'God Squad' Puts Endangered Whales at Risk

9 Apr 2026 · 40 min · 16 chapters

Ask about this episode

Ask anything about it. ChatGPT or Claude reads this page and answers with the times it was said.

Connect VO and ask about every podcast you hear, including the moments you saved. Add to ChatGPT · Add to Claude

In short

The episode centers on the “God Squad” (a cabinet-level Endangered Species Act exemption committee) convened by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to allow oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico to proceed without ESA protections. The host and guest argue the committee exempted all Gulf oil and gas by unanimous voice vote after only 15 minutes, with no expert testimony, despite claims that litigation and “national security” would otherwise threaten energy operations. Environmental law expert Pat Parenteau (Vermont Law and Graduate School) says the meeting was unusual because only federal officers participated and because a national security rationale was invoked for the first time. Key endangered species at risk include Rice’s whale (about 50 left, all in the Gulf), Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle, and endangered manta rays. Notable examples cited: vessel strikes as a leading cause of whale deaths; Deepwater Horizon’s spill killing about 20% of Rice’s whale; and prior court skepticism when national security was used to stop offshore wind. Parenteau also says required exemption safeguards (consultation, alternatives, impact statements) were not followed. The decision is challenged in D.C. by NRDC and Center for Biological Diversity.

Written by AI. May contain mistakes. Listen to the episode to check what was said.

Chapters

Tap a time to open that second in VO

The God Squad's Role

1:37 to 2:53

Understanding the God Squad's power over endangered species protections.

“They're called the God Squad because they can play God in deciding whether a species lives or dies.”

Recent God Squad Meeting

2:53 to 5:52

Analyzing the recent God Squad meeting and its implications for endangered species.

“At risk is the extinction of endangered species such as Rice's whale.”

Misuse of National Security Argument

5:52 to 8:30

Exploring the unfounded claims of national security regarding oil production.

“Is there any evidence at all that the Endangered Species Act has resulted in any restrictions on the amount of oil produced in the Gulf?”

Challenges to the Endangered Species Act

8:30 to 12:40

Discussing the broader attacks on the Endangered Species Act and its protections.

“But the idea that an exemption could be granted could wipe out all kinds of protections for these species in the Gulf.”

Judicial Review of Exemptions

12:40 to 14:09

Examining the potential outcomes of judicial review regarding the God Squad's exemptions.

“So that's kind of the context of what we're talking about.”

National Security and Offshore Wind Farms

14:09 to 18:10

Learn about the implications of national security claims on offshore wind farm projects and endangered species protection.

“But where there is zero evidence of a national security threat, that's a very different situation.”

The God Squad and Endangered Species Act

18:10 to 19:01

Discover how the current God Squad's approach differs from past instances and its implications for environmental law.

“It's different in the ways that we talked about, which is that this is the first time national security has been invoked.”

ICE Detention Center Legal Challenges

21:40 to 25:54

Understand the legal complexities surrounding the operation of the ICE detention facility and its environmental impacts.

“And for a moment, I want to turn to arguments at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals over the ICE detention center that's been called Alligator Alcatraz.”

Trump's Threats and International Law

28:34 to 30:01

Discuss Trump's alarming threats against Iran and the implications for war crimes.

“President Trump has unleashed a flurry of social media posts threatening Iran, but his chilling post on Tuesday pressing Iran to make an agreement before his 8 p.m.”

Historical Context of War Crimes

30:01 to 31:55

Explore historical examples of war crimes and their legal ramifications.

“Joining me is Joshua Kastenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico Law School and a former judge and lawyer in the U.S.”
Show all 16 chapters

Presidential Powers and Accountability

31:55 to 34:01

Examine the limitations of prosecuting a president for potential war crimes.

“individuals like radio personalities in the Rwandan genocide who simply encouraged others to kill the minority population there.”

Military Ethical Dilemmas

34:01 to 36:12

Consider the ethical challenges faced by military personnel under unlawful orders.

“jurisdiction would touch any of the individuals operating within this chain of command.”

Target Selection and International Law

36:12 to 40:08

Investigate the process of selecting military targets and adherence to international law.

“I mean, I'm not a member of, you know, like the GI Forum.”

Impacts of Rhetoric on Military Operations

40:08 to 42:07

Analyze how political rhetoric influences military operations and decision-making.

“And there is far less concern at the upper levels today, particularly in the civilian levels, with obedience to international law and a desire to protect noncombatants than there was only 10 years ago.”

Military Legal Standards and Accountability

42:07 to 46:05

Explore the implications of changing military legal standards and their impact on operations.

“And I know, you know, people have a lot of strong opinions about the administration.”

Consequences of Military Actions on Global Perceptions

46:05 to 46:55

Discuss how current military practices may foster long-term animosity towards the U.S.

“But if you do, you fight it with a complete adherence to the Geneva Conventions and the rules that came after.”
Hear the part that matters, and keep it.Open this episode in VO. Double tap your headphones to save a moment as you listen.
Get VO free

Transcript

Automatic transcript. May contain errors.

0:00This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Apple Card members can earn unlimited daily cash back on everyday purchases wherever they shop. This means you could be earning daily cash on just about anything, like a slice of pizza from your local pizza place or a latte from the corner coffee shop. Apply for Apple Card in the Wallet app to see your credit limit offer in minutes. Subject to credit approval, Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City branch. Terms and more at AppleCard.com. So there's a lot of noise about AI, but time's too tight for more promises. So let's talk about results.

0:34At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need. Now, a global workforce of 300 ,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions, resolving 94 % of common questions. Not noise. Proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business.

1:26IBM. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. Member FDIC. Copyright 2026. J.P. Morgan Chase and Company. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. The committee in doing this will be issuing an exemption from the requirements of the ESA for all oil and gas exploration development and production activities associated with the Boehm and Bessey Outer Continental Shelf. They're called the God Squad because they can play God in deciding whether a species lives or dies. The Endangered Species Committee last met 34 years ago, but it was convened last week by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. Why?

2:15To consider waiving the protections for critically endangered whales and other species in the Gulf of Mexico in favor of oil and gas development. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseff said that pending litigation by environmentalists is a threat to oil and gas operations in the Gulf, risking national security. These legal battles waste critical government resources and make it impossible for energy companies to plan and invest in new projects. When development in the Gulf is chilled, we are prevented from producing the energy we need as a country and as a department. After 15 minutes, without any testimony from experts or discussion, by voice vote the committee unanimously exempted all oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico from the Endangered Species Act.

3:08At risk is the extinction of endangered species such as Rice's whale. There are only 50 left on Earth and they're all in the Gulf. Also, Kemp's Ridley sea turtle, the world's smallest and most endangered species of sea turtle, and endangered manta rays, to name a few. Joining me is environmental law expert Pat Parenteau, a professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School who's had experience with the God Squad. Pat, tell us about the God Squad. So this is a cabinet-level committee, federal officers. It was created in 1978 in response to the Supreme Court's decision in the infamous Teleco Dam case, TVA versus Hill, where the Supreme Court said if there's a violation of the Endangered Species Act that could result in the extinction of a species, the courts are basically powerless to do anything about that.

4:09Only Congress could exempt an action that might jeopardize a species. And so Congress responded to that decision by creating this cabinet-level committee, literally with the power of life or death over a species, which has now come to be known as the God Squad. The God Squad has only met three times in its history until last week. What was different about this meeting? Well, this time around, for the first time, Burgum convened the committee with just the federal officers. You know, and in the other God Squad proceedings, there were always states involved. But this time, it's just the feds. And this time, the committee was convened at the request of Secretary Hegseth, who is claiming that there is a national security issue here with regard to oil and gas development in the Gulf of what we still call Mexico, Gulf of Mexico.

5:12And so this is the first time that that kind of national security rationale has been invoked. And the law, the 1978 amendments does say if the secretary determines there is a national security threat as a result of some action that has been stopped by the Endangered Species Act, then the committee must issue an exemption. So the real question is, is there really a national security emergency in this situation? And the answer is no, there is not. You're anticipating my next question. Is there any evidence at all that the Endangered Species Act has resulted in any restrictions on the amount of oil produced in the Gulf?

6:03None. In fact, oil and gas development in the Gulf is at an all-time high. There is no action that has been stopped by the Endangered Species Act. There are lawsuits challenging the Trump administration's analysis of threats to various species, most prominently the rice's whale, which is one of the most endangered whales and marine mammals in the world. There are only 50 or so of these whales left, and they're all in the Gulf. Their primary habitat is close to Florida, actually. And clearly, oil and gas development poses a serious threat to these whales. But there are many other. There's over a dozen listed endangered species in the Gulf.

6:56There are sea turtles. There are sperm whales. There are manatees. There are all kinds of iconic marine mammals on the list of endangered species. But the point is, none of them have stopped any of the oil and gas, either exploration or development. So this is a made-up fictional crisis. Does that sound familiar for this administration? And the defense secretary said the pending litigation by environmentalists threatens to shut down all oil and gas operations. But if it's pending, then they don't know what the result will be. And it could take many years, as we know, for litigation. Right. And the point is that Congress never intended or even considered the notion that lawsuits would be a trigger for exemptions.

7:48You have to understand if the entire oil and gas program, and that's what Hegseth is demanding an exemption for the whole the whole operation in the Gulf. If a lawsuit, and there's only one lawsuit right now, was enough to justify an exemption, that means there is no Endangered Species Act protection for any of these species. That's the dramatic impact of an exemption. And that's why Congress said it is to be emphatically a last resort mechanism where there is an irresolvable conflict between a vital federal action and the Endangered Species Act. We don't have anything like that. But the idea that an exemption could be granted could wipe out all kinds of protections for these species in the Gulf.

8:38Pat, why do you think they decided to do this at this point? Well, Trump issued an executive order a year ago in which he said that the Endangered Species Act poses a threat to energy development in the U.S., by which he means fossil fuel development, oil and gas in particular. and he ordered the Secretary of Interior to convene the God Squad on a quarterly basis, sort of like a bridge tournament, you know, get them together and see if they can figure out how to exempt federal actions from the Endangered Species Act. And then secondly, he said, and there is this emergency provision in the Endangered Species Act rules, which allows for a kind of fast-track sort of consultation, review, and analysis of federal actions, again, fossil fuel development actions.

9:31So he also said, use that emergency provision as often as you can. So we know that Trump has ordered his cabinet to get environmental laws out of the way for fossil fuel development. So this action is part of that overall attack. And it isn't the only attack on the Endangered Species Act. The Trump administration is also proposing to roll back all of the Biden rules that were strengthening protections for endangered species. Plus, the Trump administration is firing and running off the staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service. It's been reduced by 20 % the staff and cutting its budget. So there's a full-scale assault on all the aspects of the Endangered Species Act.

10:18And this exemption is just one aspect of that. There are two lawsuits over this decision, one by the Center for Biological Diversity and the other by the National Resources Defense Council. What are the grounds they're alleging? The Endangered Species Act sets up a really complex series of steps for exemptions. I know this because I'm the only lawyer that's been involved in all four of the God Squad proceedings, all four of them. And I was the spotted owls lawyer in the last God Squad proceeding. And I was the whooping cranes lawyer in the first God Squad proceeding. So I've been with this process forever.

10:57You have good clients. Yeah, good clients. My favorite clients. They never complain. In any event, so, you know, there's multi-steps involved in this process, including, did you engage in good faith consultation? Did you make a diligent effort to identify alternatives to avoid jeopardy and avoid a conflict that would require an exemption? Did you write an adequate environmental impact statement? Did you write an adequate biological assessment? You see what I mean? So there's all kinds of these safeguards. And I know about these safeguards because I had a hand in lobbying Congress to include them.

11:35None of that's been done. None of those steps has been followed. Hegseth showed up at this meeting, which lasted 15 minutes among the cabinet officers, all of whom were sycophants, you know, nodding in agreement with what Hegseth is saying and praising Hegseth for his incredible loyalty to the country and all that. But nothing about whether there really was an irresolvable conflict, nothing about the fact that there had been steps taken to protect the rice's whale. And those steps are very modest. They're common sense steps. They basically come down to keep a sharp lookout for whales when the vessels are moving through the Gulf.

12:15And if there are whales in the vicinity, slow down, limit your speed, don't run them over. I mean, these are the kinds of very modest protections. In fact, I don't think they're totally adequate protections. But the point is, those are the only protections that were imposed on oil and gas development. Now, the oil industry doesn't want to slow down. They want to speed up. They want to get as much oil out as fast as they can, particularly now, right? So that's kind of the context of what we're talking about. Very modest steps to protect these highly endangered, critically endangered species. And yet this administration is saying, the hell with all of that.

12:58It's full speed ahead. Damn the whales. Drill the oil. There is a question of whether this kind of decision by the God Squad is even subject to judicial review. Yes, we'll find that out because this is the first time that a national security rationale has been used. There's no precedent for how that gets reviewed, how Hegseth's determination gets reviewed. But the legislative history, and again, I had a hand in this, of the 1978 amendments makes it really clear that that decision is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act in the district courts. And both the NRDC and the Center for Biological Diversity have filed lawsuits in district court in D.C.

13:47challenging the exemption and challenging HEGSES finding. So we will find out relatively soon, I think, whether the courts are going to take review. We do know this, that when a national security reason is invoked, the courts are very careful about how to review that. In fact, they're very deferential generally on questions like that. But where there is zero evidence of a national security threat, that's a very different situation. We know that the Trump administration invoked national security when they issued stop work orders on offshore wind farms, all five of them off the East Coast this past year.

14:33And the courts uniformly in all five cases rejected Hegseth's invocation of national security. Judge Lamberth in the D.C. case actually looked at the classified documents that Hegseth was citing for stopping work on these projects. And Judge Lamberth said, I don't see any national security threat in here at all. So my expectation is we'll see something like that. To the extent that Hegseth has some kind of classified information he's relying on, which he hasn't made public, The courts are going to demand to take a look at that and determine for themselves whether there really is a basis for it.

15:15If there were some evidence that the Endangered Species Act was somehow affecting military readiness, military operations, that would be a different situation altogether. But we don't have any evidence of that. What exactly do they want to start up in the Gulf? Do they want to start up drilling? Is there something like on the agenda that they want to do or is this just a general request? Well, there definitely is drilling ongoing and there is exploration for drilling projects. And now they're moving way off the coast into deep ocean waters of the Gulf and talking about drilling wells deeper than we've ever drilled them before.

16:01And that raises the prospect of a really catastrophic spill, like what we had in Deepwater Horizon. That spill killed 20 % of the rice's whale. That one spill damn near wiped out the population. So the idea that drilling can proceed without serious risk to these species is just wrong. That's kind of where we are at this point. There's a lot of activity, a lot of ship traffic. Ship traffic is the leading cause of injury and death to these whales. And we know that also with the right whale off the East Coast in the Gulf of Maine. We know that vessel strikes is the leading cause of mortality for those whales.

16:47And it's the same for the rice's whale, the sperm whale, and the others in the Gulf. So that's where we are. I mean, it isn't as if the Endangered Species Act is stopping oil and gas development, But it is supposed to require at least those kinds of precautions that can reduce the risk, save some of these whales, give them a chance to recover. So, Pat, during Trump's first term, the Interior Department made changes to the way the agencies apply the Endangered Species Act. But a federal judge just struck down some of those changes, saying the agency had overstepped its authority. It took that long to get the case through?

17:29Yes, it did. He struck down four specific aspects of what actually some of what the court struck down were Biden rules, by the way. But the point is that in striking down the current rules, the judge also noted that the Trump administration is engaged in a rulemaking to basically do the same thing again. So we haven't seen the end of the judicial review of what the Trump administration is doing to the Endangered Species Act and its rules. The current schedule is for the Trump rules to be finalized in September. And then the litigation begins all over again. Pat, how is this God Squad different from prior God Squads?

18:13You've seen them all. It's different in the ways that we talked about, which is that this is the first time national security has been invoked. And this is the first time none of the steps for exemption have been followed. That's what distinguishes this particular situation. This is just Hexeth demanding an exemption. That's basically what we have here. And the committee going along with his demand and saying, well, we don't really have any choice. That's really not true either. The committee could have imposed certain conditions like the ones that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had imposed to protect the rice's whale.

18:51But they weren't clear about whether those protections were even going to be maintained. So that's what makes this completely different from anything we've seen before. This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Apple Card members can earn unlimited daily cash back on everyday purchases wherever they shop. This means you could be earning daily cash on just about anything, like a slice of pizza from your local pizza place or a latte from the corner coffee shop. Apply for Apple Card and the Wallet app to see your credit limit offer in minutes. Subject to credit approval, Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City branch.

19:27Terms and more at AppleCard.com. Support for the show comes from Public. Public is an investing platform that offers access to stocks, options, bonds and crypto. And they've also integrated AI with tools that can assist investors in building customized portfolios. One of these tools is called Generated Assets. It allows you to turn your ideas into investable indexes. So let's say you're interested in something specific like biotech companies with high R &D spend, small cap stocks with improving operating margins, or the S &P 500 minus high debt companies. Chances are there isn't an ETF that fits your exact criteria.

20:03But on public, you just type in a prompt and their AI screens thousands of stocks and build a one-of-a-kind index. You can even backtest it against the S &P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Go to public.com slash market and earn an uncapped 1 % bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com slash market.

20:33Sample prompts are for illustrative purposes only, not investment advice. All investing involves risk of loss. See complete disclosures at public.com slash disclosures. Being a small business owner isn't just a career. It's a calling. Chase for Business knows how much heart and effort go into building something of your own. That's why they make business growth their priority. The Chase team takes the time to understand your mission, where you are now, and where you want to go. Their broad range of solutions is designed with you in mind so you can bring your ideas to life. From banking to payment acceptance to credit cards, you can conveniently manage all your business finances all in one place with their digital tools.

21:11Looking for tips and advice? Their online resources are always available to give you the solutions you need to help your business thrive. See how your business can get stronger and go farther with Chase for Business. Learn more at chase.com slash business. Chase for Business. Make more of what's yours. The Chase mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., member FDIC. Copyright 2026, JPMorgan Chase and Company. And for a moment, I want to turn to arguments at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals over the ICE detention center that's been called Alligator Alcatraz.

21:52It appears that the federal appeals panel is likely to rule that ICE is operating the detention facility lawfully despite no environmental review process. And the issue is whether it's a state site or a federal site? Oh, yeah. This one is really kind of a gnarly legal question. The question boils down to, is there sufficient federal involvement, meaning funding, and control over this detention facility in the Everglades? That turns on whether there's a major federal action with significant environmental impact. Well, we know that the construction and operation of this facility has major environmental and ecological consequences.

22:45It's right next to the Big Cypress National Preserve. It's full of alligators and pythons and panthers. Oh, my. So, yes, there's significant environmental impact from this. But is there federal sufficient? Federal involvement is the way I would put it. And it's true that the panel, the three-judge panel that heard arguments this week, is expressing real skepticism about whether there's sufficient federal involvement and, quote, control. The state did build this facility. DeSantis built it. But it's holding federal prisoners, basically. you know, detainees for deportation. So it's clearly serving a federal purpose, even though it might day to day be under the operational control of the state.

23:37Okay. The second thing is there's a lot of money involved. The construction alone is over 600 million. FEMA approved a reimbursement to the state in September of this year, but they haven't yet cut any checks because the Department of Justice has said, don't pay the state any money while this litigation is pending because that will create federal involvement, right? So the money hasn't been paid. It's been promised. The state certainly expects it. DeSantis expects it. Trump has said, well, we'll reimburse you. We like what you're doing. But right now they haven't cut any money. So then the other question is, well, is the federal government somehow involved in the operation?

24:24Like I said, it is serving a federal purpose, but ICE itself is not on site. To the extent there are any federal involvement, it's not day-to-day operational control. So it is, as I said, it's a tricky legal question. How much federal involvement is enough to trigger the requirement for an environmental impact statement? No environmental impact statement was done despite the very significant environmental impacts. But here's the irony. If this court says that there's not sufficient federal involvement today, and therefore the injunction that the lower court had issued, and actually the lower court had required the facility to be shut down, you know, that's yet another question is whether district courts have that kind of power.

25:11But put that aside. The point is, if this panel says we don't see enough federal involvement here, so we dissolve the injunction. And then the very next day, DOJ lifts the block on the funding and six hundred million dollars of taxpayer money goes to Mr. DeSantis. What the hell does that look like? It looks to me like they're hiding the ball on NEPA review until the courts have ruled. and then they'll pay the state the money. So we'll have to see how this all sugars off, as we say. But right now, it looks like the injunction, at least, is definitely going to be lifted, permanently lifted. It was already temporarily lifted.

25:53It's always so great to talk to you, Pat. I appreciate your time. That's Professor Pat Parenteau of the Vermont Law and Graduate School. Support for the show comes from Public. Lately, it feels like there are two types of investing platforms. Some are traditional brokerages that haven't changed much in decades, and others feel less like investing and more like a game. Public is positioned differently. It's an investing platform for people who are serious about building their wealth. On Public, you can build a portfolio of stocks, options, bonds, crypto without all the bugs or the confetti. Retirement accounts?

26:27Yep. High yield cash? Yes, again. They even have direct indexing. Public has modern design, powerful tools, and customer support that actually helps. Go to public.com slash market and earn an uncapped 1 % bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com slash market. Add paid for by Public Holdings. Brokered services by Public Investing, member FINRA SIPC. Advisory services by Public Advisors, SEC Registered Advisor. Crypto services by ZeroHash. All investing involves risk of loss. See complete disclosures at public.com slash disclosures. Small businesses are the pulse of every community.

27:04They bring people together, create opportunities, and drive growth. With a widespread presence in communities across the country, Chase for Business supports small business owners at a local level. That makes it possible for you to connect, learn from each other, and grow together. There's a real commitment to seeing small businesses succeed. The Chase for Business team has knowledge and expertise that span a wide range of financial areas. They can help you make more informed decisions as you navigate the complexities of running your business. They'll help your business grow with individual guidance and convenient digital tools all in one place.

27:37With that guidance and your determination, you can take your business farther and help build a brighter future for your community. Learn more at chase.com slash business. Chase for business. Make more of what's yours. The Chase mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., member FDIC. Copyright 2026, JPMorgan Chase and Company. If you follow markets, you know the value of long-term thinking. You plan, you diversify, you prepare for volatility. But even the best strategies can't prevent every bad day. For more than 75 years, Cincinnati Insurance has helped individuals and businesses navigate tough moments with expertise, personal attention, and independent agents who focus on relationships, not transactions.

28:28The Cincinnati insurance companies. Let them make your bad day better. Find an agent at CINFIN.com. President Trump has unleashed a flurry of social media posts threatening Iran, but his chilling post on Tuesday pressing Iran to make an agreement before his 8 p.m. deadline or, quote, a whole civilization will die tonight, drew the most criticism and alarm. Even Pope Leo weighed in. Trump has been making similar threats, for example, warning he would send Iran back to the Stone Age. And there was this at a news conference on Monday. We have a plan because of the power of our military where every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o 'clock tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding, and never to be used again.

29:28I mean, complete demolition. Trump backed off and announced a two-week extension, but his unrestrained statements have raised concerns and questions about whether the attacks he's threatened would amount to war crimes. Here's Democratic Senator Peter Welch of Vermont. I think the president is really unhinged. You know, the ayatollahs are the problem. The people of Iran are not. And when the president is posting about destroying an entire civilization, that is unhinged. And if he was really serious about doing that, that's a war crime. Joining me is Joshua Kastenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico Law School and a former judge and lawyer in the U.S.

Read the full transcript

30:12Air Force. Josh, do you think these constitute threats to commit a war crime? It sets the stage for a war crime. And I'm not appealing to some erudite international law concept, but rather a real world set of laws that the United States was instrumental in creating after World War II. And I'd point to 1944, 1945, when the United States Navy and the United States military under General MacArthur and Admiral Halsey went to retake the Philippines, the commanding general, the Japanese forces in the Philippines was General Yamashita. There was another general similarly in another theater named General Homa.

30:56Neither General Yamashita or General Homa ordered their troops to kill anybody, but they let their troops run out of control. And in the Philippines, tens of thousands, if not over a hundred thousand innocent Philippine, non-belligerent, non-combatant people were massacred by Japanese forces. Yamashita, his argument when he was facing his trial in a court convened by General Douglas MacArthur was, I didn't have the ability to stop that from happening, and therefore I can't be held accountable. The counter to that was, and this is a principle now of international law, was that you have a duty to not create the conditions under which innocent people are killed.

31:41And if you do create the conditions, you have a duty to stop that. And Yamashita appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which did not grant him a hearing at all, and both he and General Hama have been executed. Since that time, that principle of law has been used to prosecute individuals like radio personalities in the Rwandan genocide who simply encouraged others to kill the minority population there. So President Trump is the commander-in-chief of all military forces by saying we'll destroy your civilization is not only causing a war crime by encouraging it to happen you have to have the vehicles in place to stop it from happening now we entered into a ceasefire so we don't know if that would have occurred or not but what we do know is that threat to annihilate an entire people with a rich civilization that goes back to pre-recorded history is a war crime.

32:42In theory, war crimes could be prosecuted in the U.S., but any punishment of Trump is a non-starter, especially given the broad interpretations of presidential immunity by the Supreme Court. I won't go as far as saying this war was brought to you by the Supreme Court, but I will go as far as saying the Supreme Court has enabled the type of lawlessness, including going to war without even going to Congress first and asking for fiscal approval, engaging in the random firing of generals and admirals who might serve as a constraint to lawlessness. This has been enabled by Trump versus United States.

33:23And in that vein, if we think about how we can have a lawless military action, it begins with that decision in 2024. It also includes the president's broad, fully constitutional authority to pardon individuals. So now we are in an environment where a president can violate the rights of citizens in the U.S., violate, you know, norms of international law, outright treaty agreements that result in the deaths of even, you know, innocent schoolchildren. And no U.S. jurisdiction can touch him. And with this pardon authority, it's unlikely that a U.S. jurisdiction would touch any of the individuals operating within this chain of command.

34:09What I would say is when this is all over, those individuals probably ought to be content with remaining in the continental U.S. and not taking a trip to another country for a vacation or speaking engagement. But yeah, we now have a military structure that will enable war crimes. And by the way, a number of generals and admirals warned the Supreme Court this in a friend of the court brief during the arguments of Trump versus the United States. So this is no surprise to those people in the know. Congressman Ted Lieu, Democrat from California, called on the Pentagon not to obey any orders to eradicate a whole civilization.

34:50Quote, if you commit war crimes, the next administration will prosecute you. But as you said, Trump could just give pardons to anyone. Yeah, so Ted Lieu is a former officer. And, you know, I agree with him 100 % on individuals having a duty not to follow unconstitutional orders. But the comment about a future administration prosecuting them is an empty, hollow comment for two reasons. One is that the pardon authority of the president will protect them. And the other is that it just hasn't happened in our history. You know, people will go back to say after the Civil War, Lincoln wanted amnesty.

35:33Johnson gave amnesty. You know, you have the post-Vietnam War amnesty program that was set up first by Gerald Ford and then more fully enacted by Jimmy Carter in his first days in office. although those weren't war crimes that they were giving amnesty to. It's just Americans are not particularly good at holding individuals to account unless it happens very quickly with war crimes prosecution. Let's talk theoretically about someone in the military who gets an order that he or she thinks is a war crime. I mean, do you think it's raising ethical problems in the military even now? Yeah, I do. I mean, I'm not a member of, you know, like the GI Forum.

36:17I sometimes talk to individuals on the Orders Project and other organizations that will give military members legal advice. I'm not a member of any of those, but I do hear from them and I do read the press like you do. And it's very clear. All you have to do is look at the outgoing Army Chief of Staff's resignation letter to know that there's a tremendous concern going on in the ranks. But this is important for the public to understand. When you're a citizen, a civilian, and you are arrested and charged with a crime, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. If you raise a defense like self-defense or alibi, I wasn't there, the duty is on the prosecution to prove that you were there or that you didn't work in self-defense.

37:06And that is an important part of our constitutional rights. But military members are different. In the defense of refusing to follow a lawful order, if I'm representing a young soldier who's given an unlawful order and says, no, I'm not going to do it, the burden of proof is on us to prove that the order was unlawful and not the other way around. And that makes military law unique. It's one of those areas that Justice Scalia once said, it's not possible to use military law norms and graph them on to constitutional due process law in the criminal arena because military law is so unique. It has aspects in it that would be intolerable in a constitutional sense to apply to civilians.

37:53And the reason I bring that up is it highlights that our soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coast guardsmen are straightjacketed under our present conditions that include a secretary of defense and a president at least articulating ideas that if they were to be put into effect are inherently immoral, but even more troubling, inherently unlawful. So the decisions on which targets to hit, I mean, who is making those decisions? So that's a great question you ask. And when I was on active duty, there was a very quick but very methodical and careful stepstone approach where tactical level commanders and also strategic organizations like the CIA or the DIA would say, this target's important, that target's important.

38:48And then the targeting would be done very quickly through something known as a combined operation, you know, air operations center, which involved the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, as well as our allies. And those targets would then be selected and there would be some real no kidding attempt to make sure that those targets were viable under the international law of armed conflict, under international humanitarian law. or that collateral damage estimates would be employed so that maybe a target would be lawful, maybe a chemical weapons factory. But if it was near a elementary school, we would say you can't do it.

39:26It's wrong that they put it there, but you can't do it. There would be very quick analysis today. That kind of analysis, I don't think it's being done. And I think a lot of what is happening now is artificial intelligence being used. That's been attempted to explain why the United States bombed a school. You know, Hexeth promised to unleash the dogs of war without interfering lawyers. And we would be warriors again. And he did so in a very crusader-like medieval mentality. So I think you take a look at all that rhetoric and you take a look at Trump's promise to bomb to the Stone Ages. And there is far less concern at the upper levels today, particularly in the civilian levels, with obedience to international law and a desire to protect noncombatants than there was only 10 years ago.

40:23Coming up next, have the bounds of legality in military conflict changed? This is Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

40:40Do President Trump's threats to destroy Iranian civilization pose an ethical quandary for the U.S. military whose officers would carry out his orders? Trump would be unlikely to face any punishment for such actions, yet military officers might be at greater risk, or at least perceive themselves to be, given that attacking civilian targets could cross a legal red line. The question could be especially acute for officers responsible for selecting targets as part of Trump's stepped-up war campaign. I've been talking to Josh Kastenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico Law School. Years ago.

41:23Josh, the rules can be murky, and you often hear that some of these strikes, for example, against power plants, can be legitimate targets if they feed military installations. And there's also the possibility of military being embedded in civilian population. So where do you draw the line? Well, I think even if it's attempted, I think what really is going on is the balance of caution has shifted to incaution, meaning that if a target has some, and I stress that, some relationship to Iran's capacity to wage war, then in their mind, then it's a fair game, regardless of what the collateral damage is.

42:07under George W. Bush. And I know, you know, people have a lot of strong opinions about the administration. At least we had quite a bit of care in how targeting was done in terms of avoiding collateral damage. And collateral damage meant kids. It meant noncombatants. It meant old age homes and schools and things like that. But given the rhetoric that's out there right now, It doesn't seem to me to be the case. Let's say there are ground forces. The soldier on the ground isn't considering the legality of an order, right? They're just following orders. Well, you're trying to fight a conflict and survive.

42:49I mean, you know, the quickness that the pace of a battle is in or an operation, you know, going up the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, like we saw, you know, with the invasion of Iraq, is you assume when you have boots on the ground. like you assume if you're in an F-15E Strike Eagle, that the targeting that's being done or the orders that are being given to you are lawful. You assume that because you don't have the time to second guess your lieutenant's command, his or her captain's command, their colonel's command. You assume all of that was done, and you always have a right to fire back if you're being fired upon.

43:30So no, the danger for soldiers who have boots on the ground going back to the Vietnam War was not about did I shoot an innocent person or not because in the heat of a firefight you don't know. The issue there was, you know, once my forces occupied a village, once we captured civilians or even people who were shooting at us, are we now safeguarding them as we're supposed to do in regard to, you know, international law and our uniform code of military justice? But this reckless rhetoric that is going on right now makes me think that just about any act of malfeasance or violation of law will be tolerated.

44:14Apparently, there's been a general loosening of legal guardrails in the military. Has Hegseth gotten rid of the judge advocate generals? Yeah, that's what they did at the very beginning of their administration. I mean, I look at the Air Force, for example, Rebecca Vernon, incredibly talented deputy judge advocate general. I'm biased towards her because I served with her, you know, years ago, and I saw the tremendous talent that she had. She was going to rise to be the judge advocate general, the judge advocate general, Lieutenant Colonel Chuck Plummer. It spent his life, you know, studying the importance of the law of armed conflict in international law.

44:54A similar thing happened in the Navy and in the Army, and they got rid of these individuals, and they replaced them, oddly enough, not with career judge advocates, but with National Guard judge advocates, and they even had to bend the law to get them in. And it shows more of a political allegiance than a constitutional allegiance to me. And so, you know, I gave a briefing to the New Mexico State Bar a year ago, and I said, watch this. Watch what happens. It's not that I'm always right and I'm no smarter or dumber than the next person in the room. But if you remove the judge advocates general in the way he did and senior leadership who were women or persons of color, this is exactly what you get right now.

45:43You get no pushback and you create a military that's loyal to your vision of war than it is necessarily to the legal obligations. And for those people who think it's namby-pamby, I'll say this. If you want the Iranians to come around one day and say, you know, we're going to throw off our leadership, first of all, you shouldn't go to war in the way we did. But if you do, you fight it with a complete adherence to the Geneva Conventions and the rules that came after. You don't do what we're doing right now, which will create a generation of or two of haters towards the United States. And if you don't believe me, look at the attitudes of people who live in the country surrounding Israel, and you'll get that same effect.

46:28And you will never have peace. A lot of problems and a lot of questions. Thanks so much, Josh. That's Professor Joshua Kastenberg of the University of New Mexico Law School. 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 slash podcast slash law. And remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m. Wall Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.

47:08When you're running a business, the best days are the ones where priorities stay on track. For midsize and large companies, risk can affect multiple parts of the organization at once, from property and liability to cyber and regulatory challenges. At that level, managing risk becomes an ongoing discipline. At the Hartford, the focus is on helping businesses manage risk before it turns into something more disruptive. And when losses do happen, that work is paired with insurance coverage shaped by years of underwriting, risk engineering, and claims experience. Learn more at thehartford.com slash risk mitigation.

47:43Policies provided by Hartford Fire Insurance Company and its property and casualty affiliates, Hartford, Connecticut. You know that feeling when a story just grabs you and won't let go? That's the kind of drama that's waiting for you on Disney Plus Hulu. Mysterious post-apocalyptic thrillers like the acclaimed Hulu original, Paradise. Action-adventure dramas like Daredevil Born Again. and iconic medical dramas like Grey's Anatomy. Or maybe you want your drama with a side of comic relief with shows like High Potential. Find the drama you want on Disney Plus and Hulu with a bundle subscription. Terms apply.

48:21Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this, but anyone can get the same premium wireless for$15 a month plan that I've been enjoying. It's not just for celebrities. So do like I did and have one of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for three-month plan equivalent to$15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. Default terms at mintmobile.com.

From the publisher

Environmental law expert Pat Parenteau, a professor at the Vermont Law & Graduate School, discusses the so-called “God Squad” exempting Gulf of Mexico oil and gas development from the Endangered Species Act, putting endangered whales and other species at risk. Then Joshua Kastenberg, a professor at the University of New Mexico Law School and a former judge and lawyer in the US Air Force, discusses whether Trump’s Iran threats raise war crimes concerns. June Grasso hosts.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

More from Bloomberg Law

All 285 episodes
'God Squad' Puts Endangered Whales at RiskBloomberg Law · 40 min
Listen in VO