KERA's Think Why we need laws to be specific
Nov 19, 2025
In this discussion, Matthew Purdy, editor-at-large at The New York Times Magazine, sheds light on the dangers of vague laws in consolidating executive power. He reveals how the Trump administration used ambiguous regulations around tariffs and DEI to create confusion and foster preemptive compliance among institutions. Purdy critiques the inefficiency of the legislative process for clearer laws and discusses the troubling historical precedent for vague legislation as a tool for political oppression seen globally.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Vagueness Multiplies Executive Power
- Vague rules plus clear punishments push people to anticipate and overcomply with government wishes.
- Matthew Purdy explains this dynamic helps consolidate executive power quickly and efficiently.
NIH Grants Cut Over Vague DEI Scan
- The Trump administration canceled thousands of NIH grants after scanning for DEI or gender-identity topics.
- Matthew Purdy notes this was unusual because the bureaucracy rarely cancels research funding so broadly.
Undefined 'Illegal DEI' Creates Chilling Effect
- Officials demanded certifications to avoid 'illegal DEI' without defining it, creating uncertainty for schools and organizations.
- The penalty threat (loss of federal funding) forced many to self-censor or overcomply.