TOP
Temidayo Aganga-Williams
Chapters
The FRONTLINE Interviews
Temidayo Aganga-Williams
Fmr. Asst. U.S. Attorney
Temidayo Aganga-Williams served as senior investigative counsel for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. Prior to that, he was an assistant U.S. attorney in the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York. He is currently a partner at the law firm Selendy Gay.
The following interview was conducted by the Kirk Documentary Group's Mike Wiser for FRONTLINE on April 1, 2025. It has been annotated and edited for accuracy and clarity as part of an editorial and legal review. See a more complete description of our process here.
This interview appears in:
Text Interview:
Highlight text to share it
Trump’s Speech at the DOJ
A moment that we're thinking about starting the film is when Donald Trump goes to the Justice Department to speak in the Great Hall.I don't know if you saw it or read about that moment.What did that symbolize to you?What meaning did you take from that?
I think it symbolized that he has captured the Department of Justice for his own purposes.The Department of Justice serves the interests of the American people, or it should at least.But I think, under this administration, we're seeing a perversion of that.No longer do they uphold the American interests at its heart, but the president's interests.I think it's a dangerous turn, and him standing there, with the vitriol he was spewing out, I think reflects where he sees the Justice Department in his plan to really take on the rule of law.
What did you make of the fact that he was singling out individual lawyers like Norm Eisen, Andrew Weissmann, by name, calling them “scum,” there with the attorney general sitting there, the head of the FBI?1
I took those as threats.For the president to name specific individuals, and the power that's behind the president's tongue, it's incredibly dangerous.But I took those as threats that he would use, or could use, the full power of the executive to act out his own revenge fantasies against individuals.
And what power does the Justice Department have, does the prosecution, does the attorney general have there?After all, they'd have to go to a jury if they wanted to convict somebody of a crime.What power would he have in an implied threat there?
Well, I think first, just the threat itself is its own kind of power.To face a federal investigation, even if you are innocent, takes an immense amount of resources, has a mental strain on you and your family.It can destroy careers.That's all without ever getting to a courtroom.So that power right there, just to open an investigation, which is pretty—it's unmatched.A prosecutor has wide-ranging discretion to initiate a prosecution, so that is the first threat.
Secondly, an indictment.It's famously said that you can indict a ham sandwich.The grand jury serves an important function, but they only hear in the federal system from the prosecutor as well.So you can find yourself facing an indictment because it's been a one-sided presentation that got you to that position.So again, that's before you ever see a judge or a jury.So there's a whole lot that can happen to someone that can impact their well-being before you ever have the chance to prove your innocence, or have the government put to the test.
What did you think, personally, as somebody who had worked on the staff of the Jan. 6 committee?He talked about the committee a lot during the campaign.What did you think of this environment and the president's rhetoric in the run-up to becoming president, and then after he assumed the presidency?
Well, first I'll say that all the members of the select committee worked honorably, patriotically, worked to defend this country and the rule of law, and that's what the committee stood for.I think that's what the committee accomplished, regardless of what happened in November at the election.I think his rhetoric, attacking the committee, one, it didn’t impact us.As we were doing our work, we were steadfastly focused on doing what was right.We were not concerned about politics.The committee was bipartisan.2Everyone across the political spectrum, across the American population, was reflected on the staff of the committee.
2
But hearing the president attack his fellow Americans for doing their patriotic duty, for defending Congress, for defending the rule of law, it was sad.It didn't stop us from doing our work, but it made me sad for where the country was, because when we all started on the committee, we had hopes that the work we were doing would be taken by the country as a bipartisan—in fact, a nonpartisan effort, as it was intended; that we would be following the facts wherever they led.And we started with that basic premise: Follow the facts.Let the investigation tell us where to go, and that's what we did.The fact that the investigation led us to the … current president was just virtually what the facts were.
Was there anything you learned about him during that investigation that informs your view of how he's acting now?Were there lessons that you took about Donald Trump?
I think one of the lessons that stood out to me from the investigation was a complete disregard for the truth.Throughout our time, as we investigated what the president and his allies knew, they always had the correct facts in front of them.This was not a mistake.The fact that he pushed the “Stop the Steal” narrative, or that he's pushed these lies about the election, him and his staff knew that the election was not stolen.3
What we saw time and time again was that he disregarded the truth in favor of his own well-being.And the fact that he was willing to attack all of the various branches of our system—he was attacking Congress; he was attacking state legislators; he was attacking individual citizens like the election workers who were doing their job; he was willing to weaponize the FBI and the DOJ if they would allow him.4And all these various tenets of our civic society was under threat.
I think that, again—I'll go back—the complete disregard for the truth.So as I look forward now at what he's doing and the rhetoric he's spewing, that sticks with me; that nothing that we've basically heard him say about these immensely important facts were true.
Trump’s Executive Orders
On the very first day that he comes into office, one of the things that he does is issue pardons, commutations for pretty much everybody involved in Jan. 6.As somebody who understands what those people had been convicted of, what message was he sending?Who were the people that he was pardoning?
So President Trump was pardoning people who attacked officers, people who attacked Congress, people who used violence to spread their political message, people who had no regard for our institutions and our democracy.That's who he was issuing pardons for.What was terrible about his decision to issue those pardons is that it made political violence an appropriate method of discussion in this country, of discourse, that he was saying that it's not that if you have a disagreement, you go, you argue about it in the public square, and then you let your ideas win.It’s that you can use violence without consequence as a way to spread your message.
I think looking forward, it's an endorsement of that as a tactic in American society, and I think I worry that that's just the beginning of political violence.
What do you mean, looking forward, it sends a message?What are you worried that the message—who would receive it?How would it be received?
Well, let's start with the very individuals who attacked the Capitol, people who thought that, because their side did not win, because they had a grievance after going to the courts, after going to the ballot box, and they lost at each of those places, that they could go and take up arms against police officers, attacking Congress, seeking to hang the vice president, that's—So I think, when the president, acting in his official capacity, endorses that, he says that all of that is wiped clean, you should go forward, he's saying that he, in my view, agreed and supports what they did.5
And what that means is that the next time we have large political differences, and people feel like their voices are not being heard at the ballot box or being heard by members, they have the endorsement of the president that violence, on his behalf, will be supported and will be forgiven.So going forward, I worry that his supporters have that as a signal.
And if we remember, pre-election, the president gave that same signal when he previously told the Proud Boys to stand by and stand back, right?And those same Proud Boys end up attacking the U.S. Capitol, and those same Proud Boys have now been pardoned by the president.I think all of that is connected.
And I guess it's a signal maybe to his supporters, but also maybe to people who weren't his supporters.When we were doing the film about Jan. 6, it sounded like there were some people in Congress who may have been intimidated by just the threat of what the president's supporters might do.Do you think that applies in this moment, too?
I think the chilling effect is something we see across the board in President Trump's attack on the rule of law.When the American public sees certain actions, whether it be political violence, whether it be an attack on a lawyer, whether it be attack on judges, it sends a message to each of those groups that “You could be next.”And I think it chills the ability of people to do what's right and stand up for what's right.
The Unitary Executive Theory
As you know, you issued your report.The Justice Department issued an investigation and indictments.And over the summer, before the election, the Supreme Court issued their decision in Trump v. United States.6Some of the president's lawyers and supporters have taken that as an endorsement of executive power and the president's powers now.How important do you think that decision was?What do you think were the consequences for the moment that we're in now?
6
Oyez: Trump v. United States
Prior to the court issuing its immunity decision, there were lots of warnings from across the political spectrum that it's dangerous to—this new finding of presidential immunity would give a future, even well-meaning president pretty much unmatched powers.I think it is incredibly dangerous, specifically for this president.If there were one president who I would be worried about having what is effectively a kind of blanket presidential immunity, it is Donald Trump, because he has shown himself unable to control his own worst instincts.
I think what the court has done, it is—after Jan. 6, to give a president presidential immunity and let him not be held responsible for that, knowing that if he won … he would be untethered from any kind of responsibility, I think we're seeing the consequence now.We are only a few months into the first Trump presidency, and he has adopted, I would say, the blanket of a kind of king, covering himself.He walks and acts with a kind of immunity that he does not have to answer to the rule of law, and I think, again, that connection between how the court treated him in that case is the reason, or one of them I should say.
…That's interesting, because some people see it as a precedent, right, that the president… he embodies the head of the government, and it's a sign that they're going to win cases at the Supreme Court.But you're saying that it might be more of a personal sign, or may also be a personal sign to Donald Trump, about what he can do, what he might dare to do.
I think that that framing of what he might dare to do, to me, I think it is short-sighted to talk about whether they're going to win cases at the Supreme Court or whether they're going to litigate more aggressively.That is a framing from yesteryear for me.What I'm concerned about, going forward, is whether they see litigation or the courts as the avenue to resolve disputes.I think that—we're really talking about the breaking of norms here.Presidential immunity, to me, is not about future litigation.It's about whether the president, today, sees himself as subject to the authority of the other branches, whether he sees himself that he has to answer to federal judges, whether he sees that he has to answer to Congress on how they issue appropriation bills.If he does not see these other branches as equals to him, and instead puts himself above the branches, the other two branches, then our entire democracy is broken down, and that's what I'm worried about.
Thank you.Jan. 6 sort of runs throughout this story.One of the first things that he does is fire a number of Jan. 6 prosecutors, to ask for a list of FBI agents, special agents, who had been involved in investigating Jan. 6.What did those moves tell you?
It told me that he is doing exactly what he said he would do, which is seek retribution.It's not enough for President Trump to have won the election.It's not enough for his cases to have been dismissed.He wants to go after people who were merely doing their job, people who were investigating these cases, following leads, following the law, and acting the way the thousands of people who work in the DOJ every single day do.But for him to go after line prosecutors, to go after FBI agents who were not acting in the political capacity, who were just merely doing their job, and not only is punishing them for doing what I view as a patriotic act, it is now, in a sense, expanding that scope of immunity, because if future agents and prosecutors know that they could be under threat by investigating the president, his family, his allies, again, all that becomes off limits.It becomes a chilling effect [for] how the DOJ proceeds, because you're not only thinking about, am I following orders today?You're thinking that, in the future, will I become a target?Will my family become a target?Will my loved ones become a target?And that can make people not act in the best interests of the country.
Can you help us understand why, for Donald Trump, finding people who were loyal to him for the Justice Department might be more important this term, especially after the work you did and understanding the role of Bill Barr and others at the Justice Department in the run-up to Jan. 6?
I think President Trump is seeking loyalty in the Department of Justice because when he first tried to corrupt the department, the department stood up to him.We look up in the lead-up to Jan. 6, from Rich Donoghue and throughout the Justice Department, individuals told the president no, and they were able to subvert his attempts to corrupt the Department of Justice in favor of his election lies.7
He doesn't want that same problem again.I think that's why you've seen him install personal allies, his former personal lawyers, people that he knows will not hold themselves up to the rule of law, but instead will be focused on the rule of Trump.I think that gives him unmatched power, and power that no one intended.The Department of Justice does not work for the president; it works for the American people.But I think we're seeing a corruption of that now, and a new kind of view of what the department should be.And it's dangerous.
What do you make of the people he puts at the top, of Pam Bondi, of Emil Bove at the beginning, of Ed Martin, of Kash Patel?What do you make of the leadership of the Justice Department, of the FBI, in this second term?And is it different?
The leadership of the FBI and the DOJ in this term is incredibly different.What we're seeing is not a focus on experience, credentials, commitment to the law.What we're seeing, above all these new leaders, is commitment to Trump.For many of them, they have proven their commitment, whether it's representing him in cases where he was convicted of crimes, convicted of representing him when he was facing charges of effectively leading an insurrection against our country.
But one thing we see in common among all these leaders is that they have proven themselves as willing to support Trump and be loyal to Trump.And I think it's reflective that he wants those same individuals acting in that same duty to him while in office.
What do you make, early on, the attorney general sends a memo out that says, “The president decides what the law is.8The attorney general decides what the law is on behalf of this department.And you are his lawyers, and if you don't agree with it, it's time to go.Don't play around with not signing onto a brief.You need to leave the department.”
8
Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General Memorandum
One thing I will say is that elections have consequences, and the president does get to pick who runs the department.Now, while the law confines what is legal behavior and how these—and the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual prescribes other limitations on how prosecutors act, President Trump does have the right to put who he wants in power.
I think we as the American people have to sit with that decision to put President Trump back in office, because to some degree, this is what we voted for, and we are now getting it.With that said, I think that Attorney General Bondi's decision to take the political disagreements at the top of our society and send them down to line prosecutors, to line agents, to line kind of bureaucrats, I think that is new, that typically—when I was a federal prosecutor, I never thought about what was happening in D.C., or Washington, or policy in that regard.I did my job, focused on the rule of law, the statutes, the office's priorities.But I never thought about the president or the White House as impacting my day-to-day work.Now I think that's going to change.
The Eric Adams Case
The case to us that stood out was the Eric Adams case, where you have this conflict with the acting U.S. attorney in the Southern District, Danielle Sassoon, and others at the top leadership of the Justice Department.9What did that case tell you?Did that tell you that things were different under this administration than in the past?
9
I think the Eric Adams case showed exactly the Trump administration was willing to show its cards.And there were ways that case could have been handled that would have been less destructive, but I don't think that was the intention of the administration.I think they wanted prosecutors across the country to see that this time around, they would not be standing for any pushback, that they would not be permitting offices, even the Southern District of New York, to push back against Main Justice, and that if you did stand up, that you will lose your career, and not just the leadership.
What's so important about that Eric Adams case, it was not merely the acting U.S. attorney who is now gone; it’s that you now have line prosecutors who were involved in that case, being put on administrative leave, had their careers disrupted, potentially ended, merely because they did their job as they were directed to do, without political favor.And it's important to recognize, the administration never indicates that Eric Adams was wrongly charged, or that he was innocent, or otherwise that the prosecution against him was based on any faulty premise.10Nonetheless, line prosecutors have been sidelined, potentially forever, and I think that, again, it's all about sending the chilling effect across the department and across the country.
10
Department of Justice: Emil Bove's Letter to Danielle Sassoon
Let me just ask you, because it might be a useful detail for us.When you said “even the Southern District,” what was the reputation of the Southern District?Why did you say it in that way?
So there are 93 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices across the country, but the Southern District is the most prominent in the country, often called the “Sovereign District,” because for so long, the Southern District has acted with a kind of independence from Main Justice in D.C. that other offices have only dreamed of matching.But to have this brawl, open fight with the Southern District, that led to these many individuals having their careers ended sends a sharp message to those who are in the department, that even the Southern District, at the top of the food chain, will have to bend a knee to the Trump Main Justice.I think that was the point.
… When I read about it, and all of these resignations, and there's, I think, at least five at Main Justice as well, it reminded me a little bit of the threat to resign during the run-up to Jan. 6, which got the president to back off, which was something that has happened in the Bush administration, and of course the fallout during Nixon of threats to resign changed the politics.What did it tell you that there were these threats to resign and they didn't deter the president, and in some ways, he just moves on after it?
… I think as President Trump is attacking leaders and asking them to resign or forcing them out, it is all part of a plan to really strip the brain trust across the country.And I think what we're going to see going forward is if you lose that history, that experience, that long linear trend back of people who have been involved, it really makes these agencies less able to push back against President Trump.We're seeing junior people elevated to senior positions that otherwise they would never have done it in a new administration.I think it's going to make everyone weaker.
Are you surprised that Congress hasn't been more involved in this, that there wasn't hearings, that they didn't call the former head of the Southern District to hearings?Were you surprised by Congress' reaction?
I'm not surprised by Congress' reaction.When I look at this Trump second term, I think the Judiciary is really the only branch we can look to here to stand up to the administration.I think Congress has sidelined itself in this debate so far in these first couple of months.And I think that's why Trump is focused on attacking the judiciary, because that is really where you will see opposition.That is where you will see the safeguarding of due process.That is where you will see the administration have to face challenges.But I think Congress is sidelined, and that's why the attack on the rule of law is really Trump's focus now.
Trump Takes on the Courts and Law Firms
How do you think the courts are doing?Because they're facing a thousand things happening at the same time, in some cases entire agencies, like USAID, being eliminated.When you look at this war in the courts, how do you see the lay of the land in how the courts are responding?
I think I'm incredibly proud of how the courts are responding.From the district court and appellate federal courts across the country, we're seeing judges who are acting honorably, who are facing threats but are undeterred, who are issuing rulings that comply with the U.S. Constitution.You see judges who are challenging the administration to explain its actions.But all that has limitations.And I think my concern now is that we are—I wouldn't say sleepwalking, but we are openly and aggressively marching towards a constitutional crisis, because at some point, there is going to be a decision with a judge, facing the administration, where we're going to see who has the real power.And I think we're going to see a judge who is going to issue an order that the administration is not going to comply with openly, and seek that fight.At that point, we're in a crisis, because judges cannot enforce their own rules.We have norms that make us abide by a judge's decision.But the guns in the Army are only with one branch of government.
If the courts are the one check, is that the backdrop of these executive orders targeting law firms?
I think that is—I think, exactly.I think the target on the lawyers are about the attack on the rule of law and the attack on the judiciary.If you limit lawyers, and you have a chilling effect, lawyers will not bring those cases challenging the administration.And I think the attack on the judges on one hand and lawyers on the other hand really go together, their two-pronged attack where the administration will not face consequences for their actions.
You have prominent law firms like Paul Weiss, who are engaged in agreements with the government.11If Paul Weiss can't stand up to the government, who will?I think that's exactly the point.
11
The New York Times: What to Know About Paul Weiss, the Law Firm Bowing to Trump’s Demands
Can you help me understand what these executive orders do?What do they say?I've seen them described as sort of existential threats to some of these law firms. Why?
… What these executive orders do is that they direct U.S. agencies, federal agencies, to effectively cut off all business agreements with law firms and even with their clients.Why this can be existential to a firm is that if you are doing business on behalf of a client before the government, and that client believes that, by virtue of you representing them, they would have disfavorable treatment from the government, that makes you not attractive as an advocate.You are unable to be a full, zealous advocate on behalf of your client.Therefore you're not going to get hired.So that means if you are facing a regulatory issue, if you are being prosecuted by the DOJ, if you are facing an SEC inquiry, on all those fronts, are you going to want a lawyer that's in good favor with the administration or a lawyer that's now been targeted by the administration?From a client's perspective, that's going to be clear, and that's why it can quickly become existential to a law firm and to the business model.
How much fear is there, when you talk to other lawyers, to people at other firms about this?
I think the legal profession is really at a crossroads right now.You see a lot of discussion behind closed doors that is just pure shock at what the administration is doing.Every day or other day, you get a message saying, who's going to be the next law firm?You see, who's going to be targeted next?Who's going to be on the front page of <i>The New York Times</i>?And I think that fear has a lot of law firms rethinking how to proceed.It has law firms thinking how to proceed on diversity initiatives.It has law firms rethinking on how to proceed on their pro bono initiatives.It has law firms retreating from a lot of these areas—they have traditionally been defenders of liberty for press groups or whatnot—and I think you see law firms backing out.
So what you're seeing is, again, it's that chilling effect.A lot of lawyers are backing up and saying, “Let's watch and see.”You do see some law firms who have stood up for the rule of law, but that's far and few.
When you say chilling effect, do you mean on firms that are not even targeted?These are firms that haven't been mentioned?
Correct.There are firms that have not been mentioned, who are right now stopping pro bono initiatives, representing certain groups.There are law firms who are canceling future planned initiatives because of these fears.It's having a real impact, which means disadvantaged groups will not get the representation they otherwise would have; that law firms who would have been more aggressive in combating the administration will not take those positions.The impact, I believe, the administration wants is already in full effect.
And how important are the big law firms and the sort of pro bono work that they provide, which seems to be sort of central to what is at threat here?
Law firms, especially big law firms, are critical to the advancement of civil rights in a variety of ways.Law firms such as Paul Weiss, who, frankly, are quite profitable, have been able, historically, to use some of those resources to defend important civil rights initiatives all across the country, all across our history.If law firms were to back out of that and not do that work, what you would see is a collapse of the rule of law to some degree.And by that, I mean a collapse of the pro bono defense of the rule of law, which a lot of the advances we've seen are of those law firms doing that great work.
For example, Paul Weiss was critical in the defense of gay marriage and the Supreme Court decision.Paul Weiss has a long history of doing that kind of work.If Paul Weiss doesn't do it, Paul Weiss and others don't do it, who will?
Why hasn't everybody gotten together?Why haven't the law firms decided, we're all going to stick together on this and resist the administration?
… Each law firm, I think, is facing its own kind of values crisis right now.Some law firms are sticking together.Some law firms are speaking up.There are discussions right now; there are Zooms and all kind of things going on where lawyers are planning how to respond.But it is, to some degree, a privilege to be in a position to respond.Not all law firms could withstand a target by the administration on their back.I think that's the big distinction here.At the end of the day, this [is] people's well-being and livelihoods, and you have associates to feed.You have assistants and staff and all kind of people whose livelihood depend on these law firms operating in a profitable way.I do think there is a challenge to ask private citizens to put themselves in economic harm’s way because the administration is taking this aggressive and unprecedented stand against law firms.
So why would a firm like yours be willing to speak out publicly, and others aren't?What's the difference?
… I don't want it to suggest I'm speaking for Selendy.
[crosstalk] Fair enough.
I think law firms who have chosen to speak out are doing so at great risk to themselves, but are doing so as part of a long history of lawyers and law firms that have stood up in times of crisis and for the rule of law.All throughout our history, lawyers have been the ones to stand against tyranny, to stand against oppression, to stand against violations of due process, and I think that's what this is about.This is no different, that lawyers are often the first at the front of the line, defending this country's norms and rule of law, and that's what I think those of us who have stood up now are seeking to do.
When Paul Weiss announced a deal, what was your reaction?What was the feeling among other lawyers when you heard the terms and how it was explained?
I pause only because it's tough to second-guess a decision that Paul Weiss' managing partner had to face, which is, do you take on a battle that could imperil a billion-dollar business?With that said, I feel sad that Paul Weiss or any other firm had to face that decision.President Trump is the reason why those firms are facing those decisions that they shouldn't have to.
And when I heard about the deal that was struck, I was less concerned about Paul Weiss and what Paul Weiss did, but I was concerned about the message it would send to other firms.Paul Weiss has revenue, I believe last year, of over $2.5 billion.And if Paul Weiss has made a determination that it cannot withstand the pressure of the Trump administration, then how will any other firm think that it could?It sends a message that everyone should bend the knee, because if Paul Weiss can't do it, how will you do it?
With that said, other firms have stood up.Perkins Coie, for example, is fighting back.12And I think that's great.And I think you will see more firms, and I expect in the very near term, you will see more firms who will stand with Perkins, who will stand with Covington, and frankly, will stand with Paul Weiss, even if Paul Weiss didn't stand on its own.
12
The Washington Post: Hundreds of law firms back Perkins Coie in fight against Trump sanctions
The other thing that's confusing about this story is a lot of the firms, including Paul Weiss, say that they don't think this order is legal; that if they went to court, that they could get it blocked.And yet the order seems to have a power anyway, despite their conviction that it's not legal.Can you help me understand that?
I think the power of the order is the message it sends to government employees across the country.And if I were Paul Weiss, the concern I would have is, even if the lawyer—even if the order is illegal, what will your clients think?I'll give you a hypothetical.You are a company facing criminal charges, potentially, by the Department of Justice, and you need a lawyer to go in there and speak with the government on your behalf, and lobby the Trump administration to not bring charges.In that circumstance, do you want a Paul Weiss lawyer on your behalf, who is suing the government and facing the attacks of Trump, or do you want a comparable other firm that has not been targeted yet?I think that is the danger this has.Whether the order's illegal or not, if you know that a law firm is persona non grata with the administration, it undercuts their ability to be a zealous advocate, because the client may question whether those pleas or advocacy are going to fall on deaf ears.
Of course law firms are not the only ones that do business with the government or have clients that do business with the government.Lots of other companies interact with regulators, trying to get mergers through or new products on the market.Do you think it sends a message beyond the legal community?
I think the message it sends is that the U.S. government and President Trump are one and the same, and if President Trump has an issue with you or a grievance with you, then the U.S. government has an issue or grievance with you.I think that's the message that will be pervasive across this kind of trend here of going after private companies.
So if it works, should others outside the legal profession be worried?
I think all American people should be worried about what we're seeing.I know lawyers are not the most favored group with society but lawyers are who you go to when you need your rights defended.Lawyers are who you go to when you need to access the courts.And I think it begins with lawyers, but this kind of trend will expand across the board.And the impact of these attacks on lawyers are, yes, the lawyers at first, but it's about the clients.It's about clients not having the right to pick their own counsel.It's about clients not having a fair shake in front of the government because of a Trump grievance against a law firm.
So it's already impacting non-lawyers, because the lawyers, we're only vessels for our clients' interest, and when you undercut and attack those vessels, you're truly attacking those clients who are seeking to really advocate for their own rights and defend their own decisions.
Deportation of Venezuelan Migrants
The last area I wanted to talk to you about is going after the judiciary directly, at least rhetorically, which seems to arise especially around the issue of immigration, which some people have suggested to us might be where they feel like it's the sort of strongest territory.When you see a conflict with the courts, like the one that arose over the deporting of Venezuelans to El Salvador, what do you see the administration doing?Are they testing?What is going on in that case?
I think the administration is clearly testing the judiciary.I think the administration is seeking an opportunity to create a constitutional crisis, and by that I mean a crisis that tests the scope of the judicial power to control the executive.You've had numerous Trump officials say that Trump decides what the law is, not judges.But that undercuts hundreds of years of our judicial system, which is no, Congress passes the laws; the executive enforces the laws, but it is the courts that tell us what the law, in fact, is.If we remove that power from the courts to tell us what the law is, then we no longer have a president; we have a king.But I'm worried that's exactly what President Trump wants to be.
And when you hear about the temporary restraining order, he's saying, “Turn the flights around,” and they say afterwards, “We didn't do it because we didn't think it applied,” to you, how unusual is that kind of an incident, in your experience?13
13
The New York Times: A Judge Ordered Deportation Planes to Turn Around. The White House Didn’t Listen
What's so incredibly unusual about that whole process was the Trump lawyers first say that they didn't think the oral order from the judge was the binding order, and instead they were waiting for the written order.That's just nonsense.A court can order you orally to do the same thing as it can in written form.So I think that is just disingenuous and shows how brazen these lawyers are and willing to ignore a decision of a court.
But most importantly, what those lawyers are testing is whether they believe that they, as American citizens and actors, are subject to the jurisdiction of the court.The judge in that case said, regardless of where that plane was, his order still applies to those individuals who are under his jurisdiction, but Trump doesn't seem to think so.And if he doesn't think so, and he's drawing these boundaries of judicial power, that is the president unilaterally limiting the scope of judicial authority.
What do you make of the language, especially the language that’s starting from the president's border czar, saying, “I don't care what the judges think.”14There's the president himself directly attacking the judge, the chief judge in D.C., as a “radical left lunatic” and a lot of rhetoric from others in the administration.
I think we are inching towards our “Now you have your order; go and enforce it” time.I think the attacks on these judges are clearly unprecedented.But what it's doing, I think, it's building a public debate or narrative of whether these judges have any power at all.It is building a resentment and anger that is completely baseless against federal judges who are doing the same job they've done honorably throughout multiple administrations.
But I do think it is about undercutting the legitimacy of these judges to justify a future time when the administration will openly and boldly ignore judicial orders and claim they're doing it for the benefit of the American people.
… I asked you about the Justice Department, but you also studied a period where the courts were very much a check on what this president was trying to do during his first term after the election and in the run-up to Jan. 6.What was his experience with the courts then?Do you think that that might be informing what's going on now?
I do think it informs.Leading up to Jan. 6, President Trump and his allies lost, I think, 61 or something, of 62 cases.Again and again, they took their stories, their lies, their theories to courts.They were heard; they were given due process; but they lost.President Trump has gone in his personal capacity, where he's been convicted of crimes.I think he's been charged and had judges rule against him in a variety of ways, looking at his criminal case in New York.
I think the administration, and Trump specifically, has seen that when the system works, and his ideas are tested, he very often loses.And I think that's what he's trying to avoid, and that they do not have the kind of arguments that will withstand scrutiny under the law, so they're trying to circumvent the law entirely.
You said that the thing that you took away also from Jan. 6 about Trump was him and the truth.It's interesting, in this case, there's this question about, are these individuals—is there a war or an invasion?Are they terrorists?What do you make of that?Is he able to use his understanding of this moment to sort of change the legal ground?
The president is free to have his own views of what the law is, so I don't think this is about whether Trump can advocate for new expansive powers, or his interpretation.The real question is whether those interpretations should be subject to judicial review.Whether the president wants to make a new argument, do, and whether it’s American citizens or people just residing in America, have the opportunity to go to the court, present their own positions, and have due process before the president can take action, including deporting someone?
So what I think we should be focused on is, it's due process.That's what the courts are there for, that there is a forum to test new uses of law, there is a forum to test the president's power, because if you do not have that forum, and the president can act unilaterally, he can remove people without any recourse, you're going to have the kind of mistakes we see now, where the government is apologizing for removing individuals without authority, for people who they did not intend to remove, but those individuals are now sitting in a prison outside the country with no recourse, no due process.
When the president talks about impeaching judges, the chief justice responds to it.15He may not mention the president directly, but everybody knew who he was talking about.What was the president doing, and why did the chief justice respond, in a very uncharacteristic way, so quickly?
So President Trump was attacking a sitting U.S. judge for disagreeing with him, indicating that he should be impeached, removed from office, not for high crimes and misdemeanors but for testing the administration, asking questions of the administration.And it was unprecedented to some degree that the chief justice stood up and spoke out, and it was great; I commend him for that.
But I think what's important to realize, that the chief justice is the chief justice of the Supreme Court.We should be looking about how he—him and his fellow justices—decide cases facing them that include President Trump.So I look back at that immunity case.We have on one hand chief justice standing up and saying the president has immunity, but now, mere months later, taking issue when that same president is acting with that same kind of aggressive posture that people warned about when you give a president immunity, that he would disregard the rule of law, that he will stick his thumb in the judiciary's eye.He's doing exactly what people predicted.So for anyone, including the chief justice, who takes issue with this, we have to look in the mirror and see, what did everyone do to get us to where we are, including that immunity decision?
How much pressure is the judiciary under at this point?You talked about the message that was sent from the pardons of the Jan. 6.There's this rhetoric.There's this threat of impeachment.How unusual is this?And how much pressure do you think the judiciary is under as it's deciding over 100 cases about the president's powers?
The judiciary is facing a fight like it never has before.It's being attacked by the full weight of the executive, and I don't know of any time in the modern era that the executive has effectively chosen to go to war against the judiciary, making both, in a big sense, aggregate sense, the rule of law, but also individual lawyers, individual judges the enemy.And Trump has done this again and again.Throughout his time in the public space, he has attacked specific individual judges again and again and again.So this is par for the course.
But I think the real test for the judiciary, now, is those—a judge's power comes from norms.I think that's what people have to remember.The judge writes a decision, but that doesn't do anything, right?Our judiciary works because we believe in its power.When a judge says something, we choose to follow that order.If we have a world where the administration and Trump decide that norm is gone, that that order has no longer authority, then the entire judiciary and its purpose collapses, because if you don't have the executive following the judiciary, separation of powers is done; judiciary's power is done.And at that point, we have people writing orders that mean nothing, and an executive doing anything he wants.
And I wonder if that threat is an effective intimidation of the court, that Justice Roberts or others on the Supreme Court, how far will they want to go to push things into a direct confrontation with somebody who they know might say, “I'm not going to follow it”?And then where are they?
Exactly.I think the threats against the judiciary, I think, may force the courts to take a less aggressive position to avoid the coming constitutional crisis.Because I think many judges would rather be weakened than have no power at all.And if we have a position where the administration completely ignores otherwise lawful orders, the judiciary is exposed as powerless, versus they may very well opt for a weakened posture, because at least they may just survive the Trump administration and be able to build back those norms in the future.
And what do you make of that calculation, having studied Jan. 6?What do you make of the dilemma that they're in, and how do you evaluate that argument or that balancing?
I think I feel concerned that we are asking judges to put themselves in harm's way, to have to make the kind of decision as to whether they go full speed for what they think is right or that they do what they think will sustain the power of the judiciary long term.I think it's sad that they are facing that decision-making process.But I also have confidence that these judges, across the country, will be able to withstand that test.All throughout our history, judges have been able to stand strong in the face of this kind of pressure.But the test really isn't for the judges.I think the test is for everyone else.The test is for the American people.The test is for Congress to control the purse.The test is for whether President Trump, as someone who's sworn an oath to his country, will do the right thing.But the test here is not about what the judges will do.I think it's about how we respond to what the president is doing.
It's interesting.You're saying the courts themselves are not enough for this situation.
I'm saying that the courts are limited in what they're able to do.The battle here may be on the face between Trump versus the courts, or Trump versus the rule of law.But this is the battle for what is going to be normal in America.What are our norms?What is our system of government that we are all going to subject ourselves to?That's what's truly, I think, at issue here.
America’s Future
And so the stakes in this moment?What is at stake, and how high are the stakes?
I think the stakes could not be higher.The stakes are about our entire system of government.The stakes are, do we have a president, or do we have a king?Do we have the rule of law, or do we have royal decrees?That's what's at stake here.And we are inching, day by day, to a world where we will not recognize this country anymore.So many decisions that come down or orders that come down from the president on a daily basis now are breaking-news alerts, but it's tough for those things to remain at the fever pitch that I think they should be, because they're happening so much and so much.
We went from one order against a law firm that was shocking to now there are so many orders coming down that I don't know that we’re all switching our plans that day to talk about them.And I think that's the impact, that we will lose our sense of normalcy.We will lose our kind of our muscle memory as to what is normal and right in this country, and once we lose that, I think we'll be able to—we will accept a lot more disruptions to the rule of law, and we might lose the whole thing.
Could you help us understand who are the lawyers around Donald Trump, and their level of competency?Where do they get their ideas from?Are they formidable adversaries, or are they sort of “yes men”?What is their preparation?I'm not really talking about Pam Bondi and maybe his defense lawyers in his criminal cases and other cases, but really, who are the brains of the outfit advising Donald Trump to do these things?How would you characterize them?
How I would characterize them, I think President Trump has shown that he is more focused on those that will be zealous advocates for his extreme views than those who have traditional credentials that you would expect of people in the president's inner circle.And I think that is reflected in who he has chosen to surround himself with.But I think the number one credential to be in the president's inner circle is loyalty to him.We see that in Ed Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney in D.C., who called himself “Trump's lawyer,” as opposed to the American people's lawyer.I think that embodies what these folks in his inner circle are focused on: loyalty to him; his own views; not the American people, not justice, not the rule of law.And I'm hesitant to kind of speak on the broader credentials in a traditional sense of these folks just out of professional courtesy, but I think even those have been questioned by many as well.
Seventy or so, maybe more, tens of millions of Americans voted for him, and he said, “Promises made, promises kept,” as his watch word.And I can't get a sense of whether they know that something that you're talking about, and then that we're talking about in this film, is really profound and something really important is at stake.Do you have a sense that the MAGA and the true Trump supporters really understand what's happening right now and what the implications are?
I certainly hope that they can at least plead some ignorance, because it would be scary to think that they do know and nonetheless support.But I think what we're seeing is that there's been a vilification of certain segments of society again and again and again, including lawyers, including judges.This attack on the judiciary and attack on lawyers has been a multi-year extensive process for Trump and his followers.
So I would not be surprised if some of his followers truly believe that lawyers and law firms and judges are the enemy because they've been told so time and time and time again.So they may very well have that view. It's not true; it's baseless.I have represented both Republicans and Democrats, and when I was a prosecutor, we never thought about, at all, about someone's political affiliation.We did what the rule of law required and demanded of us.That's what lawyers across the country do every single day.
But I think lawyers and law firms and judges are being unfairly targeted because we are an easy scapegoat here.
Is there something ahead that may activate them, that may say to them, “Oh, my God.We've gone too far”?And can you imagine those circumstances?Or are we headed for the abyss, or wherever we're headed, and his voters will still be with him?
The danger here is that people will know that we've gone too far when it's too late.And with all of these attacks on norms, it is always easiest to start with the people that are already disliked.Lawyers are not the most beloved group in our country.But attacking them first, I think, is easy, because when you erode the rule of law, and have in your partner in that someone that you dislike, like a lawyer or a judge or a fancy Wall Street law firm, it's hard to find someone to come and defend the fancy Wall Street law firm.
What people are not thinking about is down the road, when those lawyers are compromised, when those lawyers are not your zealous advocates, when you are the person who now needs a defense, when you are the person who needs an advocate to go up against the government, those lawyers may not be there for you at that point.I think that's when some people will realize how destructive this new plan of attack against lawyers and the rule of law will be.
… People describe a kind of level of fear.Journalists feel fear.Their sources won't allow them to be quoted anymore.Do you feel, do you see a level of fear in the world that you operate in, and how would you describe it?Tell us, how is the fear manifesting itself?What are its implications?
I think that fear is palpable.When I joined the committee initially, we all talked about those same kind of concerns.Even back then, putting yourself even on the select committee, as great as that might have been for your career and otherwise your interest and your desire to help, your desire to investigate what happened on that sad day, you cannot help but think about the personal consequences that you could face, the scrutiny that you could face or the fact that you could be targeted.
That's on a pretty micro scale, but I think you're seeing that now expand itself across the legal field.You're seeing lawyers talk about cases they might have want—the clients they already have, pro bono cases especially, which is typically focused on more marginalized groups, now second-guessing whether they should do those cases.You have lawyers afraid that they could end up with their name in an executive order, where the entire country, millions of people, are now focused on you and perhaps targeting you, targeting your family, targeting your well-being.I think that fear is real, and it is justified.You have individuals who are being named and attacked for merely doing their jobs as private citizens, not individuals doing anything unlawful or unethical but just doing their jobs, being the zealous advocates that we may all need one day.So I think that fear is real and justified.
When you were a young boy, thinking about what to do when you grew up, did you ever think you'd be in this position?
When I was a young kid, I always wanted to be a lawyer.Back in my fifth grade yearbook, I have “lawyer” down as what I wanted to be.It's always been something that I found to be an amazing calling, and I feel fortunate and lucky that I get to be a lawyer every day; that I get to represent such diverse clients; that I get to have this kind of intellectual curiosity being part of my daily job.
And it is so disheartening that myself and my colleagues and other lawyers are in this position now.Lawyers didn't ask for this fight.Lawyers don't want this fight.Law firms don't want this fight.But lawyers have this fight.And one thing I am proud of is that my profession has a long history of standing up for the marginalized and standing up for the oppressed and standing up to bullies.And I do have confidence, at long term, this profession is going to stand up again to this bully, and that I hope we're victorious, but time will tell.
Is there a single thing you're looking for, you're worried about, when you see it you'll know we're screwed?
I will say, there is no single thing where I will say—I will ever hold the view that we're screwed.I think I have to hold the view that there is always some way to turn this ship around towards the right direction, because if we don't have that hope, then I think we're truly lost.With that said, what I am worried about are the days when judicial orders and judicial power are no longer held by the executive to have authority.
That's the day where I truly worry, where the president says that the judiciary is subject to him as opposed to an equal branch.And once we get there, I think that's when everything is off the rails, because right now, we have attacks on marginalized groups, or at least perceived marginalized groups, or perceived disliked groups, whether it be lawyers, whether it be immigrants, whether it be so-called gang members.But the danger is that long term, that pocket of the disliked is going to keep expanding and expanding and expanding, and more and more people who thought they were only watching that group are going to find themselves as members of that group.And I think that's when we might find ourselves practically to be screwed.
Latest Interviews
Latest Interviews
Policies
Teacher Center
Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation
Koo and Patricia Yuen
FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
