Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Musk Exits Washington After 130 Days In DOGE Role; SCOTUS Won't Hear "Two Genders" T-Shirt Case. Trump's War On Three Fronts. Aired 9- 10a ET

Aired May 31, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: As a podcast. And make sure to tune in to this week's episode of "Eva Longoria Searching for Spain." That's tomorrow night at 9:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific right here on CNN.

I thank you so much for joining me today. I'll see you back here next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. "Smerconish" is up next.

[09:00:32]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Well, for Elon Musk, it's time to get out of DOGE. I'm Michael Smerconish. Today in New York City, he had to leave as a special government employee. Musk reached his limit of 130 days of service. Musk's exit led to a joint Trump-Musk presser yesterday.

Trump thanked Musk for his service to America. Musk noted he still expects to achieve the trillion dollars in cuts that he promised and both think he'll be back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELON MUSK, ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT: I expect to continue to provide advice whenever the president would like advice.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I hope so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Some speculated the farewell was not so fond, especially after Musk several days ago threw some shade on the latest economic bill supported by the White House because of his concerns that it would add to the deficit and debt. Back in November, I had a poll question at smerconish.com, I asked when. This was the result, nearly half thought that it wouldn't last 100 days, but it did. But where he worked in the White House longer than the first hundred days, but not until the midterms, I guess 27 percent came the closest.

I know that many of you are thrilled that Elon Musk is gone. I'm not -- don't get me wrong, I don't like the way that DOGE went about its job, mostly anonymous, totally rogue, outside the lines, yes, erratic, seemingly unplanned, as far as I can tell, inconsistent as to the edicts. You're fired if you don't summarize your week. Oh no, you're not. Still, according to DOGE, they saved the government around $170 billion.

Many challenge that number. But even if it's half that or less is better than nothing. On top of which, I'm willing to give Musk and President Trump some credit for sparking a conversation about waste, fraud and abuse, the first that I can recall since Simpson-Bowles was debated on President Obama's watch back in 2010. Misguided.

Irie Sentner, writing for POLITICO, observed the following, "Musk was a creature of Silicon Valley, a scion of the PayPal mafia, whose leadership and willingness to take big risks propelled him to unparalleled wealth and influence. Washington, he would soon discover, was an entirely different beast. And in the end, it proved too unwieldy for Musk to truly leave his mark. He was a man used to breaking things in order to put them back together in his own image. But the fiefdoms of Trump's Washington proved shatter resistant, sending the world's richest man scrambling back to his other ventures."

I find that to be so depressing. Count me among the many who has lamented the absence of critical thinking, disruptive influencers within the bureaucracy. If only a Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos would apply their savvy to Washington, I've often said. Sometimes on radio I go so far as to joke that if Steve Jobs had lived and applied himself to a problem, one that -- one that bedevils all of us, he'd have come up with a permanent solution to the bane of our existence, potholes. And such is my reverence for Jobs that I actually mean it.

Well, Musk at least stepped into the arena. He was willing to take his lumps. He made a great effort at personal sacrifice. I think he really did want to streamline government and reduce our $37 trillion in debt. That's over 100 Gs person, by the way.

President Trump, I'm not so sure. He never spoke of our debt during the campaign. I've always worried that his objective was to remake government in his image. And if we reduce the debt along the way, well that would be an added Benny. And I think any savings that Trump could demonstrate might be used as a justification for a tax cut in the so called big beautiful bill over which as noted above, Musk has parted company with the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MUSK: I was like disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decrease it and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Here's something else from that Politico piece that I quoted. It says, "Behind the scenes though, Musk was clashing with some of cabinet secretaries whose agencies he was hell bent on hollowing. Reports of these and sometimes profane interactions between Musk and other top administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, began to surface in news reports. And Musk and Peter Navarro, Trump's trade guru, publicly sparred over Musk's disagreement with Trump's sprawling tariff regime."

Again, not in defense of a haphazard approach that generated many debunked claims. But I doubt I'm alone in appreciating that somebody was willing to stand up and demand accountability, even from Cabinet secretaries. That too long overdue.

[09:05:14]

I read two things this week with relevance to our deficit and debt. The first was from Peter Orszag. He was President Obama's director of OMB. He wrote an essay for "The New York Times," and he warned the following, "The wolf is now lurking much closer to our door. Annual federal budget deficits are running at 6 percent of GDP or higher, compared with well under 3 percent a decade ago. Interest rates on 10- year treasuries have more than doubled around 4.5 percent now, versus over just 2 percent then.

And in the current fiscal year, the government is projected to spend more on interest payments than on defense, Medicaid or Medicare. That's right, our borrowing now costs us more each year than each of these big essential budget items."

And with regard to the big beautiful bill, Orszag said this, "In its current form, the budget legislation moving through Congress would only exacerbate the challenges we face by further expanding the deficit. But the first step toward fiscal health is not any specific bill or policy proposal. It's to recognize that our fiscal risks are alarmingly elevated that we won't make much progress on the trade deficit unless we reduce its twin, the budget deficit."

The second reading of significance was actually in a work of fiction. On Tuesday, former President Bill Clinton and bestselling author James Patterson will release a new thriller. It's called "The First Gentleman." I've already read it. It's about a husband of the nation's female president.

He's a former NFL player and he's charged in the murder of a cheerleader. It'll be a great beach read.

But here's the thing. A subplot in this novel involves the president's desire to get a grand bargain through Congress. And what's the grand bargain? It's a serious effort to address our long term fiscal instability. I figured this was one of President Clinton's contributions to the novel, given that the last time the nation had a budget surplus, it was on his watch.

In the book, there's actually a detailed plan put forth to solve the nation's debt. I'm not going to give away the murderer or the other plot, but when I spoke to President Clinton this week, we did discuss the book's fiscal plan. It involves a 15 percent global corporate tax rate that gets around tax shelters, as well as repealing the carried interest tax rate that many see as a loophole for hedge fund managers. There's much more to it than that, and that's just one potential plan.

The point is this, we must take our debt seriously. President Clinton notes that the problem has gotten worse in the last five years. Our debt is growing at an unsustainable rate and Trump's new budget, with a renewal of a huge tax cut will probably make that much worse. So I share President Clinton's concerns for our fiscal well-being.

Look, given the public perception of DOGE, much of it merited, I just worry that this effort poisoned the well for the next time somebody's willing to try. Say what you will, but at least Elon Musk tried. So I'm sorry Washington won that the establishment held, that the status quo will continue and we will never know whether it could have ended a different way with a different approach. Hopefully we won't have to wait a few more decades for another effort.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com this hour and cast a ballot on this question, which has been a bigger impediment to the work of DOGE, Musk's methodology or the institutional resistance?

Joining me now is Shark Tank Judge Kevin O'Leary. He is of course also the chair of O'Leary Ventures.

Kevin, nice to see you. I offered some of these same thoughts on radio yesterday, and the listener response was none too happy. They say, oh, Musk was in it for himself. He had access to our own private data and he was cruel in his approach. You would say what?

KEVIN O'LEARY, CHIARMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES: No, I think he was honest in terms of his objectives. He said he could save money for the taxpayer. That should be a bipartisan activity. I believe it was. I thought he brought forward into the taxpayer psyche a new idea of auditing government in perpetuity, which I find extremely interesting because no one's ever done it quite that way.

What he did experience is what most people do. Washington is a very nasty place. And the closer you get to the sun, the more your feathers get burned. That's for everybody. He found out the hard way.

That's OK. It's a good learning lesson. And I've only started going to Washington for the last three years and I've realized how tough it is. I thought he did a masterful job. And most people, even though lots were offended by the speed at which he went at it or maybe the way he implemented it, at the end of the day, taxpayers would like to save money, period.

[09:10:06]

And I don't know why everybody can't get behind that. The more you think about what he did, the more you should applaud it.

SMERCONISH: So I think you've just answered my poll question. From Kevin O'Leary's perspective, which was the bigger impediment? You don't think it was his methodology. You think it's the bureaucracy and the built institutional fiefdoms?

O'LEARY: Yes, I believe that would be correct. But in the end, what we've learned is there's a value to the check and balance in Washington. You think about the three different impediments. You've got the executive, you certainly have Congress and you have the judiciary. I mean, you have to deal with all of them.

You can't just mandate save a billion here, save a billion there. You have to actually go through the system. And that's where the system grinds you down. You can make the recommendation, but if you can't be executed on, you have no power. You know, as an employee for 130 days, you wield no power.

The only power you have is given to you by the executive and the president. But even he can't jam it through Congress. And that's what we learned. But at the end of the day, is the idea. Good idea?

Of course it is. Imagine saving a trillion dollars. If you in fact did that, it would tell you how inefficient government is, what a waste it is, what a horrific outcome to learn that at the same time you want the savings. That's why DOGE, that brand is now, let's call it, impregnated into the minds of taxpayers everywhere. It doesn't matter if you're red or blue, who doesn't want to save money?

SMERCONISH: I'm worried that the approach has now poisoned the well because of the haphazard, the slip shot way in which this was attempted. The next time somebody's willing to step into the lion's den and have a serious conversation about waste, fraud and abuse, people are going to say, oh, well, they tried that with Elon Musk and it didn't go so well. Where do we go from here?

O'LEARY: I think it doesn't go away. I think, you know, taxpayers, I don't believe, trust government as much as they did 20 or 30 years ago. And that uneasiness stays there.

The biggest problem we have right now is what you detailed at the top of the show. We've got almost a $3 trillion deficit in this imposed tax bill. And there's lots of other problems in this tax bill as well. I'm not sure you're aware of this and you might want to look at it, but I'm a huge advocate for small business. I read this bill, very few people read it.

And I found something quite shocking in there that I'm actually lobbying against right now. If you took government support money as a small business called the ERC program, the IRS wants to audit you for nine years. The law says three. They're going to change the law to make it nine. You can't finance your business anymore.

We can't have that. This is something that's slipping through the bill. It's a pimple on the big beautiful bill. But that's the kind of thing that's going to go through the meat grinder now of the House. And I think overall, listening to this deficit just growing, as you call it, the Vulcan side, the door is getting pretty scary, you're right, rates have doubled.

This is really almost 7 percent of GDP. We're right at the upper limits. And the only thing I will say that you should consider is when they scored this deficit out for the years ahead, they assumed the United States economy would grow less than 2 percent. I find that way, way, way offside. Economy grows (inaudible) percent.

SMERCONISH: Quick final question. Give me the 30 second answer. Can he still sell sneakers to Republicans? I'm thinking of Michael Jordan, of course. But going back to Tesla now, it seems like he's alienated the progressive purchasers of those vehicles.

And yet conservatives haven't embraced the whole EV movement the way that liberals have. So what's the future of Tesla?

O'LEARY: Well, I'm a Tesla shareholder. My assumption, along with other shareholders as well, is within three or four weeks, people will forget about because they were done (ph) to Washington as they see him work harder on SpaceX and Tesla. I think we'll do OK.

I think the time of burning dealers down and keying Tesla cars, those days are over. If you want electric car, there isn't a better one in the world. And that's what matters the most. Is it a good product? The answer is yes.

I think we'll all be rewarded to shareholders. And if you own one of these cars, you'll be happy as it starts to become autonomous driving for you.

SMERCONISH: Kevin O'Leary, thank you for being here. I appreciate your insight.

O'LEARY: Take care. Bye-bye.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. From X, when you throw a grenade into an organization and have no plans for what happens after the air clears, other than to celebrate the bodies you left in the wake, the problem is with the person who blew it all up.

Kapalm, you are typical of much of the social media reaction that I'm receiving. I'm not embracing the way in which he went about it. I've tried to make that abundantly clear. I am appreciative that somebody tried to do something about this lurking issue, the can that is perpetually kicked down the road because if half of our federal monies are now being used to satisfy the debt, it's just unsustainable. I know we've heard it said that it's unsustainable for a long time, but read Peter Orszag's piece from this week, President Obama's head of OMB.

[09:15:15]

Listen to the way that he explains it, because I found it to be very compelling.

Remember, I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question, which has been a bigger impediment to the work of DOGE, Musk's methodology or institutional resistance? Kevin O'Leary is selecting the latter.

This is interesting, a Massachusetts middle school wouldn't let a seventh grader wear a T-shirt to school that said there are only two genders, but a shirt that read he, she, they, it's all OK was allowed. So how much latitude should public schools have to restrict students speech in the classroom? Should the Supreme Court have taken that case up? Don't forget, sign up for the smerconish.com daily newsletter when you're at the website voting, you'll get the work of illustrators like Scott Stantis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:15]

SMERCONISH: A middle school student's T shirt stating there are only two genders has been at the center of a federal lawsuit and a divided Supreme Court. This case started in Massachusetts. Seventh grader Liam Morrison wore his two genders shirt to school. He was pulled out of class and sent home. He returned wearing this modified version that reads there are censored genders.

That too was banned. Liam's family reached out to Alliance Defending Freedom and the Massachusetts Family Institute to file a lawsuit claiming that his First Amendment rights have been violated. Here's part of a video the Alliance Defending Freedom made with Liam discussing the issue in his words.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIAM MORRISON, STUDENT: Even at 12 years old, I have my own opinions and I have a right to express those opinions even at school. This right is called free speech and is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

My school isn't shy about expressing its views on a wide range of political topics. My school's annual Pride Month celebration is a pretty clear example. My school spends all of June expressing its view on LGBTQ plus issues, and school officials encourage us to wear our Pride gear to celebrate Pride month.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The lower court sided with the school and ruled he should not have been permitted to wear the shirt that said there are only two genders, finding that the message could be seen as demeaning to other students and potentially disruptive to the learning environment. The Supreme Court let that lower court ruling stand in declining to hear the case. But two conservative justices, Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, strongly objected. In his dissent, Alito wrote the following, "Thousands of students will attend school without the full panoply of First Amendment rights. That alone is worth this court's attention."

Alito accused the lower court of inventing a new test that dilutes the court's own precedent. In Tinker vs. Des Moines, that's a 1969 ruling, the court said that schools could only restrict speech that materially disrupts class or infringes on the rights of others. But in this case, Alito said that the school acted on, quote, "vague concerns and suppressed a student viewpoint while encouraging other messages about gender on campus." He even referenced a social media post of one student wearing a T-shirt that read, he, she, they, it's all OK. Alito, noting that the decision below robs a great many students of that core First Amendment protection. Here to talk about it is Liam's attorney, David Cortman. He's senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom.

David, schools are in a tough position, right, having to police speech issues when they arise. There's that Tinker case where schools can restrict speech if it's perceived to be disruptive or invades the rights of others. But the guardrails, the boundary lines, are not always so clear and defined.

DAVID CORTMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL, ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM: They're not always clear, which is why we expected the court to take this case to help clarify those boundaries. But what I would say is, even though school officials are in tough positions, sometimes I would say err on the side of free speech. If you want to get into these cultural debates, if you want to promote it yourself, which the school did, then let the kids talk about it. They could talk about it in a way that's respectful, which Liam did, but you want to have the conversation because that's how democracy works.

We don't want to encourage censorship. We don't want to encourage cancellation. We see too much of that now. You want to encourage them and teach them how to have healthy debates, because these issues will come up the rest of their lives.

SMERCONISH: Rare that a 12-year-old, a seventh grader, would have such passion on an interest like this. Was it coming from him or from his parents?

CORTMAN: No, absolutely coming from him. It was one of the interesting parts when we -- when they contacted us for assistance and we looked into the case, it was completely Liam's idea. In fact, he asked his dad for permission. He said, dad, look, this is what they're doing at school. My friends and I don't agree with it.

What can I do? They actually went online, found the T-shirt, ordered it, and wore it to school. And what's interesting about it is when the school itself is promoting this debate, I think the saddest part is it says, OK, you can jump into this debate if you agree with us, but if you dare take an -- dare take an opposing view, then we're going to silence you and not let you speak. And that's just not the way our education system should work.

SMERCONISH: Well, and that's what Justice Alito objected to among. In other words, the school and social media, you correct me if I'm wrong, but the school and social media promoted a shirt that said he, she, they, it's all OK. Then Liam shows up, and in first period gym class, he sent home because of his shirt that says there are only two genders. And then on a different day, he comes back with the censorship shirt. And this time, you know, he changes his shirts rather than miss another day of school. That's the chronology here, right?

CORTMAN: It is. And what's interesting about this issue is when the school gets into this controversial cultural debate of the day. Perhaps if they take the wrong side and hurts everyone. So in this instance, what Liam's arguing for is, look, my free speech protects everyone. So say you take the situation and reverse it, and you have a school district that says, we're going to promote there's only two genders.

[09:25:10]

And a student comes to school and says, there are many genders or Pride T-shirt, they should be allowed to wear their shirt too. So this is censorship across the board. It seems like everyone should be on Liam's side no matter where you are on this particular issue.

SMERCONISH: The appellate court found that his T-shirt demeaned characteristics of personal identity such as race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. Isn't that true? Wasn't he demeaning the characteristics of some of his classmates with his there are only two gender shirt?

CORTMAN: No, not at all. In fact, it was the most respectful way you could address the situation. So Liam's going to school, everyone's encouraged to disagree with his point of view. And if you say it was demeaning to them, then why isn't his -- why aren't their actions demeaning to him? And especially the fact that the school took a side on the issue.

What you do is you let students talk about it. They disagree, they do it respectfully, which he did. But what they should never do is say your opinion is demeaning, but mine is not. Because if that's the standard, then none of us will get to speak because everybody's always offended by one side or the other.

SMERCONISH: Right. But I guess the T-shirt that says he, she, they, it's all OK, like, who's upset about that? Who's feeling the brunt of something mean spirited by that as compared to there are only two genders, which I'm sure that many would take as an affront if they're in the LGBTQ plus community. You get the final word. Go ahead.

CORTMAN: Sure. And what's the response to Liam when he gives a different opinion? And by the way, what is a biological fact? So his T-shirt says a biological fact. The school has it in their policies in biology class, but somehow that's demeaning when he says it.

And what I would end with is the fact that is it demeaning to Liam because he gives his point of view that's biologically true to say you're the bully, you're the one who's engaging in hate speech instead of having the conversation with the kids and not taking side on the cultural debate.

SMERCONISH: Counselor, thank you for being here. I appreciate it.

CORTMAN: All right. Thank you. Good to be here.

SMERCONISH: Via social media, some of the reaction to this issue, I understand dress codes in schools and do support most school says the shirt hates says hate speech. I disagree, also object to the vague term hate speech because teachers -- yes, really hate speech doesn't enter this. I mean that's implied in this case. But you were reading my mind because I have two words to sum up my view of this case. Dress code.

Dress code. These are tough years. Those middle school years, I remember, those are tough, tough years. And you don't want anybody going to school and feeling uncomfortable. So, you know, tell all the boys they've got to wear a polo shirt and a pair of khakis and we won't have this issue.

I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com, which has been a bigger impediment to the work of DOGE, Musk's methodology or the institutional resistance to his efforts?

Still to come, your social media reaction by commentary and President Donald Trump promised to be, quote unquote, "our retribution." Now he's taking on legacy media, academia and big law. The outcome of these battles are going to have lasting implications and I've got thoughts.

Be sure that you're signing up for my smerconish.com free daily newsletter when you're casting your ballot on the poll question. You'll get the work of illustrators like Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:32:51]

SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. Follow me on X. Here's some reaction to today's program.

If you have 130 days to make an impact, you're going to break a few eggs. Now you know what Silicon Valley urgency looks like. The labeling of the DOGE team as teenage hackers is just false. They're smart and experienced, and they set a foundation and a mentality on doing more with --

How did that comment get in there? Catherine, how did somebody who's actually agreeing with some observations that I made at the outset of the program about maybe some virtue that came from this whole process?

Look, the premise that I offered at the outset of the program is pretty simple and straightforward. We are spending more on interest this fiscal year than we're spending on defense. Think about that.

How about this? We're spending more on interest than we're spending on Medicare this year. How about this? We're spending more on interest than were spending on Medicaid this year.

We have a debt problem. This is not DOGE. This is not how you go about solving it. I'm simply applauding that we are having the conversation. And yes, for that, I'm crediting Elon Musk and Donald Trump.

And I'll go one step further if you're not already offended. Many of you, not all of you, but many of you, not that person. If the election had had a different outcome, if President Biden had been reelected, if Vice President Harris had been elected, we wouldn't be having this dialog at all. I'm not embracing this methodology. I am appreciative of the fact that maybe, just maybe, for the first time since Simpson-Bowles on President Obama's watch, we're having the conversation. Real quick. One more. I've got time. Let's do it.

A child being used for political purposes is child --

Yes. So, Peppie, I did ask the question. I mean, I read the Alito opinion and I'm fascinated with this speech case. It's really of interest. And in the end, by the way, in the end, I come down on the side that he had a First Amendment right to wear that shirt, even though I find it to be objectionable in this context.

[09:35:06]

But like Alito and like Thomas, I think he had a right to wear it. I wish he hadn't. And when I watched that video, I said to myself, man, he's awfully passionate at age 12 on this issue.

I was passionate. You know what I was passionate about at age 12? You know, playing street hockey and doing magic tricks. Anyway, to each his own. OK.

I want to remind you, go to my Web site at Smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question. This will be interesting to see the result. I think I know which way it goes, but I want to see the margin. Which has been a bigger impediment to the work of DOGE, Musk's methodology or institutional resistance?

Still to come, president or pugilist? How Donald Trump's three-pronged attack -- he's fighting the press. He's fighting academia. He's fighting big law. It's changing the game. So, who's pushing back and who's giving in? I'm going to name some names.

Don't forget check out the Web site at Smerconish.com. Sign up for the newsletter while you're there. Jack Ohman is a Pulitzer Prize winner. He draws for us once a week. There's some of his work.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:23]

SMERCONISH: You know, I love my poll questions at Smerconish.com. Well, on Thursday I asked this. Trump's battle with which institution has the highest stakes for the nation? Choices, big law, academia, and the media.

I was surprised by the result. People went with big law slightly, but I was appreciative of the relatively even divide. It's an interesting question.

Four months into Trump 2.0, the president is hunkered down. He's fighting on three domestic fronts. He's fighting big law. He's fighting legacy media. He's fighting academia. And who wins each of these battles is going to have lasting implications. During the campaign, he told us he would be our retribution. But so far, he's been settling his personal scores against institutional forces that each play a vital role in the safeguarding of democracy. He's at war with legacy media, several sources of which have waved a white flag to claims that would have once drawn ferocious defense. And the stakes are high.

As Thomas Jefferson once said, were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

At this rate, there may be no newspapers left. Trump sued "60 Minutes" and CBS for $20 billion, claiming deceptive editing of a Kamala Harris interview. He sued the "Des Moines Register" for over a poll showing that Harris was up three points in Iowa. That was right before Election Day.

He sued ABC after George Stephanopoulos misstated the Trump had been found liable for rape when it was actually sexual abuse. ABC, they settled for 16 million, and a statement of regret.

He sued Simon and Schuster for releasing recordings of his interviews. He sued over 20 media outlets for reporting that Truth Social had lost $73 million when he says the number was only 31.6 million.

He signed an executive order defunding NPR and PBS. He even banned the A.P. from the White House after it refused to rename in its coverage the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.

Look, Trump has always been a litigious person, but in the past the M.O. was often to file a case and win the day's headline and then not worry when it later might be dismissed because nobody is going to remember anyway. Now, outlets that would have fought him in court are rolling over so as to remain in the good graces of the president of the United States.

CBS would never have settled Trump's case in the past. Twenty billion for editing a Kamala Harris tape. Where are the damages? He beat her.

But now, with CBS parent Paramount pursuing an $8 billion merger with Skydance, the Shari Redstone run media outlet has to regard paying Trump as the cost of doing business, a rounding error to a larger prize. That prospect has caused revolt at CBS, as evidenced by Scott Pelley's sign off a couple of weeks ago. He used the last minute of "60 Minutes" to address the resignation of longtime executive producer Bill Owens and called out CBS parent company, Paramount Global.

Which is not to say that the media has been above reproach. Only now are we reading about who knew what when with regard to President Biden's decline, the same outlets that didn't touch that in the same way they initially ignored Hunter's laptop.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton received 500 endorsements from newspapers and magazines. Trump got 28. Given that imbalance, it's no wonder that public trust in the press is cratering. A recent Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of Americans rate the ethics of newspaper reporters as high or very high. For TV reporters, it's just 13 percent. Only lobbyists, car salesmen and Congress score lower.

And then there's Trumps war on academia. This front matters because universities shape the next generation. At their best, they teach civic responsibility, critical thinking, and the values that underpin democracy.

And where do leaders in media and big law often come from? Our elite educational institutions. Trump has threatened to pull federal funds from elite schools, but none has drawn more fire than Harvard, the ultimate symbol of American higher education.

In just the last month, the administration froze more than 3 billion in federal grants. Trump also issued an executive order blocking Harvard from enrolling international students who, by the way, comprise more than a quarter of the population. And he has threatened to cut all federal funding entirely.

The stated reason, he claims Harvard has failed to confront antisemitism on campus. And there's probably some truth to that. Still, many see that claim as a smoke screen.

[09:45:01]

This is a symbolic battle. Harvard, with its 53 billion endowment and elite liberal reputation, is a perfect foil Trump's populist crusade. He leaned into that divide on Truth Social recently, saying, I am considering taking 3 billion of grant money away from a very antisemitic Harvard and giving it to trade schools all across our land.

By the way, supporting trade schools. That's a wonderful idea, but not at the expense of other higher education.

Harvard professor Steven Pinker, he's been a guest of mine here, writing in "The New York Times," made a compelling case against Trump in a piece titled "Harvard Derangement Syndrome." Pinker acknowledged the university faults. He spent years pushing for reform, but he warned that Trump's approach isn't reform. It's coercion.

Twisting Harvard's arm doesn't improve it. It guts it. Trump's caricature of higher ed ignores the real complexity on campus where there's still more intellectual diversity than he lets on.

As Alexander Pope put it, who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel? Trump is using a sledgehammer where a scalpel is perhaps necessary. And so far, courts agree he's been losing.

And finally, there's Trump's war on big law. You might think that attacking law firms would be politically risky, but lawyers rank just above lobbyists and telemarketers in those polls on public esteem. So, maybe not. Still, these firms are essential to the legal system that upholds the rule of law. They may be easy to vilify, but they help guarantee that no one, not even a president, is above it.

President Trump has signed executive orders punishing top firms for alleged illegal hiring tied to DEI programs and what he calls discriminatory practices. As part of the penalty, he has demanded they do pro bono legal work for causes he supports or face bans from federal buildings, including courthouses.

That could be a career ender for any national practice. And there's a pattern. The firms under attack, they tend to be those that have crossed Donald Trump.

Perkins Coie, which worked with Hillary Clinton on the Steele dossier. WilmerHale, which hired Robert Mueller. Paul Weiss hired Mark Pomerantz. He assisted the Manhattan D.A.'s office in its financial investigation of Trump. And Jenner and Block hired Andrew Weissmann, who was a lead prosecutor for Mueller.

Nine firms capitulated. Fearing retribution, they cut deals with the administration. Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps among them. But four others have pushed back. Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner and Block, they have filed lawsuits arguing the orders violate their First Amendment rights, and so far, they're winning. Trump has lost those three courses thus far.

In one ruling, Judge Richard Leon wrote, this order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional. Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the founding fathers.

Note the exclamation points. There were 26 in the total opinion. Style aside, the message is clear. Trump's use of executive power to punish legal adversaries doesn't hold up in court. To Trump supporters, this backlash reeks of hypocrisy. They point to the lawsuits, the investigations and impeachment efforts that Democrats threw at Trump. And the 65 Project's effort to disbar Trump aligned attorneys as evidence that lawfare goes both ways.

Fair enough. But if they thought weaponizing the law was wrong, then how is it better now? Trump may still notch a win or two, but even the threat of losing business or access to federal courtrooms, it chills legal independence and that should concern everybody, regardless of their political stripe.

So yes, Donald Trump is waging a three-front war, not overseas, but right here at home. And it's a fight of his own making. Liberals are equal parts disgusted and horrified. Yet for some conservatives that I've spoken to, the feeling is, it's about time. Listen to this person who called my radio show.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

JIM FROM FLORIDA (on the phone): I think Trump's doing exactly what he's got to do for the good of the country. We -- I -- just a news flash. We've got other schools other than Harvard that you can go to. You can go to Alabama and they're not under attack. Florida State's not under attack. LSU isn't under attack.

There's a lot of good schools around the country that aren't ginning up all of this hatred and this (EXPLETIVE DELETED) that they're doing in these schools with these Jewish kids. Also, the lawyers have been -- have been doing lawfare against Republicans for a long time.

And as far as the media goes, what's been going on in the last four years with the media? Who walked into the newsrooms and said, hey, let's protect Joe Biden. We've got a president that's basically a zombie and we're not going to cover any of that.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: That was Jim from Florida. By the way. I thanked him profusely. That's a mindset held by half the country. And too often, you know, hunkered down in our own media silos we don't hear what the other side is saying.

When I answered the question as to which battle has the highest stakes for the nation, the battle against big law, the battle against academia, the battle against the media, I said the media.

[09:50:03]

But there was no wrong answer. So, I voted for media. But let's be honest, big law, academia, the press, they're all pillars of our democracy. And when any one of them buckles under political pressure, we all feel that tremor.

President Trump's three-front domestic war isn't just about score settling, it is stress testing the institutions that hold the country together. And maybe that's why I was heartened by the poll's split result. It means people still recognize what's at stake. Let's just hope that the foundations hold.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Which has been a bigger impediment to the work of DOGE? Is it Musk's methodology or the institutional resistance?

Subscribe to the newsletter while you're there. You'll get exclusive editorial cartoons from the likes of Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:55:04]

SMERCONISH: So, there are the results so far. Wow. Flat numbers 80/20, 35,000 have voted. Which has been a bigger impediment to the workforce -- to the work of DOGE? Eighty percent say it's Musk. It's not the bureaucracy.

I'm not surprised by either which side won nor the margin. Social media reaction. We've got time for just one. Let's make it a winner. What do we have? You know I love you, but you're off here in praising and thanking Elon. DOGE is another Trumpian grift. Elon deserves a participation trophy at best.

Listen, I know when I raise the issue of, like, should the kid be able to wear the t-shirt in seventh grade, the shirt that says, there are only two genders. Everybody has an opinion and everybody is passionate about that opinion, and we all get it.

The problem with the debt and the deficit is we don't fully appreciate how it impacts us, but it is, and it will soon get worse. And for that, for that, I'm giving credit to Musk for launching an overdue and necessary conversation.

If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)