This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso

from [music] Bloomberg Radio.

Here's the joke that made President

Trump call for Jimmy Kimmel to be fired

for the second time in less than a year.

Look at so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you

have a glow like an expectant widow.

Last September, Kimmel was suspended for

6 days after Trump demanded he be fired

for comments he made about the killing

of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

That backfired when Kimmel's ratings

actually went up after his forced hiatus

and ABC had to contend with Disney plus

subscriber cancellations from the

program blackout. Still, Federal

Communications Commission Chairman

Brendan Carr seems to be taking Trump's

grudge against Kimmel seriously. He's

taken the rare, almost unprecedented

step of calling Disney's eight ABC TV

station licenses in for early review,

ostensibly over Disney's diversity,

equity, and inclusion practices. And

Carr is also investigating ABC's daytime

talk show, The View, after declaring it

subject to equal time rules for

political candidates. But there are

signs that Disney is taking a different

approach this time around, standing its

ground and fighting back. The company

fired back at the FCC in a lengthy

filing, accusing the agency of seeking

to chill critical protected speech and

shape media content to its liking.

Joining me is Professor Daniel Lyons of

Boston College Law School, a

telecommunications law expert.

Is FCC Chair Brendan Carr taking a

different approach from his predecessors

at the agency? It's a good question, a

good place to start the conversation cuz

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has been so

different than his predecessors on the

issues of old media speech. So, over the

past 20 years or so, the FCC has been

focused significantly upon things like

broadband, right? Expanding broadband,

whether or not net neutrality rules,

things like that. But prior to the

internet era, right? The FCC was

America's communications regulator and

developed a whole lot of doctrines

balancing the government's interest in

regulating communications with the

limits on the government of the First

Amendment. We thought for a long time

that most of these doctrines were

relatively settled. They haven't really

changed much since the late '90s. But

Chairman Carr has shown an interest in

aggressively exploring the gray areas

that were left unexplored by bipartisan

commissions in years past. As we see

this with the comments that he had with

regard to Jimmy Kimmel's statements

after Charlie Kirk's murder. We saw it

even earlier than that. The FCC began

questioning PBS's sponsorship statements

before our shows, which sponsorships are

legal, but commercials are not, and the

line between the two is not always been

clear. So, the agency has shown an

interest in revisiting all of these

doctrines and getting a sense of whether

it should more aggressively pursue the

old media rules that had originally been

its forte in the pre-internet era. This

coincides with the fact that we have a

president who is much more interested in

old media than occupants of the White

House in years past. The president seems

particularly interested in questions

about what broadcast news is doing, what

cable news is doing, which feel much

more like 1990s and 2000s questions than

they do the most relevant communications

law issues of 2026. And are Carr and

Trump moving in lockstep? Brendan Carr

has been pretty open about the fact that

he's responding to what his boss wants.

That the FCC is, although it's

structured as an independent agency, it

lacks the job protection that many other

independent agencies have, which means

that the commissioners work at the the

whim of the president. And Carr has

shown not just a realization about that,

but a zeal in kind of doing his part

within a Republican commission to tow

the party line. This is another I think

situation where the president has at

least set the direction, and Carr is

following. I think the language that

Carr is using is in this context, right,

is about clarifying the scope of the

equal time rule and the broadcast news

exemption.

Um it doesn't seem coincidental that the

same network is being picked on in all

of these situations, and they happen to

be the same network that the president

has in his crosshairs. The FCC is

investigating the ABC talk show The

View. And in January, the FCC told

broadcasters that talk shows and

late-night programs hosting political

candidates have to give equal time to

opponents. The View has had this

exemption. So, tell us about equal time

and the exemption. Well, so I think it's

important to put this in the broader

context of how the First Amendment

interacts with FCC broadcast regulation,

right? So, the Supreme Court has made

clear that in most contexts, the

government can't tell a particular

platform or speaker what they can and

can't say, right? This is Miami Herald

versus Tornillo, where the state of

Florida tried to adopt a right of reply

statute for newspapers. If a newspaper

editorial criticized one candidate, then

it had to give equal space to that

candidate to respond. And the court said

this is a violation of the right of

editorial control, the right to decide

what I say, what I don't say, and what I

choose to put on page one versus what I

choose to put on page 13. The Supreme

Court revisited this just recently with

regard to Facebook and Twitter and other

internet platforms in a case just a

couple years ago. So, broadcast is an

exception to that strong limit on

government power, because broadcasters

I to apply for a license to use the

electromagnetic spectrum in order to

send their signals out over the

airwaves. Broadcast television and

radio, the Supreme Court held, did not

have the same rights of editorial

control. The reason for this ostensibly

was uh scarcity. There's only so much

electromagnetic spectrum, and so when

the government is handing out these

limited licenses, it should have the

ability to decide that the users of

these licenses present both sides of a

debate. This was a case called Red Lion

in the late 1960s. But, there was always

the concern that Red Lion was on a very

thin reed. At the time, uh most of

America got its television through

broadcasters before the cable industry.

And so, uh broadcasters had a very

significant control over the pipe into

people's homes. And more importantly,

the court said, "We recognize that um

there could be First Amendment problems

with even this exception if broadcasters

are unwilling to address political

controversies because of fear that they

have to provide equal talking time to

the other side, and it causes them to

chill political speech generally, then

it might be that even Red Lion is

unconstitutional. We'll revisit this

question." The FCC phased out the

fairness doctrine in the 1980s, but um

one vestige of it still remains, which

is the equal time rule. The equal time

rule says that if you have a qualified

candidate during an electoral period and

they make an appearance, then the other

candidates in the election have the

right to demand equal opportunity to be

heard on the broadcast network. And

that's what's at issue in in The View.

So, ostensibly, The View had James

Talerico on as a guest, and her position

was this could have implications for the

equal time rule such that Talerico's

opponent should be allowed time on The

View as well. Back in the 1950s,

this became an issue in the Chicago

mayoral election. Mayor Daley was uh

welcoming a delegation from a foreign

city, and it made the broadcast news.

And this guy Lars Daily, who was no

relation to Mayor Daley, he was a a

perennial fringe candidate. He was on

the ballot every year and got like three

votes. He would walk around wearing like

an Uncle Sam outfit. He wrote to the FCC

and demanded equal time. He said, "If

you're going to put Mayor Daley on, then

I deserve equal time." And lo and

behold, to everyone's surprise, the FCC

granted it. So, Congress freaked out

about this and passed what they called

the bonafide news exemption. If a

candidate appears on your broadcast as

part of a bonafide news broadcast, then

it wouldn't trigger the equal time

rules. Partly in order to preserve the

spirit of the First Amendment, right?

This idea that you should be able to

cover newsworthy events. If you decide

you don't want to cover newsworthy

events because of fear of triggering the

equal time rules, that's a problem for

our society in general. Um so, the scope

of the bonafide news exemption is what's

at issue here. As news evolved in format

and as broadcast became less and less of

a dominant information provider, the FCC

traditionally has added more and more

programs to the exemption category. So,

in 1984, Phil Donahue's talk show was

recognized as a bonafide news broadcast

because it was covering topical issues.

Later on, Politically Incorrect with

Bill Maher, weirdly the Howard Stern

Show, and then the Tonight Show was

granted an exception. And The View was

granted an exception in 2002 or 2003.

So, it was that exemption that Carr has

announced the desire to kind of tighten

up, make it not as expansive as it has

been in FCC's past. So, in January, the

FCC issued guidance saying going

forward, we're going to apply this much

more stringently and those of you who

have existing exemptions should not

assume they're going to be blanket

exemptions. And that's what now is being

built on with regard to the specific

inquiry into Terrilico's appearance on

The View.

Carr is also reviewing whether to revoke

the broadcast licenses for Disney-owned

local ABC stations. And it's actually

over Disney's DEI practices. Carr said

the timing is purely coincidental, but

it came right after Trump demanded that

Kimmel be fired for the second time. Is

there any precedent for revoking

licenses like this? These licenses to

broadcast they're issued for an 8-year

period and then they come up for

renewal, but there is a strong norm and

in fact legal precedent for a

presumption that they would be renewed.

The FCC only doesn't renew a broadcast

license in the event that the broadcast

was found to have engaged in a repeated

pattern and practice of violating FCC

rules. The only instance I'm aware of

was a religious broadcaster in the 1990s

that lost its rights because it had

represented itself as a minority owned

broadcaster to take advantage of the

minority preference rules and it turns

out it was more of a straw man than a a

real minority owned business. And so

when the it came time for the license to

be renewed the FCC chose not to renew

it. But because broadcasters invest a

lot of money in the expectation that

this would be renewed the DC circuit has

recognized the renewal was almost like a

property interest and so there's a high

barrier to a license not being renewed.

What's unusual in this case is that most

of ABC's licenses aren't due for renewal

for several years. The commission has

stepped up and moved the timeline

forward for starting the process and

asking for all the compliance measures

long before ABC expected to give it in

the commission's history. So even if it

goes through the process and somehow

they revoke the licenses there would be

a huge court battle after that, right?

That might go up to the Supreme Court.

Yeah, and ultimately it it may be that

ABC wins that challenge, right? It may

be that at the end of the day the FCC

chooses not to revoke the licenses or if

they revoke the licenses ABC sues and

successfully gets them reinstated, but

that in itself is a a cost. And this is

what communications costs sometimes call

regulation by raised eyebrow, right? The

situation where the FCC may or may not

have legal authority to do what it wants

to do, but it can ask questions to try

to nudge broadcasters to voluntarily

comply with requirements that the agency

may not be able to outright demand. And

there's a long history of that at the

FCC, as you might imagine.

Disney in 2024 settled a $15 million

defamation lawsuit brought by Trump

against George Stephanopoulos, an ABC

news anchor. And it did pull Kimmel off

the air for several days last fall after

Carl's threats. But Disney's taking an

aggressive stance this time. In its

filing with the FCC, it accused the

agency of seeking to chill critical

protected speech and to shape media

content to its liking. Are they under

less pressure for some reason? Why do

you think that they're deciding to, you

know, really aggressively fight back?

Well, one, I think they're on pretty

strong legal ground. The constitutional

ground for the equal time exception to

the first amendment, I think is

relatively weak. Red Lion, I think, was

dubious when it was decided. I don't

know that it has very many supporters on

the Supreme Court today. Justice Thomas

has come out explicitly to to call for

overturning it in the right facts. I

think if it gets to the Supreme Court,

you know, they'll get there. But also,

the fact that The View has been granted

an exemption as a bonafide news

broadcast in 2003 makes it very hard for

the FCC to punish it for conduct it took

under that exception. The FCC can make a

decision going forward, but to the

extent that it's trying to sanction ABC

for having Tarico on during the time

when The View has a bonafide news

exemption license from the FCC, I think

ABC is on very good ground in defending

where it's at. So, I think this is where

she's decided to draw the line in the

sand, and I think it's a very good line

to draw. And you're right, it's really

brought in some heavy hitters. Paul

Clement was the signatory on the the

brief who is no stranger to taking on

and winning very difficult Supreme Court

cases. Certainly not. He is one of the

premier Supreme Court litigators, a

former Solicitor General. I believe he's

argued more cases before the Supreme

Court than any other lawyer. He's

appeared before the justices several

times this term including representing

Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in

her fight to prevent President Trump

from firing her. Thanks so much for

taking us through this latest saga

involving ABC and the FCC. That's Daniel

Lyons, a professor at Boston College Law

School. Short sellers are making money

when others are losing it. So they're

generally not well-liked. In fact, a

short seller was even cast as the

supervillain in the James Bond film

Casino Royale. Charismatic financier Le

Chiffre uses a warlord's money to short

sell stock.

Do you believe in God, Mr. Le Chiffre?

No.

I believe in a reasonable rate of

return.

I want no risk in the portfolio.

Agreed?

I have the money, so short another

million shares of Skyfleet stock.

Sir, you must know you're betting

against the market.

No one expects this stock to go anywhere

but up. Just do it.

And now one of the most prominent short

sellers is on trial for securities

fraud. Andrew Left rose to fame with

sensational tweets that went viral,

published reports claiming firms were

overvalued or had engaged in fraud,

betting against companies like GameStop

and Valeant Pharmaceuticals, and hyping

his positions on financial TV shows. In

a bit of irony, Left, who accused so

many others of fraud is now on trial for

defrauding investors. Prosecutors say he

used explosive social media posts about

dozens of companies to illegally move

their stock and make a quick profit.

Market manipulation that totaled as much

as $20 million.

The 55-year-old denies misleading

investors and says he genuinely believed

in his stock calls.

My guest is securities law expert James

Park, a professor at UCLA Law School.

Jim, give us a picture of who Andrew

Left is. He started out by publishing

research report on companies through his

platform Citron Research, often making

negative recommendations. I think he's

mainly known for correctly identifying

problems at a company called Valeant

Pharmaceuticals, a company that engaged

in questionable practices with respect

to recognizing sales. And so, you know,

he published a report identifying some

of the questionable practices. He also

came up, interestingly, in the GameStop

saga from a few years ago where he had

taken a short position in the company

and retail investors basically rallied

on Reddit to squeeze the short. Then,

you know, with those successes, he's

gained a high profile. You know, he

makes recommendations with respect to

companies, emails them out, he has an

online platform, is using social media a

lot, is frequently invited on various

shows, and has a lot of media

appearances. And so, he's somebody with

a higher profile than most folks who are

doing research and, you know, taking

short positions potentially in

companies. The government is accusing

him of manipulating the stock market.

Tell us about the charges here. He was

indicted for various counts of

securities fraud, manipulation, and

fraud more generally. The manipulation

argument is that he would basically

establish positions in a stock, whether

it was long or short, issue a

recommendation

with respect to that position, which he

would disseminate to the public,

presumably according to the prosecutors

with the intent to either inflate or

deflate the stock given his

high-profile, and then he would quickly

reverse his position. And I think the

argument there is that that shows he did

not believe his recommendation, that he

was issuing these recommendations to

artificially manipulate the price of

these stocks, and that his actions,

which often came very soon after the

recommendation, indicated that he did

not sincerely believe, you know, his

recommendation that you should buy the

stock or sell the stock cuz he was doing

the reverse. And you know, there might

have been a dozen or so of these

transactions, maybe more, that the

prosecutors alleged he profited by

around $20 million

through this market manipulation. Is

this an aggressive legal theory for the

prosecution? Is it an uphill battle for

prosecutors to prove this? It's not a

commonly

prosecuted

fact pattern. I think that's fair to

say. You know, do the prosecutors have a

very well-developed case? I think they

have a lot of evidence, right? They have

a lot of evidence about not only his

recommendations, of course, which are

public, but what he did. And there is,

you know, some email evidence that could

be interpreted in a way that the jury

might be able to conclude that, you

know, he knew that the information was

false. Now, that's up to the jury, and

and emails have a lot of ways that they

can be interpreted. You know, market

manipulation cases are are tough, right?

It's tough to prove the intent because a

lot of the actions that could

potentially be manipulative,

you know, maybe motivated by legitimate

reason. You know, he may legitimately

believe part of his recommendation, some

of his recommendation. You know, maybe

he changed his mind, right, very soon

after. And so, you know, market

manipulation is is challenging. We

talked, you know, a few years ago about

the Bill Hwang case. That's one where I

noted that it's hard to establish

manipulation and the prosecution did in

that case. And so, I think that the case

is is novel and interesting because, you

know, manipulation is not prosecuted as

much as say insider trading, for

example. It's a little bit more

straightforward when I'm I've taken

non-public information, I'm an insider,

I trade on it. That is usually more

straightforward than a situation where

somebody is is engaging in various

trading activity and around

recommendations that they've issued. And

so, I think it it's just less common to

bring cases like this.

So far, prosecutors have focused on the

stocks of two companies they say Left

tweeted about and then traded on,

Twitter and Cronos Group, which is a

cannabis company. And they called stock

analysts to the stand who disagreed with

Left's negative reports about the

companies. On cross-examination, the

defense attorney seemed to be trying to

highlight its position that analysts can

disagree about stocks, and Left was just

telling the public what he believed. I

think the analyst recommendation or the

analyst testimony is probably serving as

a baseline. You know, these are the

facts that were out there.

And, you know, without specific facts

contradicting that, if you're just kind

of saying this stuff without any basis

and you're only doing it to manipulate

the stock price, that that's going to be

problematic. Disagreement is not broad.

People have the ability to disagree, but

I think it it shows the context of how

the stock was understood, and if you are

deliberately issuing false information,

that that is essentially what the case

is is about. But, the testimony by the

stock analyst by itself is not going to

be able to establish that these

statements were were false, that that he

knew that they were false. The defense

hasn't said whether or not Left is going

to take the stand. Obviously, a

defendant doesn't have to take the

stand, and it can't be held against him.

But, there are some instances, for

example, prosecutors have introduced

testimony that the stock of Cronos

plunged 28% after Left's report that

Cronos was misleading investors about

its distribution commitments. And

prosecutors say shortly after the tweet,

about 24 minutes later, Left started

closing out his short position. How will

the defense explain what happened in

those 24 minutes if Left doesn't take

the stand? Yeah, I don't know how his

operation works, whether he does all the

research himself or whether there's

somebody else who does that. I think

that, you know, ideally he would

explain, you know, what was my basis for

making this this statement about this

company? What did I look at, and why did

I quickly close out the position? I

think that's also a question that could

be asked, and it might be difficult to

establish that without the person who's

making the recommendation taking the

stand. Jim, I've been reading some

headlines that say, is short selling

facing a reckoning? Referring to this

trial. Do you think it is? I don't think

so. You know, some of the transactions

were long positions. Now, you know, he

is maybe known as a a short seller, but

he does make long recommendations as

well. There's a Facebook transaction

where he says it's going to $160 a

share, and he sells out at much less

than that after the price goes up and

so, you know, you might think of it as

more perhaps a case involving the use of

social media, the use of kind of online

recommendations. Is that the place where

you could have a bit of a a chilling

effect? And so, I think you might even

think of the case a bit broader than it

being about, you know, somebody who is

specifically selling companies short and

and making allegations that the price

should go down. I think it's a bit

broader than that. is the combination

of, you know, do short sellers sometimes

use social media? Sure. I I don't know

that they do that to the extent that Mr.

Left did and that might be kind of what

the case ultimately is about is that

technology has, you know, made it

difficult to regulate conduct that might

manipulate markets because before social

media, you couldn't move a stock price

like this, but now, you know, there's

some individuals who can. Short sellers

were already spooked by Left's

indictment, especially because criminal

investigators in DC and LA had been

investigating short selling for years.

Some of Left's biggest competitors have

already left the market. Some came out

with more extensive disclaimers. So,

this case is really being watched

closely. No, I think it's it's tough

being a short seller. It's always been

tough. Nobody likes you and you know,

there's long been scrutiny of short

sellers and and their statements. You

know, one that comes in mind, you know,

Bill Ackman years ago, like in the early

2000s, was investigated by the New York

Attorney General's office and maybe the

SEC about a report he published about a

company called MBIA and, you know, I

think that short sellers that are

sophisticated should know that their

statements are going to be scrutinized

and that they cannot release information

or facts that they know are false.

That's part of the business, right? Is

that you're violating rule 10b-5 if If

false information relating to the

purchase or sale of a security, probably

some other state law theories as well.

And so, there's always been scrutiny.

Taking it to a criminal level, I think

though, does raise some additional

reason to be cautious with these types

of statements. So, I think in that

regard, you know, when you have a

criminal case, that really gets people's

attention. And he is known primarily as

somebody who recommends short positions,

has taken short positions. He's an

that's right, that it is something that

activist short

investors will be aware of. The trial is

expected to last another 2 weeks, so

we'll see what happens. Thanks so much,

Jim. That's Professor James Park of UCLA

Law School. Coming up next, the many

many lawsuits over Trump's attempted

makeover of the nation's capital. I'm

June Grasso, and you're listening to

Bloomberg.

You see the the trucks and cranes and

excavators in the background? And you

hear them, and every time I hear them, I

love the sound. And there are plenty of

other construction sounds in the

nation's capital that would please

President Trump, as well as the sound of

another lawsuit being filed every time

he attempts to remake a historic

landmark. The latest is the reflecting

pool at the Lincoln Memorial, one of the

most iconic spots on the National Mall.

But now, the pool's basin is being

repainted from the neutral colors

originally used to a color called

American Flag Blue that was suggested by

one of Trump's former swimming pool

contractors. And over the years as a

developer, I have probably built more

than 100 swimming pools in different

buildings I built, and I have some

really good pool builders. I also had

some really bad ones. A nonprofit filed

a lawsuit this week to stop Trump from

altering the Lincoln Memorial without

the reviews and consultations

required before altering a registered

historic landmark. The Cultural

Landscape Foundation argues that the

reflecting pool's neutral color is a

character defining feature of the site

intended to convey greater depth than

reflection. It says repainting it

follows the pattern of Trump's other

renovations like tearing down the East

Wing to build a ballroom. Closing the

Kennedy Center for 2 years for

renovations and other projects that have

drawn lawsuits from historical societies

and nonprofits for similar reasons. My

guest is former federal prosecutor Nima

Ramani, president of West Coast Trial

Lawyers. Nima, tell us what the Cultural

Landscape Foundation is arguing in its

lawsuit. The lawsuit is alleging that

the Trump administration didn't comply

with federal law, specifically

procedural law related to historic

monuments and environmental analysis.

This is similar to the administrative

procedure act arguments that many of the

plaintiffs have been using to slow down

the Trump administration. Now, those

laws essentially say that when a

monument is altered in any way, there

has to be the opportunity for public

comment, consultation with other federal

agencies, assessment of environmental

impact.

And again, this is all procedural, but

it can slow down this process, which is

what the plaintiffs are trying to do.

The Trump administration is well aware

of these requirements because they're

being sued in other cases. So, we're

ignoring similar requirements. Oh,

there's no question. And this really

raises the fundamental constitutional

issue. What happens if the executive

branch that is tasked with enforcing the

law doesn't follow the law? who's going

to compel them to do so? Now, obviously,

you know, an Article 3 judge can step in

and issue some sort of order, an

injunction, and hopefully there is

compliance with that. But yeah, this is

a persistent problem by this

administration. I mean, there are these

laws on the books and they don't

necessarily think that it applies to

them. And in this particular case with

the reflecting pool, the president is

trying to get this done before the 250th

anniversary of our nation in just a

couple months. So, we're really short on

time and that's why he's paying this

company a significant sum of money to

get it done so quickly. And the

government awarded the firm a no-bid

contract, so bypassing the requirement

to seek competing bids, and the expected

cost has now ballooned from 1.8 million

to 13.1 million.

It is, and the administration is saying

that there's a timing issue and that's

why they're doing it. They have to get

this done and that's why they're paying

so much. You know, [snorts] from the

Trump administration's perspective, the

way they're phrasing this for the

litigation is that this is just a

necessary repair. This [snorts] isn't an

alteration because the executive in

their mandate to maintain these

properties, obviously they can repair

monuments, right? And there's certain

areas of the law where the executive has

much more discretion, obviously national

security issues. The other is routine

maintenance and repair. So, you see the

plaintiffs in these cases arguing that

any of these, it could be the reflecting

pool, it could be the Kennedy Center,

the White House, that these are

fundamental changes and alterations that

would require approval of Congress or

others potentially, not just routine

repairs. And of course,

the government is arguing in their

papers that this is just a repair in the

case of the reflecting pool that there

are cracks, there's algae, and that this

isn't a fundamentally different paint

job changing the monument. It's simply

just a repair in preparation for this

big celebration. And what do you think

of their argument that the urgency is

the country's 250th anniversary, and

that warrants an exemption from the

law's procedural requirements? I don't

think it's a particularly good argument

because the president himself has come

out and said that he wants to paint it

American blue. So, you know, it seems

like he backtracked a little bit from

that statement, but it seems like it's

an aesthetic change and a significant

one at that. So, obviously, time is an

issue, and we know that some of these

government contracts can take some time.

In the case of the Kennedy Center, we're

talking about 2 years. This has to

happen in 2 months. So, that's something

that I think should be taken into

consideration, but if it's a fundamental

change and this is something that is

really within Congress's authority, and

they haven't delegated this to the

executive, then we also have a

separation of powers issue here. Talking

about the Kennedy Center, so the closure

is supposed to be for renovations, but

that covers a lot of ground. Are the

issues the same basically as in the

reflecting pool lawsuit? It's similar

issues. The Kennedy Center is slightly

different in terms of how it's

structured. It does get its authority

from Congress, but it's essentially a

non-profit with a board. And there's

some board issues, there's labor issues

as well. If you're shutting something

down and there's, you know, government

employees that are going to be

essentially let go. So, it's a little

bit more complicated than the reflecting

pool, but it does raise the same issues.

So, you see, again, in [snorts] their

filing papers, the government arguing

that things are going to be the same,

right? That the bust of John F. Kennedy

will remain, the quotes on the walls

will remain. The changes are for repair

purposes only. The design of the center

will not change. Department of Justice

was saying that, "Look, these are

necessary repairs because the Kennedy

Center was falling apart. There's

cracks. You know, the ceiling was going

to collapse. This is dangerous." And

judges are going to be obviously a lot

more liberal when it comes to the

government making repairs, necessary

repairs, if it's a safety issue. And I

think a little bit different. The

reflecting pool, extent of the repairs

were made. I don't think anyone was

arguing that it was for safety. But I

think in the Kennedy Center, and again,

that case is going to come down to is

this an aesthetic redesign, a

fundamental, you know, alteration of

this historic building, or is it just

necessary repairs because attendees

could get hurt? And obviously we know if

they get hurt, then the government can

be sued under the Federal Tort Claims

Act. So, I think that's the biggest

issue in the case. And the nonprofit's

lawyer pointed to the destruction of the

East Wing last year when Trump had

initially said that constructing the

ballroom wouldn't impact the existing

structure. It won't interfere with the

current building. It won't be It'll be

uh uh near it, but not touching it.

And pays total respect to the existing

building, which I'm the biggest fan of.

The cost of that has also ballooned and

gone from being paid for by private

donations to being paid for by

taxpayers. And you mentioned national

security before. The administration is

trying to frame the incident outside the

White House Correspondents that the

ballroom

is essential for national security.

Saturday night, it was good for one

thing.

People are loving my ballroom now.

That's the only thing.

They love my ballroom. When they're

using the Correspondents Dinner and what

happened there, but that's not the kind

of event that would even be held at the

White House. That's a private event. So,

that comparison doesn't work. Can talk

once immediately after the shooting that

this is why we need the Presidential

Ballroom, but you're absolutely right.

The White House Correspondents Dinner is

a private event. It's held at the

Washington Hilton, one of the few venues

in Washington, D.C. that can accommodate

a crowd of 2,000 or more people. It's

famously where Ronald Reagan was also

shot. The ballroom is for a different

purpose altogether. It's to host heads

of state. It's not like the White House

Correspondents can call and rent it or

any other private organization or group.

So, it wouldn't necessarily solve the

problem, but of course, you know,

politically, it makes for great talking

points. So, you see it parroted by a lot

of talking heads. Seemingly lost in all

this is that a federal judge, Richard

Leon, found that Trump didn't have

authority to tear down the East Wing and

build a new structure on White House

grounds. That decision is being

appealed, but the government has made a

motion asking the judge to dissolve his

own ruling in light of the incident at

the Correspondents Dinner. These motion

papers are so unusual. That's putting it

mildly. They talk about Trump

derangement syndrome, and there are

multiple randomly capitalized words and

exclamation points. People at the DOJ,

they are jockeying for position to

appease their boss, the President of the

United States, the way Acting Attorney

General Todd Blanche has handled the

Comey case, for instance, right? 8647. I

don't think that's a meritorious case at

all, and I think most former DOJ lawyers

would agree, but I think that's probably

something that was done because Donald

Trump dislikes Comey. And I understand

why he dislikes Comey, and I understand

why Democrats dislike Comey. A lot of

people dislike Comey, but if you want to

prosecute him, prosecute him for what he

allegedly did, which is leak information

of the Wall Street Journal and

compromise our national security, and

then, you know, you're prosecuting him

for Instagram posts. But I digress. Now

you have another DOJ official,

high-level, who's filing a motion which

reads like it was written by Donald

Trump on Truth Social. It was bizarre.

Something I'd never seen. It talked

about Trump Derangement Syndrome. It was

writing in caps. I mean, it was really

surreal. I mean, I was just blown away.

But it was clearly something that was an

attempt, in my opinion, to pander to the

president as opposed to arguing the

facts and the law. This line struck me,

saying that this frivolous and meritless

lawsuit was filed, quote, "Because it is

Donald J. Trump." Solid caps. "A highly

successful real estate developer who has

abilities that others don't, especially

those who assume the office of

president." And it was signed by three

political appointees. No career attorney

signed that. I guess they didn't want

their name on that. But the appeals

court has lifted the injunction on the

construction of the ballroom, so that's

going forward.

>> The problem is this. It's one thing to

stop construction or stop painting or

renovations. Once it's done,

I don't think a court is going to tell

the government to tear it down. That's a

very different kind of order. And what's

going to happen with the reflecting

pool? You know, a judge is going to say

we got to paint it back, or, you know,

the Kennedy Center, once those

renovations are being done, you can't

restore it. It doesn't make any sense

legally or, you know, practically. So, I

think this is part and parcel of the

government's strategy. Let's move

forward. Sort of a ask for forgiveness

rather than asking for permission type

argument. But a lot more litigation to

come. Thanks so much, Neema. That's

former federal prosecutor Neema Ramani.

And that's it for this edition of the

Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can

always get the latest legal news on our

Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them

on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

www.bloomberg.com/podcast/law.

And remember to tune in to the Bloomberg

Law Show every weeknight at 10:00 p.m.

Wall Street time. I'm June Grasso, and

you're listening [music] to Bloomberg.