Pod Insights The Prof G Pod with Scott Galloway What Are You Worth in America? (with Michael Sandel) About this episode This is an episode we think you’d enjoy of Stay Tuned with Preet.
Michael Sandel is a professor of political philosophy at Harvard University. He’s also the author of several publications, including his latest, Equality: What It Means and Why It Matters. Sandel joins Preet to discuss what human nature can tell us about our government, how higher education can foster free expression, and dealing with moral disagreements in our politics.
Stay Tuned with Preet is brought to you by CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network.
You can listen to more of this podcast by searching for Stay Tuned with Preet in your podcast app.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Transcript 11,919 words · 10 speakers
Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
0:00 Speaker 00 Are your ad campaigns lighting up the dashboard? But not the pipeline? That's bull spend, and marketers are calling it out in. Dashboard Confessions.
0:09 Speaker 01 My boss asked for results, so I opened my dashboard for the only positive sounding metric I had: impressions.
0:17 Speaker 00 Cut the bull spend. See revenue, not just reach. LinkedIn delivers the highest return on ad spend of major ad networks. Advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com/campaign. Terms and conditions apply.
0:31 Speaker 02 This episode is brought to you by Welch's Fruit Snacks. Back to school season can be tough on parents. But choosing a snack you and your kids can both get behind doesn't have to be. Stock up on Welch's Fruit Snacks, made with whole fruit, and now made with no artificial dyes. It's a snack kids already love, and one you can feel good about giving them. Go back to school with Welch's Fruit Snacks, now made with no artificial dyes.
1:00 Speaker 03 This episode is brought to you by Michelob Ultra. Good times mean competitions between you and your friends, like seeing who can throw some pigskin the farthest, or rush the field the fastest. Winner gets an Ultra. Because it's not just a superior-like beer, it's also giving fans superior access to their favorite sporting events. Superior is worth playing for. Visit michelobultra.com/superioraccess to enter. Enjoy responsibly. Copyright 2026 Anheuser-Busch InBev Michelob Ultra Beer, St. Louis, Missouri.
1:31 Scott Galloway? Welcome to another episode of the Prop G Pod. This week, in place of our regularly scheduled programming, we share an episode of Stay Tuned with Preet, a podcast in which former US Attorney Preet Bharara breaks down legal topics in the news and interviews leaders across politics, law, and culture. In this episode, Preet speaks with Michael Sandel, a professor of political philosophy at Harvard and the author of several books, including his latest, Equality: What It Means and Why It Matters. They discuss what human nature can tell us about governance, how higher ed can foster free expression, and how we might navigate deep moral disagreements in our politics. By the way, when we drop... A pod from one of our sisters, our brother pods in the Vox Media Network.
2:13 Scott Galloway? It's usually something that's really good, and that's why we get to cherry pick. And for those of you who don't know, Preet Bharara, he's very thoughtful, very soulful, and very dreamy. And by the way, he's my number. He's my one call. If for whatever reason I end up in a prison somewhere, he's like my one call. And I've told him, if you ever see my name come up on your phone, it's not, I want to hang out. It's pick up the fucking phone because daddy is in trouble. The dog's been picked up by the dog catcher and needs help. Needs help. Anyways, with that, here we are with Stay Tuned with Preet.
2:49 Speaker 05 From Cafe and the Vox Media Podcast Network, welcome to Stay Tuned. I'm Preet Bharara.
2:57 Speaker 06 One of the mistakes that we've made has been to assert or to assume that the arc of the moral universe bends in a certain way.
3:14 Speaker 05 That's Michael Sandel. He's a professor of political philosophy at Harvard University, where he has taught one of the most popular courses at the college called Justice. Once upon a time, he was my professor. Throughout his career, he's explored and written about many philosophical issues like ethics, meritocracy, morality, and democracy. His latest book, Equality: What It Means and Why It Matters, is a conversation with economist Thomas Piketty held at the Paris School of Economics last year. Professor Sandel joined me to discuss what human nature can tell us about our government, how higher education can foster free expression, and dealing with moral disagreements in our politics. That's coming up. Stay tuned.
4:09 Speaker 05 What does Professor Sandel think is destroying good faith discussion? He shares his thoughts. Professor Michael J. Sandel, welcome back to the show.
4:21 Speaker 06 It's great to be back with you, Preet.
4:23 Speaker 05 So I'll remind folks that it's always a treat to have you on. It's very special to me. You were my professor in college, three or four years back, was it? Something like that. Or was it 35 years ago? And you've been great to come on a few times. I will say again, for the record, for newcomers, you were the best professor I ever had. You led me down this path of thinking about justice and fairness and how to contribute to those causes. And you are as responsible as anyone for the career path that I chose. So thank you. I'm working very hard on calling you something other than Professor Michael J. Sandel. I don't know if I can call you Mike, but maybe from time to time I'll call you Michael.
5:06 Speaker 05 You're kind of, for me, you're life-tenured as Michael J. Sandel.
5:10 Speaker 06 Well, I'll take it from you, but I really want to say, Preet, that what you've said means an enormous amount to me.
5:16 Speaker 05 Well, you've had that impact on a lot of people, so thank you for that. So I want to spend our hour talking both about sort of enduring principles, how we think about government, how we think about the structure of government, but also as it relates to the current moment.
5:32 Speaker 06 Yeah.
5:33 Speaker 05 And some writings that you have put forth in the world recently. So can we start with a basic question? I had Francis Fukuyama, who famously wrote first an article, then a book entitled "The End of History." And we, last week, had a conversation about what forms of government are most sustainable, which are most natural. Obviously, he had a view, that view changed. Do you have a view, having studied structures of order, society, and governments for your whole life? Given human nature, are there forms of government over time that are more natural than others, more likely than others, more sustainable than others? And you can pick a different adjective if you want. How do you think about that?
6:18 Speaker 06 Well, that's a hard question and a deep question. And it seems to me that there is a deep human aspiration to have a say, to have a voice in how our lives go, not only individually, but also collectively. That would suggest that there is a bent toward some form of democracy, or self-rule, or republican government. Now, what that means in practice, there are lots of debates historically.
6:50 Speaker 05 Yeah.
6:51 Speaker 06 But I think part of what afflicts us in our current political moment is that a great many people don't feel that their voices matter, that their voices are heard, that they have a meaningful say. And that's given rise to all sorts of grievances that have been exploited in ways that we can perhaps discuss, Preet.
7:18 Speaker 05 So, do you think, to paraphrase a famous saying, "The arc of history is long, but it bends towards democracy," or not?
7:26 Speaker 06 No, I wouldn't go that far.
7:29 Speaker 05 Yeah.
7:30 Speaker 06 I think that one of the mistakes that we've made, and that some of the most admirable liberal and progressive political leaders have made in recent years, has been to assert or to assume that the arc of the moral universe bends in a certain way, that there is a right side of history, and that we, the enlightened ones, are on the right side of history, and those who disagree with us are on the wrong side of history. I think there's a hubris in that. I think history is contingent.
8:09 Speaker 06 We saw this, going back to your first question, in the 1990s, at the end of the Cold War. It seemed that we had reached the end of history, that our version of democratic capitalism was the only system left standing, that we had won. There was a triumphalism and a hubris.
8:30 Speaker 05 Mission accomplished.
8:31 Speaker 06 In that way of reading the moment. And I think that we're now reaping the bitter fruits of that hubris.
8:38 Speaker 05 So actually elaborate on that. What are the bitter fruits?
8:42 Speaker 06 Well, I think that if we go back to the 1990s, and I just recently came out with a new edition of a book I wrote in the mid 90s called Democracy's Discontent. And in the mid 90s, despite the peace and prosperity and the confidence that our system had won, I saw just beneath the surface sources of discontent with the democratic project. One of them had to do with a growing sense of disempowerment, a sense that our voices didn't matter in the age of market-driven globalization. The other had to do with a
9:24 Speaker 06 sense that the moral fabric of community was unraveling from family to neighborhood to nation. There was a sense, people had a sense that they were dislocated in the world, that a purely market-driven way of organizing the economy and insisting on a global economy had the effect of eroding the moral and civic significance of places closer to home. And this had a bearing on the project of self-government because we, well, Tocqueville, when he came and observed the New England township, what struck him was that we learned, that Americans learned the art of self-government in the small sphere
10:09 Speaker 06 within their reach. That's what he loved about the New England township. And then he hoped, as democratic theorists have hoped, that as the sphere extended beyond the New England township, our reach and our capacity as citizens would expand to meet it. But there has to be some sense of belonging in order for democracy to work.
10:35 Speaker 05 So that's interesting, because when you talk about a feeling of loss with respect to moral fabric, the obvious question arises, and I know you talk about this when you teach students, whose morals, whose values, depending on who you ask and which community you're in, and even within communities, there's a lot of division about morality and values.
10:55 Speaker 06 Yeah.
10:56 Speaker 05 So how does that work in a society where people have deep differences of opinion?
11:01 Speaker 06 It can work in one of two ways. One way is to say that if we bring moral argument and disagreement into politics, into the public square, that's a recipe for intolerance and maybe coercion. So we should try to govern ourselves according to principles, a basic framework of rights, that doesn't choose among competing conceptions of the good life or virtue. We should ask citizens to leave their moral and spiritual convictions outside when they enter the public square.
11:41 Speaker 06 This is one approach, and I think it's influential, but it's mistaken. Because people want public life to be about big questions, including questions of values that matter to them. And so I think it's a mistake to ask citizens to leave their moral and spiritual convictions outside when they enter the public realm. I think we should have a more capacious kind of public discourse that welcomes voices, be they secular, be they spiritually informed, despite the fact that we will disagree in pluralist societies.
12:24 Speaker 06 But better to bring those disagreements directly into public discourse and to figure out how to conduct those disagreements with stability and mutual respect than to shy away from them. And one of the ways we shy away from them, and this connects to what unfolded really from the 90s to the present. If we as democratic citizens don't argue about fundamental questions of values, we're tempted to outsource our moral judgments to markets, which are seemingly neutral ways of defining the public good. And in many ways, that's what we did during the period
13:08 Speaker 06 of neoliberal globalization from the 90s up through the 2000s. And we saw eventually a backlash against that, partly because it didn't work economically, but especially because it produced widening inequalities and a kind of moral vacuum at the heart of our public life.
13:31 Speaker 05 Is it really the case that we tend to avoid moral discussion? Or that the problem is that when we engage in moral debate, there is often one side who feels very passionately and vehemently about its moral convictions, to such an extent they try to impose it on others? So, take something simple about which people will, I think, rationally disagree, and in good faith disagree. Abortion, reproductive rights, right to life, whatever phrases you want to use, depending on what side you're on. With respect to a question like that, how is a civilized, stable, liberal democracy supposed to deal with that issue? Because it's both a matter of personal morality. One could argue, public morality.
14:16 Speaker 05 And also, public policy and public health. There's a lot of intersecting things there.
14:21 Speaker 06 Right.
14:21 Speaker 05 How do we resolve an intractable issue like that publicly?
14:26 Speaker 06 Well, we've been struggling with that.
14:29 Speaker 05 Yeah.
14:29 Speaker 06 And not very well, in recent decades. What the Supreme Court tried to do in Roe versus Wade was to say, "We disagree about the morality of abortion, and therefore it's not for the court to come down on one side or another of that fraught debate. And therefore..." And therefore, the court enunciated its, you know, the three trimester rule about when states can and when they can't regulate abortion.
15:08 Speaker 06 And the rule they came up with was about the three trimesters and the policies that should prevail in each. That was a reasonable compromise. People may disagree, there could be other compromises. But what the opinion, the way in which it failed, is that it claimed to be neutral on the underlying moral question about the moral status of the fetus. When does the fetus become a person such that taking its life would be a kind of murder? It claimed to be neutral on that underlying question. That was a mistake.
15:50 Speaker 06 I think it's better, I think it's inescapable, to have a public debate.
15:58 Speaker 06 Even about so morally fraught a question as the as the moral status of the developing fetus. Because if you think about it, it's, is it really possible? And I would put this to you, Preet. Is it really possible to be neutral on that question in setting policy about when abortion should be permitted and when they should not be?
16:27 Speaker 05 So I don't know, but isn't it possible to be ambivalent?
16:30 Speaker 06 Yes.
16:31 Speaker 05 And so?
16:32 Speaker 06 Yes.
16:33 Speaker 05 Can you have an ambivalent legal opinion on it? And is that different?
16:38 Speaker 06 Well, I think there's a difference between, I have ambivalence on the underlying question itself, many of us do.
16:46 Speaker 05 Right, I think that's the more natural position for a lot for a lot of people.
16:49 Speaker 06 Yeah.
16:50 Speaker 05 And by the way, it's not a binary question. Should there be abortion, should there not? There is a spectrum of things, there are exceptions that people talk about.
16:57 Speaker 06 Yes.
16:58 Speaker 05 People can be personally, I know there are people who are personally against.
17:02 Speaker 06 Right.
17:02 Speaker 05 Abortion and would never seek one, but wouldn't oppose that view on others. So there's a wide range of things. And is part of, I just wonder also, so there are other options, right? So maybe you can't be neutral in your view. I don't know what ambivalence means about it. But even on a complicated moral question like abortion, where there's a range of options and a range of thoughts, is the best approach, and this sounds, you know, very pragmatic, and maybe that's not so possible, as a primary and initial matter, try to find as much common ground as possible.
17:36 Speaker 06 Yes, of course, of course.
17:37 Speaker 05 And then leave the margins for another day?
17:40 Speaker 06 Well, certainly to seek common ground, yes. On ambivalence, I think it's important to honor the ambivalence that a great many people feel on this issue. I think there's a difference between ambivalence and claiming, the claim to neutrality. Here's another example where I had to think about this. In the debate some years ago, I was, I was asked to serve on the President's Council on Bioethics when there was a debate going on on stem embryonic stem cell research and whether the federal funds should be used to support research on embryos created in a lab, essentially.
18:26 Speaker 06 And this was a bioethicist council appointed by President George W. Bush. And most of the people on there were very conservative. So I found myself in a debate, really about embryonic stem cell research and, by implication, the moral status even of a blastocyst as it's developing one day, Tuesdays, eight days. And I defended the position that there should be federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
19:09 Speaker 06 But in order to make that case, I had to meet the argument that destroying an eight-day blastocyst is morally equivalent to taking the life of a child. Because there were some among my colleagues who held that deep religious view. And so I engaged and others of us engaged in debate about whether that view is morally plausible or not. And we had some fascinating discussions and actually we made, we swayed some people in the middle, people who were ambivalent, even though we didn't sway those who had
19:54 Speaker 06 the very firmly established theological view. So is it, is it possible to have these discussions? Well, it depends. We're not very good at it now. But here's another setting. We think first, when we think about moral argument in politics and moral disagreement, we tend to think first of abortion and, to a lesser extent, something like stem cell research, which involve life and death and when does human life in the relevant sense begin? But the, what worries me...
20:33 Speaker 06 Is that there is a kind of pretense to neutrality that reaches far beyond these questions about when human life begins, to questions about, for example, what counts as a valuable contribution to the economy? And how should various people's contributions to the economy be rewarded? Now, should a hedge fund manager, for example, make 5,000 times more than a nurse or a schoolteacher? And if so, is that because their contribution is really 5,000 times a greater value
21:15 Speaker 06 than the value of what a schoolteacher or a nurse contributes? Now, some people would say, well, who's to say what counts as a valuable contribution to the economy or the common good? We're going to disagree about that. And if we're going to disagree about how to value this or that form of work or contribution, shouldn't we just let the market decide? As if it were a neutral decision-making procedure? But I dispute that. We have, in effect, outsourced our moral judgment about the value of a contribution to the labor markets.
21:56 Speaker 06 But the result is that hedge fund managers, and Taylor Swift to take another example, implicitly, we are endorsing the idea that what they contribute really is 5,000 times more valuable than what a schoolteacher or a nurse, or for that matter, a primary care physician contributes. And that seems morally implausible to most people. So I think we should reclaim that, we should reclaim that the responsibility to debate these questions as democratic citizens, rather than to outsource them to procedures or to markets to decide these questions for us. Great.
22:40 Speaker 05 When you were last on the show, I believe, we discussed your very great book, The Tyranny of Merit. And you pointed out, I think, very wisely, that a lot of the debate is not on the right ground, that the debate tends to be, should we be meritocratic, should we not? And you raised the question, well, what does meritocracy mean? And the great example you gave, different from the one you just gave in that other context, was, even if you believe that the best basketball player makes the most money, and I can't remember if you said Michael Jordan, or LeBron, or someone else, there must be somebody who, on merit, is the greatest arm wrestler on earth. But the markets aren't set up in a way that even the greatest arm wrestler on earth can make anywhere near, probably
23:24 Speaker 05 less than one over 5,000 of what LeBron or Michael Jordan, you know, made as basketball players. And we should think about that. The problem is, I think, even if you avoid avoidance, as you say, it's a very frustrating conversation to have. What is the implication, even if people agreed with you, that there shouldn't be a 5,000 time differential between those two examples? What is the way in which, or should the government intervene in some way to remedy that if it's in fact something bad? And then that has consequences that are very, very, very serious, and some would say catastrophic, and some would say liberating.
24:09 Speaker 06 Yes. Well, I think the first step in trying to answer that question, Preet, is to acknowledge and to recognize that the government already intervenes to shape labor markets, and who makes 5,000 times more than whom, by the rules we have and the regulations and tax systems we have. For example, even before we get to the tax system...
24:38 Speaker 06 Should the interest that corporations pay, should interest be tax deductible? We could ask it about corporations, and there would be great resistance to questioning this in the case of mortgage deductibility. But companies are allowed to deduct interest. Companies are given incentives to do stock buybacks, for example. Those two rules alone have enormous consequences for the verdict of the labor market on who makes what, and by implication, who deserves to make what. We could debate, for example,
25:23 Speaker 06 if we believe in the dignity of work, we could debate, why is it that earnings from labor, we tax at a higher rate than unearned income, than income from dividends and capital gains? Why is that? So it's not as if we aren't already living by rules that we have enacted and we could change that determine the level of income inequality and the implicit judgment about what's valuable. You remember back in the pandemic, those of us with the luxury of working from home
26:08 Speaker 06 couldn't help but notice how deeply we depend on workers we overlook most of the time: delivery workers, warehouse workers, grocery store clerks, home health care providers. For a moment back then during the pandemic, we were celebrating those workers. Do you remember? We were applauding for them at the end of the day. We were putting up signs thanking them. That could have been a moment for a broader public debate about how to bring their pay and recognition into better alignment with the value.
26:45 Speaker 06 And the importance of their work. Well, the pandemic receded and we went back to business as usual. But I think the way to to renew our public discourse, to make it morally more robust, is to begin by recognizing how the arrangements we have in place already implicitly convey certain value judgments. We should be explicit about them and be willing to debate them.
27:13 Speaker 05 Here's the other problem, because I do think that a lot of our policy debates artificially sidestep values and morality, although some people embrace them and that's their political appeal to their particular tribe. But what you're saying about an open and more welcoming attitude towards, you know, real moral discussion, an open moral discussion, that requires people to be respectful of people's differing views.
27:42 Speaker 06 Yes.
27:43 Speaker 05 And once you start bringing morality and/or religion and values into it, then it's not about, well, my policy is more likely to decrease unemployment than your policy, and I can't judge you on that, you're just dumber than I am, or you got your degree from a different place than I did. But now, when you start talking about good and bad, that quickly morphs into good and evil. And how do you, consistent with the need for having civil discourse about moral issues, when they inherently bring out, in some ways, right, Michael, they bring out the worst in us, isn't there an inherent paradox in what you're suggesting?
28:23 Speaker 06 There's certainly a big and difficult challenge in what I'm suggesting, Preet. I agree. And we are, we are not very good at reasoning together in public about hard, ethically-charged questions. We're not. To the contrary, what passes for political discourse these days consists mainly of shouting matches, partisan ideological shouting matches, and rude social media posts that are more inflammatory than instances of real public discourse. So I think to create a public culture hospitable to the kind of civility
29:09 Speaker 06 Public discourse requires, we have to do a few things. First, we have to figure out what to do about social media and its corrosive effect on public discourse. And in particular, the way in which it captures our attention, keeps us glued to our screens, scrolling, swiping, mainly prompted to stay there by inflammatory and offensive news feeds and tweets and so on. So we've got to figure out something, what to do about social media. And I should add, Preet, that this is not a problem I had back in the day when you took the course, but I have banned the use of screens in the classroom.
29:54 Speaker 05 Good for you.
29:55 Speaker 06 Because I can't possibly compete for attention of students. And I certainly can't teach them how to listen to one another with mutual respect if they're gazing at their screens. It's, however good I may be at commanding attention, there's no way I can compete with the attention grabbing qualities of screens. So, and it's actually, it's not been easy to get students to abide by the policy, I should add, because it's become a kind of addiction.
30:37 Speaker 06 So much so that students find themselves just unable, even when we, we try to enforce it, unable to abide by this. And yet, at the end of the semester, sorry for this digression, at the end of the semester, when they submit the student evaluations, many students say they appreciate the policy because it enabled them to concentrate in a way they can't if they can use their phones. And yet, it's a huge struggle to enforce it during the class. Anyhow, this was a digression, maybe, but there are other things we need to do.
31:13 Speaker 05 Can we pause on that digression for a moment?
31:15 Speaker 06 Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
31:16 Speaker 05 So as an, as a, as a grown, middle-aged man now, mostly, no one has the ability to take my phone away, my screen away, with a, with a couple of exceptions. Sometimes when you go to a comedy performance or a musical performance, they give you one of those, those bags that lock. And so for two hours, you can't go. And I sometimes feel, and I didn't grow up with a screen or a smartphone, obviously, nor did you, and I feel that an appendage has been taken away from me.
31:42 Speaker 06 Yeah.
31:43 Speaker 05 So it's not just among the young.
31:44 Speaker 06 Yeah.
31:45 Speaker 05 Anyway.
31:46 Speaker 06 Yes, and imagine children and grandchildren who have just grown up with screens, all the more so, and yet, and yet they do experience it, that they suffer withdrawal symptoms. It is an addiction, but they, they experience a kind of liberation when they manage to do without it for a time. So we've got to do, so that's one obstacle to a better kind of public discourse.
32:15 Speaker 05 A profound one, but so can we talk about that for a second?
32:17 Speaker 06 Yeah.
32:18 Speaker 05 You invoked the good old days back in the day when I was in college. And I think the most important skill that I got, starting with you and with others, was the ability to think critically, to respect and in good faith, answer the arguments of people with whom you disagreed. My best friend in college, some people know, was somebody who was on the other side of the political spectrum. And we would have, you know, sometimes there was beer involved, but we would have debates into the evening because there's that excitement when you're 18, 17, 18, and you've not engaged seriously in philosophical debate, moral debate, policy debate about abortion, about end of life, about the fairness of the, to me, it was an exhilarating time.
33:01 Speaker 05 And, and I spent my time at the university where you still teach, at Harvard, much maligned these days, and we're going to get to something about good old Harvard in a moment. But I gained enormously from the ability to, to take seriously other people's, I mean, I, I suggest that the best, and this is my own moral value, Professor, that, that political philosophy is a great education for anybody, no matter what field you go into, because, because of the importance of understanding argument. In good faith, right? And I don't remember anyone ever getting in trouble for asserting an opinion about, even as charged in issues abortion or anything else, back 35 years ago when I was in college.
33:44 Speaker 05 And your former colleague and other recent podcast guest, Neil Ferguson, who can be provocative at times, had this to say about this. Quote, "In 2014, I felt that I could speak quite freely in my classes at Harvard, make jokes even risque jokes. I could teach controversial topics without fear of being disciplined, threatened, or publicly castigated, but that ceased to be true." End quote. Did that cease to be true? How do you think about those issues? And what's your experience been like? And what do you think is going on in the academy?
34:15 Speaker 06 Well, I don't long for the days when I... I never told risque jokes to begin with.
34:24 Speaker 05 Fact check, true.
34:26 Speaker 06 I don't feel nostalgic for that ability, nor do I consider the restraint on that kind of thing to be a restraint on my freedom. But what I do think is important is that the classroom be a place where students and teachers are free to engage in debates about the hardest moral and civic questions we face. Because how else can higher education contribute to the cultivation of democratic citizenship? Civic education is not only or mainly learning about how the government works and what this
35:10 Speaker 06 branch does and so on. It's above all, learning how to engage in public deliberation and argument on big questions that matter. Learning how to listen to those with whom we disagree. And to respond, and to argue, and to defend one's position with civility and mutual respect.
35:37 Speaker 06 But also with a certain kind of confidence and poise. We're not born knowing how to do this. This is a civic art that democracy requires and that we need to learn. I think some of that learning should begin earlier than in college. I think it should begin in secondary school at least, and maybe before that. But I certainly think that colleges and universities have a responsibility that we are not adequately meeting to expose students to large questions of moral and
36:20 Speaker 06 political philosophy that bear on our current controversies and debates. And, and teaching them by example, how to reason together and argue together across their differences in a classroom setting. And above all, learning how to listen attentively and sympathetically to those with whom we disagree. So, we, we spoke a moment ago about social media being an obstacle. I think that we need to invigorate the moral and civic education that takes place in our classrooms. Now, directly to, to the question you asked, Preet, about whether, what the circumstances
37:05 Speaker 06 are now. Students do, in alarming numbers, say that they don't feel comfortable, many don't feel comfortable, expressing controversial views in the classroom. One survey that was done of graduating seniors recently, I think it may have been last year, that was in a report that a Harvard committee issued, found when they said, "Do you feel comfortable expressing your views on controversial questions in the classroom?", only 55% said yes and 45% said no.
37:48 Speaker 06 The justice course, I reinstated, Preet, the justice course this past fall, having let it live-
37:54 Speaker 05 My favorite class of all time?
37:55 Speaker 06 -online. And it was partly because I wanted, I thought I had done my fair share, having taught it for about three decades, but I'd not taught it for seven or eight or nine years, and people could see it online. But given this challenge of promoting civil discourse, I thought I'd reinstated. And they did, the course evaluations do a survey at the end of the class, and they asked this question now. They didn't, when you were there, they didn't ask this question.
38:33 Speaker 06 But in this class, did you feel comfortable expressing your views on controversial questions? Overall, at Harvard, the figure was 55, 45. In the class this past semester, the justice class, it was 92% to 80%-
38:53 Speaker 05 Congratulations.
38:54 Speaker 06 -said they felt comfortable. Now, that's in large part because they had practiced, they were challenged, they were exposed to the norms of a classroom where people reasoned through hard questions about justice, about equality and inequality, about the role of markets, about what we owe one another as fellow citizens. It can be done. And I think that we need to, we need to take it seriously in higher education.
39:33 Speaker 05 I'll be right back with Michael Sandel after this.
39:42 Scott Galloway? Support for the show comes from NetSuite. They say every day your business is late to AI, you might fall two days behind. So how do you keep up with the competition when they're only moving faster? Enter NetSuite Next. You probably know NetSuite, the AI-powered business management suite that securely connects all your data. It's a unified suite that brings your financials, inventory, commerce, HR, and CRM into a single source of truth, trusted by over 44,000 customers. NetSuite Next is the next big leap in how business gets done, because AI is built into everything you do. It automatically surfaces custom insights throughout your day. AI agents work alongside you to solve problems and handle routine work. And anytime you have questions about anything, you can ask, just like you're having a conversation with a colleague.
40:26 Scott Galloway? NetSuite is customized for a wide range of industries, so it supports the way your business truly works. Whether your company earns millions or even hundreds of millions, it's time for NetSuite Next, where your business meets AI. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, get our free business guide, Aligning for the Agentic Era: How AI is Changing Everyday Work, at netsuite.com/prog. The guide is free to you at netsuite.com/prog. netsuite.com/prog.
40:59 Scott Galloway? Support for the show comes from Vanta. As AI adoption grows, so does your company's security risks and requirements. New frameworks, audits, and vendors keep piling on, but your team isn't getting any bigger. Most compliance tools promise automation, but you're really stuck doing all the work by hand, chasing screenshots, validating controls, and playing catch-up when audit season comes around again. Vanta works differently. The Agentic Trust Platform is built to scale with you, not slow you down. With over 1,400 automated tests across 400-plus integrations, Vanta collects evidence and monitors your controls year-round, cutting your audit prep by 82%. Plus, you can access the Vanta agent everywhere you work, whether your team is in Vanta every day or living in tools including Claude or Cursor. Want proof?
41:44 Scott Galloway? Over 16,000 fast-growing companies like Ramp, Ryder, and Harvey save time and resources while scaling fast with Vanta. Learn more at vanta.com/prog and get $1,000 off. That's spelled V-A-N-T-A dot com slash prop G for $1,000 off.
42:06 Scott Galloway? Support for the show comes from Vanta. As AI adoption grows, so does your company's security risks and requirements. New frameworks, audits, and vendors keep piling on, but your team isn't getting any bigger. Most compliance tools promise automation, but you're really stuck doing all the work by hand, chasing screenshots, validating controls, and playing catch-up when audit season comes around again. Vanta works differently. The Regentic Trust platform is built to scale with you, not slow you down. With over 1,400 automated tests across 400-plus integrations, Vanta collects evidence and monitors your controls year-round, cutting your audit prep by 82%. Plus, you can access the Vanta agent everywhere you work, whether your team is in Vanta every day or living in tools including Claude or Cursor. Want proof?
42:51 Scott Galloway? Over 16,000 fast-growing companies like Ramp, Ryder, and Harvey save time and resources while scaling fast with Vanta. Learn more at vanta.com/profg and get $1,000 off. That's spelled V-A-N-T-A dot com slash prof G for $1,000 off.
43:18 Speaker 05 Have you heard of this idea that classrooms be treated under Chatham House rules, such that outside the classroom, you cannot attribute comments or statements to particular people? Is that a cop-out? Is that something to be considered? Is it unfortunate and sad that anybody has to propose such a thing?
43:39 Speaker 06 I think the classroom should... I'm sympathetic to this proposal. The classroom should be a protected space in the sense... Not protected in the sense that you can't speak your mind. There it has to be robustly open. But I don't think...
43:56 Speaker 06 That students in a classroom setting should have to worry that their classmate is going to post something that they said on social media, or maybe a snippet of what they said, and that they will then be subject to all sorts of harassment as a result. So I think there should be basic understanding that whatever is said in a classroom is for that purpose and it's not to be put online. Now, after class, ideally, students will continue the argument and it will spill it, just as you were saying, Preach, you did with your roommates and so on. That's important. So I would not draw the boundary so tightly that the conversation can't continue.
44:41 Speaker 06 But I would say it should be out of bounds to post, to quote some student who said a controversial thing on social media and expose them to all sorts of harassment and abuse.
44:55 Speaker 05 Why do you think it is the case, and I asked Neil Ferguson this question also, I'm not sure I got a satisfactory answer. Why is it the case that particularly in humanities departments at colleges and particularly at elite colleges in the country, that the faculty is overwhelmingly liberal, progressive, democratic, as opposed to conservative and Republican?
45:18 Speaker 06 I think because, at least in recent decades, those fields have attracted disproportionately liberal young people.
45:28 Speaker 05 But why is that?
45:29 Speaker 06 Well, it's an interesting question. I mean, it may be that more conservative young people chose other majors where more likely, perhaps, to go into business or to the fields such as economics or STEM fields, where there is a different, I don't know the exact figures, but I think there is an ideological variation in the subjects people take up.
46:02 Speaker 05 I guess the question is, is it just people have different preferences? And certain people gravitate to certain kinds of jobs. There, for, you know, reasons that I don't have not unpacked fully, there are more male prosecutors and female prosecutors. I think there should be more gender equality and diversity, that that would be better. But is there any part of this lopsidedness that you think is due to a hostility of the academy to conservative entrants? Or I would think that, I would think that, given how lopsided it is, that a, that a star scholar on the right would be a welcome addition to almost any faculty. Is that naive?
46:44 Speaker 06 Should be or would be. I think that-
46:47 Speaker 05 Both.
46:48 Speaker 06 I think they should be. But I think there is, there is a tendency in academia, as in other fields, for people in hiring to replicate themselves.
47:06 Speaker 05 Right.
47:07 Speaker 06 Well, that's bad. And this extends to intellectual and ideological outlook. And so, given the preponderance in some fields of those to the left of center, I think there is a tendency to replicate that in hiring. And I think that's deeply unfortunate. For, over the years, I would teach courses, and perhaps you remember, some of them with conservative colleagues. There was a colleague I had, who's since retired, named Harvey Mansfield, who was known as the conservative figure in the, in Harvard's Government Department, and one
47:49 Speaker 06 of the few outspoken conservative faculty members on the campus. He and I taught a few times, more than a few times, together, where we had a running debate about questions, including a course called Liberalism and Conservatism in American Democracy, that we co-taught along with George Will, who came and joined the, the class. So we had, had running debates during the early 2000s.
48:20 Speaker 06 I taught a similar debating course with Larry Summers, the economist, who, and we were debating the version of neoliberal globalization that he defended and that I was critical of. So I think I've always myself been drawn to courses that involve debate and competing perspectives. And it goes back, I suppose, I don't know if we've talked about this story, Preet, but when I was in high school in California.
48:56 Speaker 05 Oh, yes, you had.
48:57 Speaker 06 Do you remember that story?
48:58 Speaker 05 Was it the current or the future President of the United States came?
49:01 Speaker 06 The future, Ronald Reagan.
49:03 Speaker 05 That's worth retelling quickly.
49:05 Speaker 06 That, well, I was student body president of my high school, which, by the way, was Pali High, Pacific Palisades, and sadly, you know, it burned in the recent fires.
49:17 Speaker 05 That's too bad.
49:18 Speaker 06 And this was in 1971, and right at the height of the Vietnam War protests and so on. And Ronald Reagan was governor, and he lived in the neighborhood of the school. So I invited him to come have a debate. I was on the debating team and thought I was a pretty, pretty good debater and that I would make quick work of Ronald Reagan, who was then the rising conservative figure in the Republican Party. And everybody knew he would run for president. Indeed, he had run against Nixon and lost the nomination.
49:57 Speaker 06 And so he came, to make a long story short, and he and I had a, had a debate. And I put the hardest questions I could to him about the Vietnam War and about the United Nations and about his desire to scale back Social Security and his opposition to the 18-year-old vote, which was then up for, for a vote as a constitutional amendment. And he did very well against me because he, he was genial, he listened, he was respectful. So I wasn't, I didn't really, can't say I won the debate.
50:35 Speaker 06 But it was an early, I guess, an early experience of trying out this idea of debating and arguing with people with very, very different views. And I think that's the kind of thing that that should be right at the heart of the civic education we provide in higher education.
50:57 Speaker 05 Let me change the scenario.
50:59 Speaker 06 Yeah.
51:00 Speaker 05 And instead of that Republican president, Ronald Reagan, talk about what it would look like for you or someone else to debate the current Republican president, Donald Trump, who I believe does not embrace any of the virtues of good faith argument, respect for the other side's opinions, respect for truth, respect for being confronted with prior statements of his own, which he will deny, straight to your face. I have never seen any journalist, ever, get the better of Donald Trump in a, in an interview, whether they're acting in good faith, whether they're trying to trick him, whether they're trying to do gotcha, whether they're asking open-ended questions. What's your assessment of, of debating someone like Donald Trump and how that goes?
51:45 Speaker 06 It would be very difficult.
51:47 Speaker 05 Yeah.
51:48 Speaker 06 For the reason, just the reasons you say. I, I do, I do think one exception is there was an interview done by a conservative journalist who now works for the New York Times. I think his name is Jonathan Swan. I'm not sure.
52:02 Speaker 05 Oh, yeah.
52:02 Speaker 06 And he did get the better of Trump. He was very well prepared and he followed up on the absurdities that came across and it was very effective. But you're right, it's very difficult and it's very rare, in part because his political success is the ability to channel grievance and anger and resentment. And he's very good at that. And
52:37 Speaker 06 He's had an easier time of it, in part because the Democrats who have opposed him are not very good, have not been effective at taking seriously the grievances, including the legitimate grievances that Donald Trump is able to exploit. So, the real test, I agree with you, to imagine a journalist or a debater sitting down and trying to win an argument in those terms, might be not so easy, though I wouldn't rule that out either.
53:10 Speaker 05 It's been a number of years, and we've seen only one example of it in your memory.
53:15 Speaker 06 Yeah, very few. But, the real test is not, could a good journalist put him on the spot effectively? It's, will the Democratic Party find its voice and be able to invigorate and reimagine its mission and purpose in a way that speaks to the legitimate grievances, especially of working people, that Donald Trump has been able to exploit? Because until that happens, no amount of legal challenges, and we've seen this going
53:53 Speaker 06 back to the Mueller report and Comey, and no legal challenges, they've all failed, but at the political task of challenging Donald Trump effectively. It's a political, not a legal, task. And it requires the Democratic Party reinventing itself, reimagining itself.
54:15 Speaker 05 They're so good at that. One substantive issue that falls into that category, that is an issue for Democrats, is immigration and the border. How do you think about that issue morally? Is there a moral dimension to it? Do boundaries matter for only reasons of national security? Or are there other issues relating to community that are good? And embraced in good faith? Or are there aspects of it that are not good and imbued with xenophobia and other bad things? How do you think about the issue of immigration from your standpoint?
54:51 Speaker 06 Well, all of those elements are in play when we try to think through the question of immigration. But I think it's certainly true, which I think you're suggesting, that the reason the immigration issue is so potent, not only for Donald Trump, but for right-wing authoritarian populist parties and movements in many democracies. The reason it's such a potent issue is not only for reasons that people worry about job loss and wage competition.
55:27 Speaker 06 And it isn't even only or mainly that people really believe Trump's florid rhetoric about criminals and people from mental institutions pouring across the border. It touches something deeper than the xenophobia and the racism that is a part of Trump's political appeal. People who feel that the country can't control its borders feel that the country doesn't
56:07 Speaker 06 really take citizenship and belonging and community, national community, seriously. This is the element of truth in the argument that borders have some moral and civic significance. Not for reasons of xenophobia, but because unless...
56:32 Speaker 06 People believe that their country cares about them in a special way unless people believe that we have special obligations to one another as citizens. It's very hard to summon any sense of common purposes and ends. It's very hard for people to feel that we are all in this together, that we are participants in a common life, in a common democratic project. So what's been missing in much of the rhetoric of mainstream parties and the Democratic
57:10 Speaker 06 Party over the past four or five decades has been a strong sense of national community. Because it's a mistake. Liberals are sometimes uneasy, even allergic, to talk of patriotism.
57:28 Speaker 05 Yeah, that is true.
57:29 Speaker 06 But this is a mistake because it seeds patriotism to the right. And the anxiety about talking about patriotism or belonging or community for fear that that will sound right-wing and xenophobic, that seeds the right a monopoly on some of the most potent sources of politics. That's why it's a mistake. That's why progressives in the Democratic Party should not cave in to the xenophobic
58:07 Speaker 06 rhetoric of Trump, but should embrace and articulate its own conception of patriotism, solidarity, community, belonging, what it is we share as Americans. And that's the only way to blunt the effect, the galvanizing effect that this anti-immigrant rhetoric has to Trump's benefit. That's the only way to take it on in a serious way.
58:37 Speaker 05 That also depends on whether or not everyone on the Democratic side actually has that view. I'll tell you an anecdote from my time working in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It always struck me because I was astonished by it. My boss, Senator Schumer, was with other senators offering a bill to ease the immigration of nurses, people who were in the nursing profession from other countries, particularly Africa, if I recall correctly, because there were nursing shortages in Buffalo and in other places around New York State and in other parts of the country as well. And we've had this H1B visa debate from the right and criticism from the right. And I got into a discussion with another Democratic staffer.
59:20 Speaker 05 And his critique was, we're taking jobs away from Americans. He didn't love the bill. I don't know if he reflected the views of his boss, his member. But his position was, we are now draining professionals, medical professionals and nurses, from that African country. And that's not right. And my reaction was, my first obligation, and Senator Schumer's first obligation, is to the people of New York and to the United States. And we're not forcing anyone to come here. And if we can figure out a way to solve our problem, that's not only good politics, that's not only good for the constituents, that's also morally reasonable, justified, and righteous. And he had a more universalist view. Who was right?
1:00:05 Speaker 06 I think there was some right on both sides.
1:00:08 Speaker 05 Oh, you're so diplomatic.
1:00:10 Speaker 06 Well, I do think so. Because on the one hand, the person who worried about brain drain from the developing world, that's a legitimate moral concern. Because doctors and nurses, who are trained largely at the expense of their countries in the developing world, where the needs are very great.
1:00:38 Speaker 06 There is a moral question about whether, well, in the first instance, whether they, having achieved their medical education at the expense of their country, have an obligation to their country. Now, maybe there are ways, consistent with their moving to another place, of repaying that debt for the receiving country as well as for the individual.
1:01:05 Speaker 05 But what was Senator Schumer's moral and public obligation? And how does it compare against that other moral obligation to the other country? And in other words, what advice, not just pragmatic and political, but moral, would you have given Senator Schumer in that circumstance?
1:01:22 Speaker 06 That it's admirable for Senator Schumer to care, above all, about his people and their medical needs, and yet, if meeting those needs does harm to the fragile medical infrastructures of the developing countries from which the nurses come, then maybe there should be in that bill some provision for compensating the fragile medical infrastructures
1:02:02 Speaker 06 of the countries from which the targeted medical practitioners come.
1:02:08 Speaker 05 How would that have gone down, Preet? Not well.
1:02:11 Speaker 06 Not well?
1:02:12 Speaker 05 I don't think so. Well, let me ask a different question, and this is maybe unfair, because I thought you said that there is a moral value to having borders and for caring about your community and helping them more than than others. I mean, one could suggest that your, the point of view that you just articulated might counsel in favor of, to the extent there is an open border, or it's more open than closed, that the United States should consider compensating the countries from whom those migrants come as an acknowledgement that, in some way, America owes moral obligations to other countries as opposed to caring first and foremost about its own country. Now, I know that's, when you say "America First",
1:02:55 Speaker 05 that has a, that's a slogan that has a certain, you know, nefariousness to it in the minds of some. But stripped of its sloganeering appeal, is it morally acceptable for, you know, public officials in this country to put America first in terms of policy? You know, again, there are going to be specific exceptions, but generally speaking, is there anything wrong with that?
1:03:20 Speaker 06 Well, I would put the question slightly differently. Do we, as American citizens, have a special obligation to our fellow citizens that goes beyond the obligations we have to everyone else in the world? And I would say the answer to that is yes. So that's the underlying moral point that you're going for just now.
1:03:45 Speaker 05 And why is that? And why is, how do you justify that philosophically?
1:03:50 Speaker 06 Well, it depends whether you think that the only relevant moral responsibility we have is the universal duty of respect for humanity as such. Or whether you think that we do have a universal duty to respect persons as persons, whoever they are, wherever they live. But we also have special obligations to those with whom our identity is bound, to those with whom we share a common life, and beginning with our family members.
1:04:32 Speaker 06 A thoroughgoing, universalist, cosmopolitan ethic that acknowledged no special responsibilities would have a very hard time explaining why. If my aging mother has medical needs and somebody else's aging mother has similar needs half a world away, should I flip a coin to decide to whose side I go? No, we would think that there's something morally missing if I didn't recognize an obligation to my ailing parent or to my child.
1:05:11 Speaker 06 And so if family obligations have some moral weight, if they're more than merely a prejudice, a prejudice born of proximity, then by extension, so do other forms of community, including national community, have moral weight. Now, the hard question is, if that's right, what do we do when there's a clash or a tension between the universal duties we owe to human kind as such and the special responsibilities we have to members of our family, or people, or community, or country?
1:05:50 Speaker 05 Part of the reason I've raised this was, there was a little bit of a public debate between the Vice President J D Vance and a former British MP Rory Stewart. J D Vance said, and he was cloaking this in theology, but let's talk about it outside of theology and in the mode of morality and philosophy and ethics. J D Vance said, quote, "There's a Christian concept that you love your family, then you love your neighbor, then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that prioritize the rest of the world." A lot of the far left has completely inverted that. Rory Stewart replied to that, saying, "A bizarre take, less Christian and more pagan tribal. We should start worrying when politicians become theologians,
1:06:32 Speaker 05 assume to speak for Jesus and tell us in which order to love." And then J D Vance responded, "Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away? Does anyone?" Who's right morally in that back and forth?
1:06:49 Speaker 06 Well, on that last part of the quote, J D Vance is right. This is, because this is just an argument against cosmopolitan or universal duties always trumping more particular, even parental duties. So he's right in that last passage. But I think he's wrong to suggest that there is the kind of fixed hierarchy of moral claim that he seemed, and I haven't read the exchange, that he seemed to be setting out in the first part of the quote that you read.
1:07:27 Speaker 06 I don't think that it's possible to decide what moral obligations should govern any particular situation by setting out in advance a hierarchy of communities from the nearest, the most particular to the most universal, or the other way around. We have to look at the content of the duties and obligations and the needs that are at stake. So he's right in the last part, but he's mistaken if he's suggesting there is a fixed hierarchy that applies to all cases.
1:08:05 Speaker 05 What grade would you give his answer?
1:08:07 Speaker 06 I don't know. I'd have to read Mark's.
1:08:09 Speaker 05 I just wanted to make a small trivia point. You mentioned Harvey Mansfield earlier, with whom you taught a class famously conservative at Harvard. I did not take a class with him. In part, his name was Harvey C. Mansfield.
1:08:21 Speaker 06 Right.
1:08:22 Speaker 05 And his nickname was Harvey C. Minus Mansfield. I didn't have enough confidence in my scholarly abilities to get higher than a C minus, so I did not take that class. Professor Michael J. Sandel, it's an honor and a privilege always to have you. Thanks so much.
1:08:40 Speaker 06 Thank you, Preet.
1:08:48 Speaker 05 My conversation with Michael Sandel continues for members of the Cafe Insider community. How do we measure social progress? In the bonus for insiders, Professor Sandel responds to a listener question. To try out the membership, head to cafe.com/insider. Again, that's cafe.com/insider. Stay tuned. After the break, I'll answer an important question.
1:09:20 Speaker 00 Are your ad campaigns lighting up the dashboard? But not the pipeline? That's bull spend, and marketers are calling it out in. Dashboard Confessions.
1:09:29 Speaker 01 My boss asked for results, so I opened my dashboard for the only positive sounding metric I had: impressions.
1:09:37 Speaker 00 Cut the bull spend. See revenue, not just reach. LinkedIn delivers the highest return on ad spend of major ad networks. Advertise on LinkedIn. Spend $250 on your first campaign and get a $250 credit. Go to LinkedIn.com/campaign. Terms and conditions apply.
1:09:51 Speaker 02 This episode is brought to you by Welch's Fruit Snacks. Back to school season can be tough on parents. But choosing a snack you and your kids can both get behind doesn't have to be. Stock up on Welch's Fruit Snacks, made with whole fruit, and now made with no artificial dyes. It's a snack kids already love, and one you can feel good about giving them. Go back to school with Welch's Fruit Snacks, now made with no artificial dyes.
1:10:19 Scott Galloway? Support for the show comes from Nutriful, the number one dermatologist-recommended hair growth supplement brand used by over 1.5 million people. When you get to the stage of life where you start to notice hair loss, you have a few options. You can shave it all off and enjoy your new look, or you can commit to a new team whose logo you wouldn't mind constantly spotting on a hat, or you can actually restore some of your hair's former glory with Nutriful. Nutriful has formulas built for men at different life stages, such as Nutriful Men for guys aged 18 to 49, or the new Nutriful Men 50 and older. It's the first product of its kind specifically made for men over 50. You can address the key root causes of thinning wherever you are in life. Grow visibly thicker, fuller hair in three to six months. Start Nutriful today and make the hat optional.
1:11:04 Scott Galloway? Visit nutriful.com and enter promo code PROVGE for $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping. Find out why Nutriful is the best-selling hair growth supplement brand at nutriful.com, spelled N-U-T-R-A-F-O-L dot com, promo code PROVGE. That's nutriful.com promo code PROVGE.
1:11:27 Speaker 05 Now, let's get to your questions.
1:11:32 Speaker 05 So folks, I'm just going to tackle one topic this week that arises from multiple listeners asking a version of the same fundamental question. And that is, in light of President Trump taking power for the second time, what are the limits on his authority to direct the military to do his bidding? And then relatedly, when if ever can a member of the US military lawfully refuse to follow the president's orders? Presumably, this is on people's minds because President Trump has repeatedly suggested he would use the military for his domestic agenda. For example, his inauguration day executive order declared a national emergency at the border and seemed to authorize the deployment of troops. He has also said he would use the military to carry out mass deportations and to quell protests.
1:12:13 Speaker 05 He even refused to rule out using the military to take control of Greenland and the Panama Canal. There are also reports that some migrants deported by the Trump administration are being held at Guantanamo Bay. So they're being held not by ICE, but by the military. So these questions are important ones and may, before we know it, become highly relevant. Now, to be clear, some of the law in this area is relatively undeveloped, and that's because it doesn't come up that often. Because generally speaking, presidents, for their part, and military officers, for their part, understand what the guardrails are, what the limits are, and try not to test those waters too much. Now, as a general matter, as you know, the President of the United States has another very, very important title: Commander in Chief.
1:12:57 Speaker 05 So he is allowed, as interpreted by the courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, a very wide berth in how he uses his powers as Commander in Chief. But even the Supreme Court has ruled famously, on more than one occasion, that the president's authorities and powers, even in wartime, are not unlimited. A prime example is one that every law student probably remembers well. It's called Youngstown v. Sawyer, a Supreme Court case that offers important lessons about executive overreach. In 1952, during the Korean War, President Truman faced a looming steelworkers' strike that threatened to disrupt steel production that was crucial to the war effort. So to prevent this, he Ordered the Commerce Secretary to seize and operate the steel mills. Sawyer, the Commerce Secretary, directed the mill operators to continue production
1:13:41 Speaker 05 under federal oversight, effectively placing private industry under government control, all in the name of the war effort. But years later, the justices ruled that Truman overstepped his authority, emphasizing that even during wartime, even as commander in chief, the president cannot unilaterally take control of private property without congressional approval. So it's a case that shows that the military and federal agencies must critically assess the legality of presidential directives, especially when such orders lack clear legal grounding. So where does that leave individual service members? Whether you're talking about soldiers in the field or generals in the theater of battle? The general rule is, service members have a duty to obey lawful orders, but also have a duty to disobey manifestly unlawful orders.
1:14:26 Speaker 05 That is, orders that a person of ordinary sense and understanding would know to be unlawful. The problem is that sometimes orders don't fall into a black and white category. They exist in a legal gray area. Some might exceed the president's executive authority, while others might violate an individual's constitutional rights. It's a difficult question, and in some ways, as you're probably thinking as you're hearing me say these words, soldiers in the field are often between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, if you affirmatively disobey an order that is later found to be lawful, you risk court martial. On the other hand, if you obey an order that is later found to be unconstitutional and unlawful, you face criminal exposure as well. So ultimately, it's up to the individual service member receiving the order, be it
1:15:10 Speaker 05 from their immediate superior or the president himself, to make a decision. They can and often do also rely on input from legal advisors and military commanders. Historically, the military has almost always carried out presidential orders, even when there were questions about their legality. Challenges usually come after the fact, in the form of lawsuits that reach the Supreme Court, or in terms of congressional pushback. But some examples should be fairly easy for service members to figure out. If a commander or supervisor orders a service member to shoot someone who was already in custody, who was restrained, in my hypothetical, with their hands behind their back, that clearly is an unconstitutional and unlawful order. One can imagine almost no circumstance in which that would be a lawful order, and it should be disobeyed.
1:15:55 Speaker 05 On the other hand, think about one of the scenarios that people have painted that might actually be a reality in the near future. Say Trump orders the military to stop protests against his administration. Normally, the law known as the Posse Comitatus Act bars troops from domestic law enforcement. But there's an exception, and it's called the Insurrection Act. So military service members, upon receiving an order to do such a thing, would have to think to themselves, "Well, does this fall under the Insurrection Act?" And the first question you would ask is, "Has the President of the United States invoked the Insurrection Act?" Which, as I understand it, is a legal precursor to ordering the military to engage in this kind of conduct on domestic soil. Then the question becomes, is it up to the individual service member to make a determination
1:16:40 Speaker 05 of whether or not the invocation of the Insurrection Act was lawful and constitutional? And it seems whatever we might think about it from the sidelines, a bit too much to ask of individual service members. So generally, if the question is, "Can I, as a service member, take action in my capacity as a member of the military on domestic soil after the President has invoked the Insurrection Act, I probably do have to engage in that conduct?" It would be chaos if every individual service member could, on his or her own conscience, decide whether or not the legality of the Insurrection Act will withstand legal scrutiny one day. On the other hand, if you have been given the order to behave as a soldier might in
1:17:21 Speaker 05 connection with a protest on domestic soil, there might be particular orders that still are unlawful and should be disobeyed. Remember, Trump's own Defense Secretary, the former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, has disclosed that Trump suggested that protesters who were part of the George Floyd marches maybe should have been shot in the legs by the military. So one would hope that an individual service member, even if that person believed that the Insurrection Act had been invoked properly and couldn't be questioned, would disobey a clearly unlawful order like that. So as you can see from just a couple of examples, it's a pretty fact-specific inquiry and it pits two values against each other, both important to the preservation of democracy and the protection of national security.
1:18:06 Speaker 05 On the one hand, you can't just have individual service members deciding case by case every time they get any kind of order, should they obey it, should they not obey it. The presumption, I think appropriately, is in favor of obeying the orders. But in certain cases, to avoid severe and extreme harm and miscarriages of justice and harm to the reputation of the United States of America, as we've seen with the Abu Ghraib incident and some of the enhanced interrogation techniques that have been used, sometimes that individual judgment has to be brought to bear. It's a difficult question and one that fortunately doesn't come up all that often. In fact, historically, instances of the US military defying presidential orders are rare and typically not based on the orders being considered unlawful. Sometimes there are other reasons for the dispute.
1:18:51 Speaker 05 In 1948, for example, President Truman lawfully mandated the desegregation of the armed forces. And that order faced significant resistance from military leadership, who were opposed to the idea of desegregation. There was an army secretary by the name of Kenneth Royal, who delayed the implementation of the desegregation order and his refusal to comply led to his forced resignation. Another notable example from history of insubordination, you can call it, occurred during the Korean War. General Douglas MacArthur publicly criticized President Truman's strategy of limited warfare and advocated for a more aggressive approach against China. His challenge to presidential authority, not with respect to any particular,
1:19:31 Speaker 05 concrete wartime action, but overall opposition to the strategy of the president, led also to his dismissal in 1951. The bottom line and what's at the heart of the issue is this tension that I mentioned between the duty to obey and the duty to the Constitution. Every service member takes an oath, not to the president, but to quote, "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," end quote. And we will see, perhaps sooner than we want, that tension put to the test.
1:20:20 Speaker 05 Well, that's it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Michael Sandel. If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics, and justice. Tweet them to me at Preet Bharara with the hashtag #AskPreet. You can also now reach me on Threads, or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338. That's 669-24-PREET. Or you can send an email to [email protected] . Stay Tuned is presented by Cafe and the Vox Media Podcast Network.
1:21:04 Speaker 05 The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The technical director is David Tadashor. The deputy editor is Celine Rohr. The editorial producers are Noah Azalai and Jake Kaplan. The associate producer is Claudia Hernandez. And the Cafe team is Matthew Billy, Nat Weiner, and Leanna Greenway. Our music is by Andrew Dost.
1:21:26 Speaker 07 Close your eyes, exhale, feel your body relax, and let go of whatever you're carrying today. Well, I'm letting go of the worry that I wouldn't get my new contacts in time for this class. I got them delivered free from 1-800-CONTACTS. Oh, my gosh, they're so fast. And breathe. Oh, sorry. I almost couldn't breathe when I saw the discount they gave me on my first order. Oh, sorry. Namaste. Visit 1-800-CONTACTS.com today to save on your first order.
1:21:54 Speaker 00 1-800-CONTACTS.
1:21:57 Speaker 08 They're running a Cover 2 defense. But you're running to get game day deals on Uber Eats. Keep everyone at tonight's watch party fed with deals from your go-to restaurants. Or stock up with deals on your favorite snacks and groceries. Whatever the occasion, get game day deals on Uber Eats all season long. It's not football without food. Uber Eats, order now. Terms apply. Product availability varies by region. See app for details.
1:22:27 Speaker 09 Looking for a simple way to thank your clients or recognize employees for a job well done? A Starbucks Card is more than a gift. It's a pick-me-up, a break in their day, and a reminder that you appreciate them. Whether you're shopping for digital or physical cards in bulk, Starbucks Cards are the perfect gift to brighten anyone's day. Share the joy of coffee and connection when you give the gift of Starbucks. Shop Starbucks Cards in Bulk now at StarbucksCardB2B.com.
Previous What Is America’s Brand? How AI Is Changing Work, and How Scott Records from Anywhere Next No Mercy / No Malice: Earners vs Owners Page updated September 29, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated
