In this Briefing, Jon Decker covers President Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court regarding tariffs, a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, and the president's plans to rename the Department of Defense. The White House Briefing Room can be heard daily on the iHeartRadio App, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to the White House Briefing Room for Friday, September fifth.
I'm John Decker. Just five days after a federal appeals
court ruled that President Trump exceeded his authority by unilaterally
imposing tariffs on America's trading partners, the President is now
asking the Supreme Court to quickly overturn that decision.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
The tariffs are vital to the success of this country.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation
into Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook for mortgage fraud, and
the presidents set to make his own mark on the Pentagon.
But we begin this Friday with the President's appeal of
a lower court decision that found that most of the
President's tariffs are illegal. It was just five days ago
(00:51):
that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
in a seven to four ruling, said that President Trump
overstepped his authority when he implemented these steep tariffs on
virtually every country, and that decision has now thrown the
President's trade agenda into doubt. The President is asking the
(01:12):
Supreme Court to hear arguments on his appeal in early
November and issue a final decision on the legality of
these tariffs soon afterward. That's according to filings that came
before the Supreme Court on Wednesday night. Now, speaking as
a lawyer, I'm the only lawyer in the White House
(01:32):
Press Court, I'm a member of the Supreme Court bar.
The Supreme Court would take as long as early next
summer to issue such a decision. This is a fast
track approach that the administration is requesting, and the Supreme
Court has sometimes taken this fast track approach. One example,
(01:54):
last year, the President requested that the Supreme Court quickly
ruled on the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to
remove Donald Trump's name from the election ballot. That appeal
was filed in January of last year, and a month later,
the Supreme Court heard oral arguments at the Supreme Court,
(02:17):
and less than three weeks after that, the Supreme Court
rendered a decision in Donald Trump's favor. Now, the Trump
administration is very concerned about the possibility of the Supreme
Court ruling against President Trump and his ability to unilaterally
impose these so called reciprocal tariffs. Treasury Secretary Scott Besson
(02:43):
he attached a declaration to this appeal and He said
that the appeals court ruling from last Friday, in his words,
gravely undermines the president's ability to conduct real world diplomacy
and his ability, he said, to protect the national security
and economy of the United States. The chief lawyer for
(03:07):
the United States is the US Solicitor General, and the
solicitor general that President Trump named to that position is
actually one of his former personal lawyers, John Sower. He
urged the justices to grant review on this appeal number
one and then expedite the case to the maximum extent feasible.
(03:31):
Mister Sower said, given the enormous importance of quickly confirming
the full legal standing of the President's tariffs. Now. It
was John Sower who attached this declaration from the Treasury Secretary,
and he said in that declaration, Scott Besson did that
the appellate ruling from last Friday is already adversely affecting
(03:56):
ongoing trade negotiations. According to the Treasury Secretary, world leaders
are questioning the president's authority to impose tariffs, walking away
from or delaying negotiations, and or imposing a different calculus
on their negotiating positions. And I think that's right. I mean,
(04:19):
if you are a country that has not yet cut
a trade deal with the US, why would you do
so now? With the possibility that the highest court in
the land, the US Supreme Court, will ultimately throw out
the president's ability to impose these reciprocal tariffs. What happens
(04:41):
if the Supreme Court sides with that federal appellate court
and says that the President acted unconstitutionally in imposing these tariffs, Well,
then if you're that country that hasn't done a trade
deal yet with the US, you have no reason to
come to the negotiation table. Besson also said in that
(05:02):
declaration that delaying a ruling on this particular case until
June of twenty twenty six, that's the end of the
court's Spring term next year, could result in a scenario
in which seven hundred and fifty billion to a trillion
dollars in tariffs have already been collected and unwinding them,
(05:23):
he said, could cause significant disruption. Besson said that if
the administration had to undo deals with trade partners and
repay those tariffs that they've already paid and already agreed to,
the economic consequences would be catastrophic. Now, the president on
(05:44):
Wednesday in the Oval Office, spoke about his belief in
the strength of his tariff's policy. Let's listen to what
the President said in response to a question from reporters
regarding this decision that was made last Friday by this
federal appellate court. Here's the President.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
We're in a much better position. We have trillions of
dollars coming into our country. If we didn't have tariffs,
we would be a very poor nation, and we would
be taking advantage of by every other nation in the world,
friend and foe. We're not going to let that happen.
And we have a very very big case in the
Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
That seven to four decision last Friday was mostly along
ideological lines, and of course there is a super conservative
six to three majority at the US Supreme Court, and
for that reason, the President is confident. He says that
ultimately the Supreme Court will rule in his favor. Let's
(06:43):
listen to the President from wednesday here in the Oval Office.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Our country has a chance to be unbelievably rich again,
but it can also be unbelievably poor again. If we
don't win that case, our country is going to suffer
so greatly, So greatly, but I think we're going to
have a big victory now.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
To support these reciprocal tariffs, the president has relied on
invoked a law from nineteen seventy seven, the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act, that permits the president to take unilateral
actions to regulate the economy during an emergency. There is
(07:23):
no mention in that law of the word tariffs, and
that is one of the problems that those who are
challenging the president's actions say exists with the action that
the President took to implement these reciprocal tariffs. The appeals Court,
in that seven to four vote, found that none of
(07:44):
these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties
or the like, or the power totacks. And it's that
last point in that Federal Appellate Court ruling that is
troublesome to the administration's position. The court last Friday, in
(08:04):
that ruling, said the core congressional power to impose taxes
such as tariffs is vested exclusively in the legislative branch
by the Constitution. So if the Trump administration, for instance,
wants to impose these so called reciprocal tariffs on all
of America's trading partners. He certainly could do so, but
(08:28):
he'd need Congress to begin that process. Congress to pass legislation,
which would enable the President to then sign the legislation,
and the tariffs would then take effect. The President told
me in the Oval Office on Tuesday that he simply
doesn't have the votes to get Congress to pass legislation
(08:49):
to impose these reciprocal tariffs. And that's the reason why
he's invoking this nineteen seventy seven law. It's becaused right now,
despite the fact that Republicans control both the House and
the Senate. According to the President, he'd needs sixty votes
to move that legislation out of the US Senate, and
(09:12):
of course, with a very narrow majority in the US Senate,
the President does not have the votes to do that.
Also on Thursday, the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation
into Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. In fact, they've issued
subpoenas as part of that probe into whether she submitted
fraudulent information on mortgage applications in two states. The focus
(09:39):
is two of Lisa Cook's properties, one in ann Arbor, Michigan,
and the other one in Atlanta. And this investigation comes
on the heels of two criminal referrals from Bill Poulti.
He's the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, named
to that position by President Trump. He has publicly alleged
(10:03):
that Cook engaged in mortgage fraud, and even though those
are just allegations, nothing has been proven. No criminal violations
have been brought against Lisa Cook. The President has cited
those allegations as caused cause to fire Lisa Cook from
(10:24):
her position as a Federal Reserve governor. Now last month,
Cook filed a lawsuit alleging that this move by the
President to fire her was unlawful. She argues, through her
lawyer that the President concocted a basis for her firing
to vacate a seat on the board that he can
now fill with someone who is more likely to agree
(10:49):
with his philosophy in terms of lowering interest rates. This
will play out for some time, but if we fast
forward this particular matter, if the President is successful in
replacing Cook with one of his allies that views interest
rates in the same way, a majority of the Fed's
(11:12):
board would then be made up of Trump picked appointees,
and that would certainly be beneficial to what the President
would like to do as far as lowering interest rates
in the short term. Looking ahead to Friday, the President
has an event on his schedule at four pm Eastern
Time in the Oval Office. The White House schedule says
(11:34):
that the President will make an announcement at that time.
What will be that announcement, Well, the President is expected
to sign an executive order formally renaming the Department of
Defense the Department of War. The President in recent days,
i would say, even recent weeks, has signaled the change
(11:57):
is coming. He's pointing to the history behind the name,
his belief that it better reflects the Pentagon's operations. The
Department of War was actually established by George Washington in
seventeen eighty nine, and it existed until nineteen forty seven
when it was reorganized by then President Harry Truman, and
(12:20):
it was renamed the Department of Defense in nineteen forty nine.
Now a change is going to come, and the order
that the President will sign on Friday will also change
the title of Secretary of Defense to Secretary of War.
So that will be the new title that Pete Hegseth
(12:41):
will hold after the President signs this executive order. And
that's the White House Briefing Room for Friday, September the fifth.
It's been a particularly busy week at the White House.
I'm John Decker. Have a great weekend.
Welcome to the White House Briefing Room for Friday, September fifth.
I'm John Decker. Just five days after a federal appeals
court ruled that President Trump exceeded his authority by unilaterally
imposing tariffs on America's trading partners, the President is now
asking the Supreme Court to quickly overturn that decision.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
The tariffs are vital to the success of this country.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation
into Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook for mortgage fraud, and
the presidents set to make his own mark on the Pentagon.
But we begin this Friday with the President's appeal of
a lower court decision that found that most of the
President's tariffs are illegal. It was just five days ago
(00:51):
that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
in a seven to four ruling, said that President Trump
overstepped his authority when he implemented these steep tariffs on
virtually every country, and that decision has now thrown the
President's trade agenda into doubt. The President is asking the
(01:12):
Supreme Court to hear arguments on his appeal in early
November and issue a final decision on the legality of
these tariffs soon afterward. That's according to filings that came
before the Supreme Court on Wednesday night. Now, speaking as
a lawyer, I'm the only lawyer in the White House
(01:32):
Press Court, I'm a member of the Supreme Court bar.
The Supreme Court would take as long as early next
summer to issue such a decision. This is a fast
track approach that the administration is requesting, and the Supreme
Court has sometimes taken this fast track approach. One example,
(01:54):
last year, the President requested that the Supreme Court quickly
ruled on the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to
remove Donald Trump's name from the election ballot. That appeal
was filed in January of last year, and a month later,
the Supreme Court heard oral arguments at the Supreme Court,
(02:17):
and less than three weeks after that, the Supreme Court
rendered a decision in Donald Trump's favor. Now, the Trump
administration is very concerned about the possibility of the Supreme
Court ruling against President Trump and his ability to unilaterally
impose these so called reciprocal tariffs. Treasury Secretary Scott Besson
(02:43):
he attached a declaration to this appeal and He said
that the appeals court ruling from last Friday, in his words,
gravely undermines the president's ability to conduct real world diplomacy
and his ability, he said, to protect the national security
and economy of the United States. The chief lawyer for
(03:07):
the United States is the US Solicitor General, and the
solicitor general that President Trump named to that position is
actually one of his former personal lawyers, John Sower. He
urged the justices to grant review on this appeal number
one and then expedite the case to the maximum extent feasible.
(03:31):
Mister Sower said, given the enormous importance of quickly confirming
the full legal standing of the President's tariffs. Now. It
was John Sower who attached this declaration from the Treasury Secretary,
and he said in that declaration, Scott Besson did that
the appellate ruling from last Friday is already adversely affecting
(03:56):
ongoing trade negotiations. According to the Treasury Secretary, world leaders
are questioning the president's authority to impose tariffs, walking away
from or delaying negotiations, and or imposing a different calculus
on their negotiating positions. And I think that's right. I mean,
(04:19):
if you are a country that has not yet cut
a trade deal with the US, why would you do
so now? With the possibility that the highest court in
the land, the US Supreme Court, will ultimately throw out
the president's ability to impose these reciprocal tariffs. What happens
(04:41):
if the Supreme Court sides with that federal appellate court
and says that the President acted unconstitutionally in imposing these tariffs, Well,
then if you're that country that hasn't done a trade
deal yet with the US, you have no reason to
come to the negotiation table. Besson also said in that
(05:02):
declaration that delaying a ruling on this particular case until
June of twenty twenty six, that's the end of the
court's Spring term next year, could result in a scenario
in which seven hundred and fifty billion to a trillion
dollars in tariffs have already been collected and unwinding them,
(05:23):
he said, could cause significant disruption. Besson said that if
the administration had to undo deals with trade partners and
repay those tariffs that they've already paid and already agreed to,
the economic consequences would be catastrophic. Now, the president on
(05:44):
Wednesday in the Oval Office, spoke about his belief in
the strength of his tariff's policy. Let's listen to what
the President said in response to a question from reporters
regarding this decision that was made last Friday by this
federal appellate court. Here's the President.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
We're in a much better position. We have trillions of
dollars coming into our country. If we didn't have tariffs,
we would be a very poor nation, and we would
be taking advantage of by every other nation in the world,
friend and foe. We're not going to let that happen.
And we have a very very big case in the
Supreme Court.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
That seven to four decision last Friday was mostly along
ideological lines, and of course there is a super conservative
six to three majority at the US Supreme Court, and
for that reason, the President is confident. He says that
ultimately the Supreme Court will rule in his favor. Let's
(06:43):
listen to the President from wednesday here in the Oval Office.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Our country has a chance to be unbelievably rich again,
but it can also be unbelievably poor again. If we
don't win that case, our country is going to suffer
so greatly, So greatly, but I think we're going to
have a big victory now.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
To support these reciprocal tariffs, the president has relied on
invoked a law from nineteen seventy seven, the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act, that permits the president to take unilateral
actions to regulate the economy during an emergency. There is
(07:23):
no mention in that law of the word tariffs, and
that is one of the problems that those who are
challenging the president's actions say exists with the action that
the President took to implement these reciprocal tariffs. The appeals Court,
in that seven to four vote, found that none of
(07:44):
these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties
or the like, or the power totacks. And it's that
last point in that Federal Appellate Court ruling that is
troublesome to the administration's position. The court last Friday, in
(08:04):
that ruling, said the core congressional power to impose taxes
such as tariffs is vested exclusively in the legislative branch
by the Constitution. So if the Trump administration, for instance,
wants to impose these so called reciprocal tariffs on all
of America's trading partners. He certainly could do so, but
(08:28):
he'd need Congress to begin that process. Congress to pass legislation,
which would enable the President to then sign the legislation,
and the tariffs would then take effect. The President told
me in the Oval Office on Tuesday that he simply
doesn't have the votes to get Congress to pass legislation
(08:49):
to impose these reciprocal tariffs. And that's the reason why
he's invoking this nineteen seventy seven law. It's becaused right now,
despite the fact that Republicans control both the House and
the Senate. According to the President, he'd needs sixty votes
to move that legislation out of the US Senate, and
(09:12):
of course, with a very narrow majority in the US Senate,
the President does not have the votes to do that.
Also on Thursday, the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation
into Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. In fact, they've issued
subpoenas as part of that probe into whether she submitted
fraudulent information on mortgage applications in two states. The focus
(09:39):
is two of Lisa Cook's properties, one in ann Arbor, Michigan,
and the other one in Atlanta. And this investigation comes
on the heels of two criminal referrals from Bill Poulti.
He's the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, named
to that position by President Trump. He has publicly alleged
(10:03):
that Cook engaged in mortgage fraud, and even though those
are just allegations, nothing has been proven. No criminal violations
have been brought against Lisa Cook. The President has cited
those allegations as caused cause to fire Lisa Cook from
(10:24):
her position as a Federal Reserve governor. Now last month,
Cook filed a lawsuit alleging that this move by the
President to fire her was unlawful. She argues, through her
lawyer that the President concocted a basis for her firing
to vacate a seat on the board that he can
now fill with someone who is more likely to agree
(10:49):
with his philosophy in terms of lowering interest rates. This
will play out for some time, but if we fast
forward this particular matter, if the President is successful in
replacing Cook with one of his allies that views interest
rates in the same way, a majority of the Fed's
(11:12):
board would then be made up of Trump picked appointees,
and that would certainly be beneficial to what the President
would like to do as far as lowering interest rates
in the short term. Looking ahead to Friday, the President
has an event on his schedule at four pm Eastern
Time in the Oval Office. The White House schedule says
(11:34):
that the President will make an announcement at that time.
What will be that announcement, Well, the President is expected
to sign an executive order formally renaming the Department of
Defense the Department of War. The President in recent days,
i would say, even recent weeks, has signaled the change
(11:57):
is coming. He's pointing to the history behind the name,
his belief that it better reflects the Pentagon's operations. The
Department of War was actually established by George Washington in
seventeen eighty nine, and it existed until nineteen forty seven
when it was reorganized by then President Harry Truman, and
(12:20):
it was renamed the Department of Defense in nineteen forty nine.
Now a change is going to come, and the order
that the President will sign on Friday will also change
the title of Secretary of Defense to Secretary of War.
So that will be the new title that Pete Hegseth
(12:41):
will hold after the President signs this executive order. And
that's the White House Briefing Room for Friday, September the fifth.
It's been a particularly busy week at the White House.
I'm John Decker. Have a great weekend.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com