knowledge acquisition, that's a risk to democracy. When government coerces the institutions that play a major role in putting knowledge into the world.

Such that government causes these institutions to change, alter, censor, or amend the knowledge that it puts into the world. Well, that poses a risk to democracy, to self-governance, and the fundamental system of government that our [01:28:00] constitutions, framers created. Before we end today's episode, let me add one more thought.

I note that there are many conservative leaning higher education institutions such as say, Liberty University, George Mason University, BYU, Faulkner, Ave, Maria in Florida, Auburn University, even Regent University, and even Texas a and m has ranked on some lists as one of the more conservative universities in the nation.

I have yet to come across any announcement either from the universities or from the Trump administration that states the Trump administration is investigating those universities and their anti-discrimination practices, or lack thereof. Of the conservative leaning institutions, I should note that several of them are religiously affiliated.

For instance, BYU, of course is affiliated with the Mormon church, religiously affiliated universities. Have a bit more leeway with respect to their internal operations, [01:29:00] such as hiring and firing and admissions decisions because they hold some level of protection under the First Amendment's free exercise clause.

For example, Baylor University can, and it does impose a religious litmus test in its faculty hiring process. The lack of investigations into these conservative leaning universities, I think, Suggests that the Trump administration is only going after those institutions that speak out against the Trump administration that put knowledge into the world that the Trump administration doesn't want, nor welcome.

It suggests that the Trump administration seeks to coerce universities to perpetuate its message and its ideology. It suggests that the Trump administration wants to control what information is developed, collected, and released into the world. And as I stated earlier, it is an act of [01:30:00] authoritarian and totalitarian governments to subvert the marketplace of ideas by attacking those people and the institutions responsible for informing the world.

That ladies and gentlemen concludes this episode, so I thank you for joining us and hopefully we learned a little bit about the First Amendment in higher education institutions.

Hey. Thanks for tuning in. If you haven't heard, we're now on TikTok and Instagram as the Discourse podcast.

Check out our shorts where we talk about the headlines as they unfold in between the full length episodes that you find, wherever you get your podcasts. So be sure to follow, like, subscribe, and share our social media posts to inform those around us.

 [01:31:00] That's it for today's episode of Discourse. Thank you for tuning in and being part of the conversation. You can catch future episodes of discourse wherever you get your podcasts. If you found this discussion insightful, be sure to subscribe, leave a review and share it with others who value thoughtful analysis over the noise.

You can also join the conversation by visiting discourse paw.org and following me on x and blue sky at Prof Unger for more insights and updates. Until next time, keep thinking critically, stay curious and engage with respect. We'll see you soon.

Discourse is a commentary podcast for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute professional advice or legal advice. The opinions expressed are solely those of the hosts and any guests, and do not reflect the views of any employer, institution, or organization. This podcast is not journalism and does not adhere to journalistic principles.

It offers analysis, opinion, and discussion on current events, but should not be relied upon as a news source. Listeners should consult qualified professionals for legal or otherwise expert advice specific to their situation. [01:32:00] Thanks for listening.