Terry Gross speaks with Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor and one-time U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama under President Obama, about her new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable: A Manual For Keeping A Democracy. After a 25-year career in the federal system, Vance now writes and comments as a legal analyst. Her book lays out the democratic risks she sees in recent years and offers specific actions citizens can take to push back.
A recurring theme in the conversation is the presidential relationship with the courts. Vance reacts to a clip of President Trump saying he would never defy a court order while simultaneously calling some judges “rogue” or a “lunatic.” She frames that rhetoric as part of a pattern: a public posture of nominal respect for the judiciary paired with frequent delegitimizing attacks when rulings are unfavorable. For Vance, courts are the forum for resolving hard disputes, and voluntary compliance with judicial orders is a core democratic commitment. When a president portrays adverse judges as illegitimate, that commitment is weakened.
They discuss the unitary executive theory, which promotes a more powerful presidency and tighter presidential control over the executive branch. Once marginal among conservatives, Vance says the idea has gained traction and been tested under Trump, who has pushed the boundaries of executive authority. Several Supreme Court justices appear at least sympathetic to expanding executive reach, raising the possibility of lasting changes in the balance of power. Practical flashpoints include attempts to restrict Congress’s purse strings or to broaden unilateral presidential power over military actions and emergency measures.
Vance explains that the concept of the executive has dramatically expanded since the founding. Where the framers contemplated a narrower executive, the modern administrative state creates disputes over whether presidents may remove or micromanage agency experts and to what extent political leadership can reorient regulatory agencies.
The interview turns to a recent episode in which members of Congress—some with military experience—posted a video reminding service members that refusing illegal orders is permissible. President Trump called those lawmakers “traitors,” urged they be imprisoned, and suggested such conduct could be met with the death penalty. Vance describes the comments as extraordinary and dangerous. She defends the lawmakers’ point: service members have a duty not to carry out illegal commands, and unusual deployments or strikes require proper legal guidance and chain-of-command procedures. For a president to imply that questioning legality is seditious flouts established legal and democratic norms.
Gross notes the Pentagon was investigating one of the lawmakers. Vance moves from that exchange to threats against judges and prosecutors, sharing a personal memory: her father-in-law, a judge, was killed by a mail bomb sent to his home while her mother-in-law was seriously injured. The device had been disguised as a package from a judge who was seen as friendly, and the attack underscores how frightening and personal such threats are. Vance stresses that public servants and their families should not fear for their safety, and that threats originating within political discourse are especially corrosive.
They revisit Alexander Hamilton’s idea of the judiciary as the “weakest” branch because courts rely on public confidence and voluntary compliance rather than force. Vance says that dependence is both a vulnerability and a strength: courts can be eroded by powerful actors, but they can also be fortified by public scrutiny and by other branches enforcing checks and balances. A president who rejects adverse rulings and attacks judges chips away at that fragile foundation.
Gross asks whether the balance of power is tilted now that the president has appointed multiple Supreme Court justices and exerts influence over many congressional Republicans. Vance notes that while presidents appoint judges, judges are expected to decide independently based on law and facts. Still, recent decisions have surprised many, including a broad immunity ruling that shields certain presidential acts from criminal prosecution. That ruling, together with the Court’s present composition, raises concerns about how widely the unitary executive can be interpreted.
They discuss specific legal fights, including a case in which Judge James Boasberg ordered deportation flights of Venezuelan migrants turned around and the administration did not comply. Boasberg is exploring contempt proceedings; a whistleblower alleges prosecutors were instructed by a senior Justice Department official to ignore judicial orders to further presidential aims. The judge has announced factfinding that could lead to criminal contempt referrals as the situation develops.
Vance recalls meeting President Obama early in her tenure, when he told newly appointed U.S. attorneys: “I appointed you, but you don’t work for me. You work for the American people.” She says that ethos—prosecutors serving justice and community rather than political masters—guided her work. She regrets that momentum on criminal justice reform from the Obama years was undercut by subsequent crises and shifting politics.
She highlights a signature case from her time in Alabama defending children’s right to education against parts of HB 56, an immigration law that would have forced schoolchildren to disclose parents’ immigration status. Invoking Plyler v. Doe, Vance challenged provisions that threatened to criminalize church groups that provided transportation to medical care and that deterred children from attending school. Her office largely prevailed in court, but she remembers the human toll: frightened children, disrupted communities and lost agricultural labor.
On the Supreme Court immunity ruling that some read as placing a president above the law, Vance says she was surprised. The Court afforded broad immunity for official acts while leaving many questions unresolved—especially how to distinguish official from candidate conduct. She observes that overturning a Supreme Court decision is rare, and that practical challenges to the immunity ruling are limited while a sitting president controls the Justice Department.
Vance criticizes the practice of elevating former personal lawyers to senior Justice Department roles, naming examples like Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche. She calls such appointments corrosive because Justice Department independence depends on a firewall insulating prosecutors from White House influence. When loyal personal lawyers run the department, conflicts between personal loyalty and the Constitution become inevitable.
She also raises concerns about the reopening of the Epstein files under Bondi, describing it as seemingly pretextual and politically motivated to avoid fully complying with congressional document requests. Vance notes that the Southern District of New York had already investigated Epstein and Maxwell and that reopening cases without clear new evidence risks selective use of prosecutorial power. Reports that Maxwell was moved to unusually comfortable confinement after meeting a deputy attorney general alarm her as suggestive of preferential treatment.
The core of Vance’s book is a call to action: do not give up. She recounts talking with her 22-year-old son, who expressed skepticism about democracy’s responsiveness and reluctance to shoulder solutions for older generations’ problems. That exchange convinced her of the need to make the case for democratic participation to younger voters and to revitalize practical civics education that emphasizes how local offices—mayors, school boards, city councils—shape daily life.
Despite serious worries, Vance offers guarded optimism that constitutional institutions can hold if citizens remain engaged. Upcoming elections and everyday civic involvement offer chances to restore guardrails. Her advice is concrete: vote, participate locally, defend the rule of law, and insist on accountability in government. Those actions, she argues, are the best way to preserve democratic norms and strengthen the institutions that depend on public commitment.