# Trump Sued Over Attempts to Remake DC Landmarks

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 13 May 2026, 22 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/69118a2a-1223-425c-9efb-b449003967d9/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani, president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, discusses the lawsuits against President Trump for his attempts to alter historic landmarks like the reflecting pool at the Lincoln Memorial, the East Wing of the White House and the Kennedy Center. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:08] Speaker 1: The reflecting Pool at the Lincoln Memorial is one of
[0:11] Speaker 1: the most iconic spots in DC, and now it's become
[0:15] Speaker 1: another target of President Trump's attempts to remake some of
[0:19] Speaker 1: the Capital's historic landmarks. He's repainted the reflecting pool in
[0:24] Speaker 1: a shade of blue called American Flag blue.
[0:28] Speaker 2: And over the years as a developer, I have probably
[0:31] Speaker 2: built more than one hundred swimming pools.
[0:33] Speaker 1: A nonprofit filed a lawsuit on Monday to stop Trump
[0:37] Speaker 1: from altering the Lincoln Memorial without the consultations, environmental assessments,
[0:43] Speaker 1: and public comment required before altering a registered historic landmark.
[0:49] Speaker 1: It follows the pattern of Trump's other renovations, like tearing
[0:53] Speaker 1: down the East Wing to build a ballroom or closing
[0:56] Speaker 1: the Kennedy Center for two years, for renovation projects that
[1:01] Speaker 1: have drawn lawsuits from historical societies and nonprofits for similar reasons.
[1:07] Speaker 1: My guest is former federal prosecutor Nima Romani, president of
[1:11] Speaker 1: West Coast Trial Lawyers. Nima tell us what the Cultural
[1:15] Speaker 1: Landscape Foundation is arguing in its lawsuit. Nima tell us
[1:21] Speaker 1: what the Cultural Landscape Foundation is arguing in its lawsuit.
[1:26] Speaker 2: The lawsuit is alleging that the Trump administration didn't comply
[1:31] Speaker 2: with federal laws, specifically procedural law related to historic monuments
[1:36] Speaker 2: and environmental analyzes. This is similar to the Administrative Procedure
[1:41] Speaker 2: Act arguments that many other plaintiffs have been using to
[1:44] Speaker 2: slow down the Trump administration. Now, those laws essentially say
[1:49] Speaker 2: that when a monument is altered in any way, there
[1:55] Speaker 2: has to be the opportunity for public comment, consultation with
[1:58] Speaker 2: other federal agencies, assessment of environmental impacts. And again this
[2:04] Speaker 2: is all procedural. It doesn't mean that the administration has
[2:07] Speaker 2: to listen to any of this feedback. They can move ahead,
[2:12] Speaker 2: but it can slow down this process, which is what
[2:15] Speaker 2: the plaintiffs are trying to do. Because Congress, who would
[2:19] Speaker 2: probably be the best plainiff, is not stepping in because
[2:24] Speaker 2: obviously both houses are controlled by Republicans.
[2:27] Speaker 1: And I mean, the Trump administration is well aware of
[2:31] Speaker 1: these requirements because they're being sued in other cases so
[2:36] Speaker 1: ignoring similar requirements. So it's not as if they're not
[2:40] Speaker 1: aware of it.
[2:41] Speaker 3: Oh, there's no question.
[2:42] Speaker 2: And this really raises the fundamental constitutional issue. What happens
[2:48] Speaker 2: if the executive branch that is tasked with enforcing the
[2:50] Speaker 2: law doesn't follow the law, who's going to compel.
[2:53] Speaker 3: Them to do so?
[2:54] Speaker 2: Now, obviously, you know, an Article three judge can step
[2:57] Speaker 2: in and issue some sort of order and injunction and
[3:01] Speaker 2: hopefully there is compliance with that. But yeah, this is
[3:04] Speaker 2: a persistent problem by this administration. I mean, there are
[3:09] Speaker 2: these laws in the books and they don't necessarily think
[3:12] Speaker 2: that it applies to them. And in this particular case
[3:15] Speaker 2: with the reflecting pool, the President is trying to get
[3:17] Speaker 2: this done before the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of
[3:21] Speaker 2: our nation in just a couple months, so we're really
[3:24] Speaker 2: short on time, and that's why he's paying this company
[3:28] Speaker 2: a significant sum of money to get it done so quickly.
[3:31] Speaker 1: So the government awarded the firm a no bid contract
[3:35] Speaker 1: last month, and it's a firm that had worked on
[3:38] Speaker 1: swimming pools at his golf club in Virginia. So they're
[3:41] Speaker 1: bypassing the requirement to seek competing offers.
[3:46] Speaker 2: It is, and the administration is saying that there's a
[3:49] Speaker 2: timing issue and that's why they're doing it. They have
[3:51] Speaker 2: to get this done and that's why they're paying so much.
[3:54] Speaker 2: You know, From the Trump administration's perspective, the way they're
[3:58] Speaker 2: phrasing this for the litigation is that this is just
[4:01] Speaker 2: a necessary repair. This isn't an alteration because the executive
[4:05] Speaker 2: in their mandate to maintain these properties. Obviously they can
[4:09] Speaker 2: repair monuments, right, and there's certain areas of the law
[4:14] Speaker 2: where the executive has much more discretion, obviously national security issues.
[4:18] Speaker 2: I'm sure we're going to talk about that when we
[4:20] Speaker 2: get to the ballroom. The other is routine maintenance and repair.
[4:24] Speaker 2: So you see the plaintiffs in these cases arguing that
[4:27] Speaker 2: any of these it could be the reflecting pool, it
[4:30] Speaker 2: can be the Kennedy Center of the White House, that
[4:32] Speaker 2: these are fundamental changes and alterations that would require approval
[4:38] Speaker 2: of Congress or others potentially, not just routine repairs. And
[4:43] Speaker 2: of course the government is arguing in their papers that
[4:46] Speaker 2: this is just a repair in the case of the
[4:49] Speaker 2: reflecting pool, that there are cracks, there's allergy, and that
[4:53] Speaker 2: this isn't a fundamentally different paint job changing the monument.
[4:57] Speaker 2: It's simply just a repair in preparation for this big celebration.
[5:01] Speaker 1: And what do you think of their argument that the
[5:04] Speaker 1: urgency is the country's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, and
[5:08] Speaker 1: that warrants an exemption from the law's procedural requirements.
[5:13] Speaker 2: I don't think it's a particularly good argument, because the
[5:16] Speaker 2: President himself has come out and said that he wants
[5:18] Speaker 2: to paint an American blue, So, you know, it seems
[5:22] Speaker 2: like he backtracked a little bit from that statement, but
[5:24] Speaker 2: it seems like it's an aesthetic change, and a significant
[5:28] Speaker 2: one at that.
[5:29] Speaker 3: So obviously, time is.
[5:31] Speaker 2: An issue, and we know that some of these government
[5:34] Speaker 2: contracts can take some time. In the case of the
[5:36] Speaker 2: Kennedy Center, we're talking about two years. This has to
[5:39] Speaker 2: happen in two months, So that's something that I think
[5:42] Speaker 2: should be taken into consideration. But if it's a fundamental change,
[5:46] Speaker 2: and this is something that is really within Congress's authority
[5:51] Speaker 2: and they haven't delegated this to the executive, then we
[5:55] Speaker 2: also have the separation of powers issue here.
[5:57] Speaker 1: Talking about the Kennedy Center, which was great by Congress
[6:01] Speaker 1: as a living memorial to President Kennedy after his assassination.
[6:06] Speaker 1: So the closure is supposed to be for renovation, but
[6:10] Speaker 1: the plaintiffs who are suing are also worried that the
[6:13] Speaker 1: renovation will actually end up in a demolition like the
[6:16] Speaker 1: East Wing. Is it the same issues or is it
[6:19] Speaker 1: different with the Kennedy Center.
[6:21] Speaker 3: It's similar issues.
[6:22] Speaker 2: The Kennedy Center is slightly different in terms of how
[6:25] Speaker 2: it's structured. It does get its authority from Congress, but
[6:28] Speaker 2: it's essentially a nonprofit with a board, and there's some
[6:32] Speaker 2: board issues. There's labor issues as well, if you're shutting
[6:35] Speaker 2: something down, and there's you know, government employees that are
[6:38] Speaker 2: going to be essentially let go. So it's a little
[6:41] Speaker 2: bit more complicated than the Reflecting Pool, but it does
[6:44] Speaker 2: raise the same issues. So you see again in their
[6:48] Speaker 2: filing papers, the Department of Justice, which is representing the
[6:50] Speaker 2: government in this case, saying that, look, these are necessary
[6:53] Speaker 2: repairs because the Kennedy Center was falling apart. There's cracks,
[6:56] Speaker 2: you know, the ceiling was going to collapse. This is
[6:59] Speaker 2: dangerous and judges are going to be obviously a lot
[7:03] Speaker 2: more liberal when it comes to the government making repairs
[7:07] Speaker 2: necessary repairs if it's a safety issue. And I think
[7:10] Speaker 2: a little bit different the Reflecting Pool extent that the
[7:13] Speaker 2: repairs were made. I don't think anyone was arguing that
[7:15] Speaker 2: it was for safety, but I think in the Kennedy Center.
[7:19] Speaker 2: And again that case is going to come down to
[7:22] Speaker 2: is this an aesthetic redesign, a fundamental you know, alteration
[7:27] Speaker 2: of this historic building, or is it just necessary repairs
[7:31] Speaker 2: because attendees, you know, could get hurt, and obviously we
[7:35] Speaker 2: know if they get hurt and the government can.
[7:36] Speaker 3: Be sued in the Federal Toward Claims Act.
[7:39] Speaker 2: So I think that's the biggest issue in the case
[7:43] Speaker 2: and where the judges in those cases fall.
[7:47] Speaker 3: I think it's going to determine who wins.
[7:49] Speaker 1: He already renamed the center after himself, and he has
[7:54] Speaker 1: this you know, this board hand pick board that just
[7:57] Speaker 1: rubber stamps whatever he wants to do. In all these cases,
[8:01] Speaker 1: it seems like there's no analysis done whatsoever. There's no
[8:04] Speaker 1: consultation with any agency or historic group. It's just Trump saying,
[8:10] Speaker 1: let's do it.
[8:11] Speaker 3: Well.
[8:11] Speaker 2: I mean, no question if you look at the executive
[8:13] Speaker 2: branch just across the board, I mean, trump monson loyalists.
[8:16] Speaker 2: Doesn't matter if it's the DOJ or you know, FDA
[8:20] Speaker 2: or the Kennedy Center board. One of the arguments is,
[8:23] Speaker 2: of course, the Trump renaming the Kennedy Center the Trump
[8:26] Speaker 2: Kennedy Center is a fundamental change. So you see in
[8:30] Speaker 2: their papers the government arguing that, you know, things are
[8:34] Speaker 2: going to be the same, right that the bust of
[8:37] Speaker 2: John F. Kennedy will remain, the quotes on the walls
[8:41] Speaker 2: will remain. So they're trying to now potentially either backtrack
[8:46] Speaker 2: or argue to the court that the changes are for
[8:50] Speaker 2: repair purposes only. The design of the center will not change. Obviously,
[8:56] Speaker 2: the devil is in the details here, So it's going
[8:59] Speaker 2: to be interesting to see. Clearly, if it's a demolition,
[9:01] Speaker 2: I think the plainiffs are going to win. If it's
[9:04] Speaker 2: something less than that, then we're going to see how
[9:07] Speaker 2: the judge rules on it.
[9:08] Speaker 1: Stay with me. Nima coming up next. The Justice Department
[9:12] Speaker 1: raises Trump derangement syndrome in one of its filings. In
[9:17] Speaker 1: the ballroom case, I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg.
[9:24] Speaker 1: We're building one of the great I think maybe the
[9:26] Speaker 1: greatest ballroom.
[9:28] Speaker 3: We needed it for one hundred and fifty years. They've
[9:30] Speaker 3: been asking. You see that the.
[9:31] Speaker 2: Trucks and cranes and excavators in the background, and you
[9:35] Speaker 2: hear them, and every time I hear.
[9:36] Speaker 3: Them, I love the sound.
[9:38] Speaker 1: Trump may have loved the sound of the East wing
[9:41] Speaker 1: being excavated for his ballroom, but he's in the minority.
[9:45] Speaker 1: According to a Washington Post poll, it found that fifty
[9:48] Speaker 1: six percent of Americans opposed the ballroom and only twenty
[9:53] Speaker 1: eight percent support it. When Trump first announced his plans
[9:57] Speaker 1: to build a ballroom at the White House at the
[9:59] Speaker 1: end of lie he said construction would not impact the
[10:03] Speaker 1: existing structure, did.
[10:05] Speaker 3: Won't interfere with the current building. I won't be It'll be.
[10:10] Speaker 2: Near it, but not touching it, and pays total respect
[10:13] Speaker 2: to the existing building, which I'm the biggest fan of.
[10:16] Speaker 1: He might have been a fan, but three months later
[10:19] Speaker 1: he demolished the entire East wing of the White House,
[10:22] Speaker 1: which was built more than a century ago. Trump originally
[10:26] Speaker 1: said the ballroom would cost two hundred to four hundred
[10:29] Speaker 1: million dollars and be paid for by private donations. Now
[10:33] Speaker 1: the cost has ballooned to one billion dollars to be
[10:37] Speaker 1: paid for by taxpayers, and the administration is now trying
[10:41] Speaker 1: to use the shooting incident outside of the White House
[10:44] Speaker 1: correspondence dinner as demonstrating that a new White House ballroom
[10:49] Speaker 1: is essential for national security.
[10:52] Speaker 3: Saturday night, it was good for one thing. People are
[10:55] Speaker 3: loving my ballroom. Now that's the only one. I love
[10:59] Speaker 3: my ballroom.
[11:01] Speaker 1: The administration is currently appealing or ruling by DC Judge
[11:05] Speaker 1: Richard leon who found that Trump didn't have authority to
[11:09] Speaker 1: tear down the East Wing and build a new structure
[11:12] Speaker 1: on White House grounds. I've been talking to former federal
[11:16] Speaker 1: prosecutor Nima Romani. Lawsuits were eventually filed to stop the construction.
[11:22] Speaker 1: Tell us some of the issues.
[11:23] Speaker 2: Here, and so the ballroom raises a few issues. The
[11:27] Speaker 2: first is the appropriation right. Congress hasn't appropriated funds for
[11:31] Speaker 2: the ballroom. So you see the executive branch trying to
[11:35] Speaker 2: move funds related to the Secret Service, for instance, saying
[11:40] Speaker 2: that this is a security issue. Obviously the Cole Allen
[11:44] Speaker 2: case and the White House Correspondent Center is now being
[11:48] Speaker 2: used for that purpose. But you know, again, is this
[11:51] Speaker 2: a repair the executive branch can do it? Is this
[11:55] Speaker 2: a security issue for the president? Again, that is something
[11:59] Speaker 2: that is within the authority of the executive branch. Is
[12:03] Speaker 2: this building a ballroom in a way that has not
[12:07] Speaker 2: been authorized by Congress with funds that have not been
[12:10] Speaker 2: appropriated by Congress, Then in that case, the executive branch loses.
[12:15] Speaker 3: So what you're seeing.
[12:16] Speaker 2: Now is the government and the DGA is trying to
[12:19] Speaker 2: couch this argument that this is a security project, this
[12:23] Speaker 2: is not something that is for other purposes. And you
[12:28] Speaker 2: even see senators sort of catching on right in terms
[12:31] Speaker 2: of coordinating and others that want this project to move forward.
[12:35] Speaker 2: They are now trying to again fit the facts of
[12:39] Speaker 2: the case in the ballroom construction, demolition of the East
[12:42] Speaker 2: Wing into this sort of national security protecting the president
[12:48] Speaker 2: type box.
[12:49] Speaker 3: So it's interesting to see how that particular judge rules.
[12:53] Speaker 1: On it when they're using the correspondence dientner and what
[12:56] Speaker 1: happened there. That's not the kind of event that would
[12:58] Speaker 1: be held at the White House. That's a private event.
[13:01] Speaker 1: So I don't even see the correlation.
[13:03] Speaker 2: In talking points immediately after the shooting that this is
[13:07] Speaker 2: why we need the presidential Walter, But you're absolutely right.
[13:10] Speaker 2: The White House Correspondence Center is a private event. It's
[13:13] Speaker 2: held at the Washington Hilton, one of the few venues
[13:16] Speaker 2: in Washington, DC that can accommodate a crowd of two
[13:20] Speaker 2: thousand or more people. I mean, obviously famously where Ronald
[13:24] Speaker 2: Reagan was also shot. The ballroom is for a different
[13:27] Speaker 2: purpose altogether. It's to host heads of state. It's not
[13:32] Speaker 2: like the White House Correspondence can call and rent it
[13:37] Speaker 2: or any other private organization or group, so it wouldn't
[13:41] Speaker 2: necessarily solve the problem.
[13:43] Speaker 3: But of course, you know, politically.
[13:45] Speaker 2: It makes for a great talking point, so you see
[13:48] Speaker 2: it parroted by a lot of talking heads.
[13:51] Speaker 1: Let's discuss this motion by the government asking Federal Judge
[13:56] Speaker 1: Leon to dissolve his own ruling against the Ballroom project
[14:01] Speaker 1: in light of the attempt to attack at the White
[14:03] Speaker 1: House Correspondent's dinner. This was a very unusual filing in
[14:08] Speaker 1: so many respects, including that it talked about Trump derangement syndrome.
[14:15] Speaker 3: You can see people the DOJ.
[14:17] Speaker 2: They are jocking for position to appiece of their boss,
[14:20] Speaker 2: the President of the United States, the way Acting Attorney
[14:24] Speaker 2: General Todd blanche has handled the Comy case, for instance,
[14:27] Speaker 2: right eighty six forty seven. I don't think that's a
[14:30] Speaker 2: meritorious case at all, and I think most former DOJ.
[14:34] Speaker 3: Lawyers would agree.
[14:35] Speaker 2: But I think that's probably something that was done because
[14:38] Speaker 2: Donald Trump dislikes Comy, and I understand why he dislikes Comy,
[14:42] Speaker 2: and I understand why Democrats dislike Comy A lot of
[14:45] Speaker 2: people dislike Holly, But if you want to prosecute and
[14:47] Speaker 2: prosecute him for what he actually did, which is leak
[14:51] Speaker 2: information allegedly to the Wall Street Journal and compromise their
[14:54] Speaker 2: national security and involve themselves in elections, you know they're
[14:58] Speaker 2: prosecuting for Instagram posts.
[14:59] Speaker 3: But I digress.
[15:00] Speaker 2: Now you have another DOJ official, high level who's filing
[15:04] Speaker 2: emotion which reads likely was written by Donald Trump on
[15:08] Speaker 2: truth Social It was bizarre, something I had never seen
[15:12] Speaker 2: to talk about Trump derangement syndrome. It's writing in caps.
[15:15] Speaker 2: I mean, it was really surreal. And when I talk
[15:19] Speaker 2: about legal cases, you know, and I do a lot
[15:21] Speaker 2: of TV, I alwauls say this is unprecedented, but this
[15:23] Speaker 2: one was even for me.
[15:25] Speaker 3: I mean, I was just blown away.
[15:27] Speaker 2: But it was clearly something that was an attempt, in
[15:30] Speaker 2: my opinion, to pander to the president as opposed to
[15:33] Speaker 2: arguing the.
[15:34] Speaker 3: Facts and the law.
[15:36] Speaker 1: And it was signed by three political appointees. No career
[15:39] Speaker 1: attorneys signed that. I guess I didn't want their name
[15:42] Speaker 1: on that. So tell us about Judge Leon's ruling and
[15:45] Speaker 1: the appeal.
[15:46] Speaker 2: And so the judge issued an order putting the demolition
[15:51] Speaker 2: and the construction on hold. But that order was stayed,
[15:58] Speaker 2: which means put on in a legal sense, while it
[16:01] Speaker 2: went up on appeal. So it allowed the construction to
[16:04] Speaker 2: move forward while the DC Circuit Court of Appeals here's
[16:09] Speaker 2: this issue. So once that appeal is filed, then there's
[16:13] Speaker 2: nothing really the district Court can do. And what the
[16:15] Speaker 2: DJ did after col Allen is under a very specific
[16:19] Speaker 2: procedural rule, ask the judge to rule essentially when the
[16:25] Speaker 2: case comes back from appeal and find that this is
[16:29] Speaker 2: now a national security issue and therefore the construction should
[16:33] Speaker 2: move forward on that basis.
[16:35] Speaker 1: I mean, Judge Leon found that Trump didn't have the
[16:38] Speaker 1: authority to tear down the East Wing and build this
[16:41] Speaker 1: new structure. Why wouldn't the appeals court leave that in
[16:45] Speaker 1: place so that the status quo can remain while it's
[16:49] Speaker 1: being appealed. Now the construction's going ahead.
[16:53] Speaker 2: I agree, And the problem is this, it's one thing
[16:56] Speaker 2: that stop construction or stop painting or or.
[17:00] Speaker 3: Renovations once it's done.
[17:03] Speaker 2: I don't think a court is gonna tell the government
[17:08] Speaker 2: to tear it down. That's a very different kind of order.
[17:13] Speaker 2: So I agree, while this is all sorted out, I mean,
[17:16] Speaker 2: it's a big issue is being litigated in multiple places,
[17:19] Speaker 2: may end up before the US Supreme Board.
[17:21] Speaker 3: I think the.
[17:22] Speaker 2: Prudent course of action, setting aside the centennial celebration and
[17:26] Speaker 2: all that, is to just issue the injunctions, keep things
[17:30] Speaker 2: as is, because again I don't see it being tore down.
[17:35] Speaker 2: And then that's part of the strategy. I'm sure what's
[17:37] Speaker 2: gonna happen with the reflecting pool. You know, Jud's gonna
[17:40] Speaker 2: say we got to paint it back, or you know,
[17:42] Speaker 2: the Kennedy Center. Once those renovations are being done, you
[17:46] Speaker 2: can't restore it. It doesn't make any sense legally or
[17:50] Speaker 2: you know, practically. So I think this is part and
[17:54] Speaker 2: parcel of the government strategy let's move forward, sort of
[17:57] Speaker 2: a ask for forgiveness than asking for permission type argument.
[18:02] Speaker 1: Well, he paved over the Rose Garden before anyone could
[18:06] Speaker 1: even turn around, it was paved over. So now the
[18:09] Speaker 1: other part of this is that Trump originally said it
[18:11] Speaker 1: would be two hundred to four hundred million dollars paid
[18:14] Speaker 1: for by private donations. Now it's a billion dollars paid
[18:18] Speaker 1: for by tax payers. And this is really according to
[18:21] Speaker 1: a Washington Post poll, and this is after the shooting
[18:25] Speaker 1: it's really unpopular with Americans. Opposed by fifty six percent,
[18:30] Speaker 1: supported by only twenty eight percent. So now the question
[18:33] Speaker 1: is politics, whether the House and the Senate are going
[18:37] Speaker 1: to give him what he wants.
[18:39] Speaker 2: You know, I think they will, you know, with the
[18:41] Speaker 2: exception of Epstein, and I think that's a very sort
[18:44] Speaker 2: of narrow and unique exception. I think members of Congress
[18:49] Speaker 2: have really sort of been locked up with the president.
[18:51] Speaker 2: I don't know if they necessarily agree with everything, but
[18:54] Speaker 2: he has an ironclad, really fist and control over the
[18:58] Speaker 2: Republican Party and any of the individuals except for like
[19:02] Speaker 2: a you know, Massy or someone like that that have
[19:06] Speaker 2: really stepped up against the president. They've been primary or
[19:10] Speaker 2: you know, because of his tremendous influence on social media,
[19:14] Speaker 2: they've really been forced to sort of step down and
[19:17] Speaker 2: retire and move away from politics. I mean, he's a
[19:20] Speaker 2: very powerful individual. When he focuses his attention on someone
[19:25] Speaker 2: that he deems disloyal, they're going to be out of
[19:29] Speaker 2: the job. If they're in the executive branch. The exception
[19:32] Speaker 2: of maybe like a Jerome Powell or some individuals who
[19:36] Speaker 2: have managed to keep their jobs, and if they're in Congress,
[19:39] Speaker 2: they're going to face a primary challenger with the President's support,
[19:43] Speaker 2: and there's a decent chance that that primary challenger will
[19:46] Speaker 2: be successful.
[19:47] Speaker 1: The Trump administration raises national security for just about every issue,
[19:53] Speaker 1: even the tariffs, national security. Explain why that's the argument
[19:58] Speaker 1: they always go for.
[20:01] Speaker 2: National security is the best argument because the courts, especially
[20:05] Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, has given the president very wide difference
[20:09] Speaker 2: when it comes to matters of national security. So for instance,
[20:13] Speaker 2: the Muslim band, you know, that's a perfect example of
[20:15] Speaker 2: something that was upheld on.
[20:18] Speaker 3: National security grands.
[20:19] Speaker 2: Courts are not inclined to second guests the executive. They
[20:24] Speaker 2: don't have all the information right that law enforcement has,
[20:27] Speaker 2: that State Department CIA. So when it comes to matters
[20:30] Speaker 2: of national security, if it's truly a bona fide national
[20:33] Speaker 2: security issue, courts are very.
[20:37] Speaker 3: Hesitant to get involved.
[20:38] Speaker 2: I mean could they How could a judge, for instance,
[20:41] Speaker 2: even though it's also widely unpopular, tell the president, you know,
[20:44] Speaker 2: to pull out of Iran and the straight up horn moves.
[20:47] Speaker 2: It's just not something that courts do. So as soon
[20:50] Speaker 2: as it falls into that bucket, it's essentially a win
[20:53] Speaker 2: for the executive branch, and the president can do what
[20:55] Speaker 2: he wants.
[20:56] Speaker 1: The Appellate Court is going to hear arguments in the
[20:59] Speaker 1: Ballroom case in June, but I'm not sure what the
[21:02] Speaker 1: remedy can be since the East Wing has been demolished already.
[21:06] Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining me. Nima. That's former federal
[21:09] Speaker 1: prosecutor Nima Romani, and that's it for this edition of
[21:12] Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
[21:15] Speaker 1: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
[21:18] Speaker 1: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot
[21:23] Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast slash Law, and remember to
[21:27] Speaker 1: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten
[21:30] Speaker 1: pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening
[21:34] Speaker 1: to Bloomberg

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.