Terry Gross interviews Joyce Vance, author of the new book Giving Up Is Unforgivable: A Manual For Keeping A Democracy. Vance, a former federal prosecutor who served 25 years and was U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama under President Obama, now writes and appears as a legal analyst. Her book addresses threats to American democracy under the Trump administration and offers concrete steps citizens can take.
Vance reacts to a clip in which President Trump, asked whether he’d defy a court order, says he never would but calls some judges “rogue” and a “lunatic.” She sees this as part of a pattern: the president walking a tightrope between professed respect for courts and relentless attacks on the judiciary. Vance emphasizes that courts are where difficult disputes are resolved and that compliance with court orders is a fundamental democratic commitment. The president’s rhetoric that judges are illegitimate when they rule against him undermines that commitment.
They discuss the unitary executive theory, which argues for a more muscular presidency and greater presidential control over the executive branch. Once a fringe conservative idea, it has gained prominence under Trump, who tests how much power a president can assume. Vance notes that several Supreme Court justices appear sympathetic to a stronger executive, raising questions about long-term shifts in the balance among the branches. Practical flashpoints include attempts to limit Congress’s power of the purse or to expand unilateral presidential authority on military or emergency matters.
Vance explains the evolving scope of “executive” power: the founding-era term meant something narrower than today’s sprawling administrative state. Modern disputes often concern whether presidents can fire or otherwise control agency experts and the extent to which political leadership may reshape administrative agencies.
The conversation turns to a recent exchange in which members of Congress—many with military backgrounds—posted a video advising service members they may refuse illegal orders. Trump responded on social media, calling the lawmakers “traitors” and urging they be locked up, and suggested such actions could be “punishable by death.” Vance describes this as extraordinary and dangerous rhetoric. She defends the lawmakers’ reminder that service members have an obligation not to follow illegal orders and stresses the need for established chain-of-command and legal advice in unusual deployments or strikes. For the president to imply that questioning legality is seditious is deeply at odds with legal and democratic norms.
Gross interrupts to note the Pentagon was investigating one of the lawmakers cited. Vance returns to the theme of threats to judges and prosecutors, recounting a personal tragedy: her father-in-law, a judge, was killed by a mail bomb delivered to his home; her mother-in-law was seriously injured. The bomb had been disguised as a package from a friendly judge. Vance uses this memory to underscore how frightening threats against judges are—especially when they come from within the government, rather than from a dissatisfied litigant. She stresses that public servants shouldn’t have to fear for their families’ safety.
The interview explores Alexander Hamilton’s description of the judiciary as “the weakest” branch because courts depend on public confidence and voluntary compliance with rulings; they have no army to enforce their decisions. Vance says that dependence on public respect is both a vulnerability and a strength: the judiciary can be eroded by powerful actors but can also be reinforced by public scrutiny and other branches acting as checks. She worries that a president who rejects adverse rulings and attacks judges weakens that delicate underpinning.
Gross asks whether the current balance of power is out of kilter given Trump’s influence over the Supreme Court and many Republican members of Congress. Vance notes judges are appointed by presidents, but once on the bench they act independently, guided by law and facts. Still, she acknowledges the Court has issued surprising rulings favorable to Trump, including a broad immunity ruling shielding some presidential acts from criminal prosecution. That decision—paired with the Court’s recent composition—raises concerns about how far the unitary executive theory may be allowed to stretch.
They discuss the case of Judge James Boasberg, who ordered that deportation flights of Venezuelan migrants be turned around; the administration did not comply. Vance explains that Boasberg is considering contempt proceedings. A whistleblower claims prosecutors were told a high-ranking Justice Department official suggested ignoring court orders to advance the president’s goals. The judge plans factfinding, which could lead to criminal contempt referrals; the matter is evolving.
Vance recounts meeting President Obama as a newly appointed U.S. attorney; Obama told them, “I appointed you, but you don’t work for me. You work for the American people.” Vance says that ethos—prosecutors acting for justice and community rather than political bosses—guided her work. She regrets that momentum on criminal justice reform from the Obama era was disrupted by later national crises and politics.
She describes a signature case from her tenure: challenging Alabama’s HB 56, an immigration law that, among other things, required schoolchildren to disclose parents’ immigration status. Vance invoked Plyler v. Doe to defend children’s right to K–12 education regardless of immigration status and challenged provisions that would have criminalized church groups who provided transportation for medical care. Her office largely succeeded in court. She recalls the human cost: children afraid to attend school, community harm such as lost agricultural labor, and the erosion of basic rights amid political posturing.
On the Supreme Court immunity ruling that some read as putting a president above the law, Vance says she was surprised. The Court granted broad immunity for official acts, and while hypotheticals—like ordering assassination—were discussed, the ruling left open many questions, including how to distinguish presidential acts from personal conduct (e.g., candidate vs. president actions). She notes that reversal of a Supreme Court decision is rare but possible; practical ability to challenge the immunity ruling is limited while the president controls the Justice Department.
They discuss ethical concerns about Trump appointing former personal lawyers to high Justice Department roles (Pam Bondi as attorney general, Todd Blanche as deputy attorney general, others). Vance calls this corrosive: Justice Department independence relies on a firewall restricting informal White House influence over prosecutions. When loyal personal attorneys take leadership roles, it creates conflicts between serving a president personally and upholding the Constitution.
Vance critiques the reopening of the Epstein files by the Justice Department under Bondi, viewing it as pretextual and politically driven to avoid fully turning over documents that Congress ordered released. She notes the Southern District of New York had investigated and prosecuted Epstein and Maxwell; reopening without clear new evidence smacks of selective, partisan use of prosecutorial power. Vance also recounts reports that Maxwell was moved to unusually comfortable confinement after meeting the deputy attorney general, which raises concerns about preferential treatment.
The central message of Vance’s book is a call to action: don’t give up. She relates conversations with her 22-year-old son, who, while educated and a voter, expressed cynicism about democracy’s responsiveness—believing wealthy interests still dominate and that his generation shouldn’t be expected to fix problems previous generations created. Vance says this response highlighted the importance of making the case for democracy to younger voters and reinvesting in civics education that is practical and participatory, emphasizing down-ballot offices—mayors, school boards, city councils—that shape daily life.
Despite grave concerns, Vance expresses measured optimism that the Constitution’s architecture is resilient and that institutions can hold if citizens remain engaged. Midterm elections and ongoing civic activity are opportunities to reestablish guardrails. She urges everyday civic participation—voting, local engagement, protecting the rule of law—to preserve democratic norms. The interview closes with Gross noting Vance’s book title and upcoming programming.