Latest / Bloomberg Law / Trump Wants Greenland

Transcript

Trump Wants Greenland · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: As the Trump administration asserts its control over Venezuelan oil
• 0:13
  Speaker 2: following the stunning capture of ousted President Nicholas Maduro, President
• 0:18
  Speaker 2: Trump has set his sights elsewhere on Greenland, a strategic
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: Arctic island that is a self governing territory of Denmark.
• 0:27
  Speaker 3: We need Greenland from a national security to situation. It's
• 0:32
  Speaker 3: so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese.
• 0:37
  Speaker 4: Ships all over the place.
• 0:39
  Speaker 3: We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and
• 0:44
  Speaker 3: Denmark is not going to be able.
• 0:45
  Speaker 5: To do it.
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: Trump has been talking about acquiring Greenland since its first term,
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: but this time it may be more than just rhetoric.
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: The White House has said that all options are on
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: the table, including using the military, Although Secretary of State
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: Marco Rubio told a group of lawmakers that it was
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: the administration's intention to eventually buy Greenland. European leaders have
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: expressed concerns about a possible takeover. Back In April, Danish
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: Prime Minister Meta Frederickson said that Greenland is not for
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: sale and the US needs to respect its borders and sovereignty.
• 1:26
  Speaker 4: You cannot annex another country, not even with an argument
• 1:32
  Speaker 4: about international security.
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: Joining me is an expert in international law. Monica Hakimi
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: a professor at Columbia Law School. She was formerly an
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor in the
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: US State Department. Monica, the capture of Maduro has sort
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: of set the stage for the latest talk by Trump
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: about acquiring Greenland. So let's start with Maduro and tell
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: us whether has capture violated international law.
• 2:03
  Speaker 5: As a matter of international law, I think there's really
• 2:05
  Speaker 5: no question that the capture of Maduro was unlawful, and
• 2:09
  Speaker 5: that's because it involves the enforcement powers of the United
• 2:13
  Speaker 5: States in the territory of another state, Venezuela.
• 2:16
  Speaker 6: In this case. International law does provide limited circumstances in
• 2:21
  Speaker 6: which such exercises of power are lawful, but none of
• 2:23
  Speaker 6: them applies in this case.
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: The Trump administration is indicating that it's going to run Venezuela.
• 2:31
  Speaker 2: I don't know if that is even going to happen,
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: because it seems like the vice president is in control
• 2:37
  Speaker 2: right now. I mean, is this about a regime change.
• 2:40
  Speaker 5: It's really hard to know what the administration intends to
• 2:44
  Speaker 5: do or in what way. I'm not sure regime changes
• 2:47
  Speaker 5: exactly the right way to describe what's happening, because, as
• 2:50
  Speaker 5: you say, a member of the regime is still now
• 2:53
  Speaker 5: running the country, and the regime itself is largely in place,
• 2:56
  Speaker 5: even if the singular leader has been removed. But in
• 3:00
  Speaker 5: any event, it would be again unlawful for the United
• 3:05
  Speaker 5: States to assert its authority or coercive power in Venezuela
• 3:10
  Speaker 5: to tell that state how to run its own country.
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: Talking about the broader questions here, it seems that the
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: Trump administration and President Trump don't want to stop at Venezuela.
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: On Saturday he was talking about problems with Colombia and Cuba,
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: and now the administration is being completely open about wanting
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: to acquire Greenland. How concerning is.
• 3:37
  Speaker 5: That this claim on Greenland in particular is especially disturbing
• 3:43
  Speaker 5: because it is part of an increasing trend in which
• 3:47
  Speaker 5: states that have the raw power to take the territory
• 3:50
  Speaker 5: of another state are claiming that they will do so.
• 3:53
  Speaker 7: Of course, this is exactly.
• 3:55
  Speaker 5: What President Putin of Russia did in Ukraine. It's also
• 4:00
  Speaker 5: embedded in the conflict between Iran and its proxy groups
• 4:04
  Speaker 5: on the one hand, and Israel and the Palestinians on
• 4:07
  Speaker 5: the other hand, and so it's a deeply, deeply corrosive move.
• 4:13
  Speaker 5: It is likely to trigger further actions to this effect.
• 4:18
  Speaker 5: It's not just the United States in Russia and states
• 4:21
  Speaker 5: in the Middle East or entities in the Middle East
• 4:23
  Speaker 5: that want to eliminate other states off the.
• 4:25
  Speaker 6: Map or acquired territory from other states.
• 4:28
  Speaker 5: So we've seen China increasingly being assertive with its neighbors
• 4:32
  Speaker 5: in the East and South China Sea, and in the Himalayas,
• 4:34
  Speaker 5: we're seeing Morocco increasingly a certain control over Western Sahara,
• 4:38
  Speaker 5: which is a portion of the territory that does not
• 4:40
  Speaker 5: technically belong to it. And these claims for territorial aggression
• 4:45
  Speaker 5: and annexation really undercut the fundamental principle of the international
• 4:50
  Speaker 5: legal and political order since World War Two, which is
• 4:54
  Speaker 5: that each state is entitled to establish its authority in
• 4:57
  Speaker 5: its own borders as defined by international law, territorial and
• 5:00
  Speaker 5: maritime borders, and that it ought to be given priority
• 5:04
  Speaker 5: in those spaces.
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: The White House says it's considering a range of options
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: for acquiring Greenland. What are the legal ways that it
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: could do that.
• 5:15
  Speaker 5: The possibility exists for one state to enter into an
• 5:18
  Speaker 5: agreement with another not subject to coercion, where there's a
• 5:23
  Speaker 5: consentual arrangement for the transfer of territory. There's no indication
• 5:27
  Speaker 5: at all that any of these entities, which are being
• 5:30
  Speaker 5: subjected to coercion by more powerful states, is interested in
• 5:34
  Speaker 5: selling part of its territorial and maritime space.
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: President Trump has said, we need greenland for our national security.
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: But if you look at what's happening in Venezuela, it's
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: not about drugs coming into the United States from that country.
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: It's all about the oil in Venezuela, and in Ukraine,
• 5:53
  Speaker 2: the US signed a deal after it got access to
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: that country's mineral resources, and Lynn has what's been called
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: a treasure trove of untapped raw materials. So I wonder
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: if the goal is really national security or it's about
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: getting access to their oil and gas reserves and their
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: mineral deposits and the like.
• 6:19
  Speaker 7: Yeah, I think.
• 6:20
  Speaker 5: There's been an increasing move and this is not to
• 6:23
  Speaker 5: be honest, entirely specific to the Trump administration, but there's
• 6:26
  Speaker 5: been an increasing move in the United States and elsewhere
• 6:30
  Speaker 5: to tie together economic security with national security, with maritime
• 6:38
  Speaker 5: security and channels for the movement of goods and people
• 6:42
  Speaker 5: and services across the globe. And I think what we're seeing,
• 6:46
  Speaker 5: and this would connect the actions in South America with
• 6:50
  Speaker 5: the claims on Greenland, and you might remember there were
• 6:52
  Speaker 5: earlier claims about acquiring Canada as well. It's an effort
• 6:56
  Speaker 5: to say, like this is our zone. We are going
• 6:58
  Speaker 5: to control this entire space, including the resources in this space.
• 7:03
  Speaker 5: And you China might be able to take Asia and Russia,
• 7:06
  Speaker 5: you might be able to take Europe or at least
• 7:09
  Speaker 5: part of Europe, but we are defining the space over
• 7:12
  Speaker 5: which we are going to have dominance. And that, it
• 7:14
  Speaker 5: seems to me, is a way of explaining the Trump
• 7:18
  Speaker 5: administration's actions in a number of different theaters, as well
• 7:22
  Speaker 5: as the actions of China and Russia.
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: You mentioned Canada and Trump saying he wanted to make
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: it the fifty first state. He's also threatened to attack
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: Panama to supposedly keep China from exerting influence over the
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: Panama Canal, and on Saturday, he even warned that we
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: have to do something about Mexico because the president is
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: unable to clamp down on the drug Card tells so
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: now Trump appears to be targeting even historic allies of
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: the United States.
• 7:57
  Speaker 5: Yes, I think the United States is we're fundamentally to
• 8:01
  Speaker 5: transform the terms based on which states interact and relate
• 8:05
  Speaker 5: to one another on the world stage.
• 8:07
  Speaker 7: And again it's not just the United States that is
• 8:10
  Speaker 7: doing this.
• 8:10
  Speaker 5: So I think Russia's invasion of Ukraine was an action
• 8:14
  Speaker 5: to say, look, we're no longer going to recognize Ukraine
• 8:16
  Speaker 5: as an independent state, and we are going to change
• 8:20
  Speaker 5: the terms based on which we interact with our near neighbors.
• 8:22
  Speaker 5: And I think that's also what China is doing. But
• 8:26
  Speaker 5: because the United States has a long history of trying
• 8:30
  Speaker 5: to sustain this international legal and political order that is
• 8:34
  Speaker 5: structured around separate and semi independent states or interdependent states,
• 8:39
  Speaker 5: the moves by the United States basically to say, now
• 8:43
  Speaker 5: we're also participating in this game, and we are just
• 8:45
  Speaker 5: going to exert our raw power wherever we can, and
• 8:49
  Speaker 5: especially in our defined space, to demand that others do
• 8:53
  Speaker 5: as we tell them without regard for what they might
• 8:55
  Speaker 5: insist on doing themselves. That is a massive shift, in
• 8:59
  Speaker 5: my view, relative to where we were, I don't know,
• 9:02
  Speaker 5: five ten years ago, Monica.
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: Can you put this into context historically? Is this similar
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: to other actions the US has taken or different.
• 9:12
  Speaker 5: Well, there is a relatively long history of the United
• 9:15
  Speaker 5: States intervening in various ways in the affairs of Latin
• 9:18
  Speaker 5: American countries as well as countries and other parts of
• 9:21
  Speaker 5: the world. But what is significant and I think unique
• 9:25
  Speaker 5: about the current moment is that it's openly claiming the
• 9:29
  Speaker 5: right to displace the state authorities basically across the globe
• 9:36
  Speaker 5: or wherever it's not pleased with how the governments are
• 9:39
  Speaker 5: running their own countries and not at all claiming to
• 9:44
  Speaker 5: do so in the service of or through the mechanisms
• 9:48
  Speaker 5: of international law, which is collectively made and which is
• 9:53
  Speaker 5: sort of applied through collective processes that at the very
• 9:57
  Speaker 5: least provide some transparency about what has happened, some reason
• 10:01
  Speaker 5: giving about what is happening, the opportunity for others to
• 10:04
  Speaker 5: express their voice and their agency about.
• 10:06
  Speaker 6: What they want in the exchange.
• 10:08
  Speaker 5: And so we're just seeing a fundamental shift away from
• 10:11
  Speaker 5: let's say, legalized international relations toward a much more power based,
• 10:16
  Speaker 5: coercive set of interactions.
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: Secretary of State Marco Rubio has the firm that the
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: move was sort of a revised play on the nineteenth
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: century Monroe doctrine do you agree with that and what
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: are the implications.
• 10:31
  Speaker 7: It seems to be?
• 10:32
  Speaker 5: And I think that we've seen this administration say repeatedly
• 10:36
  Speaker 5: in various ways that it's trying to revive some kind
• 10:39
  Speaker 5: of Monroe doctrine, and I think the implications are exactly
• 10:43
  Speaker 5: as I described, which are that the United States will
• 10:46
  Speaker 5: increasingly just use its coercive power to dominate those around it,
• 10:51
  Speaker 5: particularly in the.
• 10:51
  Speaker 6: Western hemisphere, or what it defines is its space.
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: this conversation with Columbia Laws professor Monica Hakimi. Are these
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: moves by the Trump administration a complete repudiation of the
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: world order that has defined US foreign policy since the
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: Cold War? I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: President Trump and his advisors are discussing a range of
• 11:22
  Speaker 2: options to acquire Greenland, a self governing territory of Denmark.
• 11:27
  Speaker 2: Those options include military action. In response, European nations released
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: a joint statement saying security in the Arctic must be
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: achieved collectively with NATO allies, including the United States. Secretary
• 11:43
  Speaker 2: of State Marco Rubio says he plans to meet with
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: Danish officials next week to discuss the US interest in Greenland.
• 11:51
  Speaker 2: But will Denmark's answer be any different from that of
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: the Danish Prime Minister Metefredericson in April, when a US
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: delegates that included Vice President JD. Vance visited Greenland and
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: got a frosty reception.
• 12:07
  Speaker 4: When you demand to take over a part of the
• 12:10
  Speaker 4: Kingdoms of Denmark territory, When we are met by pressure
• 12:16
  Speaker 4: and by threats from our closest ally, what are we
• 12:21
  Speaker 4: to believe in about the country that we have admired
• 12:25
  Speaker 4: for so many years. National borders, sovereignty of states, and
• 12:32
  Speaker 4: our integrity. These are all principle rooted in international law.
• 12:38
  Speaker 4: These are fundamental principles formed after the Second World War
• 12:44
  Speaker 4: so that small countries don't have to fear big ones.
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: But is that world order changing and how much can
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: international law play a part today? I've been talking to
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: an expert in international law, Monica Hakimi, a professor at
• 13:00
  Speaker 2: Columbia Law School. Monica. President Trump has attacked seven countries
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: since returning to office. There were strikes in Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen,
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: and now in Venezuela, as well as in international waters.
• 13:19
  Speaker 2: There was nothing done in Congress, and there was nothing
• 13:22
  Speaker 2: done internationally. I mean, Stephen Miller, a top aid to
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: President Trump, actually said on CNN yesterday that Greenland rightfully
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: belongs to the United States and quote, nobody's going to
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.
• 13:42
  Speaker 7: Yeah, I think that's an open question.
• 13:44
  Speaker 5: You know. One of the common criticisms of international law
• 13:49
  Speaker 5: is that it's not enforceable or not easily enforceable against
• 13:53
  Speaker 5: powerful states and in this case, the United States, and
• 13:57
  Speaker 5: that it doesn't therefore constrain powerful state in the same
• 14:00
  Speaker 5: way that it constrains weaker states. I think there's no
• 14:03
  Speaker 5: way to know actually to what extent the United States
• 14:06
  Speaker 5: has historically been constrained by international law and to what
• 14:09
  Speaker 5: extent it's just chosen a path that has been more consistent.
• 14:13
  Speaker 7: With international law. But in any event, I think.
• 14:16
  Speaker 5: The real change now is not so much that international
• 14:20
  Speaker 5: law has become has suddenly become unenforceable against the United States, but.
• 14:25
  Speaker 7: Rather that the United States.
• 14:27
  Speaker 5: Is no longer itself committed to upholding the international legal system.
• 14:33
  Speaker 5: And that is a significant shift, because the United States
• 14:36
  Speaker 5: has actually, even as it has historically acted in various
• 14:39
  Speaker 5: ways that have undermined specific norms in international law. It
• 14:44
  Speaker 5: has also historically done an enormous amount to try to
• 14:47
  Speaker 5: bolster this entire system, and with that retreat from its
• 14:51
  Speaker 5: own commitment to the legal system, the question is, is
• 14:54
  Speaker 5: anyone capable of filling that gap?
• 14:57
  Speaker 7: And if so, who, in out what terms?
• 14:59
  Speaker 5: Is that alternative party going to be exercising its power
• 15:03
  Speaker 5: with or without international law? And if not, we're just
• 15:06
  Speaker 5: going to live in a world in which it's much
• 15:09
  Speaker 5: harder to understand what those who exercise power are doing
• 15:13
  Speaker 5: and why. Because one of the things that international law does,
• 15:15
  Speaker 5: no matter what else it does, is clarify the terms
• 15:18
  Speaker 5: based on which states and other actors interact on the
• 15:21
  Speaker 5: world stage.
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: Let's talk for a moment about NATO, and you know
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: what the power or lack of power is there. Chomp
• 15:29
  Speaker 2: has been pulling back from NATO, and today he criticized
• 15:34
  Speaker 2: it again. Does NATO have any role to play here?
• 15:38
  Speaker 5: The action against Greenland is in many ways causing a
• 15:43
  Speaker 5: deep fissure within NATO.
• 15:45
  Speaker 7: And I say that because, of course Denmark is a
• 15:47
  Speaker 7: NATO state.
• 15:47
  Speaker 5: It's historically been a very strong military ally of the
• 15:50
  Speaker 5: United States, and so one NATO country directly attacking another
• 15:55
  Speaker 5: NATO country just undermines the entire arrangement, which is that
• 16:00
  Speaker 5: these countries are supposed to act collectively in their mutual
• 16:04
  Speaker 5: defense and cooperatively in their mutual defense. Now, to answer
• 16:08
  Speaker 5: your question more specifically, if the United States were to
• 16:11
  Speaker 5: attack and try to acquire Greenland, other NATO countries could
• 16:16
  Speaker 5: come to Denmark's defense against the United States, that would
• 16:20
  Speaker 5: be a deep, deep fissure again within NATO, and it
• 16:23
  Speaker 5: would raise again the question that you asked earlier about
• 16:27
  Speaker 5: whether any other state could actually enforce Denmark's rights against
• 16:32
  Speaker 5: the United States given the overwhelming military power of the
• 16:35
  Speaker 5: United States.
• 16:36
  Speaker 2: I mean, do you think that NATO's days are numbered.
• 16:39
  Speaker 5: I've been worried for some time actually that NATO's days are,
• 16:44
  Speaker 5: if not numbered, that NATO is going to have to
• 16:46
  Speaker 5: transform itself to preserve its relevance and its saliens and quick. Frankly,
• 16:52
  Speaker 5: it's been the position of the United States for well
• 16:55
  Speaker 5: over a decade, nearing two decades, that the United States
• 16:58
  Speaker 5: cannot continue to to provide the bulk of support for
• 17:03
  Speaker 5: NATO's operations. That European states had to do more. Now
• 17:06
  Speaker 5: that has become increasingly obvious over the course of the
• 17:10
  Speaker 5: second Trump administration, and the question I guess is whether
• 17:14
  Speaker 5: NATO states can collectively figure out how to reconstitute themselves
• 17:19
  Speaker 5: in a way that is responsive to the Trump administration's
• 17:23
  Speaker 5: new moves, but still protective of the entire group of
• 17:27
  Speaker 5: states that currently comprise it.
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: The United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting on Monday.
• 17:34
  Speaker 2: Because of the way the Security Council is set up,
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: with the members having veto power, it seems unlikely that
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: anything useful is going to come out of the Security Council.
• 17:45
  Speaker 2: I mean, what's the point of the United Nations today.
• 17:49
  Speaker 5: One of the essential components of the United Nations Security
• 17:53
  Speaker 5: Council is that it is comprised of the five victors
• 17:57
  Speaker 5: of World War Two as well as others. But those
• 17:59
  Speaker 5: five members of veto power, as you say, and during
• 18:02
  Speaker 5: the Cold War, the Security Council was largely stalled out
• 18:06
  Speaker 5: because the United States and the Soviet Union could not
• 18:09
  Speaker 5: agree to make decisions really through the Security Council. Nevertheless,
• 18:13
  Speaker 5: I think some would say that the Security Council provided
• 18:17
  Speaker 5: a useful venue for these two great powers who were very,
• 18:21
  Speaker 5: very severely in odds with one another to figure out
• 18:24
  Speaker 5: what the other was doing, and at least to talk
• 18:27
  Speaker 5: to one another on terms that were sort of detached
• 18:31
  Speaker 5: from the conflicts that were playing out on the ground,
• 18:34
  Speaker 5: whether hot or cold. After the end of the Cold War,
• 18:37
  Speaker 5: the Security Council was sort of revitalized and it became
• 18:39
  Speaker 5: a really important mechanism for dealing with security threats around
• 18:44
  Speaker 5: the world. Now again, we're going to a position where
• 18:46
  Speaker 5: making decisions through the Security Council will be very, very
• 18:50
  Speaker 5: difficult because of the geopolitical dynamics. Still, it might be
• 18:53
  Speaker 5: a useful venue for those who want to understand what
• 18:58
  Speaker 5: is happening or to express their own voice about what
• 19:01
  Speaker 5: is happening, to do so and at least for those
• 19:04
  Speaker 5: views to be aired and in that way serve as
• 19:08
  Speaker 5: some kind of accountability mechanism or at least transparency about
• 19:11
  Speaker 5: what their positions are.
• 19:13
  Speaker 2: As you mentioned, Russia invaded Ukraine. China might use this
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: as a template to eventually go after Taiwan. I mean,
• 19:24
  Speaker 2: during the Trump administration the next three years, are we
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: looking at a changing world order?
• 19:31
  Speaker 7: I think absolutely.
• 19:32
  Speaker 5: I think I'm on record as having said that the
• 19:36
  Speaker 5: old world order, however one defined it is really no
• 19:40
  Speaker 5: longer available to us, and it's not just the United
• 19:43
  Speaker 5: States that's making that decision. The United States is of
• 19:46
  Speaker 5: course responding to a broader set of global trends, including
• 19:50
  Speaker 5: the limits of its own security umbrella, as was evidenced
• 19:53
  Speaker 5: by you know, Russia's in China's actions that predated the
• 19:57
  Speaker 5: second Trump administration, as well as Iraq. So I do
• 20:00
  Speaker 5: think we are moving toward an entirely different world order,
• 20:05
  Speaker 5: and that part of what's happening right now in these
• 20:07
  Speaker 5: conflicts is that states are and other entities are basically
• 20:12
  Speaker 5: defining the terms based on which any future order would
• 20:15
  Speaker 5: have to be created. And there's a question about how
• 20:19
  Speaker 5: different the next world order, if there is going to
• 20:21
  Speaker 5: be some world order, will be relative to the one
• 20:24
  Speaker 5: that we're leaving behind.
• 20:25
  Speaker 2: How different do you think it'll be.
• 20:27
  Speaker 5: I think it's going to be dramatically different, and I
• 20:29
  Speaker 5: think it's going to be different in ways that are
• 20:32
  Speaker 5: far worse for a greater number of people around the world.
• 20:36
  Speaker 5: I think if one pays attention to the legal and
• 20:39
  Speaker 5: political trends over the past couple of years, one sees
• 20:42
  Speaker 5: a few things. The first is a reduction in the
• 20:45
  Speaker 5: commitment to states as states, so we've seen that again
• 20:50
  Speaker 5: with the denial of the authority of states in many
• 20:53
  Speaker 5: parts of the world Ukraine, Venezuela, Denmark over Greenland. The
• 20:57
  Speaker 5: second is backlash against the humanitarian impulses of international law.
• 21:03
  Speaker 5: So we're seeing in many conflicts around the world an
• 21:06
  Speaker 5: increased disregard for protecting civilians for humanity, as well as,
• 21:12
  Speaker 5: in more limited ways, a backlash from human rights law
• 21:15
  Speaker 5: more generally, as it applies even in peace time, not
• 21:17
  Speaker 5: only in conflicts. The third, I would say, is a
• 21:21
  Speaker 5: retreat in the legalization of international affairs. Again, I think
• 21:24
  Speaker 5: legalization is extremely important for reasons of transparency, accountability, basic coordination,
• 21:32
  Speaker 5: and understanding of what is happening around us, no matter
• 21:36
  Speaker 5: to what extent it constrains or empowers particular entities. And
• 21:40
  Speaker 5: then finally, we're seeing an increased resort to force in
• 21:44
  Speaker 5: other forms of coercion to structure international affairs. These are
• 21:48
  Speaker 5: trends that again predated the Trump administration, but they are
• 21:51
  Speaker 5: trends that are being accelerated by the Trump administration. And
• 21:56
  Speaker 5: they're all trends that, in my view, reflect a retreat
• 22:01
  Speaker 5: from humanity and from basic ideas about governance and the
• 22:06
  Speaker 5: service of the general good.
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: Former President Joe Biden embraced NATO. Now we have President
• 22:14
  Speaker 2: Trump with an anti NATO stance. If the next president
• 22:20
  Speaker 2: wants to embrace NATO, will that change anything? Considering the
• 22:25
  Speaker 2: new world order that you just described.
• 22:28
  Speaker 5: I don't think the option is available to go back
• 22:32
  Speaker 5: to what existed before. And actually, I myself was quite
• 22:37
  Speaker 5: critical of the Biden administration for not seeing the writing
• 22:41
  Speaker 5: on the wall and trying to put the world in
• 22:45
  Speaker 5: a better position than it was when he left office,
• 22:50
  Speaker 5: for what was inevitably going to be continued resistance to
• 22:54
  Speaker 5: the US power structure that existed in the post Cold
• 22:59
  Speaker 5: War period. And so, you know, I don't think a
• 23:02
  Speaker 5: new administration could try to revive NATO and create the
• 23:06
  Speaker 5: security that once existed through NATO. I think any new
• 23:10
  Speaker 5: administration would have to deal with the hand that will
• 23:14
  Speaker 5: have been created over the next three, if not more years.
• 23:17
  Speaker 2: This has been a really fascinating conversation. Thanks so much,
• 23:20
  Speaker 2: Monica for sharing your insights with us. That's Professor Monica
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: Hakemi of Columbia Law School coming up next on the
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show. It's the state that sued the Trump
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: administration more than any other. Get ready for the twenty
• 23:35
  Speaker 2: twenty six court battles between California and Trump. I'm June
• 23:39
  Speaker 2: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. California's response to the
• 23:45
  Speaker 2: Trump administration has prompted a flood of litigation, with several
• 23:50
  Speaker 2: major hearings over the line between state law and federal
• 23:54
  Speaker 2: authority teed up for hearings early this year. At stake
• 23:58
  Speaker 2: are hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds and
• 24:02
  Speaker 2: the state's ability to steer policy in key areas including education, health,
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: and infrastructure. Joining me is Bloomberg Law's correspondent for Los Angeles,
• 24:14
  Speaker 2: Mayaespodo California in the first Trump administration and in this
• 24:19
  Speaker 2: Trump administration has a sort of history of bringing lawsuits
• 24:24
  Speaker 2: against the administration, and California's Attorney General Rob Banta often
• 24:30
  Speaker 2: seems to be leading the charge in states suing the
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: Trump administration.
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: Right, It's true. During the start of President Trump's second presidency,
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: the California Legislature convened and pumped twenty five million dollars
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: into Bonton's office, readying for another round of those fights.
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: From the first time.
• 24:52
  Speaker 2: The court battles that gained a lot of attention in
• 24:56
  Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, were centered on Trump's sending troops into
• 25:01
  Speaker 2: LA and federal funding cuts.
• 25:04
  Speaker 7: Are those suits still.
• 25:06
  Speaker 2: Going on or have they been settled?
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: Many of the federal funding related lawsuits are still working
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: out on appeal or going into their merit stages now,
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: meaning that a lot of the wins that Bonta and
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: Governor Gavin Newsom were discussing as of August they cited
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: a number of one hundred and sixty eight billion dollars
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: in federal funding being restored came from these early court
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: rulings that were weighing which side was likely to prevail.
• 25:38
  Speaker 2: So we'll have to see if those victories are preserved
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: during the appellate process. Let's turn now to several cases
• 25:47
  Speaker 2: brought by the Trump administration in response to laws passed
• 25:51
  Speaker 2: by California. Tell us about the legal challenge over the
• 25:56
  Speaker 2: No Secret Police Act and the No Vigilantes Act.
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: So, in response to these reports of federal immigration agents
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: in California wearing masks and being unidentifiable, the state lawmakers
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: passed a set of laws requiring them to show their
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: faces and wear id The Trump administration sued, saying that
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: the laws violate the supremacy clause, which allows federal law
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: to take priority over conflicting state laws. And that case
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: is tied up for a preliminary injunction hearing next week.
• 26:35
  Speaker 2: So we'll find out soon after next week probably whether
• 26:38
  Speaker 2: they'll issue a preliminary injunction. Now, the next lawsuit strikes
• 26:43
  Speaker 2: me as a little unusual. The Trump administration is suing
• 26:47
  Speaker 2: California over its laws banning tight cage confinement for egg
• 26:53
  Speaker 2: laying hens.
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: They did say that California's requirements for agri culture were
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: causing the price of eggs to go up, and California
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: has said in court filings that actually, the first Trump
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: administration previously agreed that the federal law the current administration
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: is citing does not supersede the state's cage free law.
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: So that's what they are arguing, and.
• 27:21
  Speaker 2: The cage free laws about humane treatment of the hens.
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: It governs the amount of space that hens have.
• 27:29
  Speaker 2: California is going to try to get that case dismissed.
• 27:32
  Speaker 2: It's filed a motion to dismiss and to some rejudgment motion.
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: This is one where California's odds seem pretty high.
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: Now, let's talk about challenges by California based litigants to
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: administrative actions of the Trump administration. The first one, which
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: sounds familiar, maybe because it's similar to a federal case,
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: is about ICE agents stopping people to arrest them without
• 28:00
  Speaker 2: reasonable suspicion. So tell us what's happening there.
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: Right, So this case came out of that set of
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: immigration raids early in the Trump administration in twenty twenty
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: five in central parts of California, particularly Bakersfield, and it
• 28:17
  Speaker 1: led to one of the first court orders from a
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: federal judge requiring ICE agents not to stop these folks
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: without reasonable suspicion that they were in the country unlawfully.
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: This case is decently similar to the one that unfolded
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: a few months later in Los Angeles Federal court that
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: also got a court order from the district court, but
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: was paused by the US Supreme Court this fall.
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: So in September, the Supreme Court backed the Trump administration's
• 28:52
  Speaker 2: aggressive immigration enforcement efforts, allowing federal immigration agents in Los
• 28:58
  Speaker 2: Angeles to resume tect that critics say amount to racial profiling,
• 29:04
  Speaker 2: and the court's order put on hold the district court
• 29:07
  Speaker 2: order that barred ICE agents from questioning and detaining people
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: based solely on their ethnicity, language, occupation, or presence at
• 29:17
  Speaker 2: a particular location. And in the case we're discussing, the
• 29:20
  Speaker 2: Trump administration is arguing that there's no standing, is that
• 29:25
  Speaker 2: the plaintiffs don't have a stake in the fight, right.
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: They are citing Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence in the Los
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: Angeles case.
• 29:35
  Speaker 2: Interestingly, the plaintiffs are also saying that the emergency docket
• 29:40
  Speaker 2: order isn't binding and that the federal agents have violated
• 29:45
  Speaker 2: the preliminary injunction.
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: You know, it's part of this broader question that we're
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: dealing with across cases, particularly concerning the Trump administration, which
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: is how should federal courts weigh the thoughts of the
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: US Supreme Court justices that are made on an emergency basis.
• 30:05
  Speaker 2: Now a Ninth Circuit panel is going to hear arguments
• 30:08
  Speaker 2: in a challenge to the use of Trump administration executive
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: orders on gender identity and diversity initiatives.
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: Right, So, there is an upcoming argument before the Ninth
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: Circuit concerning a challenge brought by nonprofits based in Northern
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: California that support LGBTQ plus clients. They are fighting to
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: reinstate funds that were pulled after the Trump administration's executive
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: order related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and gender identity.
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: There are a couple of cases related to elections, and
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: one is over the California redistricting Who is suing over that.
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: The California redistricting lawsuit was brought by a Republican state
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: assembly member and the Republican Party in California alleging that
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: California's new congressional map, which was drawn in response to
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: the redistricting in Texas, is an unlawful racial jerry mander,
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: and those parties argued before a panel of judges in December.
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: The judges are still considering what to rule, but the
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: US Supreme Court did uphold Texas's new map for the midterms.
• 31:30
  Speaker 2: It seems hard to argue that this wasn't politically motivated
• 31:34
  Speaker 2: when you had the governor saying, let's do this to
• 31:38
  Speaker 2: match Texas. So but we'll see, you never know where
• 31:40
  Speaker 2: the court what happens.
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: That's what the state argued, and the judges two of
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: three certainly seemed to seize on that political argument.
• 31:49
  Speaker 2: And the Trump administration wants California to turnover voter information right.
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: The Trump administration wants California to turn over its VOTs,
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: including personal information like registered voter strivers, licenses, and social
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: Security numbers, and California is saying that state privacy laws
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: keep that data safe. And so the judges in that
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: case still considering what to do.
• 32:17
  Speaker 2: Thanks so much. Maya will check back and see how
• 32:20
  Speaker 2: these cases develop. That's Bloomberg Law LA correspondent Mayaspodo, and
• 32:26
  Speaker 2: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
• 32:28
  Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
• 32:31
  Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
• 32:35
  Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
• 32:41
  Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
• 32:43
  Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
• 32:47
  Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg