Transcripts

For those of us who knew that Trump was lawless and deeply racist in his desire for mass deportations of brown people, we are getting exactly what we expected. For others, at least the lawlessness is coming as a bit of a surprise. And yet, here we are.

For those looking for a quick overview, the sources providing our Top Takes in about 50 minutes today includes Main Justice, CounterSpin, Strict Scrutiny, The Majority Report, 60 Minutes, The Thom Hartmann Program, The Muckrake Political Podcast, and Democracy Now! Then in the additional Deeper Dives half of the show, there will be more in four sections: Section A, Deportation practices; followed by Section B, Victims of the regime; section C, Venezuela and El Salvador; and Section D, Resistance.

But first, we are still in major promotion mode as we launch our new weekly show SOLVED! We really need every hand [00:01:00] on deck we can get. So subscribe at the Best of the Left YouTube channel, watch, like, comment, all of those sorts of things. We're really proud of the show we're making, so we want as many people as possible to see it and hear it, and that includes you, but also you going and checking it out will help the system recommend it to others. So thanks in advance for checking it out.

Mr. Abrego Garcia - Main Justice - Air Date 4-15-25

ANDREW WEISMAN - HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: So instead, let's turn to the Abrego Garcia case. Since our last podcast, the Supreme Court ruled in a per curium -- that is an unsigned order with no dissents.

MARY MCCORD - CO-HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: That's right.

ANDREW WEISMAN - HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: And it gave two obligations to the government. One, it said that the government has to "facilitate" the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia from prison.

It also said they had to "ensure" his due process rights. Remember, they had previously said in a prior decision that these people who had been removed are entitled to a pre-deprivation [00:02:00] hearing.

MARY MCCORD - CO-HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: They talked about that in the context of the Venezuelans who had been removed under the supposed authority of Alien Enemy Act, and this of course is separate because Mr. Garcia is El Salvadoran.

ANDREW WEISMAN - HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: Right. The idea is before you are removed, you're entitled to a hearing. You can say that legally the whatever the statute is that doesn't apply, or that you're not within the gang or the group that is being removed. So you're entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing, and here the court says, one, they need to facilitate his release; two, they need to ensure due process. In doing that, they need to be prepared to share with the district judge what it is that they are doing.

MARY MCCORD - CO-HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: What steps they have taken, and the prospect of further steps. It's exactly what the court said.

ANDREW WEISMAN - HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: And then finally the court did say that, with respect to the district court saying that you have to facilitate and "effectuate" -- we're really getting into the weeds here -- and they did say that the word "effectuate" is [00:03:00] unclear. That was exactly their word.

MARY MCCORD - CO-HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: Needed clarification. Yep.

ANDREW WEISMAN - HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: Because obviously what they're concerned about is they say you can't order the government to effectuate -- let's just take a different hypothetical -- the release of somebody in Russia, not under our control, totally they're pursuant to Russian authorities to say, now the government of the United States has to go into Russia and redo the following.

So they're saying that is ambiguous, and you have to deal with that situation and make sure that you're not crossing the line into something the government actually can't do. Nor would it really be the province of a court to say that.

So those leapt a number of obligations on the government that they needed to fulfill, and it then went back to the district judge and maybe, Mary, what did the district judge then do?

MARY MCCORD - CO-HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: Yeah, and I think the timing here is really, really important. So this is on Thursday evening, I think around five or 6:00 PM that the court put out [00:04:00] this order. And in doing that -- let's just remind people, this was up there on a motion to stay the lower court's order, that it needed to stay and vacate, get rid of the lower court's order that the government needed to facilitate and effectuate his return. And so that's the posture where it was in the Supreme Court.

So the Supreme Court pretty much denied that motion to vacate, did tell the district court clarify what you mean by "effectuate" with due regard to the executives -- deference to the executive in foreign affairs, but facilitate, yeah, everything you just said. They ordered them to do.

The only part of what the Supreme Court did that granted in part the government's request was to the extent that the lower court had ordered that that facilitated and effectuated his return by 11:59 last Monday evening. They said that date has passed. That part of the order to vacate that part is granted because that date's already passed. That's the only part -- and this is important -- 'cause Stephen Miller later just flat [00:05:00] out, in my opinion, lies about this in public statements. He might say he's parsing hairs, but that's the only part of what the government requested that the Supreme Court granted. Yes, we're vacating the part that was 11:59 on Monday because that's over.

So, the lower court wasted no time. Within hours of getting this back from the Supreme Court, the court did clarify what she meant, and this is Judge Paula Xinis out of the District of Maryland. She clarified that what she meant was she amended her order to, quote, "direct that defendants shall take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible," and then consistent with the Supreme Court's directive, and she quoted it in her brief order, the government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. Based on that, Judge Xinis then directed the government to answer three questions and to file a declaration by the [00:06:00] next morning. She originally said 9:30 the next morning. Answering three questions: One, the current physical location and custodial status of Mr. Abrego Garcia. Two, what steps, if any, the defendants have taken to facilitate his immediate return to the United States. And Three, what additional steps the defendants will take and when to facilitate his return. She says, if you need to file under seal, you file under seal.

So this is all still happening on Thursday evening. The court then says, I'll have an in-person status conference on Friday at 1:00 PM in the courthouse. So next morning, government doesn't get this 9:30 declaration. She wants a declaration from somebody with personal knowledge who can answer that question.

Let's take a tiny pause here to talk about what a declaration is. A declaration is really a substitute for having a witness come in and sit in the witness stand and raise their right hand and take an oath to tell the truth and get asked questions. It's a way to do this on the papers where the government official, puts in [00:07:00] writing a declaration, and signs it under oath, right? They're saying, I'm swearing to these things. So it's like the paper equivalent of in-person testimony. It's just that you can't have a back and forth with a piece of paper; you can only just take what is on there.

ANDREW WEISMAN - HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: Yeah. And it very often there'll be lots of follow-up questions that you'd wanna ask and it ducks the issue or it uses -- this is gonna be the example you're thinking of -- it uses language that is just so ambiguous that you immediately are gonna be like, well, what do you mean by that?

MARY MCCORD - CO-HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: That's right.

ANDREW WEISMAN - HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: So can I just -- we're going to get into this very detailed TikTok. But, so I'm gonna play dumb here, which is, here's the thing that is not legal niceties and oh, what exactly were the words and what's the difference between facilitate and effectuate?

None of that matters, because here's the key thing that has not happened: the United States has not even said that, has asked El [00:08:00] Salvador for his return, period. The end. I'm sorry. None of that had to do with state secrets, classified information, foreign policy. If you wanna know the most limited thing that the United States could do to quote, "facilitate" unquote his return. How about asking? Are you telling me that the president of El Salvador can show up in the Oval Office, that the President of the United States can talk about, oh, I need you to build five more prisons because I wanna put Americans, if legal, in these prisons. That we are paying by all reported accounts to have these people housed. That we are both sending people and getting people back when El Salvador says, you know what, we won't take those. And we are even sending Kristi Noem there and she is able to do a sort of promotional video, let's just say a video in front of the jail. That you're saying that somehow the president can't even ask and that wouldn't be [00:09:00] honored.

That is cutting through all of this sort of oh, there, there conceivably could be limits on what a court could order. They're not even saying they asked for his return. And obviously that would be the end of this. Because if they asked, it would happen. Unless there was a wink to say, I'm gonna ask and I want you to say no.

MARY MCCORD - CO-HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: Yep, that's right.

ANDREW WEISMAN - HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: So that is why all of this is just such crap. How's that for a legal term? That the Supreme Court of the United States has said you are directed to facilitate his return and they, the United States government, will not even tell the district court that it has asked for his return.

Big picture. A person is in jail, wrongfully. The government has admitted not just in the District court, but the Supreme Court papers from the government said they agreed that this was a mistake. So he is there because of a United States mistake, and they will not even say [00:10:00] that they have asked for his return after causing it themselves.

Dara Lind on Criminalizing Immigrants - CounterSpin - Air Date 4-11-25

DARA LIND: So the Alien Enemies Act was enacted in 1798. It was part of a suite of laws where every of the other laws that were passed around those issues as like America was very worried about war between Britain and France. All of the other acts passed around that were eventually rescinded because everybody looked at that moment and went, Ooh, that was a little bit tyrannical. We may have gone too far there. But the Alien Enemies Act stayed on the books and has been used very infrequently since then, most recently in World War II, to remove Japanese and German nationals.

What the Trump administration has done is say, one, we're using it again. Two, we're using it not against the government, but against a criminal group, the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which they argue is so enmeshed with the government of Venezuela that it [00:11:00] constitutes a hybrid criminal state. And three, saying that any Venezuelan man over the age of 14 who they deem to be a member of Tren de Aragua can be removed under the Alien Enemies Act without any of the process that is set out in actual immigration law. Under immigration law, you have the ability to make your case before a judge to demonstrate that you qualify for some form of relief, such as asylum, if that applies to you, and the government has to prove that you can be removed. They say, no, no, no, no, because this law existed before any of that. We don't have to go through any of that process. That is their interpretation of the law, and that's what they were doing when they put people on planes and sent them to El Salvador.

What has been litigated and, with a Supreme Court order on Monday night, where we are right now, is that the courts have said no. It is illegal to use the Alien Enemies [00:12:00] Act to remove people with no process whatsoever.

But the Supreme Court says if people want to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act, they need to do it through what are called habeas claims, which is not the way that the initial court case was brought.

So in theory right now, we're in a world where someone hypothetically could be removed under the Alien Enemies Act, but how that's going to work in practice is a little bit unclear, because it would have to be a different process than the one the Trump administration used in mid-March.

And what we're actually seeing is like even in the hours before you and I are speaking, that judges have started to receive lawsuits filed under these habeas claims and have started saying, yeah, you can't remove people under this act, through this either, right? So it's really changing very quickly on the ground, and part of that's the result of this 200 plus year-old [00:13:00] law being used in a manner in which it's never been used before, and with very little transparency as to what the administration wants to do with it.

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: It seems important to say, as you do in a piece that you wrote, that the Alien Enemies Act sidesteps immigration law because it's being presented as kind of part of immigration law. But the, one of the key things about it is that it takes us outside of laws that have been instituted to deal with immigration. Yeah?

DARA LIND: I compare this to when the Trump administration after the beginning of the COVID pandemic, used Title 42, which is a public health law, to essentially seal the US-Mexico border from asylum seekers. In that case, they were taking a law from outside of immigration that had been enacted before the modern immigration system and saying, because this law doesn't explicitly say immigration law is in effect, we can create this separate [00:14:00] pathway that we can use to -- that we can treat immigrants under this law without having to give them any of the rights guaranteed under immigration law. They're doing the same thing with this, saying because this law that is on the books doesn't refer to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which was passed a century and a half later, we don't need to adhere to anything that was since put in to, say, comply with the Refugee Convention, to comply with the International Convention Against Torture. All of these structures that have come into place as people have started to care about human rights and not sending people to torture or persecution, they're now saying they don't have to bother with because they weren't thinking about them in 1798.

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: Right. And it brings us to, folks for many years on many issues have been saying, well, it's not legal, so it's all gonna be fixed, 'cause the law's gonna step in and fix it, 'cause it's not legal. And I think you're referring to the fluidity and [00:15:00] the importance of the invocation of law. It's not like it just exists and you bring it down to bear. It's fought terrain. Yeah?

DARA LIND: Right. Yeah, exactly. It's, contested. And when we say contested, like it really is being fought out in the courts as we speak, because the administration is using its authority, the fact that it is the federal government. And litigators are saying, please point to us in the law where you can do that, or demonstrate to us that you are adhering it all to what we think of as fairly basic constitutional protections, like due process, like the right to know what you're being detained for. What is legal is, ultimately, what the courts decide, but how they rule on this is very unclear. And to be fully honest, the government's insistence on giving very little information and in conceding very little, even in cases [00:16:00] like Mr. Abrego Garcia's, whereas you say they've said there was a mistake made, makes it a little bit harder to understand what it would even look like to say a government that's been so truculent and so resistant is in fact operating under the law.

Are Trump Administration Officials in Criminal Contempt - Strict Scrutiny - Air Date 4-21-25

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: And so was Steven Miller's take during that same Oval Office meeting on the administration's supposedly unanimous win at SCOTUS. So during that meeting, Miller, who of course is one of the president's key advisors on immigration policy, offered his hot take on the Supreme Court's disposition of the Abrego Garcia case.

So you will recall, listeners, as Melissa just said, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was erroneously -- the government admits erroneously -- expelled to an El Salvadoran mega prison. A district court ordered the administration to take steps to return Abrego Garcia to the United States. The government appealed, arguing that the district court's order constituted an [00:17:00] impermissible attempt by the judiciary to interfere with the president's power to conduct foreign policy.

As we discussed on last week's episode, the Supreme Court then weighed in to say that while the district court cannot dictate American foreign policy, it does have the authority to correct legal wrongs, including the erroneous rendition to El Salvador of an individual an earlier immigration court specifically said could not be deported to El Salvador because of the likelihood of the danger he would face there.

So the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ordered the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. There were no noted dissents.

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Peewee German, however, had his own hot take of the court's disposition of the case. I don't know, maybe he translated it to German and things came up a little fuzzy. But you can take a listen to that here.

TOWNHALL CLIP: There's a nine zero in our favor, against the District court ruling saying that no district court has the power to compel the foreign policy function of the United States. As Pam said, the [00:18:00] ruling solely stated that if this individual at El Salvador's sole discretion was sent back to our country, that we could deport him a second time.

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: The guy literally alchemized defeat into victory. Incredible. For weeks, folks have been wondering whether the administration is going to openly defy the Supreme Court. I don't think we'd anticipated that instead of open defiance, we get magical thinking instead, where they just declared the Supreme Court had said the opposite of what they did and therefore they are in compliance with whatever they say the Supreme Court did.

So that's the scene. And now we want to go to the judges.

So Judge Boasberg told the administration that he is not the one. Judge Boasberg went off on the administration. So pull up a chair.

Recall that Judge Boasberg is the district court judge who presided over the original lawsuit, alleging that the administration, under the auspices of the Alien Enemies Act, was rendering Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador without any due process, on the view that the migrants were members of the Tren de Aragua gang.

Judge [00:19:00] Boasberg, not surprisingly, given this Constitution thing we supposedly got, was appalled that none of the migrants were given a hearing or any other process to challenge the administration's claims. So he told the administration to return the planes that had departed for El Salvador, and the administration's response was basically, Make me, bitch.

And then Judge Boasberg was like, excuse you, the fuck you think you're talking to? He would like to know why the administration thinks it doesn't have to offer these migrants any kind of due process, and why it believes it can give him, or any other judge for that matter, the middle finger.

Now, ultimately, as we know, the Supreme Court got their hands on this case, and the court issued a very narrow procedural ruling that concluded that the case had been improperly filed in the district of the District of Columbia, and that instead it ought to have been filed in the district where the migrants were detained before their departure to El Salvador. So that is in Texas. And that the challenges then should have proceeded as habeas petitions [00:20:00] in the Texas district court.

And so the administration was then like, so I guess we're done here. And Judge Boasberg, who's obviously been catching up on the last season of Hacks, was like, no bitch. Let's begin.

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: So last Wednesday, judge Boasberg issued a 46-page ruling in which he threatened to initiate criminal contempt proceedings unless the administration answered his questions about why it refused to provide due process to the migrants and why the administration ignored his order to turn the plane and the migrants around.

And the cherry on top was that he laid out an entire plan for how this would proceed.

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Stunt on these hoes, queen! I love that we are like standing Brett Kavanaugh's law school housemate. These are bleak times, Melissa.

MELISSA MURRAY - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Bleak times. Join our sorority.

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: I have no idea what kind of relationship he has with Brett Kavanaugh and I have no idea, I don't know really anything about Judge Boasberg. I've never met him. But I do think he is rising to the moment. And he [00:21:00] must know that they are going to fight him tooth and nail and he is writing for history and not holding back about how egregious this conduct is, and he is acting as though the Constitution and the law still matter. And I think that matters a lot.

MELISSA MURRAY - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: So he obviously has masculine energy.

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: The only one of these fools right now who does, who seems to.

MELISSA MURRAY - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Stuck on these hoes, king. He's actually a tall king, not a short king.

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: There you go. He's turning tall. That's true. Yeah. So, okay, here is basically what he laid out.

He wants sworn declarations from administration officials in order to determine who was responsible for making the decisions about due process and ignoring his early orders in the case. In terms of who was responsible, I think we have a hunch it was Peewee German in the study with whatever pen. So if that didn't work, then he was going to refer the matter to the Department of Justice, which could then file criminal charges.

MELISSA MURRAY - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Spoiler alert, that's not gonna happen. Pamela Joe Bondi is like, no. Yeah, absolutely not.

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: [00:22:00] Well, another option the administration has is, as Judge Boasberg note, to basically cure any contempt by returning the individuals from El Salvador, acting as though they actually complied with his order and turned the planes around.

But as Melissa noted, there is a possibility that Pamela Joe Bondi would elect not to prosecute any contempt, very faint

ALL SPEAKING: Possibility, very, very faint.

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Just being very generous here, that she would elect not to bring criminal contempt charges for contempt of federal court order, in which case Judge Boasberg noted there was a possibility that he could exercise his authority under the relevant rules to appoint an outside prosecutor to prosecute the case.

Now, this has been done before. Judges have appointed lawyers to prosecute contempt cases. This happened in the Donzinger case that went up to the Supreme Court where there was a [00:23:00] constitutional challenge to the lawfulness of having private attorneys appointed by a judge to prosecute these kinds of cases. The Supreme Court elected not to take up that case, although Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh indicated they would have done so.

Should also note that even if that happened, that is even if a private attorney launched a successful prosecution of criminal contempt of a court order, criminal contempt of federal court orders is a pardonable offense. And in fact, Donald Trump has pardoned people who were convicted of contempt of federal court orders, during the first Trump administration. That individual who benefited from that: Joe Arpaio.

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Can I just say, there are definitely constitutional questions, at least on this court's sort of view of executive power about the permissibility of outside prosecutors. There's certainly this, pardon question. And to my mind, none of that is any reason for Boasberg not to proceed under the law as it [00:24:00] currently stands and appoint an outside prosecutor. And if the Supreme Court wants to find that's impermissible, let it be, or if the president wants to pardon, let him do that. But don't do their work for them.

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Totally agree.

Bukele Goes To Washington w. Roberto Lovato - The Majority Report - Air Date 4-20-25

ROBERTO LOVATO: One of the things I do in my book is show the human conditions that create gangs and gang members. I was a part of a small clique in San Francisco, nothing like the really hardcore gangs either here in the US like the Mexican Mafia and other gangs, Crips and Bloods, and MS 13 and 18th Street in El Salvador, which are structures based on US style gangs.

I found friendship and community in a little clique that was mostly nonviolent except at different moments. We were involved in drugs and other stuff, but we were not the hardened heavy weapon wielding gangs of today.

And so I've started working with gangs in the [00:25:00] 90s in, in LA where the gangs were born, MS 13 and 18th Street. And, 13 for example, is the letter M is the number of the letter M that the Salvadorian gangs who were being, before they were gangs, they were being bullied and beaten by larger mostly Black gangs in South LA and decided to start arming themselves with machetes.

And then journalists like Lisa Ling started noticing that these gangs had machetes instead of guns and started labeling them as extremely violent. Then the gangs took on the more familiar tattooed faces, tattooed bodies, and more heavily armed gang structures and culture that we know today.

So I've watched as the US local and then federal governments have [00:26:00] started taking interest in these gangs, and the project has been bipartisan, Democrat and Republican. They've both escalated and used the gangs to legitimate, initially, local policing of young people. Now you're seeing it become this terrorist...

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Federalized.

ROBERTO LOVATO: ... that Lisa Ling started calling MS 13 the most dangerous gang in the world, even though you never have any statistical basis to prove any gang is the most violent in the world. It's ridiculous. In fact, in 2019 when Trump started using the word terrorist as applied to Salvadoran gangs, and then as Bukele was elected that same year, he starts using the term aggressively, and you see how the "terrorist" word is being thrown around. I started interviewing cops, police in [00:27:00] San Francisco and other cities and found out, for example, that in 2019 you had three white men wielding semi-automatic weapons. These three white men killed more people in 2019 than the allegedly 10,000 MS. 13 and 18th Street gang members in the US combined.

So lemme repeat that. Three white men with semi-automatic weapons killed more people in 2019 than all of the 10,000 MS 13 and 18th Street gang members in the United States. This is the degree to which the media display you're seeing in the meeting between Bukele and Trump is entirely political theater on steroids.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And frankly, as you alluded to, the explosion of tactics that have been long used against Latino and Black, young men in cities in this [00:28:00] country—gang databases— now being basically used at the federal level where, if you're somebody who's from a specific area of Venezuela or if you're from El Salvador and you may know somebody or have been in a community with somebody who's in one of these gangs that they trump up, not to use a pun, as more dangerous than they are, that that basically classifies you as a part of some broader criminal organization. And now not just criminal according to this far-right Trump administration, terrorist.

ROBERTO LOVATO: Yeah. The franchise of criminalization and now terrorization of different groups of people is well underway and it's the biggest, most dangerous thing that's coming out of the Trump/Bukele meeting. It's telling, for example, that during the meeting today Bukele said, and I quote, "sometimes they say that we imprisoned thousands. I like to say that we actually liberated [00:29:00] millions." And Trump replies, "who gave him that line? Do you think I could use that?"

And so, the meeting reflects, I think, the expansion of the local, national, hemispheric, and global enterprise of terrorization of increasing numbers of groups. You start off with the lowest hanging violent fruit, like the gangs, and they are violent and some of them are murders. Most of 'em are not. Most of the gang members are not murders. Otherwise, you'd have over 10,000 deaths in MS 13 in the US, when you have an insignificant number statistically doing that.

So, you start off with gangs, then you extend it to immigrants generally, as you see Stephen Miller's career, growing and Trump's own election built on that. And then you extend it to, like in El Salvador, journalists dealing with gangs have [00:30:00] been arrested, harassed, persecuted, some even exiled. And then you extend it to activists. You start using the word activists to talk about, like you're talking about the Palestinian activist in Columbia or the Turkish woman who was arrested at Tufts. Or, Mr. Abrego Garcia, who is still in the CECOT gulag that Bukele just built. All of these Im immigrants are now illustrations of how the franchise is extending.

But make no mistake coming your way soon is the franchise of terrorization to those of us that are citizens. It's already afoot. Trump is already talking about deporting citizens to El Salvador, US citizens. And this is where my experience first growing up in pre techno fascist Bay Area, and then as a journalist who's reported on [00:31:00] electronic surveillance that, as I watched it go from the analog industrial age to the digital age of surveillance, has taught me that people like Bukele are digital dictators. We're in the age of digital dictatorship and the industrial age structures of, like my former comrades in the FMLN, could not defeat the digital dictatorship model of Bukele, and so we have to upgrade our social movements for the digital age if we are to fight people like Bukele, who has benefited from CIA trained Venezuelan assets, who became consultants to Bukele and helped him manufacture this bizarre and dangerous reality in El Salvador, that, that has large segments of the populus supporting him in their desperation.

What a photojournalist saw as Venezuelan migrants arrived in El Salvador - 60 Minutes - Air Date 4-6-25

LESLEY STAHL - HOST, 60 MINUTES: This week on 60 minutes, we reported on the 238 Venezuelan migrants who were deported from the [00:32:00] United States three weeks ago. They were flown from Texas to a notorious maximum security prison in El Salvador, where they're being held as part of an agreement with that country's president, Nayib Bukele. The Trump administration claims that all of these men are terrorists and violent gang members. But we could not find criminal records for an overwhelming majority of the prisoners.

Photojournalist. Philip Holsinger has been working in El Salvador for more than a year. He's been to some of the country's largest prisons, interviewing and photographing inmates swept up in the Salvadoran government's controversial crackdown on violent criminal gangs, like MS 13.

But the most notorious by far is the Terrorism Confinement Center known as CECOT, where the Venezuelan migrants deported from the United States are currently being held.

PHILIP HOLSINGER: Life in the cell in CECOT is the definition of austerity. The bunks are steel. There are no [00:33:00] blankets. There are no pillows. There's nothing, it's just a slab of metal, and that's where you sleep. There are no books. There's no television. Zero outside communication. Nothing goes out, nothing comes in. There's 24 hour surveillance. No misbehaving, no talking. The first time I visited CECOT I was shocked by the silence. The silence is what really got under my skin, and it's like a church.

LESLEY STAHL - HOST, 60 MINUTES: When the planes carrying the Venezuelan migrants arrived in El Salvador, Holsinger was waiting on the tarmac. He photographed the men as they were shackled, shaved, and stripped, capturing their transformation into CECOT inmates. Holsinger wrote about the experience in an article for Time Magazine.

Some of those photos have been published or televised elsewhere, but most of what he shared with [00:34:00] 60 Minutes has never been seen before.

PHILIP HOLSINGER: As soon as they came to the door, they're greeted by a sea of black-clade masked police in riot gear. This is a typical face of the Venezuelans. These are eyes that are asking lots of questions. "Where am I?" "What's happening?" "What's gonna happen to me?" A lot of fear in these faces.

Their appearance was different than anything I had seen. Literally, like they'd just come off the street. They were all in nice clothes. They moved them fast and hard, and they intentionally want them to feel that they're powerless. They grab them in the neck, march 'em down the stairs, and it's rapid and fast and painful. These guys were not allowed to be making eye contact or looking, and the guard came and grabbed his head and forced his head down to tell him, you're not allowed to be looking up and looking around.

And then they go right into a [00:35:00] room where they shave everybody's head and they don't shave their heads. tenderly. The guards are just, "fast, fast, fast! Rápido, rápido, rápido, rápido!". So some of them are nicking their heads. This man really grabbed my attention. He may be a criminal, he may be innocent, he may be a father. I don't know his story at all, but I know his eyes. He didn't fight. Hopelessness just gave in.

LESLEY STAHL - HOST, 60 MINUTES: One of the Venezuelans who caught Holsinger attention was this man, who 60 Minutes has now identified as Andry Hernández Romero. Andry's lawyer told us he is a 31-year-old gay man and makeup artist with no criminal record in the United States or Venezuela.

PHILIP HOLSINGER: So this is a young man that I had followed from the bus who was exclaiming that he was soy gay and saying that he was innocent and he was being slapped every time he would speak up, but he couldn't help himself. Then he started praying and [00:36:00] calling out, literally crying for his mother.

His crying out for his mother really, touched me. You can see in this photograph, the hair it's not cleanly shaved, he's got patches of hair. He's grimacing. These guys were in pain. This is a standard body posture that anybody in CECOT will be trained in.

And in this case, they're handcuffed, but when they're not handcuffed, they literally tie their bodies together so that a few guards can control a mass of people. This posture is a very difficult and painful posture. Right before they go into the scan to be taken to their cells, they're pushed all the way to the ground. I mean, some of them are really hurting.

LESLEY STAHL - HOST, 60 MINUTES: As he took the last few photographs before the Venezuelans were transported to their cells, Holsinger said he felt he had watched these men become ghosts.

PHILIP HOLSINGER: They've been stripped of their hair and their clothes, and they don't know where they're going. All of their personality was [00:37:00] gone. Your life just ceased to exist. You're just a person in white clothes now. And I had this sort of sense of I'm watching these guys disappear.

Dictator Behind Trump's Notorious El Salvadorian Prison Deportations Wants U.S. Dissents Locked Up - Thom Hartmann Program - Air Date 4-16-24

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THOM HARTMANN PROGRAM: Who is this Bukele guy? He's 43 years old. He claims, he claims! he's the youngest dictator in the world. He calls himself the world's coolest dictator. He likes to wear Aviator sunglasses. He likes to produce rap videos of prisoners being tortured.

In 2019, he was elected to the presidency based on a promise to end gang violence and corruption. And he did. The homicides dropped from 103 per 100,000 down to 2.4, that was in 2015, to a record low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 2023. So he has an 80% approval rating for doing that across the country of El Salvador. But the miracle came at a staggering cost. He didn't eradicate crime through solving problems that fester crime, like poverty, he eradicated crime by [00:38:00] dismantling democracy.

This from a piece by Dean Blundell over at Substack. "...he scrapped due process. He instilled paralyzing fear in El Salvador's 6.3 million people...he's a textbook authoritarian." This is just amazing stuff. This is the guy that Donald Trump was slobbering all over yesterday in the White House.

"Since declaring a state of emergency in March of 2022, Bukele has arrested over 85,000 people—roughly 1.6% of the population of his country—often without warrants or evidence. Human Rights Watch reports only a thousand convictions, meaning tens of thousands of innocent people are languishing in prison. At least 261 have died in custody with credible reports of torture, beatings, and medical neglect." "The Center for Confinement of Terrorism, CECOT," this is where these Americans are being held, "is not a rehabilitation facility.—it's a pay for play concentration camp where prisoners, including US Deportees, are 'disappeared' into a judicial black hole." [00:39:00] writes Dean Blundell.

"CECOT opened in 2023...it's a mega prison for 40,000 inmates. Cells lack windows, ventilation or mattresses; prisoners sleep on bare metal, eat twice daily, and endure 23 and a half hour lockdowns with only 30 minutes of exercise in windowless corridors. Human rights groups document systematic torture, scabies starvation, beatings are rampant. Cristosal, a Salvador and non-governmental organization, reports 367 deaths across the prison system with families denied information about their loved ones."

"Bukele's propaganda," he writes, "glorifies this cruelty. He posts slick videos of shackled inmates, heads bowed, escorted by armed guards to a pulsating soundtrack—images straight out of a dystopian thriller."

He took 261 US Deportees last month. CBS News looked into them and they found 75% of these deportees had no criminal record. They [00:40:00] committed no crime, and yet they are now trapped in this brutal concentration camp. And the definition, according to the US Holocaust Museum, of a Concentration camp is a prison beyond the rule of law. A place where people are imprisoned without due process of law. And that's exactly what he is running.

He is running a concentration camp and we are sending people to it. Dean Blundell writes, "like Stalin's labor CECOT uses prisoners for forced labor to sustain itself with Bukele boasting 'it's financially self-sufficient.'" he puts some of them to work. He says, "Like Mussolini, he projects strength through militarized displays, replacing judges with loyalists." In 2021, his party ousted the Supreme Court Justices and the Attorney General and installed his loyalists. He's jailed critics including his former security advisor who died in custody in February of last year, allegedly after being tortured.

Politicians, judges, and journalists face [00:41:00] ruthless and relentless intimidation. Over 50 official and critics have fled the country. In 2020, he sent troops into the legislature to strong arm approval of a piece of legislation that he wanted. His state of emergency suspends fundamental rights. No warrants, no lawyers, no contact with families. Amnesty International reports forced disappearances. Women face sexual violence in custody, and families of detainees are threatened with arrest for protesting. He's also targeted minorities with reports of arbitrary arrests of queer individuals.

In 2021, he fired all the judges, over 60, affecting 200 magistrates, a third 33% of the judiciary. His new judges rubber stamp his policies like a mass trial of 900 people at once. Yeah, that's due process for you. His political opponents face trumped up charges while business leaders are squeezed for money and loyalty. This is a country that has a 30% poverty rate, which has not improved since he [00:42:00] became president.

Instead, they have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Keep in mind that the United States is around 700 per hundred thousand, as I recall, 650, something like that. We are the highest in the developed world. He is at 1600 per hundred thousand people. He's got 109,000 people behind bars in this little tiny country.

Fear permeates societies, dissenters risk. Families of the detained lived in dread. Meanwhile, his wealth grows. He now has 34 homes 34 properties that he has acquired during his term. And this is what strong men do, they enrich themselves. Donald Trump Jr. And Matt Gaetz, fawn over him. Donald Trump Jr. attended his inauguration. I'm telling you, this is Trump's role model. This is what Trump wants. He wants to be a dictator. And frankly, he is becoming one. He is doing it right now, right in front of us.

Trump's Real Plan With El Salvador Revealed - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 4-15-25

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE POLITICAL PODCAST: Before this meeting began off the record or off the mic, whatever you wanna [00:43:00] call it, Trump was overheard telling Bukele that next up are the quote unquote "homegrowns" or US citizens, people within the country that he is planning on sending to El Salvador. The audio for that is absolutely terrible, but luckily, the President of the United States of America was asked a question about it and just went ahead and said exactly what he wanted.

DONALD TRUMP: We also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways, that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they're not looking, that are absolute monsters. I'd like to include them in the group of people to get 'em out of the country, but you'll have to be looking at the laws on that, Steve. Okay?

NICK HAUSELMAN - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE POLITICAL PODCAST: Okay. Good. Thought that was the wrong one. Good.

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE POLITICAL PODCAST: Anyway. No, it's it's awful. And so what got basically the news here is we've known that Trump has wanted to do this. We've now heard it in so many words. He also confirmed that he, Pam Bondi and all of the people behind the Trump administration are currently [00:44:00] looking at the laws and trying to figure out how they might be able to do it. Luckily for them, they don't give a shit about laws. And currently with Kilmar Abrego Garcia -- who should not be in El Salvador, we have no idea if he's okay or if anything is going on -- they now have a court order to return him and they say, Hey, we can't do anything about it. And luckily, Bukele says he is not interested in doing it, they're not going to do anything about it anyway. So who gives a shit about laws?

NICK HAUSELMAN - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE POLITICAL PODCAST: It's, this is now, again, we were wondering whether this is an authoritarian state. This is an authoritarian state.

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE POLITICAL PODCAST: This is an authoritarian state.

NICK HAUSELMAN - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE POLITICAL PODCAST: Yeah. And it's like you don't have to look around. They are now arguing that the Supreme Court did not tell them to return him when they did, 9-0. And they had to facilitate his return. And the fact that they're trying to parse what that means. Steven Miller, he deserves to sit on a tack face up or and something worse. But, the guy is, he's Goebbels, he is the modern day Goebbles. He's a guy using Nazi technique propaganda, in order to try and, completely lie to everything where he is basically trying to say that, if he [00:45:00] magically appeared in one of our airports, then, of course we'd have to allow him into our country. But we can't do anything about getting him out of the prison. And then they ask Bukele, and he says, well, I'm not going to deposit a terrorist into your country. That would be a terrible thing that cannot be done. Are you aware that in El Salvador with this prison, there is no due process for anybody that gets sent there when they're --

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE POLITICAL PODCAST: Yeah, there's nothing. There's absolutely nothing. There's autocratic will, and that's everything.

NICK HAUSELMAN - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE POLITICAL PODCAST: Yeah. It's a complete lawless state. But here's a really horrible thing. Imagine how bad conditions were in El Salvador in terms of crime and violence that people there want that. They wanted this. They are happy because now it is quote-unquote "safe." And the people who were causing so much issues were locked up without any due process. So again, what percentage of people are in this prison who are El Salvadorians, who are innocent? I. We certainly know what the percentage is of people that we sent them there, who don't have criminal records, is.

And so this is really, really [00:46:00] frightening. And what is staring Garcia in the face right now is a life sentence, without any notion of any process. No parole. No visitors to this prison. I, don't know what to make of this because this is not supposed to happen. You're supposed to at least be able to do something. So is anybody gonna do anything?

JARED YATES SEXTON - CO-HOST, THE MUCKRAKE POLITICAL PODCAST: So I, just wanna say, first of all, you're assuming that, Kilmar Abrego Garcia is still alive. We don't know. We don't have a clue. We don't have a clue if anybody who was sent there, and as you pointed out in the past, 75% of the people who were rounded up in this thing do not have criminal records. We don't know if some of them have died. We have no idea how many people have died in El Salvador in these prisons to begin with. And that's one of the reasons why you shouldn't be in business with people like this. You shouldn't be creating a business partnership between the President of the United States of America and an autocratic leader in another country.

And I wanna put that out there on the record, because I've been seeing a disturbing number of people, Nick, who are saying, what does Bukele have on Trump? [00:47:00] Is Trump afraid to fight with him and fight first? No. He's not afraid to fight with him. They are in a mutually beneficial partnership with each other. They have created a perfect situation to do something like this. And it was on full display in this presser, Nick. Trump was like, well, I don't have any control over this. And Bukele's like, I don't have any control over this. Isn't it wild that the two autocrats aren't able to do anything about this whatsoever?

They have created these legal loopholes -- and I even hesitate to say "legal" as an identifier. They are legalless loopholes, is what it is. They've studied this, figured it out, and figured out a way to move beyond the jurisdiction of the courts as they currently stand. They have -- and by the way, we've talked about it for forever: when were they going to start moving against courts and just simply not listening? Here we are. Period.

And they've already signaled what's coming next with it, which is American citizens -- American-born citizens being shipped out of the country for crimes based on what the [00:48:00] Trump administration decides to do.

And what did Trump say to Bukele? He said, you're gonna need to build like five more of these prisons, which goes ahead and lays bare what this is, which is a mutually beneficial economic partnership, which is private prisons that are beyond the United States of America in order for profit for Bukele and others like him. There's undoubtedly kickbacks happening in all of this. Do not get me wrong, I have to imagine there's some laundering that's taking place from what the US is paying El Salvador.

But also it's a political advantage with this. Bukele gains from being the partner with Trump in all of this. He gains more and more power and prestige. And Trump has created the same thing that we've talked about before, which are rendition sites that took place during the War on Terror, where all of this was pioneered and put into effect.

Now what do we have, Nick? We have the beginnings of a concentration camp situation. And it's going to happen outside the borders of the United States of America. And then there's going to be [00:49:00] those that are going to be built here because, as we talked about on the weekender, there is a $45 billion project to create those infrastructures.

This is how all of this starts to come together, and we're watching it. And now is the time to understand we have to fight against this, before we can't fight anymore.

Sen. Van Hollen on Meeting Kilmar Abrego Garcia in El Salvador & Escalating Constitutional Crisis - Democracy Now! - Air Date 4-21-25

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Senator Van Hollen, welcome back to Democracy Now! The huge news of the day is the pope has died. Two of his major issues — once again, just yesterday, Easter Sunday, calling for a ceasefire in Gaza — you went to the border there, deeply concerned about Israel’s assault on Gaza — and his deep concern for migrants. You just came back from El Salvador, where you met with Abrego Garcia. Why don’t we start there? What exactly happened?

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Well, Amy, I’m glad you mentioned the pope. We’re all going to miss him. He was a pope for all of humanity, and Pope Francis was a beautiful soul.

[00:50:00] So, when I met with Abrego Garcia, my main purpose was to let him know that his wife and his kids loved him and that they were fighting for his return, and to let him know that his sheet metal workers’ union and millions of people in the United States who believe in the Constitution of the United States were fighting for his return and for due process.

He spoke about the conditions that he had experienced, the trauma of having been abducted off the streets of Maryland, trying to make a phone call from the Baltimore detention center — it was from Baltimore — without being allowed to do that, and, of course, then ending up first in the notorious CECOT prison. So, it was — it was, of course, emotional to hear about the trauma he [00:51:00] experienced.

I told him we were going to keep fighting for him. I met with the vice president of El Salvador and said, “You really should not be complicit in this Trump administration illegal scheme.” And so, we will keep fighting for his constitutional rights, because if we deny the constitutional rights for one person, we threaten them for everybody.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: So, can you tell us exactly what Kilmar said as you met at the hotel? And how is it that you got it totally turned around? First, you were met by what? El Salvadoran soldiers? You were told you can’t to meet with him. And then, just before you left, they brought him out?

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Well, first, I met with the vice president, and I asked if I could meet with Abrego Garcia. He said no. I said, “If I come back next week, can I meet with Abrego Garcia?” He said no. I asked if I could call Abrego Garcia. He said no. [00:52:00] And so, the next day, I tried to visit CECOT, which is this notorious prison, and was stopped by soldiers three kilometers short of the prison, and they told me they had been ordered not to allow me to proceed.

I had a number of press conferences in El Salvador with a lot of local press, and I called out this sort of horror of this person having been abducted and denied his constitutional rights, and made the point that El Salvador is violating international law, because international law requires that someone like Abrego Garcia be able to make contact with family, with their lawyers, with others. And so, as I was really preparing to leave on Thursday night, we got a call saying that they had relented and that I could sit down with him.

And in my conversation, which lasted probably over [00:53:00] 40 minutes, we covered a lot of things, from his abduction to the conditions he was experiencing and many other things. So it’s hard to sort of capture all of that, but the bottom line was he had been traumatized by what happened. He said it was his family, thinking of his family, that gave him the strength to go on. And I think the fact that he had learned for the first time that people in America were fighting for his constitutional rights also gave him additional strength.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I want you to explain how much money Bukele is getting, this country of El Salvador is getting, for imprisoning hundreds of men. We don’t know what their crime is, if there’s any crime at all. But Bukele said on social media about your meeting, “Now that he’s been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador’s custody.” He also wrote, “Kilmar Abrego Garcia, miraculously risen from the 'death camps' & [00:54:00] 'torture'” — obviously mocking — he goes on to say, “now sipping margaritas with Sen. Van Hollen in the tropical paradise of El Salvador!” You have called this margarita-gate. Can you explain what happened and Bukele’s, to say the least, cynical remark?

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Well, sure. This was — it shows how far Bukele and Trump will go to deceive people and try to change the story, because what happened was this. When I first sat down with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, if you look at the original — the first photos, you’ll see a glass of water and a cup of coffee. As we were speaking, the government folks, Bukele’s folks, ordered the waiters to bring these two glasses that were filled with liquid, looked like margaritas, because they had either salt or sugar or something around the rim. We, [00:55:00] of course, did not order them. They brought them to the table. If you looked at the one in Kilmar’s glass, the liquid was actually lower than mine to try to create the appearance that he actually drank it. All of this is a deception. As I pointed out, if you were really Sherlock Holmes, you would see that the sugar or salt or whatever it was around the rim, that there was no gap in it, so, obviously, no one had had a sip.

But this goes to the big lie being told by Bukele and Trump and others to try to create the impression that this person, who was in one of the most notorious prisons in El Salvador and now is still very much in detention and in a news blackout, is somehow being treated fairly. So, these are the lengths they will go, Amy, to try to create this deception, this illusion. They actually wanted to have the meeting by the pool of the hotel. We negotiated [00:56:00] away from that. But it was pretty clear what their plan for deception was. And, you know, I think they really bungled it, because they did it in such a blatant way that I’m telling you what happened, and we’re calling it out, and what it demonstrates is what a big lie they will tell.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: I know you have to go. Fifteen seconds. How do you see Kilmar coming home? What is your demand? And why is this so important to you, Senator?

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: So, two things. Number one, when you have the Trump administration flagrantly violating court orders, I do think at some point the court is going to have to find the Trump administration lawyers in contempt and sanction them, number one.

Number two, we need to keep pressure on El Salvador. I’m going to be talking later today to some officials in the state of Maryland. You know, El Salvador has seen [00:57:00] more American tourists going there. My view is that American tourists should not be visiting El Salvador when they’re participating in this illegal scheme with the Trump administration. State pension funds can look to see whether they want to divest from any companies doing business in El Salvador. So there are ways to put pressure on El Salvador here.

And the reason this is all so very important is because when you deny constitutional rights to one person, you are threatening them for every single one of us. That’s why this case is so important. If the Trump administration gets away with violating his constitutional rights and violating constitutional orders — I mean, court orders, you know, we are already in a constitutional crisis, but it’s getting worse by the day.

Notes from the Editor on finding glimmers of hope for the future

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips, starting with Main Justice discussing the Supreme Court's ruling [00:58:00] requiring the US government to facilitate the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia. CounterSpin focused on the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, its rare historical use, and ongoing legal battles over its constitutionality. Strict Scrutiny discussed Stephen Miller's misleading interpretation of the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling on the Abrego Garcia case. The Majority Report explored the historical and political factors influencing the evolution of gangs and the bipartisan efforts to criminalize and label them as terrorists. 60 Minutes detailed photojournalist Phillip Sing's harrowing observations of Venezuela migrants held in El Salvador's harsh terrorism confinement center. Thom Hartmann dissected the alarming rise of the 43-year-old self-proclaimed "world's coolest dictator" in El Salvador. The Muckrake Political Podcast discussed Trump's overheard plans to deport US citizens to El Salvador. On Democracy Now!, Senator Van Holland reflected on the Pope's recent death, [00:59:00] the Gaza ceasefire and his visit to El Salvador.

And those were just the Top Takes. There's a lot more in the Deeper Dive sections.

But first, a reminder that this show is produced with the support of our members who get this show ad free as well as early and ad free access to our freshly launched other show, SOLVED! (that's all caps with an exclamation point), which features our team of producers discussing a carefully curated selection of articles and ideas to then solve some of the biggest issues of our day In each episode. Members get the podcast of SOLVED! first each week with an additional members-only backstage segment, but we're also posting the show on the Best of the Left YouTube channel. To support all of the work that goes into Best of the Left and have SOLVED! delivered seamlessly to the new members-only podcast feed that you'll receive, sign up to support the show at BestOfTheLeft.Com/Support (there's a link in the show notes), through our Patreon page, or from right inside the Apple Podcast app.

And as always, if regular membership isn't in the cards for you, shoot me an email, request any financial hardship membership because we don't let a lack of [01:00:00] funds stand in the way of hearing more information.

If If you have a question or would like your comments included on the show, you can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991. We're also on the infamous Signal app at the handle bestoftheleft.01, or you can simply email me to [email protected].

Now as for today's topic, just a quick note about seeing some light in the otherwise absolute bleakness of this moment. In fact, it's actually becoming a bit of a very dark running joke on SOLVED! for one or the other of us to share something that we've personally been taking heart in, only to be met with horrified stares from the rest. And we don't do it joking, like we're actually taking genuine, positive feelings from some very dark stuff, but it doesn't always translate. So that may happen again today, but here goes.

I already congratulated Producer Deon on SOLVED! for this, [01:01:00] but there's even more to add today. He asked on a recent episode if the term Kafkaesque was in general usage these days, and none of us had really heard it used much, but agreed that it was due for a comeback.

Then as if on cue, the example started arriving. The first from a judge in a court transcript who said, quote, "Do you realize that this is Kafkaesque? I've got two experienced immigration lawyers on behalf of a client who is months away from graduation, who has done nothing wrong, who has been terminated from a system that you all keep telling me has no effect on his immigration status, although that clearly is BS, and now his two very experienced lawyers can't even tell him whether or not he's here legally, because the court can't tell him whether or not he's here legally, because the government's counsel can't tell him if he's here legally." End quote.

And then the second example just came up from Michelle Goldberg [01:02:00] in the New York Times who said, quote, "I understand why Kilmar Abrego Garcia has become the face of Donald Trump's monstrous policy of sending migrants to a gulag in El Salvador. In a court filing, the administration's own lawyers initially admitted that his deportation was an administrative error, and the White House has been disregarding a Supreme Court ruling to facilitate his return. Abrego Garcia's case was both a human tragedy and an incipient constitutional crisis. His Kafkaesque predicament is a stark illustration of what it means to be stripped of the law's protection, and thus a warning for us all." End quote.

So by now you're starting to get the gist of the sort of stuff we've been taking comfort from recently. Obviously none of this is a sign that things are getting better, only that people are using language appropriate to the occasion, which, in a case like this, you take is a good sign. I guess.

Now [01:03:00] I'm not one to get terribly excited about polling data in relation to an administration that cares not at all about their popularity, because I don't believe that they're tanking approval ratings, which are happening, or headlines like this one from the AP, quote, "Immigration is Trump's strongest issue, but many say he's gone too far, a new AP poll finds" will have any impact on Trump's governing or legal strategy.

But at least what this all points to is that, as monstrous as some of our fellow citizens are in taking perverse pleasure in the suffering of immigrants they wish expelled from the country, they are not the majority by a long shot. And when faced with the realities of Trump's government, lawyers attempting to make his actions fit within something resembling the law, there is no more appropriate term to describe the situation than Kafkaesque, which Merriam Webster defines as "having a nightmarishly complex, bizarre, or [01:04:00] illogical quality."

Nailed it.

Now, we also talked recently on SOLVED! about the nature of people to either forget or romanticize periods of the past, when they are long ago enough that they cannot be remembered firsthand. For instance, the inability of most people to remember the time before wildly successful vaccines is helping drive a disastrously dangerous desire to go back to a sort of pre-vaccine era imagined to be more pure and healthy.

Similarly, Americans have been extremely comfortable for a very long time living in a society with people in government who, despite other disagreements, all basically believed in the sanctity of law and democracy itself. I mean, Richard Nixon was a major outlier, and the bipartisan response against him was something we really couldn't imagine happening today.

It was that sense of comfort, that lack of institutional memory about the dangers of those who would [01:05:00] happily ignore the law in pursuit of their own aims, that has helped elect and reelect the most blatantly lawless president we've ever had.

So there's not that much positive to look to, other than the evidence that many are seeing clearly what is happening and are horrified by it. And the distinct possibility that witnessing these horrors today may somewhat inoculate us as a society against this kind of hate-driven politics, at least for a while.

The fallout will continue to be terrible and last long into the future. Not unlike the projection that I just saw, that measles is on track to, again, become endemic in the country, killing hundreds of thousands in the coming decades, if vaccination levels remain at their current rate. But in both cases, living through the political horrors of the Trump era and the medical horrors of the anti-vax movement will undoubtedly create a backlash that pulls us back in a more thoughtful direction.

[01:06:00] it may not sound all that positive right now. But you know, that's just what passes for positivity in these particular days that we're living through.

SECTION A: DEPORTATION PRACTICES

And now we'll continue to dive deeper on four topics today. Next up, section A. Deportation practices followed by Section B, victims of the regime, section C, Venezuela and El Salvador, and Section D resistance.

Hearing For Wrongly Deported Man, Prescription Drug Prices, Harvard Battle Continues - Up First - Air Date 4-16-25

MICHEL MARTIN - CO-HOST, UP FIRST: Could you just remind us of where we are in this case and what exactly did Judge Zinis order the government to do?

JIMENA BUSILLO: The judge originally ordered for two items. First for the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release and return from seko.

This is the mega prison in El Salvador. The White House has said that his deportation was an administrative error. Second, to ensure that if he is brought back to the US his immigration case. Due process within immigration courts During Tuesday's hearing, judge Zinis said that she had received information of little value on what had been done to fulfill any of this.

So she granted a request from Abrego Garcia's [01:07:00] lawyers for the government. Team to undergo a process called expedited discovery. This means that government officials from Homeland Security, immigration, and Customs Enforcement and State will be deposed under oath. She gave both sides two weeks to complete the discovery process.

MICHEL MARTIN - CO-HOST, UP FIRST: Did the judge say why she's granting this expedited discovery process?

JIMENA BUSILLO: She said that this would be done specifically to determine whether the government is abiding by her original court order, whether they intend to abide by it, and if not, whether that's in good or bad faith.

MICHEL MARTIN - CO-HOST, UP FIRST: How did the government respond?

JIMENA BUSILLO: The administration has so far continued to argue that it cannot force another government to extradite someone that they're holding. Back to the US on Tuesday. Drew en signed the lawyer for the Justice Department. Also brought up two documents. One was a status report on where the DOJ stands on bringing Abrego Garcia back to the us.

In this, A DHS official said that Abrego Garcia could be let in through a legal port of entry, but that if he [01:08:00] did arrive, DHS would either move to deport him to a third country or back to El Salvador. Anyways, na Zini said that this was already getting too far ahead since. The government hasn't shown that it has facilitated his return at all.

And sign then pointed to the Oval Office press conference transcript from Monday during which Trump met with Salvadoran President Nale. Both leaders said that they didn't have the power to return him, but to that zine said that those answers that EN Z is pointing to during this press conference would not be considered responsive in a court of law.

MICHEL MARTIN - CO-HOST, UP FIRST: So let's talk a bit about the stakes of this case. I mean. For example, what have we learned about the relationship between the president and the courts?

JIMENA BUSILLO: The takeaway from Tuesday's hearing is that this is another judge growing, frustrated with the administration's answers on what it's doing in response to court orders.

But the administration has in a way, set up for many of these policy debates to take place. In the courts and even make their way up to the Supreme Court as we've seen in this case. But not every decision is gonna go the [01:09:00] administration's way. So we have continued to see that there's also a growing tension between the courts and the administration.

And you know, on Monday in front of El Salvador's leader, Trump criticized the quote, liberal judges that are blocking his agenda. This is of course, not new as he's previously criticized, those who have issued orders against his immigration directives, especially those related to the flights, to El Salvador.

Are Trump Administration Officials in Criminal Contempt Part 2 - Strict Scrutiny - Air Date 4-21-25

MELISSA MURRAY - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Let's back up a second though. And, and Kate, I think you're sort of gesturing toward this in, in your comment, but we have a federal judge who is issuing an order finding probable cause that the government was in criminal contempt of that judge's order and that they willfully disregarded it.

And that is a big, huge deal, right? Yeah. So I mean, we're talking about practicalities now. What happens next? Predictably, the government has said that it's going to appeal this, um, it's my understanding that it's not appealable, but that might not stop the Supreme Court from intervening here. So, you know, put a pin in it.

We will see. But Judge Boberg gave the government the option to [01:10:00] cure contempt by simply returning those individuals that it had expelled in violation of his order. He also instructed the government to identify the individual who gave the relevant directives to ignore his orders and not return the planes.

So. There are things that the government can do and, and maybe they're pretty easy to do. I mean, he is not asking for a kidney here. He's just like, let me know who put you up to this. Let turn the planes around, fix it, or we can play hardball. We can do this the easy way, or we can do this a hard way and

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: that's a big deal.

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Yeah,

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: we said the fact that an order of finding probable cause for contempt isn't appealable, might not stop the Supreme Court, and it certainly doesn't seem like it's gonna stop the DC circuit, a two to one DC circuit panel with the two being Trump appointees issued an administrative stay of Judge Berg's order finding probable cause for criminal contempt.

Please note that Judge Berg's order did not find anyone in particular in contempt and it contemplated further proceedings before the court would actually do anything. That is [01:11:00] not an appealable order, but that wasn't going to stop the best lawyers. This administration never had Judge Rao and Judge Katz.

Now some of you might be wondering how is criminal contempt possible if the Supreme Court concluded that Judge Berg's order halting the expulsions was invalid because the case had been filed in the wrong court via the wrong mechanism? There's actually a prior Supreme Court decision that said you can still find an individual in contempt of a court order even if the underlying order is invalid, and that is a pretty infamous decision, I think, of the Supreme Court Walker versus City of Birmingham.

And it's infamous, of course, because there the Supreme Court upheld a criminal contempt finding against the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Who was denied permission to March, marched anyway, and then was held in contempt. Of the court order that [01:12:00] denied permission to march. So that's the law. And you know, if you're thinking that's a Warren Court precedent, Leah, I don't know if the Supreme Court will abide by it.

Fair. I hear you. But this is a bad Warren Court precedent and one that upheld the conviction of Dr. King. So I think Sam Alito will be fine with it.

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: He will be very cross pressured, that's for sure.

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: That's true. At least there's cross pressure. Yeah. Wow.

MELISSA MURRAY - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Um, alright. I showed up today. You sure did. You did. I'm just gonna let you cook.

Okay. Judge Palus, who is handling the Abrigo Garcia case also seems to be plum out of patience with these goons. In a hearing last week, she read the government lawyers for absolute filth and told them to get their shit together and start answering her questions. There is no passing in. This cold call.

Bitches was basically the energy and, and I'm not gonna lie, I, I have to say her energy was really something and it just sort of jumped off the pages of the transcript and she [01:13:00] basically was like, Hey bitches. Have you read Laura Hillenbrand's epic book about an underdog horse who comes back to be War Admiral?

No, you haven't. Well, you should because I'm about to ride You like sea biscuit if you don't answer these questions. That was basically the energy. Like, what the fuck do you mean? Like, you don't have answers for me? You better have some answers. Yeah. Anyway, I was very black mom. I, I, I, I felt seen in a lot of ways.

Um, so we will say more about those proceedings in a second, but. As the courts work through whether they can prod this administration along toward observing constitutional norms and returning someone who is wrongfully expelled because of a quote unquote paperwork error, and who received no due process in the course of his rendition to a foreign gulag.

We just wanted to note that this week we also got some very pointed reminders of why due process is in fact so important.

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Yeah. So first, the administration is mistakenly, [01:14:00] I hope, mistakenly, um, sending deportation notices to citizens. So Nicole Mia posted on Blue Sky that she had received a notice of deportation.

Um, she's a United States citizen and like, are, are they seriously going to mistakenly deport US citizens? Like air quotes mistakenly second, the administration could not even spell. Mr. Abrego Garcia's first or last name correctly, in some of the district court filings over the last week. This is sloppy af, which is why due process is important.

That is how mistakes get made and due process is how we identify those mistakes and rectify them.

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: And that is why I think people actually are pretty exercised correctly about Abrego Garcia, but the fact that the claims they are making apply with full force to anyone, yes, lawful resident. Unlawful resident, naturalized citizen, somebody born a citizen.

Literally, if they say, once we have mistakenly sent you [01:15:00] away, the law can't help you. Like that applies to everyone. But you know, who doesn't agree with a claim? I just made our esteemed vice president who took two X last week to basically whine about how due process makes a lot of work for the government, and so we should dispense with it.

I mean, this was a pretty stunning, I thought real men liked hard work, put those men to work observing due process. Not, not this guy. I mean, it, it was, first of all, I didn't. I don't know, I guess X has completely dispensed with character limits. I'm not on it anymore, so I will occasionally see, but you literally wrote a whole ass essay, I mean a really bad one, but a whole ass essay on X that is essentially a claim that due process is expensive and inconvenient and so no longer required.

And I just, Melissa, you, you wanna get it. Lemme just say one thing, which is that, first of all, if I had taught this guy constitutional law, I would hide my head in a bag to borrow a phrase from Justice Scalia. Um, and I will just say, I do hope that there is some soul searching happening at Yale [01:16:00] Law School right now.

And the last thing I'll say is everything he says about due process being expensive and burdensome applies equally to potentially respecting First Amendment rights. The lawmaking process in which Congress has to agree on language and then pass the law, the president then signs. It also applies to the appointment and confirmation process for principal officers.

I mean, essentially the whole constitution is pretty inconvenient when you stop to think about it. And I welcome that, that wisdom emanating from the mouth of JD Vance because I think that's where this takes us. Melissa, sorry.

MELISSA MURRAY - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: No, no, no. I, I just wanted to note that there was a period around, I don't know, 2017 when all of the men's were crowing about how important due process was when people were posting on Twitter and making spreadsheets about whether or not there were men who had sexually harassed 'em or assaulted them or whatever, and gotten away with it.

And during those moments, I too agreed that due process was vitally important because these couldn't be itinerant commitments. But here we are. Yes.

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Well, I also think they are going [01:17:00] to have renewed interest in due process during any contempt proceedings that may arise. Um, my guess is good point. My guess is there due process, maybe due process, um, will be.

Demanded and insisted upon.

Supreme Court temporarily blocks Trump from deporting more Venezuelan migrants - PBS Newshour - Air Date 4-19-25

JOHN YANG - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: Amy, what exactly did the court do today and maybe just as important. What didn't they do?

AMY HOWE: So what the court did was the court barred the federal government until the Supreme Court said, O says otherwise from removing Venezuelan migrants who were at a particular detention facility. Really the, the. Case comes out of the Northern District of Texas where a facility known as the Blue Bonnet Detention Facility in Anson, Texas is located.

And so lawyers from the A CLU had come to the Supreme Court filing an emergency appeal asking the justices to block the removal of Venezuelan migrants from that facility. To El [01:18:00] Salvador and the Supreme Court at 1:00 AM on Saturday morning issued an order that said, until further notice from this court, the federal government can't remove anyone from this district.

The Supreme Court hasn't said anything about the substance of the President's order, which he issued back in March. Relying on this Alien Enemies Act, this 1798 law that. Gives the president the power to order the removal of enemy aliens without, you know, to, to have them be removed relatively quickly.

You know, the order has only been, the law has only been invoked three times in US history during the war of 1812 during World War I and during World War ii. And so. Some lawyers and legal, legal scholars say that the president can't rely on this law at all to remove anyone, um, right now, but the Supreme Court isn't weighing in on that right [01:19:00] now.

At least

JOHN YANG - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: as we said, the court acted, not known for its speed, but had remarkable speed last night. Uh, they did this just hours after the case was filed. They didn't wait for the appeals court to act. What does that say to you?

AMY HOWE: It says that they wanted to be, they wanted to act quickly. You know, not only did they not wait for the appeals court to act, they didn't wait for the federal government to weigh in.

You know, they directed the federal government to file a response as soon as possible, which is also unusual. Usually they set a. Deadline for the federal government. But in this case, they just said as soon as possible after the court of Appeals has weighed in. Um, and I think they wanted to act. They wanted to make sure that these flights didn't take place.

You know, it's interesting because during a different hearing involving these flights in Washington, DC before Chief Judge James Bosberg on Friday, a government lawyer. Represented to Judge Boberg that there weren't gonna be any flights on [01:20:00] Friday or Saturday. Um, and yet the f the Supreme Court still took the, the really unusual step of issuing this order to make clear that, that these flights should not take place and that no one should be removed from this part of Texas to El Salvador.

JOHN YANG - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: Much has been made about the government's reaction, the administration's reaction and response to the earlier Supreme Court ruling, uh, in the Abrego Garcia case. Do you think that had anything to do with it?

AMY HOWE: I think it probably had a lot to do with it. The, I. Lawyers from the A CLU referenced it obliquely in their briefs.

They said, you know, if you are going to send people over to El Salvador and if a mistake is made, you know, just sort of throw up your hands and say there's nothing we can do, then it is doubly important to make sure that there is due process and that the su. The courts of this country can review these removals before they take place, and then also they're very clear in their wording [01:21:00] in this order saying, you know, until further notice from this court, you know, the government should not remove anyone because they've seen some of the, the sort of word games that have been played right now in the courts, sort of about what exactly it means for the federal government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return from El Salvador.

JOHN YANG - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: As you said, the no court has ruled on the, uh, whether the administration has the right to use the, uh, uh, the, uh, alien Enemies Act in the way they're using it. Is it possible, or do you think it's likely or unlikely that the court could do that now in this case?

AMY HOWE: I. Uh, it's not clear when it's going to do that.

I mean, it seems inevitable that it's going to have to do that. And as some legal scholars have pointed out, the, you know, the Supreme Court could save everyone a lot of trouble if it went ahead and, and ruled on this. You know, if it were to rule that the Trump administration could rely on the Alien Enemies Act, then we'd still need to have this process before someone could be removed to El Salvador.

But if it [01:22:00] were to rule that the. The Trump administration can't rely on the Alien Enemies Act, then, uh, it would certainly obviate the need for all of these proceedings because people couldn't be removed.

JOHN YANG - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: So

AMY HOWE: what's next? Uh, what's next is we now wait for the federal government to file its response, um, to the application for the stay because the Supreme Court temporarily put the proceedings on hold, but we'll see what the federal government has to say next and what the Supreme Court says after that.

SECTION B: VICTIMS OF REGIME

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering Section B victims of the regime.

Trumps Deportation Black Hole - Reveal - Air Date 4-12-25

NOAH LANARD: Today we're gonna hear the stories of two of those men starting with 25-year-old Neddy Alvarado, Boez, Noah takes it from here,

JOSEPH GIARDINA: Maria. So one of the first people I called was N's, older sister.

Maria Daniela, she still lives back in Venezuela, in their hometown of Yari Tagawa,[01:23:00]

and she tells me her family is devastated. To know Neri is having to experience this injustice. She tells me they know Neri has never done anything wrong and that her brother wouldn't hurt to fly.

She says he is a person who in all his life and in all his years, has never had an ounce of evil in his heart.

Maria Daniella says that Neri had always been a really hard worker. Their father is a farmer in Yaarit. And Neri had been helping him in the fields since he was young,

but she says that like every young person, he had dreams and goals, so he left for the US in late 2023.

Maria Daniella tells me that he'd never been to another country [01:24:00] before.

Mary first went to Mexico and tried to apply for asylum in the us. At first, he tried requesting an appointment through CBP one that was an app the Biden administration used so that migrants supplying for asylum could schedule an interview at an official port of entry. Neri ended up waiting in Mexico for about four months, but he never got an appointment.

So Maria Daniella says he decided to turn himself in at the border instead.

TOWNHALL CLIP: Mm-hmm.

JOSEPH GIARDINA: Records show the border patrol only held RY for a day. He was then released into the us, allowed to apply for asylum and ended up in Dallas, Texas, where he eventually met a man named Juan Enrique Hernandez.

Enrique is an American citizen and has been in the US for 27 years. He owns two Venezuelan bakeries and ne he started working for him last year. Showing up every day from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM That [01:25:00] is until immigration agents arrested ne outside his apartment in early February, just weeks after Trump took office, despite the fact that ne willingly turned himself in at the border nearly a year earlier and was allowed to apply for asylum.

The Justice Department was now charging him with a misdemeanor alleging that he entered the country illegally. Enrique went to visit him in detention the next day

TOWNHALL CLIP: in Blue Bond Detention Center in Avi Ne

JOSEPH GIARDINA: tells Enrique that one of the first questions he was asked by an ICE agent was

TOWNHALL CLIP: cater twice.

JOSEPH GIARDINA: Do you have any tattoos?

We responded, yes, I have three tattoos. His sister, Maria Daniela describes them to us.

There's a tattoo on his forearm that says brother and another. That's his family. The biggest tattoo is on his leg.[01:26:00]

She says it's a symbol for autistic children with the name of the 15-year-old brother Neon

has autism.

And Maria Daniella says Neri has always been devoted to him. I've seen a picture of the tattoo that he got for his brother. It's a large autism awareness ribbon made up of different colored puzzle pieces. His brother's name is written in cursive along the side, Enrique tells me that Neri explained the tattoos to an ice agent,

telling him the tattoos aren't religious or political or symbols of any criminal gang. Enrique also says Neri was asked to hand over his phone so the agents could review it for evidence of gang activity. They don't find anything

TOWNHALL CLIP: into the,

JOSEPH GIARDINA: and [01:27:00] Enrique says the ICE agent told Neri, he would write down that he is not a member of rag.

He tells ne, as far as I'm concerned. You don't have to be here, but for reasons that remain unclear. Other officials in ICE's Dallas Field office decided to keep Neri in detention during that time. Enrique says Neri went before an immigration judge and was given a choice. Keep fighting for asylum and stay locked up her.

Get deported back to Venezuela NE's. Eager to get out detention. So he agrees to go back home to Yari. Tagawa. Enrique spoke to Neri shortly before he was going to be deported.

Told him, look, the only concern I have here, boss, is that the 90 people detained with me. They all have tattoos. It's as if ne is starting to realize [01:28:00] that something was up. Maria, Daniella says she and her family were in contact with ne every day he was detained, but that stopped after Friday, March 14th.

At the same time, Maria Daniella starts seeing that Venezuelans have been sent El Salvador. And then on March 20th NE's 25th birthday, it was confirmed. CBS News published the full list of Deportees and Ne Alvarado. Borges was one of the names.

Enrique says, do you think a bad person would work with autistic children

or work at a bakery from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM every day?

He tells me It's an incredibly difficult situation. What is he supposed to tell NE's mom,[01:29:00]

she's in Venezuela, and ask for updates every day? What can I tell her? How do I respond?

Back in Venezuela ne actually taught swimming classes to kids with developmental disabilities. It was a place called Club Orino, and they actually released a video after they learned what had happened to Neri in it. We hear from the president of the club and he says, we wanna make clear. Neri is not a gang member.

He demands the immediate release of his friend. Then the video cuts to several kids and parents from the club, including his brother Eren, who say Ner is an honest, good person. And not a criminal.[01:30:00]

TOWNHALL CLIP: They all

JOSEPH GIARDINA: demand justice for Neri.

My reporting partner, Isabel and I have seen many videos like this one online.

ISABELA DIAS: Venezuelans both here in the US and back in Venezuela are outraged at the thought that their friends and family members could be treated this way.

JOSEPH GIARDINA: We've spoken to nearly a dozen of them ourselves, and we continue to hear from more

Trumps Ugly New MS-13 Ramblings Wreck His Case Against Abrego Garcia - The Daily Blast - Air Date 4-21-25

GREG SARGENT - HOST, THE DAILY BLAST: So let's drill down into the specifics. Trump claimed he was actually handed something. If so, what it would've been is the gang field interview sheet filled out by a Prince George's county cop when Abrego Garcia was detained in 2019. As we reported at the New Republic, that cop was subsequently suspended and indicted for serious misconduct.

But put that aside for a sec. The gang field interview sheet makes two key claims tying him to MS 13. We're gonna go through both of them [01:31:00] slowly. The first one is that he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie with imagery of rolls of money with the eyes, ears, and mouth of the presidents on the bills covered.

It's a little cryptic from the report what that exactly means, but Eric, is this clothing necessarily indicative of membership in MS 13? And what do you make of this description of the imagery?

ERIC HERSHBERG: Well, first of all, I, I don't think that, um, I'm aware of any research that would identify that clothing as somehow emblematic of MS 13.

What I would say is that in our research, looking into the presence and the nature in organization activities of MS 13 in the greater Washington DC area, one of the things that we found quite striking was the degree to which law enforcement. Officials were not able to correctly identify who was part of the gang and who was not.

So the idea that this gang identification sheet is authoritative [01:32:00] information, certainly based on our work several years ago, including in Prince George County, we would not have, uh, have of considered that,

GREG SARGENT - HOST, THE DAILY BLAST: um,

ERIC HERSHBERG: a reliable source.

GREG SARGENT - HOST, THE DAILY BLAST: Eric, can you tell us a little more about the work that you did in the PG county and DC metro area and what it said about the difficulty that authorities have in identifying members of the gang?

ERIC HERSHBERG: Yes. Well, and one of the things that we did in the project was we would ask law enforcement officials to enable us to interview, uh, people who were detained under their jurisdiction, uh, and who were members of gangs. And we would find them that some of the people they refer us to were clearly, as best we could tell, not part of the gang.

GREG SARGENT - HOST, THE DAILY BLAST: It just seems like this whole enterprise is really deeply flawed and, and for understandable reasons. This is complicated stuff. These are complex social phenomenon we're talking about here. The second claim in the Maryland Copp Gang Field interview sheet that's supposed to tie Abrego Garcia to MS 13 is the claim that a [01:33:00] confidential source said that he's a member of the Western clique.

His lawyers point out that this operates primarily in New York where he never lived. Eric, what do you make of this assertion? Would you place much stock in this confidential source? And is the general claim credible?

ERIC HERSHBERG: Well, the general claim is plausible, but I wouldn't, I don't see precisely why an anonymous source whose information we have no basis for verifying, uh, and, and we don't see any other profile that would enable us to associate this individual with MS.

13. I think we don't have any information about particular criminal activity that this person is said to have carried out. Uh, we don't have any, um, whether it's robbery, whether it's car theft or whatever it might be, uh, that would associate him, uh, with a click of MS 13 operating in Maryland.

GREG SARGENT - HOST, THE DAILY BLAST: The whole thing that makes this [01:34:00] so ridiculous, which you just put your finger on, is that he was never charged with, let alone convicted of any crime related to gang activity or any crime at all.

I wanna bring up another aspect of all this. I. One of the reasons that Rego Garcia received withholding of removal status in 2019 is because he feared that if he were sent back to El Salvador, he'd face harm from the Barrio 18 gang, which had threatened his family with death in attempting to extort his mother over her OSA business.

I've heard this described as supposed evidence that he was an MS 13 and that. This is why he feared a rival gang. But Eric, my understanding is that a threat like this doesn't have to do with membership in a rival gang. It's more that Barrio 18 is threatening him for not doing their bidding in territory.

They've marked as theirs. Kind of similar to how gangs carved up territory in The Godfather. If you remember all the, you know the chieftains sitting around saying that, you know who's gonna have what? Can you talk about this?

ERIC HERSHBERG: The way [01:35:00] that Barrio 18 or MS 13 operates in El Salvador is that they extort local businesses, self-employed, corner stores, bodegas, and so on and so forth, bus drivers, um, and you have to pay, um, or else you get torched.

And what seems to have happened is that his mother didn't pay. And at that point, not only is she subject to violence, but anybody related to her is also subject. Violence and the fact that he fled is itself an act of defiance, um, that is subject to retribution by the gang. And it's also the case that even if he weren't a member of MS 13, if he lived in a territory that was governed by MS 13, then he automatically becomes a target of violence from barrio.

Um, so there's all sorts of reasons to treat credibly, the basic narrative that led the [01:36:00] immigration court to, um, withhold the order of removal.

GREG SARGENT - HOST, THE DAILY BLAST: So speaking of this broader narrative, my understanding of the way MS 13 functions is that to, to bring people in, you're usually getting teenagers, right? Not people in their twenties.

So the whole narrative that the Trump administration is spinning makes you wonder, why didn't Abrego Garcia get drawn into gang activity earlier when he was a teenager? I mean, he would've been more vulnerable. He arrived in the United States at the age of 16. And so if he had been drawn into MS 13. As a teenager, there'd be a paper trail, there'd be a record of activity, of gang activity.

There's none of that. Am I right about this? Is, is it likely that he'd be pulled in in his twenties?

ERIC HERSHBERG: Well, I think, you know, one of the things that we just don't understand, um, on in this case is what is the criminal activity that he's associated with. And so if he were an active member of the gang, he would be involved in criminal activities, [01:37:00] and there's been no charge, as best I can tell of his participation in any such activities.

Recruitment into the gang typically happens during one's teenage years. Um, the gangs, um, target, uh, young people who are directionless, who don't have roots in their community. They off often have broken families, and they offer a kind of family. They offer a community, they offer membership in something.

And so yes, typically the entry into. Gang activity, gang networks happens during the teenage years. And so yes, it would be rather unusual for somebody to first connect to the gang, um, in their twenties, um, at an envi in an environment where he was working. Doesn't really hold together very well.

GREG SARGENT - HOST, THE DAILY BLAST: Right. Uh, putting it all together, a lot of what we actually know about MS 13 and Abrigo Garcia's specific overall trajectory casts even more doubt on the claim that Trump is making, which again, he is basing on [01:38:00] something that he said was handed to him.

Is that about the size of things? The facts just don't add up in any way, do they?

ERIC HERSHBERG: Well, the facts don't add up in any way, but I think they do in the sense that we know that for years, Trump has demagogued the image of MS 13. This is the person who talks about migrants poisoning the blood of the United of Americans.

This is the person who talks about vermin, who talks about contamination, and there's no. Loyalty here to facts or to decency or to civility. Um, this is somebody who is an opportunist and who deploys, um, fear of outsiders, um, who deploys resentment against migrants and for whom to be able to say, MS 13, MS 13, transnational gang terrorist organization is all just part of a demagogic, um, um, toolkit.

How Trump's immigration policy changes who gets arrested and detained - Consider This from NPR - Air Date 4-11-25

JUANA SUMMERS - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: Among Amir MLA's clients is an activist who has been charged in [01:39:00] connection with a pro-Palestinian protest at the University of Michigan. MLA said he believes that is the reason why he was stopped. He told me more of what happened when we spoke on Wednesday. I. So, as I understand, you were returning home from vacation with your family, then you were pulled aside by some federal agents.

Pick up the story from there and just start to tell us what happened.

AMIR MAKLED: Well, as soon as I got to the passport check line, the agent looked over to another agent and asked, is the TTRT team available? I didn't know what that acronym stood for. Right? So I did a quick Google search. At that point, I realized it meant the ter.

Task Force on terrorism, something along those lines. Tactical terrorism response team is what the acronym was. And at that point, my gut just, you know, my heart fell into my stomach at that point. I was so, you know, concerned and worried. Um, I looked over at my wife and I told her we're probably gonna be stopped and, and detained and questioned and so.

They eventually took me over to an interview room. My family was waiting for me, anxiously not knowing what was going on. Um, and at then a [01:40:00] plain clothes officer walks in and says, we know that you're an attorney and we know that you've been handling some high profile cases lately. Um, and then I said, okay, well what can I help you with?

And he said, um. We would like to look at your phone. And he handed me a, a pamphlet with a federal statute that says that at the border they're allowed to confiscate my phone for a number of days. Um, and at that point I was just shocked that they wanted to take my phone. Well,

JUANA SUMMERS - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: let me ask you this. At that point, did you have any sense of why they wanted to see your phone?

What did they tell you?

AMIR MAKLED: Well, it was, it was apparent to me at that point that they had already done their homework about me before I arrived because they, they knew that I was taking on some, some cases, he knew who I was and he knew where I was coming from and, uh, he knew I was at an attorney. So it wasn't a random selection.

They were prepared to talk to me and discuss things with me. Um, and he was adamant that he wanted to see my phone.

JUANA SUMMERS - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: What did you do then? Did you give him your phone?

AMIR MAKLED: No. At that point I said, listen, you know that I'm an attorney. Everything in my phone could be privileged information. I have emails that go back over 10 years.

I have text messages [01:41:00] with clients. I have all my, my, uh, court filings and, and my office filings are in my cloud, which is available on my phone. Mm-hmm. You're not getting full and unfettered access to my device. It's not gonna happen. Um, and so that puzzled this agent and he had to go to a supervisor. The supervisor comes back and says, here's a legal pad.

Here's a pen. Write down everything that you believe is privileged. We won't go through that. I look, I looked at him with, you know, astonishment. How do you expect me to go through 10 years and more of information that's in my device and see this is privilege and this isn't. It was a ridiculous conversation.

JUANA SUMMERS - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: You said in other interviews that I've heard that you believe that you were targeted because you were representing a pro-Palestinian protestor. You said that they seemed to know who you were, they seemed to know that you were an attorney. What led you to make the connection that this protestor might have been the reason that you were detained, interrogated.

They wanted your phone.

AMIR MAKLED: I. This is the only case of, of any high profile action that I'm involved in right now. This is the only one that we've been making a lot of noise about because in Samantha Lewis's case, my client at the [01:42:00] University of Michigan, they're criminalizing free speech. They're charging seven students, um, with resisting and opposing police officers, which are felonies.

And all they were doing was engaging in peaceful protest about the war in, uh, on Gaza. So that we've made a lot of noise about and that we're vigorously defending, why else would they mention that? I'm, they we, that I know that you're engaging in high profile cases.

JUANA SUMMERS - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: I just wanna note that NPR has reached out to Customs and Border Protection, and at the time of our conversation, we've not yet heard back, but A CBP spokesman named Hilton Beckham told the Detroit Free Press, which he spoke to, that searches of electronic media have not gone up during the Trump administration.

And I'm gonna quote here, allegations that political beliefs trigger inspections or removals are baseless and irresponsible. Your response.

AMIR MAKLED: I had say to them that, you know, what was the purpose of searching my device? Then I, if you know that I'm not a, there's, there's no probable cause, there's no warrant, there's no concern that I'm a, a threat to national security or anything of that [01:43:00] nature.

The purpose of searching my phone doesn't have anything to do with terrorism. Um. There's only a chilling effect and it's done to be intimidating. Um, in my opinion, for the causes that I was engaging in. I'm standing up for students, I'm standing up for immigrants and, and political dissenters, and I think this was a, a, um, a way to try to, uh, uh, dissuade me from taking on these types of cases.

JUANA SUMMERS - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: Ultimately you did not consent to just hand over your phone, but if I understand correctly, you did at some point let them look at the contexts that are in your phone. Can you tell us a bit about that?

AMIR MAKLED: Well, they kept threatening to take my device and they said they had, they had the legal right to do so, so I didn't want to walk away, uh, from that meeting or interrogation or detention without my device in my hand.

So I did acquiesce to allowing them to see the list of my contacts that's stored in my phone only. Um, and they agreed with that. They said, okay, we'll look at your contact list and, um, and, and we'll go from there. So at that point, they took my device for maybe seven or eight minutes and they came [01:44:00] back.

Um, they apparently had downloaded my contact list and then began to ask me further questions about who contacts in my phone were, and that's when I said, no, this is getting into too much, uh, you know, uncharted waters here. If anybody that's in my phone is gonna be a friend, a family member, or a client, right?

I'm not gonna tell you if these folks are clients or not, but that's all the information you're gonna get. Okay?

JUANA SUMMERS - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: If this is part of a much broader effort to intimidate lawyers who work, whose work runs counter to administration priorities, I wanna ask you in a minute or so that we have left, is this working?

AMIR MAKLED: No, I think it's doing the opposite effect. The outpouring support that I've received from members of the bar, not just in Michigan, but nationally and members of the community is, is a showing that people are offended by this type of conduct. This is not what America's all about. We are a, a, a nation of laws.

We have protections, we have amendments. The fourth amendment included of your right to privacy, which includes not, um. [01:45:00] Having your personal effects and papers be searched, um, and it's setting a terrifying precedent if, if government agents can target a lawyer at the border, what's stopping them from doing to anyone who dares to speak out.

Dara Lind on Criminalizing Immigrants Part 2 - CounterSpin - Air Date 4-11-25

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: Well, we understand, uh, if we're paying attention that the Trump administration is not just interested in so-called criminals. You know, when we read that they are tracking anyone, immigrant citizen, no matter who expresses criticism of the deportation agenda on social media. So it, it seems clear that this is.

Ideologically based on its face, or at least piece of it is, is that not a legal front to, to fight on

DARA LIND: A lot of things that would be entirely illegal if the government went after a US citizen for them are in fact historically considered okay for the government to do in the context of immigration law.

Mm-hmm. For example, the grounds that are being [01:46:00] used for many of these student visa revocations are this. Your regulation that the State Department can revoke the visa of anyone it deems to be a foreign policy problem for the United States, which does open itself up to deporting people for speech, for protected political activity, for, again, the sort of thing that would be, you know, a poor constitutional right for US citizens.

But that in the context in which US immigration law has developed, which was a lot of people being very concerned about. You know, communist infiltration, immigrants have kind of been carved out. I think in general, it's really important for people to understand that while the Trump administration loves to imply that it's going to use all of its powers, maximally, that no one is safe and that everyone should be afraid, uh.

In fact, you know, citizens do have more protections than green card holders. Green card holders do have more protections than others. For example, the one green card holder who they've tried to use this State Department thing on, the judge in that case as of when we're talking, has told the government to give me [01:47:00] some evidence in 24 hours, or I'm ordering this guy released because it does take more to deport somebody on a green card.

So how. Scared people should be, it shouldn't just be a function of what the government is saying, although you know what it's doing is more relevant. But it should also be a function of how many layers of protection the government would have to cut through in order to subject you to its will.

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: Well, and that gives us points of intervention.

You know, and I appreciate the idea that while we absolutely have to be concerned about what's being said, it's helpful to, to keep a, a clear eye on what is actually happening so that we see. Where the fronts of the fight are. But I, I then have to ask you, you know, when you hear analysts say, well, you know, this person had a disputed status, this person had a green card, and make those distinctions.

But then you hear Trump say, well, heck yeah, I'd love to send US citizens. To, uh, prison in El Salvador. You [01:48:00] know, it, he's making clear he doesn't think it's about immigration status. He says, if I, if I decide you're a criminal and you bop people on the head, or whatever the hell he said, you know, um, you're a dangerous person.

Well, I, I would love the law to let me send us citizens to El Salvador also, so you can understand why folks. Feel the slipperiness of it, even as we know that laws have different layers of protection.

DARA LIND: I do. The thing that strikes me about these US citizens to El Salvador comments is that like I was reporting on Trump, you know, back when the first time he was a presidential candidate, so it's, you know, I've been following what he says for a minute.

Mm-hmm. It's really, really rare for Donald Trump to say if it's legal, we're not sure it's legal, right. But he said that about this and press secretary, Caroline Levitt has also said that about this. And like that caveat is just so rare that it does make me think that this is. Different from some of the other things where Trump [01:49:00] says it and then the government tries to make it happen.

Right? But they are a little bit aware that like there's a bright line and even they are a little bit, you know, leery of stepping over it and kind of insistent about that. Mostly because I worry a lot about people being afraid to. Stand up for more vulnerable people in their communities because, because they're so focused on the ways in which they're vulnerable, right?

And so what I don't wanna see is a world where non-citizens can be, you know, arrested and detained with no due process. And citizens are afraid to speak out because they heard something about citizens being sent to El Salvador and they worry, they will be met.

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: I, I I hear that. I hear that. And, and following from that, I, I wanna just quote from the piece that you wrote for the New York Times last November about focusing on what is actually really happening.

And you said that the details matter, not only because every deportation represents a life. Disrupted and usually more than one since no immigrant is an [01:50:00] island, they matter precisely because the Trump administration will not round up millions of immigrants on January 20th, but millions of people will wake up on January 21st not knowing exactly what comes next for them.

And the more accurate the press and the public can be about the scope and scale of deportation efforts. The better able immigrants in their communities will be to prepare for what might be coming and try to find ways to throw sand in the gears. What I hear in that. Is that there is a real history making moment for a press corps that's worth its salt.

DARA LIND: Absolutely, and to, to be honest, in the weeks since the flight percent El Salvador, we've seen some tremendous reporting from national and local reporters about the human lives that were on those planes we know. So much more about these people than we would have. But what that means is [01:51:00] that these people who arguably the administration would love to see disappear, Elli, would love to see disappear.

They're very, very visible to us, and that's so important in, you know, making it clear that. Things like due process aren't just, it's not just a hypothetical. Nice to have due process is the protection that prevents in general gay makeup artists from getting sent to a country that they've never been to because of their tattoos.

Mm-hmm. That it's an essential way to make sure that we're not visiting harm on people who have done nothing to deserve it.

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: Well, finally, I, I do understand that. We have to fight wherever there's a fight, but I do have a kind of fear of small amendments or reforms as a big picture response. You know, we can amend this here, or we can return that person.

You know, it feels a little bit like a restraining wall against a flood, and I, I just feel that it helps to show that. We are for something, [01:52:00] you know?

MUSIC: Mm-hmm. We're not

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: just against hatefulness and bigotry and, and the law being used to, to arbitrarily throw people out. We have a vision of a shared future, you know, that that doesn't involve, uh, deputizing people to snitch on their neighbors who they think look different.

You know, we have a vision about immigration that is a positive vision that we've had in this country, and I guess I wish I'd see more of. Of that right now in media and elsewhere.

DARA LIND: What makes it particularly hard from my perspective is that most Americans know very little about immigration law. Right?

You know, it's extremely complicated and most people have never had firsthand experience with it. So in order to get people to even understand what is going on now, you need to do more work. Than you do for areas where people are kind of more intuitively familiar with what the government does and that takes up space that otherwise could go to imagining different futures.

[01:53:00] The other problem here is that frankly, you know, there it, it's not that new and radical ideas on immigration are needed. It's a matter of. Political will to a certain extent. Right, right. Like the reason that the the Trump administration's use of this registration provision is such a sick irony to some of us is that there was a way that Congress proposed to allow people to register with the US government.

It was called comprehensive immigration. Form. Yeah. You know, that there, there have been proposals to, to regularize people, to put people on the books, to bring people out of the shadows. And the absence of that and the absence of a federal government that was in any way equipped to actually process.

People rather than figuring out the most draconian crackdown and hoping that everybody got the message is where we've gotten to a point where everyone agrees that the system is broken and the only solutions appear to be these radical crackdowns on [01:54:00] basic rights.

Trump says he's 'so happy' the Supreme Court will hear birthright citizenship case - Associated Press - Air Date 4-17-25

REPORTER, ASSOCIATED PRESS: It was a short time ago, Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments in the case about ending birthright citizenship. How confident are you that the court will rule in your favor and allow that order to end birthright citizenship to go forward?

DONALD TRUMP: Well, you're just telling me that for the first time, I am so happy.

I think it, the case has been so misunderstood that case birthright citizenship is about slavery. If you look at the, uh, details of it, the signings of it, everything else. That case is all about slavery. And if you view it from that standpoint, people understand it. But for some reason, lawyers don't talk about it.

The news doesn't talk about it. That's not about tourists coming in and touching a piece of sand and all of a sudden they're a citizenship. You know, they're a citizen. That ship that is all about slavery and even look at the dates on which it was signed, it was right at that era during, right after the Civil War, I.

And [01:55:00] if you look at it that way, the case is an easy case to win. And I hope the lawyers talk about birthright citizenship and slavery because that's what it was all about. And it was a very positive, it was meant to be positive. And uh, they use it now and instead, not for slavery. They use it for people that come into our country and they walk in and all of a sudden they become citizens and they pay a lot of money to different cartels and others.

It's all about slavery, and if you look at it that way, we should win that case.

Are Trump Administration Officials in Criminal Contempt Part 3 - Strict Scrutiny - Air Date 4-21-25

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Um, this is some breaking news we got while recording, and that is that the Supreme Court has scheduled four argument. The Trump administration's requests to stay insignificant, respects to put on hold, insignificant respects the orders.

That prevent them from implementing their wildly unconstitutional plan to strip [01:56:00] birthright citizenship from certain individuals. Now, I wanna quickly explain what issue was actually before the court, because the administration did not ask the Supreme Court to review whether. Their efforts to strip birthright citizenship are legal.

Instead, the question they asked the courts to take up is whether it was permissible for the lower courts in these cases to issue nationwide injunctions to prevent the administration from implementing this policy on a nationwide basis, but the practical effect of the court. Ruling against nationwide injunctions here would give the administration ostensibly a green light to implement this policy in large swaths of the United States.

And, uh, we, we will, we are, we are gonna go off on this shit in a second, but I just want to note at the outset that the idea that the court would take up the nationwide injunction issue in this case is utter garbage. One, they had numerous [01:57:00] opportunities to do so when courts were enjoining Biden administration policies, they turned away those efforts, apparently no concern there.

And second, if there is any case in which a nationwide injunction is appropriate, it would be an injunction against the birthright citizenship eo, because how are you going to implement an injunction against that policy on a state by state basis? Determine where people are born and like, can they travel in the United States?

Like it makes no effing sense. Thoughts.

MELISSA MURRAY - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Who are the four? I took four people to Grant Cert here. Yep. Who do you think they are?

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Well, Gorsuch has been railing against these Yes. Nationwide injunctions for a while. Yeah, I am sure. Gorsuch.

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Yeah. Um, my guess is Justice Thomas. I think he has, uh, indicated rather selective views, um, on the propriety of nationwide injunctions,

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: um, Alito.

'cause this could help the administration,

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: right. Alito, because this could help the administration. And then you probably get a J four right. From one of Brett or Amy [01:58:00] or even the Chiefy. Yeah. And okay, so here, here is my goblin villain. Take on what is happening. Mm-hmm. Um. I think there is a chance and still a greater than 50% chance that the court rules against the Trump administration on these birthright citizenship applications.

So I, I think they're gonna reject the administration's request to narrow the scope of the injunctions in this case. And I think the chief probably and other justices love the idea of buying themselves some goodwill, some credibility and cover for when they inevitably give the administration a green light on a host of other atrocities.

Yeah. Be it refusing to get Mr. Rego Garcia back in the United States. Right. Be it allowing the administration to implement this insane, a EA policy, be it dismantling the administrative state, be it unconstitutionally, coercing law firms, the media educational institutions, like who knows what they're gonna do.

But [01:59:00] my guess is they saw this as kind of like a freebie for them. Hey, guess what? Citizens? We're going to acknowledge that you're citizens. Wait. That, that's literally, you're welcome. The best case scenario to hope for here.

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Yeah. I think that's astute and very likely, right. The thing that's hard for me to, to figure is that I think that the credibility that they could buy is only gonna come on the substantive question if, if they're gonna reject, but gonna, the policy people that when the headlines people are not mm-hmm.

Are

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Trump administration gets ruled against, right. Supreme Court rules against Trump administration on birthright citizenship. That's what the headlines are gonna say. Mm-hmm.

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: The thing I'm worried about is what if that means they're ultimately gonna allow, they're gonna rule against it on this sort of don't rule it out injunction issue rule.

And then next fall, uh, they're gonna have the actual rule it out, actual substantive question, rule and allow, I mean, they can't possibly allow this order in its entirety. They can't allow it to people who are lawfully here and have kids as the order purports to do. And I also think there's the statutory question, which is like whether or not the constitution requires birthright citizenship, which it definitely [02:00:00] does.

Congress has passed laws conferring citizenship. So you can't by executive order, do this anyway. Whatever the constitution has to say about it. Laws are for losers,

LEAH LITMAN - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Kate.

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Correct? That's true. Constitutions are for tss. Are for

ALL SPEAKING: suckers.

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Yeah. Yeah. This is some good literation. Ladies. Kate, you and you're reading, why do you keep reading the Constitution

MELISSA MURRAY - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: as though the

KATE SHAW - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: words matter?

We're, we're reading it and they're reading it. I guess

MELISSA MURRAY - CO-HOST, STRICT SCRUTINY: Leah, you, you make an excellent point though about the selectivity of this court antipathy for nationwide injunctions and. I also think it's a really astute point and a clarion call to the media to think about how it chooses to cover this case, because the media will absolutely shape the narrative around what the ultimate disposition of this, and they really have to get it right here.

Bait and Switch Mohsen Mahdawis Citizenship Trap - The Intercept Briefing - Air Date 4-18-25

MAKAYLA LACEY - CO-HOST, THE INTERCEPT BRIEFING: what kinds of questions are, are you thinking of?

MATT CAMERON: I mean, I'm talking to people with residency, people with citizenship who are concerned about potentially, you know, because there's this, been this warning about within the, the last 10 years, I think it's actually supposed to be five, but they're saying if they can prove any, you know, [02:01:00] what, what they call terrorists or antisemitic associations within 10 years, they might come for people's citizenship.

Uh, but just, you know, routine travel. Can I go see my sick mother? You know, should I go to this conference abroad? Is it safe for me just to, to go on vacation? You know, these are people that have had residency for years in some cases. You know, and, and certainly student visas are at more risk than ever, but it's a new world.

We're adjusting to it. But, you know, I do think that this is really sending a message. It's, it's elevating things because it's one thing, you know, and, and what happened to Mahmud, Khalil was, was terrible and should never have happened. But they came to his house, which is a fairly routine way for ice to enforce, uh, for ESA ostrich.

They met her on the street and where they'd been surveilling her, they knew she was going to be, but there's an extra route level of cruelty. Even, even I think, beyond coming to your house to when you think you're gonna be going in to finalize your immigration status as a citizen to cross that final threshold.

And they do it because they know for sure that you're not gonna be armed. For example, you're gonna be going into a federal building, so it's safe to intercept you there. But, uh, I, I do think that it's really sending a message in a, in a way that every one of these arrests is a message. But I think [02:02:00] this one's really deep.

MAKAYLA LACEY - CO-HOST, THE INTERCEPT BRIEFING: So when people are, when people are asking you about what, if anything, they can do in terms of travel, what, what advice, knowing that you're not giving people legal advice, but what are, what are you telling them? Like, what should people know about traveling right now?

MATT CAMERON: The most important thing is that if you've ever had any contact with the criminal legal system, make sure that you have certified copies of that case.

Because that's, that's the biggest thing that gets people intercepted coming back in. And CBP is relentless about this, even if they know the case was dismissed, even if they've been through this three or four times with you before in secondary screening. So I've been providing letters and certified copies that people need to travel.

You know, assuming that your case is dismissed and that you're, you're safe to travel. Uh, if you do have an, a pending case or you do have a conviction of some kind, you've gotta talk to a lawyer before you even think about traveling. But otherwise, you know, for a lot of my clients who are politically active, have been very active on social media, who've been outspoken, unfortunately, I, I hate to have to tell anybody this, but locking down your social media and just scrubbing your phone, be understanding that they can take your phone at any time when you come back in.

You know, just be prepared for a complete [02:03:00] scouring of your history. You know, I just, I, I can't believe I have to give this advice, but I have to do it.

MAKAYLA LACEY - CO-HOST, THE INTERCEPT BRIEFING: You mentioned that the mode in which the administration is targeting these students is sending a message. What is that message?

MATT CAMERON: It's a message to student protestors obviously to start with, but it's a message to all of us that our free speech is, is, is a liability, the, the things that we say, and certainly for people who are on student visas, which are very tenuous and ISIS terminating illegally terminating, uh, as far as we can tell, hundreds and hundreds of student visas right now on spurious grounds and almost nothing.

Uh, so I really think that starting with the most vulnerable populations, people that they can easily target for their free speech and then moving down is, is the way to go here for them. And I, I do think that it is a direct message that we are gonna come for people that say things that we don't like. I was posting a couple weeks ago about a client that I had who was disappeared.

There was a, a scholar of, of Russia, who's from Russia, uh, who's, who looks a lot at, at how Russia got to where it is today. And I'm still thinking about what she said because she. Posted this and, and said, [02:04:00] next they'll be coming For the lawyers who speak out next, they'll be coming for the lawyers who complain to the government and to the public about what they're doing to their clients, because that's what happened in Russia.

Not to make it about me, but, uh, it, I never thought that I'd be at all even have to consider liability to myself for doing my job.

MAKAYLA LACEY - CO-HOST, THE INTERCEPT BRIEFING: Right. And, and returning to Malawi's case, I also wanna emphasize that the government is preparing to deport Malawi back to the West Bank where he was born in a refugee camp.

This is what he told, uh, AJ plus a year ago.

TOWNHALL CLIP: And when I was 12 years old, they killed seven Palestinians from the refugee camp in the middle of the night. I collected their body parts with my own hands. I peeled their skin of the wall. I put their body parts in plastic bags. No child should experience this.

I was 12 years old at that time.

MAKAYLA LACEY - CO-HOST, THE INTERCEPT BRIEFING: It's a truly horrific situation. And we also know that violence against Palestinians continues and has escalated, [02:05:00] particularly in the wake of October 7th. Madi told me that, uh, his father's store was blown up a few months ago in retaliation, and this is a very actively dangerous situation that the government is about to throw him into.

So we know that Mahmud, Khalil and Ru Meza Ozturk, the Tufts grad student you mentioned and and who we spoke about last week with Representative Aana Presley are being held in ice detention in Louisiana. Louisiana holds the second largest number of people after Texas where more than 12,000 people are being held nationwide.

Nearly half of the roughly 50,000 immigrants detained have no criminal record, and many only have minor infractions like traffic violations according to track. So why have Texas and Louisiana become hubs of immigration detention for this administration?

MATT CAMERON: I've actually been to Louisiana, to central Louisiana where they, uh, Jayna and Oakdale facilities are.

And, uh, I can tell you, well, for one thing, I think it's cheap real estate. Uh, it seems like there's not a lot down [02:06:00] there. So I, it makes sense that they, they purchase these vast tracks of land, but, um, they're also in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And I, I can't think that's a coincidence that the immigration infrastructure, and this has been coming, I mean, these facilities have been here, I've been doing this since 2006 and, you know, certainly under Bush, they were doing a lot of the same things, moving people around the country in the same way.

Not quite as, uh, dramatically as we're seeing right now. But, you know, this is very intentional that they go to these places where they can offer jobs. And sometimes it's the only form of employment in these areas. And where they're isolated from everybody where there are not attorneys. You know, there certainly is not a thriving immigration bar in Janna, Louisiana and, and or in the other places in Texas where they're holding them.

And you know, I, Congresswoman Pressley last week was, was absolutely right. And she's my congressman one by the way, very proud of her. She was absolutely right to say that these are political prisoners and that they're being treated like political prisoners. People really need to understand that. There are other ways they, they maybe that they could have gotten to this, but, uh, they're, they're taking the hardest possible approach on people for their political [02:07:00] opinions and they're putting 'em in these facilities.

And I can tell you, having been there myself, uh, the, the other thing is that the immigration judges in these facilities are unforgiving. And you can look at their records. They're all available on the TRAC website. You can look at any given immigration judge's outcomes, their asylum grants are pretty bad.

You know, in some cases I, there, there's a judge in New Mexico I was just dealing with who has a hundred percent asylum grant rate denial. From last year just denied every case in front of him.

TOWNHALL CLIP: Hmm.

MATT CAMERON: And I've been being told that I had a client who was disappeared a couple weeks ago, and I talked to him yesterday.

He said, every single person, you've got people in the facility from all around the world who are all around the country, who have all been sent to this place in New Mexico, and they're all being denied bond, which is, uh, extraordinary. I mean, you can't have a day where you just, you know, a week where you just deny everybody's bond.

You have to have somebody who's eligible for bond. Uh, and of course the government's position is that people charged under these foreign policy grounds that, uh, the three people we've been talking about are, are being charged under, are mandatory detainees. I believe they're saying they can't release them in bond.

So it's just, [02:08:00] it really emphasizes, and, and I I, to the point that I looked up Amnesty International's definition of a prisoner of conscience in, you know, Khalil and, and Auster, and they all meet this definition. I mean, that's, that's to that point. So this is where we're sending them. Now ICE gets the $45 billion that it's looking for.

I don't think that people understand what that's going to look like. Even Trump voters I don't think are prepared for what it's gonna look like when immigration, unfortunately, is that involved in our lives.

SECTION C: VENEZUELA AND EL SALVADOR

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: You've reached Section C, Venezuela and El Salvador.

We Said Farewell Lessons from the Venezuelan Diaspora for Todays America with Amanda Quintero Aguerrevere Part 1 - Secular Left - Air Date 4-2-25

DOUG BERGER - HOST, SECULAR LEFT: Now, at this time, this time period where they, where, where this was happening, did the Venezuelan government let people leave or did you, or did they always have to do it through illegal means?

AMANDA QUINTERO: No, actually a lot of people went through legal means. So when people started leaving at first, um, the very first wave is with the first story, which is people who worked for the oil industry and, and similar, a lot of those [02:09:00] people ended up moving to other o uh, petroleum hubs.

So there's a lot of Venezuelans in Houston, Texas. There's a lot of Venezuelans in Calgary in Canada. A lot of them in the Gulf. Uh, so that was the first immigration wave, mostly legal. Then eventually in 2016 there was a ma a default, and it start, people start pouring out. So a lot, a lot of middle class.

Went out kind of like me to, to do a master's with the excuse of getting a job, but most of it was legal. And then within the, the South American continent, it was also legal because Venezuela used to be part of me sour, I don't dunno if you're aware of it, but it's kind of like one of those regional, um, organizations.

And one of the things that they had was. Work per immediate work permits as soon as they immigrated. So a lot of people when they left, they were legal migrants [02:10:00] because they were within the me sur Then Mer Seur invalidated Venezuela because they hadn't, they didn't pay their, their dues and of course, like the whole authoritarian regime, et cetera.

And that's when the illegal immigration started happening. Um, basically because since the economy collapsed. The economy shrunk by a factor of five, something like that. So the real impact was a famine, an unrecognized famine when I moved out. We were seeing people, like families foraging in, in the parks, just like going to parks and picking fruit, or going to garbage cans and picking out, uh, food rests because there was not, there were not enough supplies out in the market, and so people had a choice between staying and.

Basically [02:11:00] facing hunger or leaving, and, and at that point when it's that violent people must leave. And so that's, that's when it start to be a, a humanitarian crisis.

DOUG BERGER - HOST, SECULAR LEFT: You, uh, have a background in economics and one of the drivers of, uh, political upheaval is income inequality between, uh, the country's business people and the government leadership and the, and the regular people.

Do you have any insights on how best to address that kind of inequality for other people?

AMANDA QUINTERO: Inequality, is it, it, it looks different in every country. Um. So it's very difficult to, to give like a one silver bullet answer. The, the bottom line is that the reason why Chavez got to where he was, the, the president got to where he was is because there was a lot of inequality and a lot of people felt [02:12:00] that something had to change because no matter what they did.

They were falling back and they, no matter how many jobs they had, how many eights they had, they couldn't afford basic living. And the promise that was made as some other people have made was very similar. We're gonna lower the price of eggs and we're gonna lower the price of milk, and we're gonna lower the prices of this and that, and we're gonna, and for a time it happened, but through very controversial means.

And a problem that's faced with this kind of Soviet left socialism, which is what they attempt to implement very like a Soviet style of, of central planning, is that they, they broke the market, they broke market mechanisms. And with that on the [02:13:00] moment like. When as, as soon as oil prices went down, which is what was feeding the redistribution mechanism went out, the entire thing collapsed, and whatever gains were done in trying to reduce inequalities were magnified because now you had tons and tons and tons of people fully depending on a system that was unsustainable.

Um, and just left to in free fall. Basically, they were left in free fall in, in a, in a crash that was extremely similar to the fall of the former Soviet unions in East Europe. Like the, the parallels when you study the economics are very similar, so. Inequality is not the same everywhere, but it always creates a political problem because the majority feel [02:14:00] that there's no matter, like no matter what they do, they don't have enough.

And that fuels this sensation that you need a strong man to come and fix it.

DOUG BERGER - HOST, SECULAR LEFT: Yeah. Especially when you have somebody that is, uh, lusting for power and uses that to their advantage. Right. I.

AMANDA QUINTERO: Absolutely, because it's very easy to make promises. It's extremely easy to make promises. However, once they get to power, at least in majority of cases.

They usually don't do. The only thing that truly changes the situation, which is raise taxes on the richest people that that is, I mean, there's a limited amount of resources, there's a whole discourse about this, et cetera. But when you have enormous inequality and you have to buy social peace, you have to get that money from somewhere, and that somewhere is usually taxes.

And if [02:15:00] the richest people are not paying taxes. There's no way for redistribution, and it's a myth that the, the, the bottom 90% of G are gonna be able to make it through, through market mechanisms. So it's very easy to come and say, yes, we're gonna lower the prices. But yeah, exactly. How, how is it, are you gonna make transfers?

Like, are you gonna, are you gonna pay the x are gonna subsidize things? 'cause if you're not, then there's very little evidence that you're gonna be able to do it.

Venezuelan Crisis The Long History Of U.S. Intervention - AJ - Air Date 2-12-19

NARRATOR, AJ+: What exactly is the US up to in Venezuela? A New York Times report from 2018 claims that the Trump administration held secret meetings in 2017 with Venezuelan military officers to discuss their plans to overthrow President Nicholas Maduro. That would not have been the first time a US administration has meddled in Venezuela's affairs.

In fact, US involvement in Venezuela dates back decades.

MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: Well, it's not new. As, as, uh, um, the history record proves the US has sought regime change in Venezuela. Since the [02:16:00] election of Ugo Chaz,

MARK WEISBROT: this has been going on a long time. I think the main difference is that the Trump administration is much more aggressive about it and open about it,

NARRATOR, AJ+: but you can't talk about US intervention in Venezuela or even Latin America without mentioning in nearly 200 year old policy.

Called the Monroe Doctrine.

MARK WEISBROT: To put it simply, it basically declared that the United States had a kind of supremacy in this hemisphere,

NARRATOR, AJ+: originally designed to block European powers, claiming colonies in Latin America. The Monroe doctrine was later interpreted to mean the US also claimed the right to overrule the democratic process on the continent through invasions, coups, and CIA covert operations.

MARK WEISBROT: The United States is an empire, and so if you're an empire. You want as many countries as possible to line up with you. And so the, the pawns matter, uh, as well, in, in a chess game

NARRATOR, AJ+: in 2013, secretary of State, John Kerry [02:17:00] announced the end of the Monroe Doctrine.

CLIP: Many years ago, the United States dictated a policy that defined the hemisphere for many years after.

We've moved past that era,

NARRATOR, AJ+: but how true is that statement?

MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: It never ended. In terms of foreign policy, there is very little difference between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans on the matter of exercise of US foreign power In Latin America, we've had coups supported by Democrats and we've had coups supported by Republicans.

NARRATOR, AJ+: Venezuela also checks another key box of reasons for US intervention. Oil. Venezuela's petroleum production reached an all time high in 1970. A few years later in 1976, the industry was nationalized.

MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: Venezuela has some of the largest deposits of oil in the world, and potentially that oil could be of great asset, as Mr.

Bolton has said. Uh, if American companies are able to exploit it. Venezuela was always seen as a very willing ally and also as a constant [02:18:00] supply of oil.

NARRATOR, AJ+: But beyond Oil, the US was desperate to prevent this former ally from becoming a socialist state.

MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: Venezuela was the beginning of a radical political change in Latin America.

Beginning in 1998, Venezuela went from being the model democracy, the preferred option that the US promoted in Latin America, a pacted democracy that always supported the US to being its nemesis. When the election of Ugo Chavez who promoted regional integration, uh, national sovereignty. Nationalism and an alternative to the US promotion of free trade and neoliberalism in Latin America.

NARRATOR, AJ+: Huga Chavez's election was particularly concerning for the us. He not only sought to use Venezuela's oil wealth to fund healthcare, education, and other benefits for the poor. But he also aligned with Cuba's, Fidel Castro, Washington's longtime nemesis in Latin America.

MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: So in that sense, Venezuela becomes a thorn in the side of the us.

And you add to that, that the election of Chavez [02:19:00] in Venezuela was quickly followed by Lula in Brazil, the, uh, kiers in Argentina, corre and Ecuador, Morales and Bolivia Basha in Chile. And you saw a change in the geopolitical, uh, character in the landscape of Latin America. And that's threatened the US as hegemony.

So that what's happening now in many cases is an effort to recoup that hegemony and Venezuela is, is part of that effort to recover the US' control and power.

NARRATOR, AJ+: In 2002, after 18, people were killed in an anti-government protest. Venezuelan military officers and opposition leaders staged a coup to overthrow President Chavez, US government officials serving under George W.

Bush at the time denied having any prior knowledge of the coup. While American officials said they would not support any extra constitutional moves to Alt Chavez.

MARK WEISBROT: There were CIA documents that were made public that showed that the United States government had advanced knowledge of the coup.[02:20:00]

NARRATOR, AJ+: Intervention doesn't always rely on force. President Trump announced sanctions on Venezuela's. State-run oil industry in an effort to press for change in the country.

CLIP: What we're focusing on today is disconnecting the illegitimate Maduro regime from the sources of its revenues.

MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: Well, I, I think that from the very beginning, the US policy towards Venezuela has been one of isolating Venezuela.

This was under the Bush Obama, and now Trump administration, Venezuela depends on oil for about 95%. Of its export earnings, it takes oil profits, purchases, food, brings it back to the country for sale. That means it can be easily intervened and can be easily up upended. So sanctions means that the country no longer can, on many levels, be able to utilize its foreign assets to buy food and bring it home.

Sanctions also means it can't renegotiate its debt. Sanction also means it can't buy on the international market.

NARRATOR, AJ+: After the death of Hugo Chavez in 2013, his former Deputy Nicholas Maduro took power. Since [02:21:00] then, Venezuela has been rocked by political, financial, and humanitarian crises, and ordinary Venezuelans are bearing the brunt of.

All of them. The country is facing hyperinflation, poverty and food shortage. People are struggling to afford basic necessities, including medicine. 3 million Venezuelans have fled to neighboring countries like Columbia and Brazil while Maduro blames the US critics, including many former supporters and officials of Hugo Chavez, blame corruption and poor governance.

President Trump took advantage of the chaos and division in Venezuela to throw his support behind the self-declared interim President Juan Huo. Keep in mind that the US' involvement in Venezuela fits a long-term pattern of US intervention in Latin American politics.

MARK WEISBROT: So you have a long history of US intervention in the region and it's very anti-democratic, very often supported dictatorships.

And in the 21st century, it was mostly against these. [02:22:00] Left governments who were more interested in independence and self-determination than the prior governments that were close to the us.

NARRATOR, AJ+: The Trump administration has now called on veteran foreign policy advisor Elliot Abrams, to act as special envoy on Venezuela.

Abrams certainly has experienced in the region, but that experience has not necessarily been in promoting democracy throughout the 1980s. He was a key figure in organizing the Reagan administration's support. For dictators and death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, and Nicaragua, he pleaded guilty in 1991 to two counts of misdemeanor for withholding information from Congress about illegal US funding for right wing Nicaragua and paramilitaries, the Iran Contra affair.

MARK WEISBROT: The selection of Elliot Abrams shows that it's very similar to what they were doing in the 1980s when they were trying to overthrow the elected government of, of Nicaragua, and there was so much resistance to it, uh, by the way, in [02:23:00] the United States, that the Reagan administration had to end up. Funding the Contras illegally with the arm sales to Iran.

This is the neocons like, uh, John Bolton coming back and just trying to do the same thing all over again.

NARRATOR, AJ+: I. Whatever the intentions of the United States, the opposition to Maduro is growing and popular. Years of economic mismanagement, corruption, and authoritarian repression of the media and political opposition has drawn even many supporters of Hugo Chavez onto the streets.

To demand that the government step down. So is it possible to want change in Venezuela but oppose us involvement in the country?

MIGUEL TINKER SALAS: I agree there needs to be change in Venezuela, but the Venezuelans have to decide that it's a very slippery slope when we go down, uh, having the US become the arbitrary of internal politics and any [02:24:00] country.

We Said Farewell Lessons from the Venezuelan Diaspora for Todays America with Amanda Quintero Aguerrevere Part 2 - Secular Left - Air Date 4-2-25

DOUG BERGER - HOST, SECULAR LEFT: Yeah, I was gonna ask you about that. You know, it is, this is a novel. So these stories are fictionalized, but they are based on real experiences of friends of yours or people that you knew.

Correct.

AMANDA QUINTERO: Correct. So technically it's five short stories. It's not one novel because the stories go in chronological order, but they are not intertwined. So you finish one, you start something else. Oh, okay. Um, but it is a long read. It is 300 pages long, so it does read like a novel, uh, because it exists in the same universe.

However, they are about 80% true story. I, I took stories that were very real and I just fictionalized them for the purpose of entertainment, for making the, the reading more, more pleasant. But yeah, I would say the bulk of the information is true story.

DOUG BERGER - HOST, SECULAR LEFT: Now you said you recently moved for France, but you lived there for uh, many years.

Yeah. Were you involved, was [02:25:00] there like a Venezuelan community ex pack community? That, uh, you got to know there really, there's not a

AMANDA QUINTERO: very, no, there's not a very big link between Venezuela and France. Um, of course at the end of the day you find each other just because, you know, someone is a cousin of someone or someone is a friend of someone.

So I did have my small community of Venezuelan friends, but for the most part, there's not even a very big Latino community in France. Their, their majority of their immigration comes from their former colonies, which is Africa and somewhat in the Middle East.

DOUG BERGER - HOST, SECULAR LEFT: Yeah, that is weird. That's strange. 'cause France does have a big presence in South America, so that's, that's weird.

AMANDA QUINTERO: Commercially. My, my, but not politically. It's not a, it's not a close tie.

DOUG BERGER - HOST, SECULAR LEFT: Uh, which of the stories that you wrote about in your book were the hardest to write? From a personal standpoint? And were, and were any of them close to your own experience?

AMANDA QUINTERO: [02:26:00] I would, I think so. It's, there's five of them. Number two and number four were probably the hardest to write because.

Actually, because they were so distant from my own experience, the first, the, the second one is the Chronicle of a Kidnapping, so it's a minute to minute recount of a kidnapping for ransom. So it's extremely violent. That one was. Excruciating to write because you have to place yourself in the skin of someone who is kidnapped and how would you face the situation.

Although the person who recounted the story in person remembered a lot of details, so it saved me from from Fictionalizing a lot. And the fourth one. I think it was the most painful because that one is about a political prisoner that ends up in a torture center. Mm-hmm. So it is a heartbreaking story of a person that I, I knew before, um, like long before he ended up in [02:27:00] that situation.

And I, I would've never imagined that something like this would happen to him. And. It was so difficult for him to tell the story that I had to come up with ways to tell it that were from second sources. So like reading in the newspapers or looking at a lot of, um, documentaries and, and trying to capture that.

So there was a lot of trying to imagine being in, in, in prison unjustly. Uh. Actually without due process and that, that was so difficult to write. Honestly, that was the, the one that took me the longest.

DOUG BERGER - HOST, SECULAR LEFT: Okay. People don't have an understanding that, that in a lot of these authoritarian regimes, uh, people disappear is what they call it.

That's what know Chile, they did it and, and Argentina. They've done it. Yeah. You know, all these oppressive regimes, they disappear. People.

AMANDA QUINTERO: Correct.

DOUG BERGER - HOST, SECULAR LEFT: And so that's pretty much what happened with [02:28:00] Vene in Venezuela, that people would just disappear or did they actually know that they were eventually,

AMANDA QUINTERO: yes. So this, this, the fourth story that I'm talking about is titled, uh, Hugo is the name of the character that one is about, as a person who disappeared, actually, they didn't disappear in the sense that.

Their family knew that the government had taken them because they went into their home at four in the morning, abducted him from his house, and then didn't tell anyone where he was for weeks until they bribed enough officers that they found out where they were. But this became a standard practice, um, and also taking people from, from street protests.

So yes, they, they did became, they did, they, they haven't been understood as. De, which is what you call that, but it is. It is exactly what was, what was happening at that point. And I think it calmed down mostly because people got so scared that they're no longer protesting the way they used [02:29:00] to. But probably if people went out and tried to confront the government again, it would happen again.

DOUG BERGER - HOST, SECULAR LEFT: And I think there's a lot of Americans that believe that they'll be protected if they get arrested. Protesting. It's like it's, it can happen. Uh, you know, like that, that

AMANDA QUINTERO: You mean in, in the states or elsewhere? Yeah. 'cause in the story there is an American who for whatever reason, went and married a Venezuelan woman and found himself in this prison.

Um, and it took years before the American government could take him out. Right.

DOUG BERGER - HOST, SECULAR LEFT: And, and Americans just think that due process is everywhere and it's like, Nope.

AMANDA QUINTERO: Yeah. Well, the due process part is very key in this, in this part of the story because the study case that you could, you could take from my book is that an authoritarian regime came in and dismantled the [02:30:00] due, like the, the rule of law bit by bit and.

15 years later, which is when this story happens, the the fourth one that we're talking about, due process is no longer. Existing. So this guy spends, I dunno, six months in jail and eventually a friend of his realizes that they, there's not even a case against him, he's just been abducted and he's kidnapped by the government.

But there is no due process. Therefore, there's nothing to do with lawyers. Lawyers have no resources to taking a him out of jail. And it becomes a political negotiation. He actually ends up leaving jail because there is, uh, a pact that happens with the opposition party.

DOUG BERGER - HOST, SECULAR LEFT: And then we juxtapose that with Ruben's story.

The first story where the protesting gets, gets him put on a list.

AMANDA QUINTERO: Yeah. And basically he can't work. So actually book is an escalation. Sorry. Yeah. [02:31:00] The book is an escalation. So the first one is gonna be Reuben, who is, um, a young guy who's in college. Very typical that college kids are gonna be very present in protests, anti-government protests everywhere around the world.

Students tend to be quite left and liberal anywhere in the world. Um, things are happening. And he signed a petition to impeach the precedent. I. This gets him blacklisted for life. Uh, and he discovers later down the line that he's never gonna be able to find a government. Job, like he gets blacklisted from federal jobs.

He gets blacklisted from the oil industry, which in Venezuela is a national industry. And he was studying in, uh, petroleum engineering. So imagine a petroleum engineering person who will never be able to work for the state. It just becomes impossible for him, uh, to imagine a future in Venezuela. And then that's.

That, that's one of the first building [02:32:00] blocks. It just escalates throughout the book into the dismantling of the state.

Bukele Goes To Washington w. Roberto Lovato Part 2 - The Majority Report - Air Date 4-20-25

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: You mentioned the CIA and its current involvement in El Salvador's politics, but. It's the, it did not obviously begin there. Uh, the United States sent billions of dollars in military aid to El Salvador's government in the eighties, and it was a violent, repressive regime. If you could give us a little bit of that history as we lead into explaining how bou Kelly fits into that history, uh, that would be great.

Yeah.

ROBERTO LOVATO: Uh, El Salvador was for the better part of the 20th century, one of the longest standing military dictatorships. In, in the world, in the hemisphere and in the world. And, um, it's always, it is always been as well. The one of a, it was the first place to launch a a, an indigenous in communist insurrection against dictatorship in the Americas in 1932.

When, [02:33:00] approximately 32,000, I mean, I'm sorry, approximately somewhere between 10 to 50,000. We still don't know. Because the memory of that has been erased in official records. Um, people were killed by their own government. And so the, the violence and murder of El Salvador has ingrained itself in the political and even the social culture of El Salvador, where, for example, um, dictatorship after DIC was continually torturing, killing.

Uh, disappearing, uh, exiling and, and, and, and perpetuating other actions to terrorize their way into domination. So, in the sixties and in the fifties and sixties, you start seeing the birth of groups following Ceva and Fidel Castro in the Americas that were revolutionary mostly Marxist Leninist.

Revolutionary organizations that eventually in 19, in the 1980s [02:34:00] became the Faro Martin National Liberation Front

and the FMLN, uh, waged a, uh, a successful war to dismantle the military dictatorship, sadly. Um. And tragically, the FMLN did not retool itself for the digital age, the analog age Marus, Leninist political military structures, uh, did not get upgraded for, for, for, for the world that Silicon Valley created. And so, um, eventually you get in the nineties, um, the right wing fascist arena party instituting what's known as manura.

Smart hand politics in response to the gang problem that was growing after the war because, uh, Bush administration, one, attorney General Bill Barr, started targeting gangs in the [02:35:00] US making up until that time, the most, the largest shift in, in, uh, FBI resources, from counter counterintelligence to focus on gangs.

19 in, in 1992. In response to LA Riots, he also began the practice of deporting gang members to El Salvador and then the rest of Central America. A region rife with ruins and perfectly fit to grow US style, LA style gang structures like the Mexican mafia. So that's where you get MS 13 and 18th Street growing out of the rotten soil of US policy in the US of deportations of, of de, of deportations and gang policing.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Right. Right. So they fed one another. Right. And I guess it created almost a cycle of. You have, uh, sorry to cut you off here, Roberto, but it's such a key point. [02:36:00] MS. 13 originating in the US prison system informing deportation policies, sending those folks back to El Salvador, building up their resources and creating, almost strengthening them, but also tying in us kind of gang policing into the immigration.

Uh, carceral state that's so key in the nineties and into the two thousands.

ROBERTO LOVATO: Oh, and that you, you're right on point, Emma. In addition to that, you see the kinda robocop of US policing and El Salvador's actual influence on it. You had people like a guy named, uh, the late maximum warring who a former, uh, US, Pentagon, uh, Colonel, uh, who and strategist.

And, um, you know, professor, a distinguished professor in the US Army College, uh, you know, uh, starting his career [02:37:00] focusing on insurgency, counter insurgent in, in El Salvador after the war, men warring. What does men warring do? He goes and he, uh, starts looking at gangs as the new insurgency and starts framing gangs.

As, as insurgency, there's a line that runs from that kind of thinking to the terrorist language you see being used today. And you then some of the 50, some of the many trainers that the US sent to El Salvador after the war ended in 1992 went where to San Francisco, la, New York to train US police forces in counterinsurgency.

And then you have, you know, over the years, US presidents, including Obama for example, heavily militarizing US police. So you have in El Salvador an outsized, a tiny country with an outsized, [02:38:00] uh, contributions to the militarization of the United States itself. Mm-hmm.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And even the militarization of the police.

That's an outgrowth of the War on Terror, which is where we come full circle of the classifying of these folks as terrorists, because we did the same thing. Uh, with the mujahideen. We know that the United States has enabled. Far right governments not just in, uh, south Amer or Latin America, but also in the Middle East.

Um, and then that's come back to bite us because they become the, well, maybe not even bite us, but it, it benefits these people because then the military budget increases and the surveillance state increases. And this is a new group of people, uh, to go after. It's just a completely. Incongruent policy if you actually care about safety and not just the carceral state and, uh, making some money like that, that it, [02:39:00] it creates cycles of violence, is really what I'm saying.

Um mm-hmm. And it doesn't seem like there's, we're just, we're diving even further into, um, just a more digitized version of that policy. You, you write about it as a. Digitized neoliberal 21st century sista, which is so, uh, well said. Like, how, how does that look when you bring in the surveillance technology piece?

ROBERTO LOVATO: Well, it looks like things you see in sci-fi movies. I don't, you know, I don't teach sci-fi writing, but I'm a fan of sci-fi writing in sci-fi movies. One of my favorite being The Matrix. You're living in the Matrix right now in many ways, as far as the stimulation of reality. What takes place in the White House right now between Buke and Trump is an entire stimulation.

When you have this terrorist language being applied indiscriminately and and without any basis in reality, when you, when you're gonna start seeing it, extend the [02:40:00] brand of terror, the terrorist brand, into different groups that are gonna include many of us unless we build something else that El Salvador has to teach us, which is our, the social movements.

That can, that are the only things that are gonna be able to challenge the rise of fascism. We're not gonna liberal progressive our way out of climate change techno fascism. We simply, it's proven time and again in, in the case of El Salvador, in the case of gangs, in the case of immigration, for example, immigration by the way, being the, uh, the royal road that leads to fascism, not just in the US but throughout the world.

Right. In Europe and other and, and even in the Americas. Um, in, in the case of these, the, the, the, the, this escalation of this, this, this techno fascist practice, we're gonna have to build the social movements that kind of include elements of liberal, progressive. We're gonna have to be [02:41:00] a little more radical and to the left of that, if we're to, to get through this.

Trumps Deportation Black Hole Part 2 - Reveal - Air Date 4-12-25

NOAH LANARD: So. I wanna start by asking you about this mega Prison Sea Cot. It was built after Buel declared a state of emergency in 2022 to deal with violent gangs which were controlling large parts of the country.

The government suspended some civil liberties, including the right to do process now. Given all of this, what are conditions like in that prison?

JOSEPH GIARDINA: This mega prison is a poster child of our prison system. It's a high security prison built allegedly to exclusively hold gang members. It has been heavily used by Que propaganda machine producing, as you might have seen, highly professional videos in which every single image.

He's meticulously taken care of. So if you see something from that prison, it is because the regime wants to to see it. [02:42:00]

NOAH LANARD: Some people have described this mega prison as, as basically a black hole. Is that accurate?

JOSEPH GIARDINA: I think it is a good description. No one can enter this prison. Relatives of the prisoners cannot visit them.

They are not allowed to receive anything from outside. Um. According to President Belli, they don't see the light of the sun ever, and they are kept behind bars for most of the day. Um, this is what we know from the Salvadoran authorities because we cannot enter this prison. And right now, this situation is not exceptional.

It's the same situation for the other 32 prisons.

NOAH LANARD: It sounds like from your reporting, the director of this prison system is somewhat

JOSEPH GIARDINA: notorious, the director of the Salvadoran Prison System, a man called O Luna has been sanctioned by the US State Department and also by the Treasury Department. Even the El Salvador Police [02:43:00] Intelligence unit has described him as an important piece of a criminal organization that distributes drugs.

His administration of the prison system has brought back systematic torture to our prisons, something we thought was part of our most painful past.

NOAH LANARD: One thing that El Farro reported is it wasn't just Venezuelans who were deported to El Salvador. Who else was on those planes?

JOSEPH GIARDINA: As far as we know, there are at least four different categories of people that came in those first three flights.

One Venezuelan suspects of belonging to the trend. Crime organization, two Venezuelan undocumented migrants, completely unrelated to this criminal organization. Three Salvadoran undocumented migrants, and four Salvadoran members of the EMS 13 gang, including at least one gang boss who was preparing to stand trial in the United States.

NOAH LANARD: And I gather this [02:44:00] is important because of reporting El Farro did about Bke and the deal he made with the MS 13 gang.

JOSEPH GIARDINA: That's right. Bke made a secret agreement with the gangs five years ago that helped his party win elections. In exchange. Mr. Bke free. Some of the gang of bosses, including a few required by the United States for extradition.

Some of those freed by Bke were recaptured in Mexico and sent to the United States where they are expected to disclose all the details of their pacs with the bouquet administration. We also know that when Mr. Buke offered Secretary Rubio to receive deportes and criminals. He also demanded that the gang bosses were also sent back to El Salvador, and at least one of them was sent to El Salvador in those first flights.

NOAH LANARD: Carlos, as I understand it, it was El Salvador's ambassador to the US who said Quele asked for those gang leaders to be deported. I guess the idea [02:45:00] here is that if you put them in a jail in El Salvador, then they can't tell their secrets.

JOSEPH GIARDINA: That's that's what we think. As you know, MS 13 is considered a terrorist organization in the United States.

If the trial in New York proves Mr. Buchel deals with them, it could potentially be very damaging since it would mean that he had illegal deals with a terrorist organization and also illegally freed some of the terrorist organization leaders. So what happened to the charges that the US had against them?

We only know of one, because we saw him in the images of the deportees that arrived to El Salvador. In this specific case of this one single person, we found documentation where the, the Justice Department instructs the attorney assigned to the case to ask the judge to dismiss the charges against this gang leader in order for him to be deported.[02:46:00]

NOAH LANARD: Let me ask you a question, just pulling away from the prison a, a, a little bit. Yeah. The Trump administration has praised Bule for slashing crime in El Salvador, and yet, just two years ago, the State Department cited reports of arbitrary killings, forced disappearances and torture. Is the Trump administration ignoring this evidence, or is there something in B'S harsh policies that they connect with?

JOSEPH GIARDINA: I can't answer that. I think you know much more about the nature of Mr. Trump's administration. What I can say is that Mr. Belli has been very successful in grabbing power and still keep his high popularity. He still enjoys after almost six years in power, a popularity that, um, comes around 75% depending on the polls.

So that makes him. A very attractive person for all the people in these extreme rightist movements all over the world. [02:47:00]

NOAH LANARD: So for your typical Salvadorian, life is better because of the moves that he's made.

JOSEPH GIARDINA: Mr. Buel has effectively taken the gangs out of the communities of Salvadorian people and lowered the murder rate in the country.

So life is apparently better, but. We know how in exchange for this so-called security, one person or one group of people is grabbing power, dismantling democracy, and there's no more accountability. There's no more checks and balances. There's a lot of violence still in Alor, but now it's being inflicted by the authorities.

Police and the army now can make arrests without a judge's order and hold anyone in prison almost. Indefinitely. 70,000 people have been detained in these years, which makes El Salvador the country with the highest rate of incarcerated population even above the United States. I don't know of any experience when only through [02:48:00] repression you really canceled a violence that has grown out of a society that is not functioning.

Let me quote Archbishop Romero, who was killed in El Salvador in 1980. He used to say, violence will not be eradicated unless we address it root causes, and we have to know that gangs are just. The most radical, the most horrible and the most violent expression of a dysfunctional society. But if we don't address the causes that built a fertile ground for these.

Young kids to become so violent, then we are not solving any problem.

SECTION D: RESISTANCE

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally, section D resistance.

Mr. Abrego Garcia Part 2 - Main Justice - Air Date 4-15-25

ANDREW WEISMAN - HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: But to be clear, to go back to some things that they can do, this is something that can be found to be civil [02:49:00] contempt. Yeah. That is contempt of a judge's order.

The judge then can use the refusal to answer as an inference against the government in terms of finding facts. And just as an example, we saw that with Judge Barrell Howell in the Rudy Giuliani case, where he violated multiple discovery orders. And so they were sanctions that included findings against him because he hadn't complied, so they can use it in the case.

They can also, as you said, impose fines on the government. If the contempt is found to be personal, they can impose it on the person. They can also, if it's serious enough, they can actually impose jail as a civil contempt remedy. The idea is that you jail somebody until they comply with the order. And that is something that can be ordered if a judge finds that.

I actually dealt with that a lot when I was dealing with organized crime work as a government prosecutor. I dealt with the sort of [02:50:00] various issues that come up when a mobster refuses to testify without a valid privilege. There can be fines, there can be jail terms, and then if it's a lawyer who's doing this, there can be ramifications in terms of their bar license.

With referrals. So there are tools in the arsenal. It is just so rare to see when you're dealing with the government. That's right. Because the government has an obligation, obviously, as an oath of office. They have a duty of candor as the Chief Justice has said. I mean, you know, a court order is, you know, is something you comply with and then if you disagree with it, you can appeal it.

So we may again get to that 'cause we're dealing with the same thing before Judge Boberg. So this is a good segue to speaking about the Judge Bosberg case, because people remember that the decision from the Supreme Court there that said these people are entitled. To a due process hearing [02:51:00] before the deprivation.

That is before being removed. But the issue that the court split on was whether it has to be habeas or whether it had to be the Administrative Procedures Act and said it has to be done by habeas. Well, what happened? What happened was the plaintiffs read that and complied with it. Filed habeas. Exactly.

So they filed habeas in New York. In Texas. Why in those two locations? Because that's where the plaintiffs were that were being represented. The original five plaintiffs. Exactly. So two of the plaintiffs, 'cause they had counsel, were able to be taken off the plane and didn't end up in El Salvador. And so they were.

Housed in are housed in New York. So the habeas was filed in New York and the judge there, what did he do? He issued a stay.

MARY MCCORD - CO-HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: The TRO, like you cannot deport these people. He issued a class certification too. Not for the nation. For anybody in the Southern District of New York who's either currently in detention or will [02:52:00] be in detention, cannot be deported without notice of an opportunity to be heard.

ANDREW WEISMAN - HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: Right. Which is totally in compliance with the Supreme Court's decision. Exactly. And you know what people were thinking when that decision from the Supreme Court came down, oh, it's a ruse to get it to Texas. And you know that's a favorable venue for the government. Well, guess what happened, Mary, when the habeas was filed in Texas, temporary

MARY MCCORD - CO-HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: restraining order class certification applicable there in the Southern district of Texas.

I think it was the Southern District Brownsville. Yes. That's about almost as far south as you can go.

ANDREW WEISMAN - HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: Yep.

MARY MCCORD - CO-HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: Same thing. Temporary restraining order. You cannot deport these people without notice and an opportunity to be heard. I will also say both judges ordered, they can't be transferred either. Without noticing an opportunity to be heard so that you can't pull some shenanigans.

It's like, okay, we're not gonna give you notice in New York, so we're gonna quickly transfer you someplace else so that it's almost like a whack-a-mole. Anytime we transfer you, as soon as you file habeas there, oh, you're not there anymore. Right? So it's kind of like. Don't move these people until they get hearings.

That [02:53:00] was like the next day after the Supreme Court too. It was so fast.

ANDREW WEISMAN - HOST, MAIN JUSTICE: This is good news. In terms of what you are seeing, I wanna make sure people understand this, is you are seeing judges across the country, judges appointed by, as we've talked about on this podcast, judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans, including judges appointed by Donald Trump.

Upholding the rule of law. And so there is good news here in terms of what the courts are doing in terms of upholding what's going on, but it is a real sign of where the administration is that you're seeing this sort of uniform, almost uniform sort of resistance to the law breaking.

Bait and Switch Mohsen Mahdawis Citizenship Trap Part 2 - The Intercept Briefing - Air Date 4-18-25

TOWNHALL CLIP: Hopefully this will happen is I will get my citizenship.

MAKAYLA LACEY - CO-HOST, THE INTERCEPT BRIEFING: That's Mos Kay Madi, a Palestinian student at Columbia University. I spoke with him the night before his scheduled interview with the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. [02:54:00]

TOWNHALL CLIP: I've been waiting for this interview to be scheduled, uh, for over a year

MAKAYLA LACEY - CO-HOST, THE INTERCEPT BRIEFING: after a decade living in the us Madi, a green card holder was prepared.

He had studied for the test. He was ready to swear the oath, and he was hopeful he'd walk out of that meeting. A naturalized citizen

TOWNHALL CLIP: proof that I understand what the Constitution is about, what is the democracy of this, uh, in this country is about what is the rights of people in this country about? Then I, after passing the test, I hope that I would do.

The Pledge of Allegiance and I will come out of there as a citizen with rights.

MAKAYLA LACEY - CO-HOST, THE INTERCEPT BRIEFING: But Madi, a leader of the campus protest movement against Israel's war on Gaza, also knew the risks.

TOWNHALL CLIP: The second option is I may get out of there with handcuffs as detained [02:55:00] person with no rights taken to ICE detention Center

MAKAYLA LACEY - CO-HOST, THE INTERCEPT BRIEFING: On Monday, Madi went to his citizenship interview, but instead of grinding him citizenship, immigration agents arrested him.

He now faces deportation to the occupied West Bank. He's the ninth Columbia student, targeted for deportation as the Trump administration revokes over a thousand student visas, including for many students who had no connection to pro-Palestine protests. The targeting of pro-Palestine voices and international students is part of a broader crackdown.

It's part of a mass deportation campaign that disregards individual's legal status or rights and punishes them for constitutionally protected speech. To discuss Malawi's case, I'm joined by his representative rep, Becca Ballant, the Democratic Congresswoman for Vermont. Welcome to the Show Rep Balance.

Thank you for having me. So to start, can you tell me how your office first became aware of Malawi's situation?

REP. BECCA BALINT: We first [02:56:00] became aware because a local um, rep, so a house rep in our state legislature was there with Maxima. Mei because she knows him and, um, was there hoping that what was happening was the last citizenship hurdle, essentially taking the citizenship test.

And so she was there in real time posting about what was happening. And then of course, you know, we were getting updates as well to the office. And the thing that is incredibly shocking about this particular instance is that the. The reasons that are being given by the Secretary of State Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security, uh, Christie Nome is that his, his statements, his beliefs that in some way he is a danger to, to us interests.

Okay. Like we can unpack that for a very long time, which is completely in total, you know, BS on so many [02:57:00] levels. But this is a, this is a man who was an outspoken critic of people who were being, uh, violent in, in their protest. He's a Buddhist, he is someone who spoke out against antisemitism. He said the, the struggle against antisemitism and the struggle for people to have a free Palestine are one and the same.

It is about freedom of, of both peoples and the fact that he, they're saying that that. That somebody who is speaking about peace, who has relationships with Israeli students on campus, he was building those bridges that somehow he is a danger. I mean, it just gives up the entire, the entire scam of, of what is happening here.

This is about power, it's about control. It is about people using this idea of lawlessness and the people themselves who are using that idea, the Trump administration, they themselves are the lawless ones. It is so perverse [02:58:00] and I, I, Vermonters, are completely outraged by this as they should be. And they're connecting the dots here.

Couple dots. They're connecting the dots of if this can happen to someone like Max Modally, it can happen to anyone because they're not giving people due process. They're not giving them access to their attorneys. They're not telling them what they're being charged with and. It is this incredible, uh, distraction from their own lawlessness and the fact that we are economies in free fall.

Like that's how craven it is. That's how crass it is. They are playing to a base of people who delight in cruelty at this point, to distract from the fact that this president is failing on so many other fronts and they're using people as their pawns. It's disgusting, it's inhumane. It is illegal. It is just, you know, so depressing about this is where we are as a nation.

MAKAYLA LACEY - CO-HOST, THE INTERCEPT BRIEFING: [02:59:00] This is a good segue into the letter that you led on Wednesday. Sent to the Department of Homeland Security and to the Department of State demanding answers on the government's quote, abduction of madi. I'll just say it was notable, at least for me, to see that kind of language being used by members of Congress.

Um, I'll quote from the letter masked hooded men in plain clothes removed Mr. Madi. He was then handcuffed and taken into an unmarked van from the U-S-C-I-S office in Colchester, Vermont. All Americans should be chilled by this action taken straight out of dystopian fiction. Yes. So to start, why did you think, you know, a lot of people, you know, months into the Trump administration have been asking, where are Democrats?

What are Democrats doing? Why did you think it was important to send this letter right now?

REP. BECCA BALINT: My gosh, so many reasons. Um. Where to begin? For me, I mean, I think it's important for, for me to speak about my own family's history in this. Mm-hmm. So my grandfather, um, layup Pol Ballant, [03:00:00] he was, uh, a victim of the Holocaust and my family experienced people, uh, you know, ratting them out as, as Jews, ratting them out, as, as dangers, you know, a danger to, to society, and that this is an inflection point from our country.

This is about our courage and this is about our ethical values. Not just as a nation of laws, but also also as human beings. And it is dystopian for at the, in the same breath that they are saying that Harvard University, Columbia University, they need to sign these agreements that there will be no masks on campus.

They themselves are sending their own brown shirts. You know this, this essentially paramilitary army. You know, masked, hooded, can't identify them if they're so proud of what they're doing, then show your damn face, then show your [03:01:00] id, then talk about what grounds you are holding this person. But it's being done in secret and it is meant to shock and awe and to get the rest of us to remain silent.

They have no evidence. They have no details, which is what we're demanding of both Secretary Rubio and Secretary Nome. If in fact, you claim. He is a danger to our country's foreign interests, then provide the certification to Congress. That is what you have to do if you're using this provision. And I never thought that I would see this kind of behavior from a democratically elected government.

They, you know, we are, we are, we are certainly in constitutional crisis when they are screaming about lawlessness, when they are defying court orders, when they're defying the constitution. When you have the, the felon in chiefs [03:02:00] directing all of this, you know, if this were. A novel, you would say it, it would be right out of it was Orwellian.

All of it is Orwellian. And, and I just, I know that Vermonters understand that this is about all of us. If you'll deny due process from somebody who was in this country with a green card for 10 years, who is somebody who, uh, you know, talked about peace and connection between Palestinians and Israelis who was looking to build bridges, if this man is somehow a threat to society, then we are down a sick path.

Are Democrats taking Trump's bait - No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Air Date 4-20-25

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, NO LIE: there was reporting in Axios that is driving a lot of the news coverage as it relates to kil Mara Bgo Garcia, the immigrant who was illegally sent to a maximum security prison in El Salvador. That reporting reads the second house Democrat who spoke anonymously, a centrist called the deportation issue, a soup du jour, arguing Trump is setting a trap for the Democrats and like usual, were falling for it.

[03:03:00] Quote, rather than talking about the tariff policy and the economy, the thing where his numbers are tanking, we're gonna take the bait for one hairdresser, they said, likely referring to Andrew Hernandez Romero, only if Trump tries to deport US citizens. The lawmaker argued, well, Democrats need to draw a line in the sand and shut down the house.

So let's talk about this because I understand that there are people who say Democrat's worst issue is immigration. At a moment where Trump is quite literally destroying our economy, which, you know, 2024 showed us anything is a major issue to exploit, a potent issue to exploit. We should be focusing on that.

Two things here. One, we should focus on that and we do focus on that. I talk about the economy every single day. I talk about the impacts of Trump's idiotic tariffs on our stock market, on our 4 0 1 Ks, on the cost of everyday goods. The reality is that Trump is destroying a generation of farmers by sending other countries to Brazil or Australia to get stuff like beef and soybeans where they used to come to American farmers.

For those things, even if the tariffs are removed, we won't recover to where we were [03:04:00] pre tariff levels because they're creating new relationships with other farmers, other countries. Aside from that, you know, our car manufacturers are gonna suffer. Our supply chains are the result of decades of close cooperation, uh, with Canada and Mexico, and that process is going to grind to a halt because of what Trump is doing, which is basically a death now for American auto manufacturing.

Jerome Powell, just this week announced slower growth and high inflation. Inflation was the issue that killed Democrats in the 2024 election. So I will continue to beat on this drum every single day. But talking about the economy and talking about immigration are not mutually exclusive. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

And I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that Trump disappearing legal residents to a foreign prison is something that we should stay silent about just because Trump polls better on immigration. I refuse to believe that moderate Republicans and independents think that allowing a Maryland dad and legal resident charged with no crime [03:05:00] rotting in a foreign gulag is acceptable.

I refuse to believe that we have lost every shred of our humanity in this country. And look, I'm not saying this, uh, from a political perspective at all. I'm saying this as a human being with an ounce of empathy. I am all for the deportation of dangerous criminals. This guy ain't one he was charged with, nothing afforded no due process.

He's got three kids with disabilities. He's a sheet metal worker, a union member. And the fact that he wore a Chicago Bulls hat in 2019 is the justification that ICE pointed to in claiming that he's a gang member of a city that by the way, he didn't live in again. I'm all for the deportation of dangerous criminals.

Like I live in an American city too. I want my family to be safe too. I have the same fears that everybody else has. I'm not, uh, blind to the realities of life in America in 2025. I mean, hell, I can guarantee you, uh, if you've looked at my inbox based on the amount of threats I receive, um, which I'm sure are far greater than the average person, um, that I'm hyper [03:06:00] aware of crime, but do it legitimately disappearing.

This guy is not legitimate, nor frankly is it American. We have a constitution. We have a Fifth Amendment right, affording you a trial. If you've got a gang member who is here illegally. We're probably all in agreement that those people should be deported, but we have to know that they are gang members.

And the way to do that is by affording someone due process, which Garcia was denied. Again, I'm not defending criminals. I'm demanding that we know who the criminals are so that we are not punishing people who are innocent or even upstanding members of society, people who pay taxes and go to work and take care of their kids and enrich our communities.

And I wanna be clear, because Republicans are trying to own this narrative with every fiber of their being. What I am saying is not an extreme position. Disappearing innocent people to foreign prisons is the extreme position period. Full stop. And if, by the way, the moral imperative to speak out wasn't enough, which it should be, but let's say that [03:07:00] you're still, you know, numbers driven and you just can't bring yourself to want, discuss immigration because of what all the polls say, then just look at the polls according to the latest yu gov survey of all the issues in the political zeitgeist right now, the following question, deporting immigrants without criminal convictions to El Salvador to be imprisoned without letting them challenge the deportation in court.

That question polls dead. Last among Americans, 46% of Americans strongly oppose it, and 15% of Americans somewhat oppose it. That's nearly two thirds of Americans who oppose in some fashion what this administration is doing. Not exactly a home run hill to die on. So again, even if the moral argument isn't enough, the polling backs up.

That position that disappearing innocent people to a foreign gulag with zero due process is not something that Americans are responding well to. And in the same way that Trump destroyed his lead on the economy, he's doing the same thing with his last vestige of support with immigration. And there's one more reason that I think, uh, it's especially important to [03:08:00] discuss this, and that's that if we don't speak up now, we embolden Trump to go after everybody else.

The reality is that while his administration promised that it was only interested in going after hardened undocumented criminals, they have already undermined their own promise by going after this guy, this guy who was charged with nothing. He's a legal resident. In fact, just this past week. It was reported that US citizens are now being detained, including a couple up in Boston.

This is a pattern by the Trump administration. If you allow them an inch, they will take a mile. If one law firm, capitulates Trump realizes how easy it is, and he goes after a dozen more. If one university like Columbia Capitulates, Trump goes after more. If one tech billionaire capitulates, Jeff Bezos, mark Zuckerberg, he goes after more.

If one media company like a, B, C News capitulates, he goes after more. If we do not stand up and fight him now on this issue, when he's going after one legal resident who was not charged with a crime, then we don't get to act surprised when he goes after other legal residents or ultimately American citizens.

[03:09:00] We've seen the playbook. He's already broadcasting it, so we have to fight now on this issue while there's still an opportunity to fight

Trump gets UNEXPECTED SURPRISE from El Salvador - Brian Tyler Cohen - Air Date 4-21-25

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, BRIAN TYLER COHEN: So you guys are both coming to me from El Salvador. Can you explain, obviously what you're doing there and what you seek to accomplish? I.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA: Well, thanks. Look, I, we, uh, both, um, both Maxwell and I have been very committed to the release of Kmar Reo Garcia.

Um, people are probably aware we have been fighting like hell to ensure that this country's a place that actually listens to decisions by the Supreme Court. Donald Trump is defying a nine zero order by the Supreme Court to return Kmar, who was illegally taken to El Salvador. Return him back to the United States.

We also know that lower courts have affirmed this. The Trump administration has essentially said, we made a mistake. We shouldn't have sent him there. So Maxwell and I requested an official delegation to El Salvador, to James Comer, we're both on oversight. Um, they denied that official, uh, congressional delegation trip.

And we said, you can deny us and we're gonna come here anyways no matter what. And so we're here [03:10:00] in El Salvador on the ground now, uh, and Maxwell and I and other, and two other members are, are committed to this fight. I.

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, BRIAN TYLER COHEN: So given the fact that, that James Comer denied your, your request for, uh, a congressional delegation, a ell are, are first and foremost, are you guys safe by virtue of being there without the protections that would be afforded to you, uh, if you had done it through a ell,

REP. MAXWELL FROST: obviously there there's always risks.

Risks associated with all these trips. Um, but we took that into account as we put together the itinerary in the schedule. I mean, there's a reason why everyone found out we were here when we got here already, and it's really important to our security. Um, but the other thing is, um, it, you know, like Robert said, we didn't want to allow that, this denial of our, of our requests keep us.

From doing the work that we need to do. And the fact of the matter is both of our offices are receiving tons and tons and tons of letters, mail, phone calls, emails of constituents who are saying, you know, go out there, fight for due process. Or, [03:11:00] I've heard from people who've said, I see myself represented in this situation like, like I'm a rego Garcia.

Like this could be me. And so for us, we don't wanna wait. I. Um, until this situation gets outta hand and Donald Trump is actually doing this to us citizens and even more people, now's the time when we have to stand up for this. So, you know, we, we wish we'd be here on an official Cordell. Obviously it gives us more resources, the ability to do a little bit more.

Uh, but we didn't run for Congress to just cow away when a Republican idiot like er tells us no. And so when we got that letter, we, you know, called each other up and said, let's do it anyway.

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, BRIAN TYLER COHEN: Perfectly put. And, and I, and I would ask too, like, what does it say that. That James Comer opted if he, when he had the opportunity to approve this codel, that he opted to say no.

Thereby trying his level best to prevent you from, from a going, or B, if you do go, obviously trying to, to prevent you from from, from this getting any oxygen.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA: Well, I think, look, what's what's really important for all is we're not gonna be stopped by James Coleman and the [03:12:00] Republicans. And let's be really clear, the only official ELLs that have had members come here from the house have been Republican ELLs with no Democrats, right?

So for for the House, for the House of Representatives to have only approved ELLs, for Republicans to come here, to tour of the prisons, to meet with officials. Is crazy. We should be allowed as Democrats in a bipartisan way to check and not just on the welfare of kmar, but ensure that other people that are here are getting due process.

We should be here meeting with officials and yet, because they wanna prove official s. We're gonna be here anyways, and we're proud that we're here. And more importantly, the American public need to understand that Donald Trump is defined. The Supreme Court and the people here in El Salvador. We spoke to, uh, numerous, uh, press from El Salvador.

Um, in English, in Spanish. We're also, we're, we're obviously both part of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, uh, as well. So it's important for them to hear in their language, what Donald Trump is doing, and to build pressure here on the ground to release Kilmore and others. [03:13:00] That deserve their due process.

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, BRIAN TYLER COHEN: And have you been able to make contact with Garcia? And also can you give an update because the, the latest reporting that we have is that he was moved out of Sea Cot to a different prison. Um, and so what was the significance of that move?

REP. MAXWELL FROST: So we made an official request to meet with him to, to make sure he's okay.

I mean, know, you know, one of the people we're here traveling with, um, is the, uh, the lawyer of his family that they want to know where he's at. They want to know if he's okay. They, they want to know what's going on. Um, and so our, our. Uh, request to meet with him was denied by the government. They said because it wasn't an official trip.

Um, which I guess hopefully if an official trip happens when more Democrats in the future, there'll be no reason for them to not let them see each other. But the other thing that we're finding is that there's just not, there's a lack of information. You know, we went to the embassy to speak with the staff there and the ambassador, and we left.

With the, you know, we, we left under, with the under with understanding that the Trump administration has not told the embassy to, uh, uh, uh, [03:14:00] comply with the Supreme Court ruling at all, um, to facilitate nothing. And not even that, they don't really know where he's at our embassy, which is very problematic when we talk about the fact that our Supreme Court in a unanimous decision, has instructed administration to facilitate the return of this man.

They are willfully flipping the bird to the Supreme Court, which also shows that we're, we're in a constitutional crisis right now as well. So there's, there's many reasons for this trip. Um, but everyone should understand that this can happen to anyone if we don't stop it now. That's why we're here.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA: No, no.

I just wanna add one thing, which I think is really important. 'cause we were obviously meeting with the ambassador today. Um, and, and there's no question that, um. The embassy has not begun any process to facilitate this release, which the Supreme Court has mandated. So that's be crystal clear. Um, they're defined the Supreme Court to be clear.

The second thing is we also understand that this is an issue, um, that's bigger than just Kilmore, right? This is about due process. It's about the separation of powers and it's about other. People [03:15:00] that are here in El Salvador that are essentially having no due process. We, we have a story which, um, a lot of folks have covered about an Andre Romero, a young man, 19 years old, a gay hairdresser going through the asylum process, had an appointment for asylum through our own process that we approved, and that it's picked up and sent directly to an El Salvador prison.

We have not heard from him. And no, his family has not, his attorneys have not. We just wanna know if he's okay if he's alive. We've actually asked the ambassador if we could get a wellness check or could see um, him as well. And we have yet to hear back. But that's also been one of our requests. So there's a lot of things that we're working on here.

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, BRIAN TYLER COHEN: It makes sense because I mean, there are a lot of people on the right who say, oh, we're, we're perfectly fine with immigration, but you just have to do it the right way. This is somebody who did it the right way and yet still was disappeared to a foreign gulag.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA: Right. That that's exactly right.

BRIAN TYLER COHEN - HOST, BRIAN TYLER COHEN: I wanna dig into the point you made just prior, because I think that's especially important, this idea that.

That the Overton window shifts so easily with this administration and we're seeing it happen to legal [03:16:00] residents. And now we're finally seeing reporting that, that, uh, American citizens are being detained. They're being detained at airports, they're being detained at, uh, at different ports of entry. And so have you heard of any of your constituents, for example, uh, who are American citizens who are being detained?

And can you just speak more broadly about this idea of, of. EN enabling Donald Trump to do this now with no pushback and what that will mean in terms of giving him the green light to do it to an even broader degree in the future.

REP. MAXWELL FROST: So we actually just had a situation like this happen in Florida, um, in North Florida.

Um, we had a person who is a citizen detained, uh, by local police for something completely unrelated. I think it was a minor traffic infraction. And then ICE issued what's called the detainer, which is essentially when the local police can hold someone. I believe it's, it can be up to 24 or 48 hours for ice to come pick them up.

So they held this guy and he, they, the, the family went to the court proceeding holding up the birth certificate. Holding up the [03:17:00] paperwork saying, look, he's a citizen. He was born here. What's going on? And the judge said, because we have some new laws in Florida that are horrible. We have some of the worst immigration laws in the country.

The judge said, I, because of the law, we have to wait for ice to get here, for ice to tell us what to do. So it, it's the federal government, but we also can't take our eyes off the states that are, they're, you know, it's a race to the bottom. And who can impress Trump the most to make the worst, most authoritarian.

Um, inhumane laws that even if you're a citizen. You get pulled over for having a tail light out or whatever it is that you can end up being held up to 24 48 hours, uh, for ICE to come and get you. We, we heard about a similar thing happening in Arizona. It's happening across the country. This is why we're here.

We're not here to be heroes. We're not here for any of that. We're here because we need to keep talking about it, protesting about it. Members of Congress, we need to do everything we can with the power that we have within our institution. The courts need to keep going. We can't [03:18:00] afford. To throw any part of the response out.

Everything at full force all the time right now because we, if we wait till it really gets outta hand when citizens are being sent to foreign countries. When a Congress person compete, like, I'm not trying to scare people, but this is what's going on in my state right now and in certain states across the country.

And that's why we have to, we have to finish it now. We have to rise up now and make sure that doesn't happen again. And that's why I said we're, we're the second batch of members here, van Holland. Um, really led the charge on this. We're following his lead. There's gonna be more people coming. We've been talking with a lot of our colleagues.

There's more trips.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA: And Brian, let me add one thing to Matt, what Maxwell said. Sure. It's really important that I, I know you've, you know, there's some, some are, some are saying, some Democrats are out there saying that, um, this is a distraction or that perhaps, uh, we should focus on, on, um, other, you know, other things.

And then there are a lot of things to focus on. Right. We can do all things at once, right? We can take on, uh, this injustice that is happening to Killmore and others. We can take [03:19:00] on Elon Musk and the billionaire class who are trying to rip off Americans. We can take on the destruction of our federal agencies.

We can take on all these big issues at once, but we've gotta be all in and we've gotta be in the fight. And being in the fight also means showing up and being wherever we need to be, including El Salvador, to stand up for

our democracy and our values.

Its working Van Hollen, Booker, AOC see big results from standing up - MSNBC - Air Date 4-20-25

JEN PSAKI - HOST, MSNBC: But I actually wanted to start today by talking about fear, because fear's clearly a major driver of Trump's span, brand of politics always has been. And how we all respond to that fear in this moment. Is gonna determine a whole lot about the future of this country. Congressman Jamie Raskin summed it up pretty well in the New York Times this week.

He said there's a regime of fear that's been brought down on society. People need to see leaders and organizers standing up and speaking with authority against what's happening. Congressman Jamie Raskin summed it up very well there. He's here today. We have a lot to talk about. We're gonna talk to him in just a moment.

But I also wanna talk about a few other things, because this week we also saw [03:20:00] at least one Republican acknowledge that that fear too. I mean, during an event in Alaska this week, Senator Lisa Murkowski was asked what she would say to people who are afraid right now. And she was way more candid than I at least expected her to be.

TOWNHALL CLIP: What are you gonna have to say to people who are afraid or who represent people who are afraid? We are all afraid. Okay.

It's quite a statement,

but we are, um,

we're, we're in. In a time and a place where, I don't know, I, I certainly have not, I have not been here before. Um, and I'll tell you, I am, I am, uh, oftentimes very anxious myself [03:21:00] about, about using my voice, um, because retaliation is real and that's not right.

JEN PSAKI - HOST, MSNBC: It's definitely not right and retaliation is real.

We've seen it. Those fears are real. We all know that Trump has vindictive and he is betting he can gain a lot of leverage by creating even more fear. But at the same time, we've already seen that giving into his demands gets you absolutely nowhere. I mean, when law firms cave, the demands don't stop. The firms that struck deals with Trump are now learning that the White House will effectively be choosing their pro bono clients for them.

And when universities cave, the demands don't stop either. Columbia's deal with Trump right now might now include a court decree giving the White House control over the university's management. And when media outlets cave, the demands definitely don't stop. I mean, paramount entered into settlement talks with Trump over a frivolous lawsuit, and Trump still pushed the FCC to [03:22:00] revoke CBS's broadcast license.

Point is this, capitulating to Trump won't save you. You'll just be targeted again and again. Because when you give into Trump's demands, you're just sending the message. His threats and tactics work. You're not putting the episode behind you. You're just inviting more demands. That's how mob bosses work.

And remember, fear is what Donald Trump sees as his most effective tool. I, in some ways, it's his only tool, fear of re retribution and fear of him weaponizing the powers of his office is basically what he relies on, and he is obviously relying on it to use that office in ways. We've never seen before. I mean, he is trying to use the IRS of all places to target the nonprofit status of universities, which is the goal of making all nonprofit groups afraid of continuing the work that they're doing.

He's trying to use immigration powers to make any non-citizen fear that he could change their legal status and force them out of the country at a moment's notice. Trump is using his [03:23:00] office to instill fear in every single way he can. And he is doing it in a way that he thinks, at least is politically smart, he thinks it is.

He's trying to lure his political opponents into making this about just defending elite institutions like Harvard or Big city law firms nobody's ever heard of. He's spreading lies about Kamar, Abrego Garcia, daring people to defend him personally rather than defending the rights he's been denied. And on the issue of Garcia specifically, some Democrats have said it's a distraction from the economic calamity he's caused.

Some have said Kamar, rego Garcia is an imperfect hero for this issue. Maybe he is saying it's playing on Trump's turf on immigration, and Republicans really do think this is their turf. They really do. I mean, just listen to how Stephen Miller described this issue.

CLIP: President Trump, his policy is foreign terrorists that are here illegally get expelled from the country, which by the way is a 90 10 issue.

JEN PSAKI - HOST, MSNBC: It sounds scary. I mean, 90 [03:24:00] 10, first of all, Stephen Miller needs a math class. I think we've all learned, but that's a big bluff from a little man and his sidekick. It's true that when pollsters are asked broad questions, when they ask broad questions to people out there about immigration and deportation, broadly, Trump's policies do well.

But when those questions get more specific and that's important, it's a totally different story. A U gov poll this morning found that six in 10 this month, sorry, found six in 10 respondents said they opposed deporting immigrants without criminal convictions to El Salvador to be imprisoned without letting them challenge the deport their deportation in court.

61%. Guys, that's a pretty clear majority, especially compared to the 26% of respondents who said they supported Trump's actions. It's not exactly 90 10, and Stephen Miller's favor on that one. Is it? And we're seeing that on the ground in states across the country too. Even some pretty red states. Just listen to the earful that Republican senator Chuck Grassley got from an older, mostly white [03:25:00] crowd in Iowa this week.

TOWNHALL CLIP: You gonna bring that guy back from El Salvador?

Why not? Well, because that's not a, that's not a power of. Supreme Court said to bring it back. Judges are

CLIP: Cantion Constitution Hearing Committee, Trump don't care if I get an order to pay attention for $1,200. And I just say, no. Does that stand up? Because he's got an order from the Supreme Court and he's just said no.

He just said, screw it.

TOWNHALL CLIP: I'm the president of that country. Is not subject to our US Supreme Court back.

I pissed.

JEN PSAKI - HOST, MSNBC: Not sure that was what Senator Grassley was expecting from that town hall meeting in Central Iowa. [03:26:00] I mean, I guess people in central Iowa are a part of that 10%. Steven Miller was talking about, I mean, who knows, and I guess a Reagan appointed federal judges too on his calculation. In that federal judge's ruling upholding court decisions requiring the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, judge James Harvey Wilkinson III did not mince words exactly.

He wrote quote, it is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter, but in this case it's not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process. That is the foundation of our constitutional order.

The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons. I mean, that is a pretty clear distillation of the issue here. Likewise, the Supreme Court dealt Trump another big setback just this weekend, and in order that they issued at 1:00 AM Saturday morning making some of the judges cranky, the court temporarily blocked the administration from deporting another group of detainees to El [03:27:00] Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act.

That was a seven two decision by Donald Trump's Ultra conservative court. Seven two. So the courts seem to be standing up to him. Some Republicans are standing up to him and the public is not exactly on his side either. And what's now becoming clear is there are actually rewards for standing up. It's morally right, but there are rewards too.

I mean, after Harvard said it would stand up to Trump's demands, it's an outpouring of support and an immediate surgeon donation. Donations. The pushback had enough of an effect on the Trump administration that they came up with a tortured process explanation as the only way I can describe it, of how this all happened with White House officials claiming the I original demands were sent by mistake.

Okay? So their decision to fight back, not only shine a bright spotlight on Donald Trump's power grab, it also made his administration look kind of silly in the process. And any intention like that on any of the crazy stuff they're trying is a good thing right now. When Senator Corey Booker spoke for 25 [03:28:00] hours on the Senate floor, it brought attention and news coverage, and also made him a hero to Democrats because he wasn't consumed by fear.

He just kind of let it rip for 25 hours. When Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hit the road, they drew tens of thousands of people, if not more at the rallies, not just in blue bastions like la, but in places like Tampa, Idaho, and Missoula, Montana. Even as staunch project presses, which they proudly are.

They're appealing to people across the ideological spectrum because they don't fear fighting. Back more recently, Senator Chris Van Holland of Maryland traveled to El Salvador this week and pressured the government there to give him a meeting with Kumar Abrego Garcia. Not only did v Helen clearly take a stand in the process, he also proved and showed people that Abrego Garcia was alive and forced the Salvadorian government to play a bit of defense.

And since then, van Halen has commanded a ton of attention. I mean, this morning he did a round of five Sunday shows talking about a strip. [03:29:00] So aside from the obvious moral reasons behind all of this pushback, and there are plenty of those, there's also a big political opportunity for anyone who's willing to take a stand and look on their own.

Any of these things might not seem like a huge deal, but taken together all of this pushback is starting to matter. Yesterday, tens of thousands more people gathered across the country for another day of nationwide protests. They were called no Kings protests. A follow up to the hands-off protest that drew millions into the streets just two weeks ago.

But what will Neva translate to? Who knows, but standing up for what's right, trying some things, applying some pressure, getting some media attention is far more effective than being fearful and timid because being fearful and timid has never worked against the sky and it sure isn't working now.

Credits

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: That's going to be it for today. As always, keep the comments coming in. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991 and you can also reach us on the Signal messaging app at [03:30:00] BestOfTheLeft01 or simply email me to [email protected]. The additional sections of the show include clips from Up First, Strict Scrutiny, the PBS NewsHour, Reveal, The Daily Blast, Consider This, CounterSpin, the Associated Press, The Intercept Briefing, Secular Left, AJ+, The Majority Report, Main Justice, No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen, and MSNBC. Further details are in the show notes.

Thanks to everyone for listening. Thanks to Dion Clark and Erin Clayton for their research work for the show and participation in the new show, SOLVED! Thanks to our transcriptionist trio, Ken, Brian and Ben, for their volunteer work helping put our transcripts together. Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for all of her work behind the scenes, and her co-hosting of SOLVED! And thanks to those who already support the show by becoming a member or purchasing gift memberships. You can join them by signing up today at bestoftheleft.com/support, through our Patreon page, or from right inside the Apple Podcast app. Membership is how you get ad free and early access to our incredibly good and often [03:31:00] funny weekly show, SOLVED!, in addition to there being no ads and chapter markers in all of our regular episodes, all through your regular podcast player. You'll find that link in the show notes along with a link to join our Discord community where you can also continue the discussion. And don't forget to follow us on all the social media platforms. We are on Blue Sky, but we're also making the move to video on Instagram and TikTok with our new show SOLVED! So please support us there.

So, coming to you from far outside the conventional wisdom of Washington DC, my name is Jay, and this has been the Best of the Left podcast coming to you twice weekly, thanks entirely to the members and donors to the show, from bestoftheleft.com.

1 reaction Share

#1705 Threatened Social Safety Nets Are Foundational to Healthy Societies (Transcripts)

Posted by · April 22, 2025 5:07 PM

Air Date 4/22/2025

Full Notes Page

Download PDF

Audio-Synced Transcript

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the award-winning Best of the Left podcast.

We knew for decades before the overturning of Roe versus Wade that Republicans wanted to repeal abortion rights. But I recall an argument I heard many years ago from someone ostensibly on the left about how wrong the left was to worry about it, because after all, George W. Bush had been in office for eight years and he didn't stop abortions. Now, I knew that that was a profoundly uninformed point at the time, but it was also evidence that some people just don't understand the time horizons over which these kinds of plans to dismantle cherish rights and government programs play out. George W. Bush also proposed privatizing Social Security and didn't succeed there either. But in both cases, groundwork was being laid as part of a multi-decade effort that would -- they hoped -- pay off in the future. [00:01:00] So don't be surprised when they come for your earned benefit programs, just as they came for the fundamental right to bodily autonomy.

For those looking for a quick overview, the sources providing our Top Takes in about 50 minutes today includes TED Ed, All In with Chris Hayes, Consider This, The PBS NewsHour, The Hartmann Report, On Point, and The Worst Of All Possible Worlds. Then in the additional Deeper Dives half of the show, there will be more in three sections: Section A, Social Security; followed by Section B, General cuts; and Section C, Medicaid and Health and Human Services.

But first, we're still in major promotion mode as we've launched our new weekly YouTube show, SOLVED! We really need every hand on deck we can get, so subscribe to the Best of the Left YouTube channel, watch, like, comment, all of those things.

The response so far has been, I think entirely positive, a hundred percent positive. Which is fair because [00:02:00] it's mostly people who already liked us who are watching and commenting. But we have also started to hear from some people who have found us newly through YouTube. So we are gratified to hear all of that because we are really proud of the show we are making and definitely want as many people as possible to see it. So you going and checking it out and liking and commenting and doing all those things helps other people find it. So we absolutely appreciate any help you can give.

And now, on to the show.

What few people know about the program that saved America - Meg Jacobs - TED-Ed - Air Date 6-17-21

MEG JACOBS: In 1932, the Great Depression entered its third winter. One in four Americans was unemployed, marking the highest unemployment rate in the country's history. Tens of thousands had lost their homes and life savings, and there was very little confidence that Republican president Herbert Hoover could turn things around.

So when the election came, voters flocked to his Democratic competitor. Franklin D. Roosevelt promised a New Deal for Americans, a comprehensive set of legislation to support struggling citizens and put the country back to work.

The [00:03:00] massive federal intervention Roosevelt proposed was a radical challenge to the individualist ideals that governed many Americans' lives. But due to the extreme circumstances, he began his presidency with public and political support. With the help of his advisors, Roosevelt's first a hundred days in office were perhaps the most eventful of any US President. In just over three months, he pushed over 15 bills through Congress and created an alphabet soup of government agencies to help farmers, workers, and businesses.

The New Deal's first priority was stabilizing the banks. Over the previous three years, many Americans had withdrawn their savings out of fear the bank would lose their money in bad investments. So to regain the public's confidence, FDR increased federal oversight of commercial banks, and created bank insurance to guarantee that any deposited funds would always be available.

Next, he established the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. FERA cataloged each state's need [00:04:00] for relief and provided funds to help citizens afford groceries, rent, clothing, coal, and other necessities.

Meanwhile, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration subsidized farmers and educated them in improving planting techniques.

These policies fed and housed thousands, but they didn't significantly address the New Deal's biggest promise: reducing unemployment. So the Civilian Conservation Corps was established to employ over 250,000 young men for projects like tree planting, irrigation, and fire prevention. The CCC offered onsite work camps that provided food, shelter, and education to those employed, mostly young single men with families in need of relief.

Subsequent programs like the Work's Progress Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority added projects, building roads, bridges, and hydroelectric dams. The WPA also funded art, writing and theater programs. These initiatives cut civilian unemployment in half, and they [00:05:00] did so alongside labor acts that abolished child labor, granted unions the right to collective bargaining, and set the first national minimum wage. Benefits were also created to help those unable to work. The Social Security Act established an old age pension system, in addition to unemployment insurance, disability benefits, and welfare assistance.

But despite these sweeping policies, the New Deal helped some groups more than others. Black Americans were hit hardest by the economic downturn, and the New Deal's impact on Black communities varied widely. In northern cities like Chicago, Black citizens received a large share of jobs, vocational training and education, with New Deal programs teaching more than 1 million Black Americans to read. Northern Black communities also received an influx of public housing, though it was heavily segregated. In the south, results were less positive. Roosevelt relied heavily on the support of Southern Democrats who welcomed economic development but fought to preserve white supremacy. They ensured that new labor laws [00:06:00] excluded domestic servants and agricultural workers, occupations held by many Black Americans. These politicians and many others also undermined Eleanor Roosevelt's attempts to push her husband towards supporting a federal anti-lynching law. As a result, the New Deal has often been called a raw deal for Black communities. And many modern inequities in housing, employment, and financial stability are partially due to New Deal programs prioritizing white Americans.

In these ways and more, the New Deal didn't fully live up to its promises. Despite employing over 8 million Americans, unemployment never went lower than 14%, and the US economy wouldn't fully recover until the country's mobilization for World War II.

But this bold campaign of progressive policies did empower unions to start their own revolution. In the coming decades, northern liberals, Black Americans, and other working minorities united to fight discriminatory hiring. In the process, they reshaped the Democratic party, [00:07:00] challenging its racist leadership, and laying the groundwork for an emerging civil rights coalition.

Trump is coming for Social Security. And he has a new 'Big Lie' to justify it. - All In with Chris Hayes - Air Date 3-5-25

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: There were small lies, there were big lies, and then there's The Big Lie. And that is a coordinated campaign of blatant falsehoods to systematically burn down and destroy institutions.

And we saw Trump do it in 2020 before our very eyes, undermining the legitimacy of America's free and fair elections. And we saw him do it last night on the biggest stage, undermining the legitimacy of America's most important safety net for its citizens: Social Security.

There is a pattern to what Trump is doing, and what he's goading other Republicans into saying. It is a pattern Trump established throughout the 2020 election and its aftermath, all the way up to January 6th and beyond: a deliberate attempt to alter reality with lies about the balloting that were so audacious and so obviously untrue.

DONALD TRUMP: They're sending millions of ballots [00:08:00] all over the country. There's fraud. They found them in creeks. We caught them as you know, it's fraudulent, dropping ballots, doing so many things, nobody can even believe it. Dead people voting. It was a massive dump of votes. And then you get to Detroit and it's like more votes than people. We have a company that's very suspect. Its name is Dominion. This election was lost by the Democrats. They cheated. It was a fraudulent election. They flooded the market.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: Now, to be clear, those claims were all false. They were laughed out of court, dozens and dozens and dozens of time. But Trump was obsessed with convincing his fan base that the voting system in the US, gold standard for free and fair elections around the world, was shot through with fraud -- I mean in numbers that were preposterous.

And it wasn't a new obsession. I mean, look at these headlines. "Donald Trump warns vote could be rigged." [00:09:00] "Trump ratchets up rigged election claims, which Pence downplays." "Donald Trump's rigged election claims raise historical alarms." All of these headlines were from the 2016 election campaign, the election Trump ultimately won in the electoral college. He didn't challenge that outcome.

But once he lost in 2020, Trump went back to his old playbook, this well-established playbook, particularly the myth of dead people voting for Democrats. This has been a fringe right wing talking point for years, and Trump elevated the lie to new prominence. He used it in his quote, "perfect phone call" with Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to pressure his fellow Republicans into basically a coup: into rigging the state's vote totals to favor Trump, even though he lost the state. And Raffensperger debunked that lie in his testimony to the January 6th Committee.

DONALD TRUMP: The other thing, dead people, so dead people voted. [00:10:00] And I think the number is in close to 5,000 people. And they went to obituaries, they went to all sorts of methods to come up with an accurate number, and a minimum is close to about 5,000 voters.

SENATOR ADAM SCHIFF: So secretary, did your office investigate whether those allegations were accurate? Did 5,000 dead people in Georgia vote?

BRAD RAFFENSBERGER: No, it's not accurate. And actually in their lawsuits, they alleged 10,315 dead people. We found two dead people when I wrote my letter to Congress that's dated January 6th. And subsequent to that, we found two more. That's 1, 2, 3, 4 people, not 4,000, but just a total of four.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: Now, Trump's lies had a purpose, right? The purpose is to destroy faith in the electoral system so as to overthrow American democracy, to destroy that faith so that you can destroy the institution itself.

And he rolled out the same play last night, as he blasted out his [00:11:00] new Big Lie about a beloved government program, one that Republicans have long hated, but that 71 million Americans currently rely on.

DONALD TRUMP: We're also identifying shocking levels of incompetence and probable fraud in the Social Security Program. Believe it or not, government databases list 4.7 million Social Security members from people aged 100 to 109 years old. It lists 3.6 million people from ages 110 to 119. I don't know any of them. I know some people that are rather elderly, but not quite that elderly, but we're gonna find out where that money's going and it's not gonna be pretty.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: Identical, right? He sees dead people again. The dead people voting in the Georgia election, the dead people getting checks from Social Security. All the dead people committing fraud. [00:12:00] Suggesting that Americans who died long ago are still having their Social Security checks delivered to someone and somehow cashing them in their name even though they're dead, and there's a death certificate.

Again, think about it for 20 seconds. It's obviously preposterous. In fact, a government investigation last year found that from 2015 through 2022, 7 years, of all the money the agency paid out in benefits, and that is $8.6 trillion, a staggering sum, less than 1% was improper payments. That's a really good record. And most of the erroneous payments were overpayments to living people.

I mean, again, think about this, right? In the same way you, if you think through the dead people voting at scale issue, if you have ever had a loved person die when they were on Social Security, you know the checks don't keep coming. Also, Social Security automatically stops payments to people who are 115 years old. Its capped there, which I'm sure is a bureaucratic headache for the handful of Americans who lived that long. [00:13:00]

The version of the lie Trump and his unelected co-president Elon Musk are telling appears to be based on their inability to read the data they collected. Because Social Security's software system necessitates that some entries with missing or incomplete birth dates will default to a reference point of more than 150 years ago.

I don't know the origins of this, but here's the thing. The fraud claims are bunk. They're totally false. It's just the Big Lie about voting, again. Dead people voting. But just like they did with the election Big Lie, Republicans are amplifying it.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON: What he's finding with his algorithms crawling through the data of Social Security System is enormous amounts of fraud, waste, and abuse.

KAROLINE LEAVITT: Tens of millions of deceased people who are receiving fraudulent Social Security payments.

SENATOR TED CRUZ: More than 13 million people on the records receiving benefits who are over 119 years old.

KEVIN MCCARTHY: I'm shocked enough. Who do we have at 200 years old or who do we have older [00:14:00] than America that's getting Social Security?

HOWARD LUTNICK: Everybody whose grandfather died and is still getting Social Security? Gimme a break.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: Yeah, they're lies. They are lying. Those are all lies. It's not happening. Okay? Millions of people? Millions?

Here's the thing. They want to destroy Social Security. They are coming for Social Security. Musk has already installed someone from DOGE at the Social Security Administration. The agency has already announced enormous layoffs. They're already closing offices. This is gonna make things start to break there.

Last weekend, the previous Social Security administrator, Martin O'Malley, warned that Trump and DOGE were breaking the whole agency, saying quote, "ultimately, you're going to see the system collapse, and an interruption of benefits. I believe you will see that within the next 30 to 90 days. People should start saving now."

I don't know if that's a credible prediction. I really don't know. Social Security is an amazing and robust system, right? But it's an incredible statement, given that Social Security has never missed a monthly [00:15:00] payment in 90 years. It is a program, like our voting system, that is incredibly free of fraud, incredibly efficiently run, insanely popular with the American populace, just like free and fair elections.

Keep your eye on the ball here. Right? Huge tip off last night of what they're about to do. Trump knows all this. Musk knows all this. It's why they are telling The Big Lie about Social Security, just like the big election lie. The objective now, as it was then, is to fabricate this elaborate, grotesque lie about a cherished institution of American government, to sow enough fear, doubt, and uncertainty among enough people that Trump can get away with destroying it.

Food banks feel the pain from higher prices and cuts to government programs - PBS NewsHour - Air Date 4-10-25

DEEMA ZEIN: Empty shelves, an unusual scene in a normally stocked warehouse.

Radha Muthiah, President and CEO, Capital Area Food Bank:

RADHA MUTHIAH: What we were expecting to be about 55 tractor trailers' worth of food, and we just heard a couple of weeks ago that half of those will no longer be on their way to us.

DEEMA ZEIN: These vacant racks stand out in Washington, D.C.'s Capital Area Food Bank, a [00:16:00] 123,000-square foot building where staff store inventory and pull orders for delivery to more than 400 regional partners.

Radha Muthiah is the food bank's president and CEO. She says the recent USDA cuts made a deep impact here.

RADHA MUTHIAH: Six hundred and seventy thousand meals' worth of food that we now have to scramble to look for other sources of food to be able to try and at least partially bridge that gap.

I understand evaluating these programs. Every administration does that. We are happy to share data, client testimonials on the impact of these programs on working adults, on children who are able to focus more on school, on seniors who can combine this with food, with medication that they need.

DEEMA ZEIN: In February, food banks nationwide began noticing canceled USDA deliveries in their systems. The funding freeze comes after the Trump administration cut two other programs that provide aid to food banks and schools.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins defended the cuts on FOX News.

BROOKE ROLLINS: But right now, from [00:17:00] what we are viewing, that program was nonessential. It was an effort by the left to continue spending taxpayer dollars that were not necessary.

DEEMA ZEIN: Republican lawmakers are also considering cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, previously known as food stamps. Last year, about 42 million people used the program. In a statement to the NewsHour, a USDA spokesperson said: "The USDA has not and will not lose focus on its core mission of strengthening food security, supporting agricultural markets, and ensuring access to nutritious foods."

The agency also noted a recent approval of $261 million in purchases of fruits, vegetables, and tree nuts to food banks.

VINCE HALL: This is an extraordinarily serious moment for food banks all across the United States.

DEEMA ZEIN: Vince Hall is the chief government relations officer for Feeding America, a nationwide network of more than 60,000 food pantries and distributors. He says an end to pandemic era aid, rising inflation and stagnant wages has led to [00:18:00] record high demand at food banks.

VINCE HALL: Any reduction in the supply of food to food banks is going to have very significant impacts for people facing hunger. Food banks were already maxing out their supply chains. They were already going to every conceivable donor, looking for every conceivable pound of food and asking every community to support.

And so the reality is, we're going to be short, we're going to be short on foods.

DEEMA ZEIN: Just outside Washington, leadership at Catholic Charities' Alexandria food pantry say they expect to see a drop in the variety and quantity of their USDA orders. It's food that U.S. Army Reserve veteran Philip Tinsley relies on.

PHILIP TINSLEY: Well, it's important for your own health, but more important for, I guess, some of your mental health, that you don't think, well since I'm poor, I have to be treated like trash. Or since I am poor, I have to eat bad food. Or since I'm poor, I have to eat secondary food that other people don't want. This is really what anyone would go and get off the shelves.

DEEMA ZEIN: And in this region, some food banks are starting to see more former federal [00:19:00] workers enter their doors. Tens of thousands of federal employees have been fired since the Trump administration took office, leaving some searching for ways to make ends meet.

WOMAN: This is my first time going to a food pantry as a client. I have been a volunteer in the past.

DEEMA ZEIN: This former federal contractor was let go in mid-February and recently lost her health insurance. She spoke to the NewsHour anonymously for fear of retribution.

WOMAN: Coming here and admitting that I need some extra assistance took a bit of courage to having never been in this situation before. I think it's important that people take a step back and take the politics out of it for a second and realize that these are real peoples' lives.

DEEMA ZEIN: And the need spans far and wide, with some of the highest food insecurity rates in rural areas, like here in Rappahannock County, Virginia.

PENNY KARDIS: We do not have any grocery stores nearby. So for a family to be able to go and get fresh produce from a grocery store, they [00:20:00] have about a 30-minute drive anywhere within the county.

DEEMA ZEIN: Rappahannock Food Pantry President Penny Kardis says they will look to their community to fill the gaps.

PENNY KARDIS: It would be a challenge for us. We would have to — besides looking at our current donors, we would possibly have to look at corporate donors. That's a little bit difficult for us. We have no businesses in the area, so that would — we'd have to look really far outside for that.

DEEMA ZEIN: Sue Raiford has lived here for 30 years. She says after a bad work accident about a decade ago, she could barely walk and weighed only 75 pounds.

SUE RAIFORD: And when I went into the pantry, these people just surrounded me. And they said, oh, we have got to fatten you up. Here, here, here. And it's been that type of welcoming companionship that is always here for everyone that walks through these doors.

DEEMA ZEIN: It's that community Raiford fears will be hurt as cuts [00:21:00] are made to the programs many here rely on.

SUE RAIFORD: Like myself, many, many seniors, we don't have means to go out to the grocery stores. We just can't do it. I think without that support from the government, many lives will be shattered. And that's the heartbreak.

What DOGE could mean for Medicare and Medicaid? - Consider This - Air Date 2-10-25

ARI SHAPIRO - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: Medicare provides health care to 66 million people who are 65 and older. Medicaid serves 80 million low-income people and disabled Americans.

How big a part of the overall U.S. health care system are these programs?

MARK MCCLELLAN: Well, it's less than half of the population, but roughly half, and maybe a little bit more, of expenditures because the people in these programs have some of the more serious health care needs - higher rates of chronic diseases that go along with being from low-income and maybe historically underserved backgrounds, higher rates of chronic diseases that go along [00:22:00] with aging, and the risk factors for many conditions like cancer and other health problems that go up with age.

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: And, Ari, I think it's important that maybe listeners understand that Medicare has a much higher cost per person because of the age of the population. Medicaid is actually one of the most, if you will, by cost, efficient programs for women and children. About half of the births in the United States are paid for by Medicaid.

ARI SHAPIRO - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: So, Kathleen, when you saw Elon Musk post on X that Medicare and Medicaid were where the big money - in his words - fraud is happening, did that ring true to you? Was that a big concern of yours when you ran HHS?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Fraud, waste and abuse have always been a focus of the federal agencies. One of the things that happened with the Obama administration was really ramping up that kind of fraud-rooting-out activities that we did in coordination with the Department of Justice. The [00:23:00] notion that this is somehow an undiscovered area, that people who are not at all familiar with the programs or the way they operate are going to suddenly be able to identify and root out, is just flat-out wrong.

ARI SHAPIRO - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: Mark, how did you react to seeing that post from Elon Musk?

MARK MCCLELLAN: Well, I totally agree with Kathleen that this is an ongoing battle. So I think that the real question for DOGE is can they find a way to get these inappropriate programs out while, by the way, Ari, at the same time, keeping President Trump's promise that he is not going to cut or disrupt Medicare benefits?

ARI SHAPIRO - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: Do you fear that this mission to eliminate waste and fraud could be a pretext for making broader sweeping changes to Medicare and Medicaid that are not actually motivated by waste and fraud and don't actually address waste and fraud?

MARK MCCLELLAN: The reason that I'd like to take them at their word, Ari, is that the staff at CMS under...

ARI SHAPIRO - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: CMS - the [00:24:00] Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, yeah.

MARK MCCLELLAN: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that oversees these programs - they are in place now. So Dr. Mehmet Oz - Dr. Oz has been nominated to be the next administrator. He's still waiting for a confirmation hearing, so he's not there. But in contrast to some of the other public health agencies at HHS, there's a whole team of people who are in politically appointed deputy roles, working with the career staff, who have a lot of experience with CMS and the private sector on working with Medicare and Medicaid programs.

The CMS team has also brought in some long-experienced career professionals, including people who were there on the career staff working with me, including the new chief operating officer at CMS, who has a tremendous amount of nonpartisan experience in finding [00:25:00] ways to address fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid programs.

ARI SHAPIRO - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: So just so I understand, in other parts of the government, from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department, we have seen career officials and nonpartisan civil servants either fired and replaced or encouraged to leave. You're saying the opposite appears to be true at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services?

MARK MCCLELLAN: I think something distinct is happening here in that, you know, the DOGE team, as I understand it, didn't just show up but is working directly, following some of the guidance and the experience of the career staff and the political leadership to find the effective ways of addressing fraud and abuse, and hopefully to modernize some of the data systems there, too.

ARI SHAPIRO - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: Kathleen, do you give them the benefit of the doubt? Do you trust them to take a nuanced, data-driven approach?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, I'm encouraged by what Mark is saying about what his knowledge is about the [00:26:00] people who are coming into the agency. But the proposals, Ari, that are out by, I would say, Republicans in Congress are very much aimed, particularly in the Medicaid program, at cutting benefits. They are not about fraud, waste and abuse. You can't really, I would suggest, get the kind of money that has been promised by DOGE even if you greatly ramp up fraud, waste and abuse. You really have to go to the core of the benefits of these programs, and that is where I'm very wary of what the proposals are coming forward.

ARI SHAPIRO - HOST, CONSIDER THIS: So bottom line, if people who depend on these programs want to know, is my coverage safe? - can I continue to count on the services that I have counted on in the past? We don't know where this is going to go. What should people be watching?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, I would say for now, until they are notified otherwise, assume the services that you signed up for if you've just gone through Medicare [00:27:00] open enrollment or if you are a member of your state's Medicaid program, the services, your provider, your drugs will continue to be provided - and use them. I think it's very important, at the state level particularly, that legislators in red and blue states understand that if Congress begins to change Medicaid rules, payments about Medicaid programs, it will blow up every state budget in this country.

Medicaid is one of the most important parts of every state's budget. They rely heavily on a shared partnership with the federal government. And if those rules begin to change, everything else is at risk - economic development, the ability to fund education, the tax system. And states will be left in the really unfortunate position of having to pick and choose [00:28:00] who gets to keep their coverage and who doesn't.

Important HHS services ‘will grind to a halt’ with cuts, former Secretary Sebelius says - PBS NewsHour - Air Date 4-2-25

AMNA NAWAZ - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: As you have probably heard, Secretary Kennedy says that he can lose 20,000 workers, that's about 10,000 through cuts, another 10,000 through retirements and buyouts, without affecting the services that the agency provides. This is an agency you have run.

Do you think that can be done?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, unfortunately, Amna, to me, it's another indication of how little Senator — Secretary Kennedy understands about this massive agency.

HHS is intertwined with state governments, with local governments, with tribal governments. And it's not just about losing some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. What the massive layoff will mean is that you lose expertise, you lose timeliness, you lose an opportunity to get not only the best products to market in a very fast manner, but a food outbreak that could occur anywhere in the country.

[00:29:00] That's part of the FDA's job, is that they work with industry to quickly get those foods off the market, so my kid doesn't get harmed by the peanut butter. Here in the heartland, in Kansas, we're going to lose health employees from the CDC who have been working closely with our local health offices to monitor outbreaks, to keep vaccines up to date, to make sure that data is shared from state to state.

Those employees are all over the country. They will suddenly be gone. We're going to go into hurricane and tornado season very shortly. The first people on the ground when a disaster hits are from the CDC. They make sure the water is safe, so people can go back and relocate.

We're talking about real impact at every point in the country. And, unfortunately, after six weeks, my guess is Kennedy has not only not visited the 13 divisions, but he really doesn't know or doesn't care what the people do.

AMNA NAWAZ - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: [00:30:00] We should note that these cuts will now downsize the agency to some 62,000 positions that would remain. Secretary Kennedy has also made an economic argument for these cuts. He has said that HHS is the biggest agency in the government. He said it's twice the size of the Pentagon with $1.9 trillion, suggesting that these job cuts could help to tame the budget.

Could they? Do you see that point?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Most of the money that is in the HHS budget goes out the door. It's the largest transfer of federal funds to states through Medicaid, childcare grants, mental health block grants, Agency on Aging, help and support, home health services.

So, this is not money that's hiring people inside of D.C. offices. It's money that really is essential to health services in every state in the country and in tribal governments throughout our land. So, cutting the budget [00:31:00] really is not about people, as much as it's about really harming the services that go out to American folks.

If the personnel isn't there to make sure that Medicare payments go out on time, to make sure that people can enroll and get the health insurance that they're entitled, to make sure that the block grants go out on childcare and mental health services, those services grind to a halt.

And it hurts everyday Americans who desperately need the health services that HHS helps to deliver.

AMNA NAWAZ - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: We have also heard a top adviser to Secretary Kennedy make an argument that he says the agency has basically been failing in its mission to the American public. He points to rising rates of chronic disease, to lower life expectancy in recent years, and also a culture that he claims is too quick to medicate patients without addressing underlying causes for the disease.

What's your response to that argument?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, I don't think there's any question America spends more and in some ways [00:32:00] has a lower return on investment than most of our competitive Western European nations.

We have a very expensive health care system, again, not because of HHS. Private insurers have a lot more overhead and a lot less return on the dollar. There's been a real pivot since the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 to preventive services, to look at the underlying causes of obesity and heart disease, to invest in healthier foods, more exercise programs, programs that actually do diabetes prevention, instead of waiting and treating the disease.

I think those efforts are really important. I'd love to see us double down on prevention services and pay more to keep people healthy than treat them when they're sick. That's great. But you can't tell the measles that is now breaking out throughout the country — we have our first measles cases in 15 years in Kansas, and it's an alarming [00:33:00] rate of spread.

You can't tell an infectious disease just to stop because we're going to focus on diabetes. We have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We have to be able to do multiple things. Infectious diseases will come. Disasters will come. And chronic disease is here to stay. So all those efforts are critically important.

He is clearing out of agencies, from what I can read and ascertain, the top tier of expertise, not people who came in as politicals with one or another administration, but people who had been working in these fields for a long time.

AMNA NAWAZ - HOST, PBS NEWSHOUR: As you know, this is all part of the Trump administration's plan and agenda to try to cut what they call bloat in the federal government work force.

You have led this agency, so I have to ask, if there were changes you would suggest that need to be made at HHS, what would those be? What should change?

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: Well, I think any good CEO, [00:34:00] private or public company or government, looks constantly at ways to be more efficient. Can — are there redundant jobs? Can you put people together?

I was amused by some of the suggestions that agencies work more closely together that are in very different locations. Some are in Washington, D.C. Some are in Atlanta. And while that's an interesting theory, it's very difficult to conduct that mission.

But constantly reviewing what can we do better and really keeping the consumer front and center, the patient front and center, what services can we deliver more timely and more effective to the American public, not where my grudges, where I want to dispute old and long-term scientifically proven vaccines, safety and effectiveness.

I mean, I think this agency is quickly, unfortunately, going off the rails with leadership who [00:35:00] has a very clear agenda, doesn't know really what happens throughout the breadth of this organization, and is likely to do a lot of unintended harm by slashing expertise, slowing down approvals of vaccines and cosmetics and food and drugs, not being able to respond in a timely fashion to food outbreaks or natural disasters.

We're going to be in a very vulnerable situation.

Trump’s Butchering Social Security—To Feed His Starving Billionaires w/Alex Lawson- The Hartmann Report - Air Date 3-12-25

ALEX LAWSON: I'm sick and tired of too many people in this town, Tom, they keep talking about things in the future tense, like what may happen, the constitutional crisis that's coming, and you're like, "the constitutional crisis is now!" The vice President of the United States of America, a lawyer who knows constitutional law, he's saying that the president can ignore the judiciary, that the president is freed from the [00:36:00] constraints of checks and balances.

That is an authoritarian takeover, that is a constitutional crisis, and we need everyone to take it that seriously. At the same time, Tom, politicians aren't gonna save us. The courts aren't gonna save us either. The only thing that can stop a tyrant and the tyranny that he's bringing is the people. And so until the people are out in force raising our voices together and really shutting things down, I don't think we're gonna see as much bravery as we need.

The politicians are lagging indicators. They get their bravery from the people, but first the people have to organize and fight back. And that's where the fire, the bravery and the opposition that we need is gonna come from.

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THE HARTMANN REPORT: Yeah. Bernie Sanders once made the point to me that the way politicians work is they typically don't get out in front with a flag and say, "Hey, let's organize a parade." [00:37:00] Instead, they wait for a parade to naturally form, and when it's big enough and vital enough and active enough, then they jump in front of it with a flag and say, this is my parade. And so it's up to us to create that parade, essentially.

So tell us what resources are over at socialsecurityworks.org or where you recommend people go to learn how to become part of that parade.

ALEX LAWSON: Definitely. And I'll just add one thing that I learned from Marion Barry, the mayor for life from Washington DC who is also MLK's left hand in the civil rights fight, he told me that the left often suffers from when the politicians want to join the parade, the left is like, "no, you get outta here. You weren't with us the whole time," and we can't do that. We have to actually be like, "oh, great. Wonderful. You're all welcome. We'll just even pretend you're here the whole time," because that's how we build power—we invite people in.

So, if you go to social securityworks.org, you follow us on social media, the [00:38:00] pledge campaign that we're running right now, we're demanding every member of Congress pledge no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and we're running billboard trucks in every vulnerable toss up Republican district where they don't take the pledge, because at any one time, we only need three Republicans to stop this assault on our democracy and this theft of our earned benefits.

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THE HARTMANN REPORT: And there's what, 17 Republicans who in are in that category?

ALEX LAWSON: Yes, it just in the cook report toss up. And then, you know, there's lean Republican, but these are extremely tight races, where these guys are, you know, their political future right now is very uncertain. That's why I brought up Jeff Van Drew. These are people who are saying you can't cut and destroy Medicaid. Like, I'll definitely lose my job. That's the calculus that we have to make, we work with that. We need these members to be more afraid of losing their [00:39:00] jobs to their constituents anger than they are of Donald Trump and the wrath that he can bring on Twitter.

'The federal workforce feels tormented': Federal employees on the consequences of losing their jobs Part 1 - On Point - Air Date 4-1-25

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI - HOST, ON POINT: I try not to be emotional about the work that I do, because we try to get our facts right. We do a ton of research. We try to be as prepared as possible for these conversations, but I have to say I was caught a little off guard because I did not know that America's 2 million plus federal workers all take this very specific oath of office. I actually just now, during our break, LG, I went to the OPM website, and I pulled it up and here it is. I'm just about to read the full oath of office.

It says, "I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I will take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. And that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I'm about to enter. So help [00:40:00] me, God."

Now all federal employees take this oath. I did not know that. LG, can you talk a little bit more about what taking that oath implies, regarding the meaning of the work that federal employees undertake?

LAURA GOULDING: You reading that oath, you can't see me, but I have goosebumps, because it hits the same every time. This is a serious job. That phrase "to well and faithfully discharge the duties of my office," it doesn't matter who you are in the federal government, if you are early career talent who's just starting out in your career, or maybe this is your first job out of college, or if you are a 20-year, long-term veteran of the government, you walk into that job every day knowing you serve the American people, and you swear an oath to that—that is your mission.

The civil service, we were talking about this a little bit before the break, but it is a mission oriented and mission-based organization. I believe Arielle was saying we're [00:41:00] not intended to work like a corporation. We're not here to serve stakeholders, we're not here for profit margins. We are here to serve a mission for the American people, no matter what the mission of each agency might be. And taking that oath, to me, just really solidifies how important that is. And that's where you talk about the dedication and we're all saying, "we" still as civil servants, it's because you swear an oath into a group to take care of your neighbors. And the people down the street who maybe don't agree with you, but you're here to make sure that they get their services anyway. And I think that's a really important and sacred calling.

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI - HOST, ON POINT: Yeah. And it's distinctly different from private sector service, right? No one asks you to swear in oath. I can't speak for all private sector companies, but it's definitely not common.

LAURA GOULDING: I've never, just wanna know that any of the private sector companies I worked at that's probably a good thing. But yeah, because the job that we do is difficult. We are often underfunded, we are often understaffed, [00:42:00] but everybody still comes in each day just determined to accomplish that mission no matter what, and I think the oath is the basis of that.

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI - HOST, ON POINT: Getting back to some facts and figures here, back in January, we actually did a full hour on the history of the United States Civil Service, and even though 2 million plus federal workers seems like a really big number, I think, Arielle, as you'd mentioned before, it's basically less than 2% of the entire civilian workforce in this country.

But even more interestingly, we spoke with a professor named Donald Moynihan at the University of Michigan, and he did an analysis where he said that in the United States, A] our federal workforce is in fact of the same, if not smaller, than peer nations. And on top of that, the federal government already privatizes a lot of services, and he did analysis and found out that the U.S. has something like three to four private contractors for every single federal [00:43:00] employee that we have.

For Arielle, the work that you were doing, there's three to four private contractors that are also getting paid for that same work. I wanted to lay that out. And Emily, let me turn to you, because your work was so specialized at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, I guess the Trump administration, Elon Musk, et cetera, would say, if we're already doing that, why not further contract out the work that you were doing? And that may be a way to get more efficiencies for the federal government.

What do you think?

EMILY SPILKER: Oh, I would argue that I wouldn't say that would be a very cost saving measure. In addition, should we have private companies that are seeking a bottom line, doing such important work for our American people? I would argue not. And we are talking to a lot of folks today and organizations that I would say should remain public. Yeah, I'll leave it at that.

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI - HOST, ON POINT: Tell me [00:44:00] more though.

EMILY SPILKER: I think we're all aware of how expensive the Department of Defense is. It's such a huge chunk of our expenditures, and if we used more contractors, I would not expect that number to go down.

INTERVIEW: Tim Faust on Defending Medicaid - The Worst of All Possible Worlds Part 1 - Air Date 3-31-25

JOSH BOERMAN - HOST, WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS: When I watched the video that you sent me of that town hall that you were part of, it wasn't just you, that was the thing that I noticed. There were other speakers who came up and everybody had their story. This is so, so, so common. The way that these stories touch people and the way that once people start telling their stories, all of a sudden they feel less alone, I feel like. They feel empowered to be able to, not just connect with each other, but advocate for each other and.

I'm wondering how you see things shift sort of from the beginning of one of these sessions to the end. What is it that brings people together, makes them feel more connected, compels them to action?

TIM FAUST: Well, when you have a clear articulation of what Medicaid does for somebody or what it does for your community, I think it's easy to rally around that.

And the [00:45:00] point of telling stories isn't just to tell stories, right? Great, we heard a story, let's go home. Let's applaud whatever. That's, that doesn't do anything. Anything for anybody. Stories are a tool. Elected officials live in a bubble. Part of it is self-created, part of it's just natural part of the job. And it's very easy to not experience or not understand the consequences of their actions.

And granted, there's a lot of other forces at play, don't get me wrong. The way that capital controls the government is not ignorable. I think it's the fundamental part of this entire relationship. You still gotta put these stories onto the tip of the spear and drive it into that bubble. You gotta puncture it. You gotta penetrate it.

And so a movement that puts these people at the front of the line and brings them to the... like one of the things we're considering doing is taking over one of our electeds offices for multiple days, just having a nonstop cavalcade of people telling their stories over and over and over again to the elected or to staff continually. And then you video it, you film it, you put it out there. That does a couple of things. One is, in the unlikely event the elected has a change of heart, that's the [00:46:00] way you do it. Two is it demonstrates pent up demand, it de it demonstrates there are consequences to your vote, both in the literal human sense and also in the electoral sense.

And then lastly, you build a movement around it. I hate casting on my hopes to electoral politics for a lot of reasons, but it is important to build that kind of force. It isn't important to build that kind of power, and building it around people like this, bringing 'em to the front of the line, sharing those stories, building a coalition, this is a core part of it. It's a thing that keeps people motivated and keeps them coming back. And so integrating that fully into the force, I think is important. There's so much more to building power than just these kinds of things, but they are a critical part. You gotta do 'em.

JOSH BOERMAN - HOST, WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS: That's something that is interesting to me as somebody who has a background in storytelling. And this is something that we have in common. You did a lot of like backyard wrestling stuff for a really long time, and so it was about putting on a show, capturing narratives, and engaging people. But there is a distance, of course, between simply being able to engage people and taking that engagement and using it to compel [00:47:00] people to meaningful action.

And this is something that I've noticed a lot in I don't know, call it the liberal bubble of theater. It's like, "oh, if we just all stand up and we say that's enough, then surely this will stop it." So I'm so interested in the way that you bridge that gap, and I think you are doing it in a meaningful way. I think that, getting people to tell their stories is one thing, but then finding the connective piece to have that story be something that reaches other people, that compels them to do something. How do you make that link?

TIM FAUST: The purely operational nuts and bolts part of it is we have a series of forms floating around these town halls. When people feel compelled by the story, they can sign up. We bring them into a team that's entirely member directed and they plan the things they wanna do. My job and the jobs of my coworkers is to keep them engaged and help build out things, help build out options to education, et cetera, but it's up to these people who come to these town halls and feel affected, want to move to act, to build [00:48:00] out these teams and do things that contribute to this broader building out of power.

So I talked about taking over the elected offices, that's the kind of thing they can do. Build this momentum, bring more folks in. The stories are an activation tool as well as a thing you bring to the front of the line. People hear these stories and say, fuck it, I wanna get involved, whether they have a story or not.

It's very easy to chalk things up to alienation by and large, and I think that's largely correct, but we don't understand how we live even within the neighborhood that we exist in. This is a one of the rare things that reassembles us into understanding ourselves as being part of a cohesive whole, to an extent. It's only moments like that that you can get people to sign the dotted line and bring 'em out to a meeting and bring 'em to do something.

And a good organizer, which I'm not saying I am, I'm a healthcare guy, but a good organizer can tie those things together into a variety of clauses. Wisconsin right now has a state election for Supreme Court, which happens on Tuesday, which I don't feel amazing about. We had a big one two years ago. Democrats won it, got us new voting maps, which have changed the entire [00:49:00] composition of the legislature. We've got another one of those coming up as well as a case about Act 12, which is the Scott Walker Bill that destroyed public sector unions.

And so this election will determine the shape of the state for years to come. And a lot of people that came to these town hall meetings are being turned out to go knock doors, and not all of 'em do. It's not a, it's not like in a completely mutable population, but it's part of putting people into a broader coalition.

If you share this worldview, if you feel affected by these things, here's all these options available to you to go out and do something with it. And people do react to that. People do respond. It's the job of my coworkers to help put together those ties, to bring people in for multiple causes and keep 'em there for the long term.

Note from the Editor on false moral arguments for cutting social safety nets

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with TED Ed exploring Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal detailing its comprehensive policies to combat the Great Depression. All In with Chris Hayes discussed how Trump employed a strategy of spreading blatant falsehoods to undermine trust in democratic institutions like the electoral system and Social Security. Consider This covered the significant costs and challenges of Medicare and Medicaid, including [00:50:00] fraud prevention efforts and concerned over potential cuts to benefits. The PBS NewsHour discussed the severe impact of USDA funding cuts on food banks across the US. Another clip from The PBS NewsHour focused on the potential negative effects of Secretary JFK Jr.'s plan to cut 20,000 workers from Health and Human Services. The Hartmann Report discussed the urgent need for grassroots activism to counteract the current constitutional crisis and authoritarian threats, highlighting the role of mobilized citizens and the necessity of inclusive political organizing. On Point delved into the significance of the oath taken by American Federal workers, highlighting their mission-driven duty to serve the American people and the unique challenges they face compared to the private sector. And finally, The Worst Of All Possible Worlds discussed how sharing personal stories at town hall meetings can create a strong sense of community, drive advocacy, motivate political action, and integrate individuals into broader [00:51:00] movements. And those were just the Top Takes. There's a lot more in the Deeper Dive sections.

But first, a reminder that this show is produced with the support of our members, who get access to this show ad free, as well as early and ad-free access to our freshly launched other show, SOLVED! That's all caps with an exclamation point, which features our team of producers discussing a carefully curated selection of articles and ideas to then solve some of the biggest issues of our day in each episode. Members get the podcast of SOLVED! free each week without ads before it goes out on the Best of the Left YouTube channel. We also do a special members-only section at the end of the show.

So to support all of our work that goes into Best of the Left and have SOLVED! delivered seamlessly to the new members-only podcast feed that you'll receive, sign up to support the show at BestOfTheLeft.Com/Support (there's a link in the show notes), through our Patreon page, or from right inside the Apple Podcast app.

And as always, if regular membership isn't in the cards for you, shoot me an email requesting a financial hardship membership because [00:52:00] we don't let a lack of funds stand in the way of hearing more information.

Now if you have a question or would like your comments included in the show, you can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991. We're also findable on the privacy focused messaging app Signal at the handle bestoftheleft.01, or you can simply email me to [email protected].

Now, as for today's topic, there are so many potential ways to come at today's topic that I found it genuinely difficult to narrow it down. Ultimately, I've decided to go with the big picture. Now, the moral philosophy that underpins so much of the reasoning behind the conservative desire to deconstruct social safety nets is, I think, as immoral and anti-human as anything that exists within the Overton window of acceptable political argumentation.

And of course, [00:53:00] there's a dual motivation going on here. One is the simple capitalistic greed that drives the rich to want to extract as much as humanly possible from the poor. But that is still, thankfully, outside of the Overton window, so we don't hear much about it. That motivation still lies beneath the surface.

But the other element has its roots in the deeply oppressive Protestant work ethic that has haunted the New World since before the founding of the nation.

But let's actually work backwards to that.

Now, it's a truism that no one lies on their deathbeds regretting that they hadn't dedicated more of their time to their work. But that idea is also backed up by hospice nurses with decades of experience speaking with dying people as they reflect on their lives. Looking back, they see more clearly the kinds of truths that we all already basically know, but tends to [00:54:00] ignore. The point of life is to love and be loved, connect with those around us, contribute, make a difference, et cetera, et cetera. Those who have spent their lives making lots of money frequently do so at the expense of all those things that really matter. They've neglected or actively cut off relationships over money and bitterness. They've failed to apologize and reconnect for reasons they can't even remember. And they end up ending their lives wealthy, but alone and unhappy.

This is the predictable result of a society that prizes work and personal wealth over community and connection.

But look, humans are complicated. We also get joy and satisfaction out of accomplishments, out of having ambitions and working toward them. So the ideal society wouldn't be one of infinite leisure. There's a balance to be struck [00:55:00] here. We do get value out of doing work.

Now, the conservative arguments against social safety nets and comfortable retirements that have made their way into the Overton window of acceptable thought, revolve around this ancient but backward idea that because putting in work and effort is fundamental to human survival, and that we do derive some satisfaction from work well done, that it must be the ultimate good, and practically the only thing worth pursuing. And at worse, that it is practically a sin to waste time on leisure when there's work to be done.

All of this has metastasized into a culture that is overworked and burnt out while reaping fewer rewards than the same work would've provided several decades ago, all while the insufficiency of our social safety net has forced people to accept this basic fate of "work or die" [00:56:00] because it feels like there aren't other options. The conservative argument goes that safety nets reduce the motivation for people to work. It's the old "safety net becomes a hammock" argument, which would be bad for society, so the best thing to do for everyone, but also just coincidentally the best thing to do for very rich people who profit the most from people's labor, is to restrict or eliminate social benefit programs.

But let's use another metaphor. And I need to give credit to Producer Deon who said this on a recent episode of SOLVED!, our new show on the Best of the Left YouTube channel that you might have heard of. Deon said that instead of focusing on a mostly imaginary group of people who might misuse a social safety net, let's think about the actual intended purpose of a safety net. Now, a safety net is something you might put under a tightrope, so imagine yourself walking on a tightrope. Would you feel more or less [00:57:00] free if there were or were not a safety net? In which scenario would you feel more emboldened to take risks? If what we want is a dynamic society in which people feel empowered to follow their passions, rather than settle for whatever they can get out of desperation, the existence of a safety net is what allows people to take chances. To strive for something beyond their immediate grasp. The ability to fall knowing that we will be able to get back up is the only thing that allows for the kinds of risks that can lead to greater things for people financially, as well as creating more of a cushion, that allows more room for people to create for themselves the kinds of balance between work and the rest of life that will help us avoid those deathbed regrets that are all too common. Without a social safety net, the only people with the kind of security to take risks are those who already have [00:58:00] money. They can provide their own safety net.

Now, why would a society that claims to believe in the entrepreneurial spirit want to limit themselves to entrepreneurs who get their starts because they were born into relative wealth, while the poor end up destined to remain so? Once you dissect the acceptable reason that they give for wanting to cut social programs, that it's ultimately good for everyone, you see that the high-minded arguments for this greater good and personal virtue are all built on bullshit, and lead people into the lives of "the grind." They end up working out of necessity, but believing that it's virtuous. And often translating that sense of virtue related to work into a life that neglects what the dying come to realize is the real value of life.

So if that reason crumbles to dust when challenged, all we're left with, really, is the greed of the wealthy, [00:59:00] who stand to profit more if they can continue to either convince or force people to work the maximum hours for the minimum pay and benefits. The math is not complicated to understand. And people absolutely hate it because we all intrinsically get the balance that is required between necessary and, yes, even gratifying work, and all of the other parts of life that are even more important.

Some amount of work is fine. Too much work is too much. And their goal in cutting social safety net programs is to make "too much" feel like a virtuous necessity. Don't let them fool you.

And in the meantime, reach out to that friend of yours who you haven't had the time to connect with because you've been too busy.

SECTION A: SOCIAL SECURITY

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue to dive deeper on three topics today. Next up, section A. Social Security followed by section B, general Cuts [01:00:00] and Section C, Medicaid and Health and Human Services.

Social Security Struggles - NightSide With Dan Rea - Air Date 4-1-25

I'm not sure most people really understand social security, and I think it's important for people to understand it.

I view Social Security System as I. An insurance program. Um, how far, how far wrong am I on that? And you got it right. Actually, a lot of people think of it as a retirement investment program. Apparently, uh, our friend Elon thinks of it that way. that's not what it, what it is. I'm all for people saving money, uh, and having.

All kinds of investment accounts, but particularly 4 0 1 Ks and health savings accounts and so on, that's not what social security is. Social Security, as my grandfather said, is insurance against, uh, destitution in old age or in disability, uh, or from the loss of a, uh, [01:01:00] of a parent. Uh, it's fundamentally, it's just like your homeowner's insurance.

Your auto insurance or even your health insurance, you buy insurance. You spread out the risk. When you need to, uh, need payments either because you're of your age or because of a disability, uh, or something like that. The people who currently are paying premiums pay for that, but it's not a Ponzi scheme as Elon.

Decided to call it, uh, that indicated he either doesn't understand what social security is, or he doesn't understand what a Ponzi scheme is. I, I also look at it as a, besides being an insurance program, it, it's also a contract. Um, I don't want to take it to the level of it being a social contract, but I think it's a contract where if you pay in and you work the requisite number of years, which is 10 years or 40 quarters, uh, upon.

[01:02:00] A certain time, you then are able to, uh, receive some retirement benefits. So I, I see it as kind of twofold. Insurance and contractual Yes, no. So yes, social security, uh, a lot of people, uh, kind of shy away from the term social contract, but it's. You as a worker and other workers represented by the government, basically, uh, you pay your fair share, you expect to get your fair share of benefits.

Yeah, so, so, so there's sort of these dual elements of it. Now, I know that a lot of people are, are pretty freaked out, the Republicans have made, and, and matter of fact, president Trump in his, uh, speech to the joint session of Congress made that, um, comment that there were like, I don't know, three. 5,000 people over the age of 150. Did you watch that speech? And if you did, I'd love to know what your [01:03:00] reaction was to it, because I think what the president was saying clearly, clearly was misleading.

Well, I did watch the speech and I'm not gonna comment on, uh, my views overall. I'll just on social security. Yeah. Uh, someone misled, someone misled him on that, he seemed to say that there was this large number of people get over getting benefits over the age of 150. There is nobody getting benefits in that category. First of all, uh, when you reach a, when the records show that you reached 115, your benefits automatically stop and they will reach out to you and say.

Show us that you're still alive. Okay. Yeah. Gotcha. Okay. So it's just mechanically impossible. But secondly, the reason it appears that way, and this is the problem with what the kids and I do mean kids, um, if you consider a 19, 20, 20 1-year-old a kid, which I do, uh, uh. When the kids go [01:04:00] in and don't really understand something, they make mistakes and they have not had enough experience to say, wait a minute, that doesn't compute.

They're, they also don't take the time, you know, the, the Silicon Valley, uh, thing work fast and break things well, they work fast and they don't ask, uh, well, why would it show up that there're that many people that old? Well, it's because. Social Security had one of the first totally computer based systems for doing people's benefits.

It's written in a computer language that was invented 50 or 60 years ago, invented actually by a team led by the first female admiral ever, Grace Hopper. Uh, and. There was no setting in that language to insert the date when people, uh, when people were born. So they made up a date, uh, as a default, and they picked a [01:05:00] date sometime in the 1880s so that people wouldn't get confused.

Yeah, yeah. There was no default date. If you had a date, you, it was okay, but there was no default date. Yeah. So, so one would characterize that, and I've characterized it. To the dismay of some of my listeners as in effect what would be called a coding error. It, it, that's exactly what it wa was. And it's not that it was somebody's fault, it's that the code at that point did not allow for a default date.

And so the, all the people who had signed up for Social Security before there was computer code were listed on this date in 1880. Okay. Uh, and. It doesn't impact benefits at all because as I say, there's automatic cutoffs and in general, social security has the master death list where almost every death that occurs in the United States is reported to Social Security.

I. Right. I learned that the other day as I was doing some research on it, [01:06:00] I did not realize it's an obligation of funeral homes to file a report of someone's passing. I was unaware of that. that's absolutely right. That is a major source. But state, uh, medical examiners and departments of public health are also required to report.

Okay. Now I assume that if there's some people living in the, the wiles of Montana and someone passes away and there's no, uh, I, I, I guess it's conceivable that someone could be buried out on the back 40, um, and a, and a and a nice, um, you know, headstone there. But, but the government would not know that. So there, there could be, theoretically a handful of people here or there, but those people, if they were getting social security checks.

Every month for someone who had not been reported, had passed, and if they were crazy enough to cash those checks, they're involved. They're, they're, they're committing fraud against the government cashing a check on [01:07:00] behalf of someone other than themselves. Correct. I. They would end up in, in federal court charged with a crime.

Destroying Social Security Part 1 - The Hartmann Report - Air Date 3-31-25

ALEX LAWSON: I wish I had better news, but, um, basically as, uh, as bad as you think it, uh, is, it's, it's worse. Um, the damage that Elon Musk and his Doge goons have done, the Social Security Administration is truly catastrophic.

We're already seeing service disruptions currently, and those service disruptions will just get worse and worse and worse, both in terms of cascading failures. So the failures building on each other, uh, and the fact that they're not stopping, right? They keep. Putting in new things, uh, to collapse the system even faster.

For example, um, closing offices, firing people, and then disallowing a lot of services to be done by the phone. Mm-hmm. Pushing more people into the offices, which will overwhelm the offices. The offices were already creaking under the weight [01:08:00] of just 10,000 baby boomers, uh, entering the system every single day, uh, while at 50 year historic low staffing levels.

That's before Elon Musk, um, got there with his chainsaw. Um, so these are surgically designed changes that will push millions of people into a system that they are closing offices. They've already closed 45 or scheduled 45 for immediate. Um, and over the mid and long term, you know, they have instructed GSA to close all of the offices.

Um, they've pushed out thousands of workers or fired thousands of workers. Uh, but over the mid or long term, uh, they have a memo, uh, that's been put together to reduce the workforce by 50%. Uh, you know, and then, uh, the Doge guys, Elon Musk, they're like, oh, don't worry, we're just gonna replace everything with ai.

What they're saying is you're not gonna be able [01:09:00] to get through to anyone, uh, when your check doesn't get deposited or doesn't show up. Uh, and you know, if you don't believe me, like go listen to, uh, what lutnick, the Commerce secretary, why'd he go on television and say, you know, oh, if his mother-in-law didn't get her check, she wouldn't complain.

The only people who would complain about a missing a a payment are fraudsters. I mean, you understand what's going on there. Yeah. Tom, they're trying to scare people, uh, into not, uh, you know, reaching out if they don't see their deposits, they're getting people ready to not receive their benefits. And then at the confirmation hearing for the Social Security Commissioner Bisignano, who by the way, uh, it runs a monopoly payment processing company that is just happens to be perfectly set up, uh, to take over some of the functions of, [01:10:00] uh, a social security system that's been smashed to smithereens by.

Uh, Elon Musk. Wow. But at his, uh, confirmation hearing, you know, uh, Senator Warren asked him, you know, if somebody doesn't get, uh, their check or, or, or is $5,000 are removed from their bank account, which has happened already, you know, is that a benefit? Cut? And Bisignano was like, I don't know what to call that.

Mm-hmm. Uh, and otherwise just, you know, denying and diminishing, uh, you know, what is actually going on. And then just straightforward lying to Senator Wyden. Uh, when Senator Wyden asked, are you working with the Doge wrecking crew and Elon Musk? And he is like, no, I'm not. And he dub he asked again to make him say it twice, and then I.

Revealed that he has, uh, whistleblower information that in fact, Bisignano is working [01:11:00] hand in glove with Elon Musk. Uh, and so this is a commissioner who, if confirmed, will just accelerate the destruction, uh, at Social Security. So, um, I wish that I could tell people that, you know, it's all gonna be okay, that your benefits are secure, but it's, it's not.

Um, and we need a massive response, uh, from the American people to not just stop, but to reverse course. Because what's already been done will lead to service disruptions. Well, they've already laid off a whole bunch of people, right? They haven't, they've closed offices and I don't wanna get like, too into it.

If you go to our social media, you'll find enormous number of news stories that have dug into it. But Tom, a lot of it is actually they, they went in, uh, and they, uh, shut down offices or they combined offices. Uh, massive amount of reorganization in a way that, um, centralized power, uh, that now the [01:12:00] Doge people, the goons themselves, are set to take over those offices with the express, uh, purpose saying, you know, oh, well we don't need people, uh, to help beneficiaries.

We don't need people to answer questions. Um, they're gonna, we're gonna replace this with ai. And it's just, that's bs, right? Yeah. They're just, they're making things up. And what they're really doing, and I think it's pretty clear to everyone, uh, is they're raking the system. They're destroying social security.

They're causing the problem so that they can then throw up their hands and say, now you niv need to give us the legislative authority to act with a simple majority in the Senate. And that's how they get their hands on our benefits, which are otherwise, um, protect that the big. Our benefits. Right, right.

That's how they, they cut our benefits for everybody, uh, and get their hands on the, so

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THE HARTMANN REPORT: the Social Security Trust fund, which was created by Reagan in what,

ALEX LAWSON: [01:13:00] 86? 83. The pre-funding of this trust fund was done in 83 under the Reagan reform. Thank you. But trust funds have long been a part of the Social security system.

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THE HARTMANN REPORT: The current Social Security Trust fund is sitting on, uh, over two and a half trillion dollars. And that is gonna, you know, serve us well until 2035. And then it's going to go back to something like a pay as you go system. 'cause most of the boomers will have passed on. Um, and, but the problem is that starting in 2035, we're gonna see some significant shortfalls in revenue.

And the easy solution to that is to have billionaires pay the exact same percentage. Of income tax for social security that bus drivers and people who work at McDonald's do. And that is something that is absolutely intolerable to billionaire Donald Trump, the 14 billionaires in his cabinet, and the billionaires who fund the Republican party.

So, uh, in order to prevent the simple solution of simply billionaires having to pay into social security [01:14:00] taxes, it looks to me like they're going to try to break social security so that they will then have a rationale to privatize it, hand it off to whichever big bank gives the largest contribution to Republicans in Congress and be done with it.

Is that a, a reasonable analysis in your mind, Alex?

ALEX LAWSON: It is. I have one thing to just add, which is when the trust fund was done in, in 83, it actually projected out solvency till 2060, which is when the baby boom generation will life expectancy really and truly dead. Yeah. Yes. But what's happened is that we've lost 30 years of that projected solvency because of the billionaires. Because since 1980 and the great divergence, which I know you talk about a lot, when all the productivity gains and wages have gone to people above the cap, right? So people only pay in on the first $176,000 of income right now. And since the eighties, all of the [01:15:00] money has gone to people above that.

So they're not paying any of that new, that money into social security. That's what caused it to move down from 2060 to 20 into the 2030s. Uh, so the billionaires caused the problem not just by not paying the same rate as the rest of us on all of their income, but also by gobbling up all of the income.

Nancy Altman on Social Security Attacks - CounterSpin - Air Date 3-21-25

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: Social Security has been overwhelmingly popular and under vehement attack from some quarters since it began and for decades. Elite News Media have generated a standard assessment. It's the most popular program. Hence the third rail of politicking, and also based on willful misreading of how it works, it's about to be insolvent any minute.

The latter notion sitting alongside corporate media's constant refrain that private is always better than [01:16:00] public, just. Because like efficiency and all that. Now in this, frankly, wild only losers care about caring for one another and shouldn't the richest just control everything? Moment. Social security is on the chopping block for real.

Still as ever. The attack is rooted in disinformation, but with a truly critical press corps, largely missing in action. Myth busting might not be enough. A lot of us are in a kind of blurry, holy heck, is this really happening mode, but titrating out what is actually happening today is important set aside from whether courts will eventually rule against it or how it might play out in what is happening News.

I'm reading at Truth Out via Bloomberg that three [01:17:00] individuals representing private equity concerns have shown up at the Social Security Administration. How weird is that? What can that possibly mean?

NANCY ALTMAN: It's horrible, and if you can believe it, it is even worse as soon as. Donald Trump was inaugurated on January 20th.

The Doge guys, the Doge boys, was young as 19. Were swarming all over the Social Security Administration, as you said in your introduction. There has been a small group of people completely outta touch who wanted to do away with social security from the beginning. They've always been defeated, but unfortunately, they now are in control of the White House.

It's Donald Trump. It's. Despite all his lies in the campaign that he wouldn't touch Social Security, he proposed cuts in every one of his budgets in his first turn. It's Elon Musk, who [01:18:00] unbelievably called it the biggest pom d scheme in history, which is such a slander. And it's Russell Roy, who is the director of the Office for management and budget.

Architect of Project 2025, and what we're seeing is Project 2025 on steroids. So you've got private venture people there, you have Doge, guys stealing our data all in an effort to undermine our social security system.

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: Well, the line is that, oh no. They're not attacking social security itself, just fraud within it.

Now, the bad faith is palpable, but what is your response to that notion that it's really just the fraud that's under attack.

NANCY ALTMAN: Well, as, as you said, I wrote a book called The Truth About Social Security, and one of the zombie lies is one of the ones you mentioned, but they all say, oh, this private sector is so much more efficient and so much better, and blah, blah, blah.

Actually, social security is [01:19:00] extremely efficiently run. Less than about a half a penny of every dollar spent is spent on administration. The other more than 99 cents is back in benefits. That's so much. More efficient than you find with 401k for private sector insurance. Or you can get 15, 20% administrative costs and hidden fees and so forth.

And that's also with ipro payments, which not just fraud. There are a lot of. Overpayments Underpayments, which we've done because Congress has made it also difficult to administer and some of it's just impossible to avoid. But the 99.7%, 99.7% of Social Security benefits are paid accurately to the right people on time in full and about 0.3%.

And again, there's much more. Payments in the private sector, but at that 0.3%, the overwhelming amount of that are what are called [01:20:00] improper payments, overpayments and underpayments. So for example, social security requires to get your benefit, you have to be, have been alive every day of the month before.

Now I think that's wrong. I think you should get. Proportion of payments, but that's not how the law works. So if you die on the last day of the month and you get your payment on the third day of the following month and the money is put in your account, that's an overpayment. Now, it doesn't just sit there as soon as the federal government realizes that the person that died the last day, they go in immediately, usually within a day or two and take that money back.

But that. Mainly overpayments. Underpayments fraud is vanishingly small, and the way that fraud is caught is first we have an Inspector General. Donald Trump fired the Social Security Administration, inspector General as soon as he got into office and frontline workers, and they've been. Firing [01:21:00] and and inducing all kinds of workers out, who are the ones who would catch the fraud.

So although they say they're going after fraud, waste, and abuse, they are creating. So much waste. They are abusing the workforce and through that, the American people and they are opening the door to fraud. Unfortunately.

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: Well, you know, I have seen, uh, leftists take issue with the. It's my money idea on Social Security because actually it's an intergenerational program.

Now, choosing that as a point of emphasis in the current context is a choice that I have thoughts about. But do you see meaningful confusion about. Whose money is at stake here and whether workers paying into it today are truly entitled to it. Here's where the confusion

NANCY ALTMAN: is. I don't think there's confusion on that point.

I think most Americans, which is why the program is so wildly [01:22:00] popular. Recognize that these are benefits they earned. It is deferred compensation you, it is part of your earnings, so you have your current cash compensation. You have deferred compensation in the form of pensions, whether it's a pension sponsored by the employer or 401k, or a defined benefit plan, and US social security.

You also have what are called contingent benefits, which are disability insurance survivors benefits. Those were all earned. What is the misunderstanding? And this is again, people like Elon Musk and others who are just spreading lies about this program, or, oh, there are all these. Immigrants are the undocumented people are stealing our money.

That is a lie. Those people who are undocumented are unable to receive Social Security and even when they be, if they become documented and can show that they have made contributions, they still don't. And I think this is wrong, but they [01:23:00] still don't get the benefits they have earned, but. Americans are here paying in.

It is an earned benefit. And when Elon Musk and Donald Trump say, oh, there's fraud and we're gonna cut the benefits, they are cutting your benefits and people should keep hold of their wallets.

‘It is wrong’: Warren sounds off on the Trump-Musk attack on Social Security - All In with Chris Hayes - Air Date 3-25-25

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN: More than half of the people who receive social security count on it to put groceries on the table and keep a roof over their heads.

We're talking about people in their seventies, in their eighties, in their nineties, people who often have mobility challenges, people, people who struggle. And what's happening right now at the Social Security office is they're saying in effect. Nobody really to answer the phones, so that means you gotta find somebody to get you down to a Social Security office.

Oh, whoops. They closed that Social security office, so you gotta travel, what, two hours, three hours to be able to get to another [01:24:00] Social Security office. When you get there, we're hearing about lines that are 50 people long, with two people in the Social Security office to try to help answer questions.

Office closes. Before people even have an opportunity to get up and ask their questions, and that is repeated over and over and understand this, social security is not charity. It's not some giveaway. It is something that people earned throughout. All of their working years on a Promise from America that said, you pay into that system and then when you retire, you can count on those benefits solid.

They will be there for you and instead. What Elon Musk and Donald Trump our co-presidents are doing right now is effectively cutting the benefits that people were promised. And they are making people [01:25:00] suffer all across this country. It is wrong.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: Yeah. Well, maybe some of 'em should find a billionaire as a son-in-law and they can be fine.

Yeah. They won't have to worry about the check that would, that would help them out. Did you get any sense from uh, Mr. Bisignano today? That he would exert any independent control over this, that he would be responsive or do you see him as essentially a kind of doge stew Jaic.

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN: You know, look, we raised, I raised the question directly.

I pointed out the places where if you make enough cuts in service, you have effectively cut the benefits. And we all know you can't cut those social security benefits without coming right here to Congress. Right? Only Congress can cut the benefits, but you can backdoor cut them. And he admitted that. Yep.

That is the law. And so cutting. For example, the number of people who work at the Social Security Administration can turn out to be effectively a cut in benefits. So I said, will you at least commit to [01:26:00] rehiring the people who've been cut, get social security back up to the level? At least where it was frankly, still wasn't enough, but at least where it was and.

All we heard is blah, blah, blah. Think about it. But he did not make that commitment. And why? Because he is in league with Donald Trump and with Elon Musk to cut Social Security for millions of people across this country who depend on it. The millions of people who don't have a billionaire son-in-law.

You know,

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: one of the most unnerving stories we see in the first two months is the use of this agency. To, to, as a sort of weaponized political tool against citizens. I wanna, I wanna just ask you about this, because there was this story in Maine mm-hmm. Where basically the Governor of Maine challenged the president on, uh, one of his executive orders.

They had a kind of, you know, testy exchange in the White House. And then subsequently Maine found out that the program that automatically enrolls your newborn in the hospital with a social security number had been terminated with [01:27:00] no notice, and you now had to go with your newborn to an office to get that social security number.

And it looked like it was a reprisal. And now we have confirmation. The man who's running Social Security, Leland Eck, who's sort of the Doge officer there, said he had ordered the move to cancel this after watching Janet Mills means Democratic Governor Clash with Mr. Trump at the White House. I was ticked at the Governor of Maine for not being real cordial to the President, Mr.

Eck said. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And then he said that he owned it and he was, you know, he, he was sorry and he, he won't do it again. But I am astonished this happened. And do you have any confidence it won't

SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN: happen again? No, I do not have confidence. It won't happen again because it is the mindset of the Trump administration and that is that this government is to be run for a handful of billionaires and people with power and everyone else can just eat dirt.

That is the [01:28:00] view of the Trump administration. We're feeling it right now in the Social Security Administration, but we're feeling it everywhere. That Elon Musk goes with his magic chainsaw to fire people, to do it in ugly ways, to undermine the kind of obligations that we have passed here in Congress, uh, to get rid of the consumer agency, to try to shut down the Department of Education, uh, and why it is all in service.

To government that works better for the rich and the powerful. This is all leading toward the Republicans, Elon Musk and Donald Trump, and the Republicans here in Congress who wanna push through a big tax giveaway that's gonna cause $4.7 billion, go mostly to billionaires and billionaire corporations, and they wanna pay for it on the backs.

Of seniors on the backs of little kids, on the backs of [01:29:00] people with disabilities, on the backs of veterans, on the backs of just hardworking people all across this country. That is the ultimate battle, and this story at Social Security right now is just the most visible picture of what's going on.

'Nothing to Do With Efficiency': Expert Eric Kingson warns DOGE is leading to Social Security collapse, privatization - The BradCast w/ Brad Friedman - Air Date 4-10-25

BRAD FRIEDMAN - HOST, THE BRADCAST: Martin O'Malley, uh, said a few weeks ago now, uh, or maybe a month or so that, that he was concerned that we might see the system actually collapse over, I think he said the next, uh, 90 days or so.

Now, at the time he said that. Uh, Eric Kingston. I, I, I sort of sounded like hyperbole at the time. Mm-hmm. But with more and more of these, you know, reported problems, should we in fact be worried that O'Malley was right about those warnings? That it could collapse? That checks might stop going out and, uh, you know, is that a real concern?

ERIC KINGSON: I believe that is a concern. And what it is, what it involves is. That is [01:30:00] Doge has been, and President Trump have been stripping social security of its expertise and historical memory. Mm-hmm. Uh, they've taken the, IT. They've taken the folks who do it, who, which is the core of the structure of the system.

Mm-hmm. They've moved most of them out, and they put in Doge people who have no understanding of social security for the most part. Beyond that.

They've eliminated. All the offices that produce reports about how people are being affected by changes in social security, they just sent a memo out to every Social Security employee.

Do not answer any inquiries from congressional offices, right or from reporters. That's nuts. It's supposed to be a free country. Mm-hmm. They're trying to turn it some way, but, uh, it's, they're trying to control the information and you know, to some extent they're doing a good job by cutting off everything.

Yeah. They've put people in charge of. [01:31:00] Uh, changing, uh, the computer structure. Mm-hmm. And it's act, it has to be a disaster. Uh, Elon Musk has the hubris to say they can do it in three to five months. I think most of the time, most people who've looked at it seriously have said it does need to be changed, but it has to be done over a five year period.

BRAD FRIEDMAN - HOST, THE BRADCAST: Uh, yeah. And, and, and not by folks who don't know how to program COBOL as seems to be the case with these Doge Bros. Uh, and that

ERIC KINGSON: yeah, that's an interesting story too, because SSA worked hard to get a top level COBOL person 'cause that's more or less people who started with COBOL a long time ago.

But it's a very functional system still. They work to get someone and one of the first people who was RIF. It was that expert in COBOL that they brought in. They, it's everything you listen to is horrible. They're moving people like that. If they can't fire them, [01:32:00] they're moving them into claims offices, meaning.

I say this claims is really, you know, a claim, a social security claims person. Mm-hmm. Is very important. Right. It also takes two to three years to train them. You just don't throw someone into the job and you just don't get rid of all these folks 'cause you're in the middle of training them and you have to bring more people on.

BRAD FRIEDMAN - HOST, THE BRADCAST: Uh, yeah. I mean, what they seem to be doing, even while you know, Donald Trump has claimed. For years, oh, he's not gonna touch Social Security. And yet they seem to be firing, uh, thousands of employees. Uh, laying them off, moving them around as, as you suggest, you know, suggesting well, we're, we're, maybe we're cutting administrative.

You know, work and services and so forth, but not actual benefits. Is there any reason to feel any better about that? Is there an actual line [01:33:00] between, you know, benefits that people receive and the costs of, of running the program?

ERIC KINGSON: I. I don't believe I'm, I'm sorry to say, and I feel really bad about this because I is just, what we're facing is so bad.

I don't believe anything they say, for the most part, when it comes to social security saying they're not gonna affect people, it's not gonna hurt them. Well, the. The slowdown in processing is gonna double the time people have to spend to get disability benefits if they're appealing. The system, right now it's about 230 days.

It's probably gonna about double 400 plus days. Wow. Now, think about that. You become a disabled per worker. Mm-hmm. You can't work, but you've gotta go through this process for a year and a half.

BRAD FRIEDMAN - HOST, THE BRADCAST: And yet here's Mike Johnson house speaker Mike Johnson on, uh, mm-hmm. A Thursday after Republicans in the US House just voted to move forward with Trump's legislative agenda.

These [01:34:00] enormous cuts across the entire government to largely make way for enormous tax cuts for corporations. Mm-hmm. And the wealthy here was, uh, here was Mike Johnson.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON: Today the president has made clear Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. We'll, we'll not, uh, take a hit.

BRAD FRIEDMAN - HOST, THE BRADCAST: Will not take a hit. Professor, can you decode that for us?

ERIC KINGSON: Yeah, I can. It's a boldface lie. They've already taken a hit. We pay for our social security bene for our, the administration of social security. We pay for that.

But in spite of that, they've cut the administrative funding for social security over a fair number of years. And now we're, you know, really moving into a very difficult area that affects the experience people have getting social security that's already affecting it.

Last time around the president said, oh, we're not gonna touch Social Security. Uh, and then he started saying, well. People who get disability insurance aren't really social security [01:35:00] beneficiaries or something. Mm. I'm afraid they're gonna go after the disability program. Mm. Mercilessly lots of reviews, lots of bar barricades to continuing or getting benefits.

They don't have, I don't think they have respect for citizens or people who have need, and they don't have respect for young people either. And what I'm gonna say there is. Not only are they cutting the social security of people like me who are in our seventies. Mm-hmm. Or not in cutting, but causing these problems.

Right. But we have a huge crisis we ought to be looking at. We have a lot of crises, I'm afraid. Yes. This is a kind we should be looking at, which is about half of today's workers. Uh, under 67 will not be able to maintain their standard of living in retirement if you count the cost of healthcare. Mm-hmm.

It's prob in long-term care, it's probably about two thirds. That's a crisis that needs to be adjusted. And you, and what they're doing is [01:36:00] stripping away the one thing you can count on Social security.

BRAD FRIEDMAN - HOST, THE BRADCAST: Yeah. Fortunately is not the only thing they seem to be stripping away. Here's, here's Elon Musk. This is, uh, last month, uh, talking about quote entitlements.

So I, I guess he's talking not just about social security here, but maybe Medicare and Medicaid as well as the, as, as, as the best things that need to be, uh, slashed from the federal budget.

ELON MUSK: Because most of the federal spending is entitlements. Um, so. That, that's, that's like the big one to eliminate is that's the sort of half trillion, maybe six, 700 billion a year.

BRAD FRIEDMAN - HOST, THE BRADCAST: To eliminate most of the federal government.

Uh, the spending is, uh, entitlements. That's the big one to eliminate. And that's the guy, Elon Musk, uh, who is running all of this for the president of the United States.

ERIC KINGSON: Yeah. And is lying constantly about people 150 years old getting benefits. I just about. Dishonesty in the [01:37:00] system. Uh, it's, you know, it's basically an attack on the, on the institution and it's gonna be, it's a very dangerous one because for them mm-hmm

ultimately, I hope because broad, there's huge support across the country. It's independent of political party, uh, demographic, religion. Americans like love their social security. Yep. The data that we have tells us they don't want anything cut. They do wanna see the cap scrapped. They also, if necessary, and if it would help increase some benefits, they would be willing to pay a little more money.

Uh. Gradually increase the payroll contribution. They'd like to see the cost of living adjustment fixed. 'cause it's a little less than it would've cost people with disabilities in the old.

They'd like to see people who've worked long and hard to get a benefit. That's at least the level of poverty from social security.

And there are other things, caregiving. They also wanna [01:38:00] see family leave. These things can be done without causing i, a large financial problem at all.

Destroying Social Security Part 2 - The Hartmann Report - Air Date 3-31-25

THOM HARTMANN - HOST, THE HARTMANN REPORT: During the State of the Union address, he talked about, you know, how many people are over a hundred years old getting benefits? How many people over 200 years old are getting benefits?

How many people over 300 years old are getting, these are all lies or wild exaggerations. But the point was to say, just like they do with voting, by the way, oh, there's voter fraud out there, so let's make it harder to vote. Oh, there's social security out, uh, fraud out there, so let's make it harder for people to get on Social Security.

It's really, I mean, this is a, this is an old strategy that Republicans have used forever. This is just the first time they've had the, the guts to actually do it right out in front of the public. We've seen these death by a thousand paper cuts sort of thing, or you know, ever since the Reagan administration, the [01:39:00] staffing at the Social Security Administration on a staff per payee basis or staff per budget basis or even an absolute numbers is lower now than it has been in 50 years.

Because you know, every time there's a Republican in the White House and they submit a budget and it gets passed, it's got cuts to the Social Security Administration staffing in it. And so far social security's been able to sort of keep up, although it does take like, I think it's 183 days on average to process a Social security disability claim.

And they're saying now that's gonna be between two and four years. And keep in mind, Leland Dak, the guy who is in charge of social security, was like this low level dweeb in the Social Security Administration. Who, who, uh, stove piped some information up to Elon Musk and his people about where in the Social [01:40:00] Security Administration, he thought that you could find some fraud or some waste, and it was probably those two and 300 year old people who don't exist.

Right. These, this was, this was, these are programming errors, got nothing to do with fraud or abuse or waste or anything like that. But this guy passed this information along to, to Elon that he could use to attack social Security. And so they made him the director of the entire agency. He was just a low level dweeb, and now he's running the place.

And what is he doing? Well, he just, he just laid off a whole bunch of employees and, uh, you know, he, he laid off 12% of the 57,000 workers at Social Security. And what is the result? Well, this is, this is from, uh, yesterday's Washington Post. Or perhaps it's today's, it was published last night and I quote, the Social Security administration website crashed four times in 10 days this month blocking millions of [01:41:00] retirees.

I would add, by the way, we're only 25 days into the month, um, blocking millions of retirees and disabled Americans and logging into their online accounts because the servers were overloaded in the field. Office managers have resorted to answering phones at the front desk as receptionists because so many employees have been pushed out.

But the agency no longer has a system to monitor customers experience with these services because that office was eliminated as part of the cost cutting efforts led by Elon Musk. The agency is engulfed in crisis according to internal documents in more than two dozen current and former agency employees and officials, they go on to say, for now, the agency's run by a caretaker leader in his sixth week on the job who has raced to push more than 12% of the staff out.

Of the staff of 57,000 people, he has conceded that the agency's phone service quote sucks and acknowledged that Musk's US Doge service is really in charge of the Social Security Administration. [01:42:00] Senator Angus King, the independent, uh, senator from Maine said in an interview quote, what's going on is the destruction of the agency from the inside out and it's accelerating.

He said, I have people approaching me all the time in their seventies and eighties, and they're beside themselves. They don't know what's coming.

And then it goes on this again. This is the Washington Post. Today, Leland Eck, the accidental leader, elevated to acting commissioner after he fed data to Musk's team behind his boss's backs, has issued rapid fire policy changes that have created chaos for frontline staff. AK has pushed out dozens of officials with years of expertise.

Others have left and disgusted. The moves have upended an agency that has been underfunded for years. Calls have flooded into congressional offices. The A A RP, the American Association, retired persons announced on Monday that more than 2000 retirees a week have called the organization since early February.

Double the usual numbers with [01:43:00] concerns about whether the benefits they paid for during their working careers will continue. Social Security, it turns out, is the primary source of income for about 40% of older Americans, and this is, this is the exact same strategy that they've been pursuing over at Medicare.

In 2003, George W. Bush pushed through legislation, the Medicare Reform Act or whatever it was called that that created, you know, the Medicare Part C had been on the books for a while. It was put on the books, I believe, during the Clinton administration as a neoliberal experiment. Let's, let's experiment with a private corporation offering some Medicare.

Benefits, but it was George W. Bush in 2003 who really turned it into what we call Medicare Advantage today. Gave it that name, allowed private insurance companies to use the word Medicare. And what did they do? Oh wow. We're not going to expand Medicare to include vision, even though your [01:44:00] eyes are part of your body.

We're not going to expand Medicare to include your dental, even though your teeth are part of your body and have a huge effect on your overall health. And we're not going to expand Medicare to include, uh, hearing, even though hearing is part of your health. But we will allow Medicare Advantage plans to offer those three benefits.

In other words, we're gonna break Medicare so that the Medicare Advantage private corporate for-profit option looks better. Well, that's what they're doing to Social Security right now. They're breaking social security. And I, you know, I. I, first of all, I told you like three weeks ago, actually, I told you several years ago, but, but in particular, three weeks ago, two, three weeks ago that this was coming, they are going to quickly break Social Security.

That's stage one, stage two. That shoe has not dropped yet, but it will as predictably as the sun coming up tomorrow, [01:45:00] and that is that in, in the House of Representatives you are going to see introduced as legislation probably sometime next week, legislation to, to offer private investment retirement plans to individuals as an alternative to social security, where the Republicans are gonna say, Hey, you know, young people, if you wanna opt outta Social Security, you don't have to pay in any longer.

You can pay into this program. It's run by Citibank or Wells Fargo or whoever gave us the largest campaign contribution this week. Or whoever took us on the best junket to, to Thailand.

This, this is an organized plan. They, they did it with, they did it with Medicare. More than half of Medicare recipients are now on these scam programs, the Medicare advantage scam that are run by private for-profit [01:46:00] insurance companies, where suddenly people who thought they were on Medicare in many cases, you know, they, they, the doctor says, oh, you've gotta have an MRI.

And they discover that no, the insurance company says, Nope, we're not gonna pay for you. You can't have an MRI.

80% of the, of the time that the for-profit insurance companies turn people down on Medicare Advantage. If they protest, if they appeal the appeal overturns the original, no. In other words, this is just, you know, these, the Medicare Advantage is a scam for a bunch of insurance companies to make a huge, we're talking hundreds of billions of dollars a year in profits, which they then share to the, you know, with their shareholders and their, and their senior executives and the Republican politicians who made them rich.

And they want to, they desperately wanna do the same thing with social security. There's a lot more money in social security than there is in Medicare.

And here it is from Emily Peck over at Axios this morning. The Social Security [01:47:00] Administration is rushing cuts to phone services at the White House, requests some of the most vulnerable Americans, including people who are hospitalized, kids in foster homes, and those living in remote areas will face more hurdles applying for disability benefits.

Acting. Commissioner Leland Eck said the changes will be made in two weeks, although he said it would usually take two years to implement these kinds of changes. You get what's going on here? I mean this, this is, this is the deconstruction of the New Deal and the great society. They're going after those programs that Democrats put into place, the 1930s and the 1960s, they've already taken down a bunch of 'em.

They want to take down all of them. They literally wanna take us back to the 1920s and nobody's calling it out, which just blows my [01:48:00] mind.

SECTION B: GENERAL CUTS

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering section B general cuts.

Stand Up for Science: Nationwide Protests Oppose Trump Cuts to Research from Cancer to Climate Change - Democracy Now! - Air Date 3-10-25

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: This wasn’t just in Washington, D.C., where thousands turned out. Thousands rallied in San Francisco and over two dozen cities around the country. Scientists, well, they described themselves, many of them, as “mad scientists.” That’s scientists who are really mad. [Emma] , talk about the organizing campaign and what’s at stake right now.

EMMA COURTNEY: Yeah. So, I’m coming at it from a graduate student perspective, where I’m currently looking at what my thesis is going to look like over the next three years, and realizing that a lot of the ways that I’ve originally kind of thought about my science are being impacted by these current executive orders and budget cuts and kind of the censorship of science that’s happening right now. And so, that, I think, is where a lot of people are coming at, is looking at what they’re doing and the impact it has on communities, and then looking at also how that’s being taken away right now.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Emma, you’re a cancer [01:49:00] researcher?

EMMA COURTNEY: I am.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: So, talk about the level of the cuts, whether we’re talking about NOAA, the climate scientists, people like Dr. Michael Mann, whether we’re talking about basic cancer research. And also, how is this affecting your colleagues, older and also students, whether they can trust staying in basic science?

EMMA COURTNEY: Yeah, definitely. I think we’re seeing right now kind of a — orders saying, like, which words you can and can’t use in your grant proposals. And so, I am coming from a breast cancer perspective. I study breast cancer. I study women’s health. And right now you’re not able to really put into proposals that you are studying women or females or looking at barriers or looking even at how race can influence cancer outcomes.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: You mean you can’t say words like “barrier” —

EMMA COURTNEY: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: — “race,” “women” in the grant proposals?

EMMA COURTNEY: No. That’s the current advice, is grants are getting flagged for having language that is containing those words.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: You know, it’s really [01:50:00] interesting. One of the beneficiaries of the National Institutes of Health may have an interesting father. Mother Jones is reporting that the Vought family, as in Russell Vought, the head of the OMB, but more significantly the — considered the architect of Project 2025, his daughter had cystic fibrosis. They credit a cystic fibrosis drug, Trifakta [sic] , for helping their daughter’s treatment. That research for [Trikafta] was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Talk about the significance of basic research when it comes to — I even think about the child who President Trump honored in his congressional address, a young man, child, who has cancer, pediatric cancer.

EMMA COURTNEY: Yeah. So, the National Institutes of Health fund a lot of [01:51:00] basic research that’s really critical in providing kind of the scaffold for these treatments later on. And so, when we’re looking at cuts to the NIH, we’re looking both at cuts to the workforce and the opportunities available to scientists, but we’re also looking at kind of the impact long term of losing these basic science projects that really have the opportunity to drive cures for people like individuals with cystic fibrosis and cancer. And a lot of these, they’re not — it’s incremental steps over time, is how science works. And so, the basic research, it might not seem immediately impactful all the time, but as you compound these findings over years and you have scientists continually working to find cures, things do happen, and we get to these treatments that are very transformative for the people with these diseases.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently announced that HHS would no longer allow public comments in the rulemaking process, ending a policy of a half a century [01:52:00] to involve public opinion in HHS decisions. Your response?

EMMA COURTNEY: I think it’s very important to have the input of scientists and people who have personal interest in these topics. I think their comments are really useful in making sure that our policies are informed by science and rooted in evidence and have the ability to really drive progress. I think when we have kind of a unilateral decision-making power, we’re maybe losing out on perspectives that are really critical and just making sure that science is able to help the people that need it most.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Emma, I also wanted to ask you about scientists around the world and warnings your institutions, whether we’re talking about universities or independent labs — in our next segment, we’re going to talk about a young former graduate student who has a green card, has just been taken by ICE. We’re not sure where he is. But the warning that was put out to people on visas around the world who work at — in your world, at [01:53:00] scientific establishment in this country?

EMMA COURTNEY: Yes. So, we had a lot of discussions leading up to the event on March 7th about how we could best include international scientists and not put a target on their back, because we know that there’s currently this order where visas can be canceled, and you can kind of face repercussions that you would not face as a citizen if you’re on a visa. And so, we wanted to make sure that there’s a way to productively engage. But I think it became even more severe when we did have that post put out, where President Trump did allege that you, if you partook in an illegal protest, you could face significant repercussions to your visa.

And so, I think that is harmful right now, because science is such an international endeavor. America is such a land of opportunity for young scientists. It brings so many scientists over from other countries for training, that then go on and make significant impacts, both in the U.S. and in their home communities and worldwide. And so, we really want to make sure, as well, within Stand Up for Science, that we are speaking to the perspectives [01:54:00] of international students and those who might not currently have a voice because of these orders.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Where do you go next? Where is this rally that attracted thousands across the country?

EMMA COURTNEY: That’s what we’re currently trying to figure out. And so, we are a group of early-career scientists. None of us have done significant political organizing in the past. And so, we’re kind of taking a step back and looking at what matters to people right now, what are the best places. We want to make sure that we’re taking into account all perspectives, because we are right now — this was something that was put together very quickly. It had impact. It has momentum. And now how do we use that to really drive change

Reproductive Rights Crackdown: Planned Parenthood CEO on Supreme Court Case, Title X & More - Democracy Now! - Air Date 4-4-25

ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Planned Parenthood is a health system that literally sits in the middle of the public health system and tries to strengthen it. Many patients that come to Planned Parenthood, we are the first point of entry into the healthcare system broadly. And the fact that Governor McMaster would want to deny patients access to care, [01:55:00] when, you know, many times we are the only safety net — the safety net of the safety net — there providing care, just seems completely bonkers to us, as well.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: And talk about what that care is. It goes way beyond abortion.

ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Oh, of course it goes way beyond abortion. It is STI testing. It is access to contraception, wellness exams, breast cancer screenings, gender-affirming care — everything that someone would need to live a full and free, sexually healthy life. And I think that, you know, again, in many cases, it is — there’s primary care being provided in Planned Parenthood health centers. It is just basic healthcare. And to have a state try to deny that is what this case is about, using levers like Medicaid.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Already South Carolina bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy?

ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Correct.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: Can you talk about Texas? In 2021, Texas terminated Planned Parenthood from its state Medicaid program. [01:56:00] Talk about this precedent and also what it means if the conservative-majority Supreme Court rules in favor of South Carolina.

ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Yes, so, you know, look, we have states that have taken various measures to attack Planned Parenthood and remove us from their state Medicaid system. And the impact of that, again, is on the patients, right? This isn’t about Planned Parenthood. This is about whether or not the patients have the right to use their health insurance in order to get access to the care of their choice, of their choosing, from their provider.

You know, what will happen if the Supreme Court decides to rule in favor of South Carolina is that more states will act like South Carolina and Texas. Many of those states that have enacted the most restrictive abortion bans will very likely try to remove Planned Parenthood from its ability to — or, patients’ ability to [01:57:00] use Medicaid to go to Planned Parenthood. So it could have very devastating consequence on the patients throughout those states and their ability to get high-quality care that we believe they deserve.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: And can you explain what the powerhouse Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom is? This is the group that brought the case against Planned Parenthood in South Carolina.

ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Yes. So, this is, you know, a group that — should be no surprise — was incorporated in Amarillo, Texas, so that anytime they can bring a lawsuit, they can go directly to Judge Kacsmaryk, who is the only federal judge in the Northern District of Texas, a very friendly anti-abortion judge that, you know, has clearly opened his court to these kinds of cases and supporting them. We are before that court right now on a false claims case, a meritless case where [01:58:00] not only has Texas kicked Planned Parenthood affiliates out of the Medicaid program there, they are also suing to recoup resources back to the state for all of the other services that have been provided, in a bogus lawsuit that is intended to try to bankrupt Planned Parenthood. And I think that, you know, we are watching just a patchwork of very Christian nationalist and anti-abortion organizations work with this, you know, new structural advantage that they have, both with the administration as it currently stands, the Supreme Court, and the kind of patchwork of a judicial system that has been coopted by right-wing judges.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: The Trump administration is withholding tens of millions of dollars from nine Planned Parenthood state affiliates that provide contraceptives and [01:59:00] other vital reproductive care, predominantly to low-income and people of color. The providers received notices this week stating their Title X funding was being temporarily retained due to “possible violations,” they said, of Trump’s policies against DEI — diversity, equity and inclusion. Health and Human Services has given the providers, which operate dozens of clinics nationwide, including in Indiana and Kentucky, 10 days to comply with Trump’s demands to eliminate DEI initiatives. In a letter, HHS pointed to mission statements and other public documents that highlight the clinics’ commitment to Black communities as supposed evidence of their noncompliance. Alexis McGill Johnson, you’re the CEO of Planned Parenthood. Your response?

ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: I’m a CEO of Planned Parenthood. I am a Black woman. I am, you know, someone who cares deeply about reducing [02:00:00] disparities in healthcare in communities, as we all should. I can’t think of any American who would believe that the color of your skin should dictate what kind of care you get. And that is what Planned Parenthood stands for. No matter who you are, no matter where you live, no matter what your ZIP code is, no matter how you identify, no matter your documentation status, we are there to serve you and ensure that you get high-quality, time-sensitive care.

And so, I think about the work that Planned Parenthood providers do every day, the way they have been able to leverage a critically important, long-standing program like Title X to fund access to contraception and support communities. And the idea that the Trump administration would take those resources away, to suspend those resources because Planned Parenthood is committed to improving health outcomes in community, that is essentially [02:01:00] what they are saying. What they are not saying is that this is, you know, just another one of the dozens of attacks that Planned Parenthood is facing, as people who want to use any means that they have to deny access and resources to Planned Parenthood because they are trying to advance their anti-abortion agenda.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: So, are you sticking with DEI at these clinics, or the clinics?

ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: You know, each affiliate is going to make their decisions about how they enact improvements to health outcomes. But at our core — right? — at our core, reducing disparities, health disparities, in community is what we do. And I think that’s really important for us to move away from, you know, just these trigger words like ”DEI” and actually talk about what those words mean and what they mean in practice for community — right? — ensuring we have representation of [02:02:00] everyone, so that we have people who speak the same languages as our patients, so that we can give them the best care, that we have an ability to improve outcomes and ensure that people are getting the right resources to do so, and that, you know, everyone is actually seen — not just seen by a doctor, but literally seen for who they are and what they want. That is what I have in my healthcare system I go to. I know when I walk into my provider, they know who I am. They are able to see me and understand my particular needs. And I think everyone in America deserves that. And I can’t imagine that this administration would be very popular in trying to deny other Americans that same right.

AMY GOODMAN - HOST, DEMOCRACY NOW!: And finally, we just have a minute, but with Planned Parenthood under assault, you have also had a lot of victories. Among them, in Wisconsin, Judge Susan Crawford, who once represented Planned Parenthood as an attorney, trounced Brad Schimel, the [02:03:00] judge who was funded by, among others, the richest man in the world, Elon Musk. The significance of this, and other victories that you consider so important at this very fraught time?

ALEXIS McGILL JOHNSON: Oh, Wisconsin was such a shot in the arm, I think, for this movement, for so many movements, because I think what it shows is that the good people of Wisconsin, the good people of America do not want to be bought. They want to do what is right. They want the ability to make decisions, to continue to vote for freedom and to ensure that their representation reflects that in their state. And I think, you know, all of us looking to Wisconsin have a lot of hope about what is possible right now as we fight back with this administration. You know, I also think — I mean, and the practical implications of that, right? We have a state that has voted in support of reproductive freedom, and to have a state Supreme Court to affirm that is going to be really important. It’s also going to be really [02:04:00] important as we approach, you know, in five years, the year 2030 and we hit a redistricting year, and so that we’re able to kind of start to fight back structurally in the space that we are in.

I’d also point you to Missouri, Amy. The people of Missouri voted to enshrine — to actually flip a ban, abortion ban, in November. And it’s only been within the last month that the Missouri clinics have been able to provide access to abortion, because even when you win, you still have to defend it with the state AG and the statehouse, that may not be favorable. So, that is the work that we have to be reminded of, that even when we win, we have to defend those wins fiercely and remind — remind these electeds what we want and who we are and how powerful we will be to ensure that we get to maintain our freedoms.

882 - Personnel Cuts at the CDC - Public Health On Call - Air Date 4-13-25

DR. DAVID FLEMING: CDC historically has also been a, a training ground to train future epidemiologists, future [02:05:00] scientists, future leaders in public health. The IS would program would be an example of that, but many of the public health staff and leaders in state and local health departments around the country have on their resume having worked at CD, C and EIS.

LINDSAY SMITH ROGERS: Let's talk about what's been happening recently. Can you give us an overview?

DR. DAVID FLEMING: Sure. It's difficult to, to give an overview view because it's complicated. But with the new administration first, about a month ago, uh, it was a broad restructuring firing of staff at CDC, mostly younger staff, for example, in training programs like I was talking about.

But acutely on April 1st. In addition, HHS took a very serious step of announcing about 2,400 positions lost at CDC across the breadth of the agency. Most people think of CDC as an agency that works in infectious diseases, and it does, but CDC is actually the [02:06:00] nation's public health department and so has.

Longstanding programs and chronic diseases and environmental health issues and birth defects, disabilities, and it's really in that part of CDC, that non-infectious part that apparently most of these reductions were made, although built as efficiency gains. It's very difficult to, to understand that because essentially entire programs, including the scientists, the laboratorians were eliminated.

It's frustrating and I'm. Um, difficult to talk about the specifics because this has also been done unfortunately, with a bit of secrecy, and so there's been no official list public by HHS of the exact positions that have been eliminated. And instead that's had to be compiled mainly by those individuals who were affected, who have spoke it up.

And so some of what you and I are gonna have to deal with today is not knowing with precision. All of the [02:07:00] information we'd like to know.

LINDSAY SMITH ROGERS: What do we know about people and programs that have been cut at at this point? Like what is clear?

DR. DAVID FLEMING: So it, it does seem like CDC is divided into what are called centers.

That's the subdivisions of CDC. It does seem like about 75% of the centers have been profoundly affected by this with a somewhat. On its face, random dissolution of programs. For example, in the Environmental health center, the lead poisoning programs that respond to lead crises around the country seem to have eliminated.

The asthma program has been eliminated. The. Workers that investigate cruise ship outbreaks have been eliminated. Another part of CDC is called niosh. It's the National Institute Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, dealing with worker safety issues. Almost all of that appears to have been eliminated except for one congressionally mandated piece that deals with the World Trade Center, a huge loss, [02:08:00] tobacco, uh.

Leading cause of chronic disease death in this country. The tobacco part of CDC, the Office for Smoking and Health seems to have been eliminated. The sexually transmitted disease Labor laboratory at CDC that is unique in its ability to identify new sexually transmitted disease pathogens. Those laboratories have been fired a fair amount of HIV.

Appears to have been eliminated the HIV prevention programs, both domestically and globally, as well as, uh, apparently much of the work that goes on with HIV surveillance, tracking the HIV epidemic around the country, oral health programs, a fair amount of birth defects and disability. Let me go on though to say that beyond just these reductions in personnel, I think one of the things that's most frightening to me is that.

Much of the leadership of CDC that was present two weeks ago is no longer there. [02:09:00] When you start going through the different centers, even though centers have not been eliminated, the center directors have been told they need to resign or be. Reallocated to the Indian Health Service in Alaska or somewhere.

So that applies to the center directors for the HIV, tb, STD, and Viral Center for the Chronic Disease Prevention Center for our CDC D'S Global Health Center. Those are all gone. The NIOSH Center director has been asked to lead the, the director for the Center for Forecasting, analy Analytics has been asked to leave.

The Birth Defects Center director has been asked to leave, and that's on top of. Resignations that occurred in the week before this happened, including the center director that governs all the infrastructure monies that go out to state and local health departments. The principal deputy at CDC resigned.

The injury and Environmental center directors are still there, but their centers have been devastated by this, and [02:10:00] so their ability to lead is much more diminished. In addition to the center directors, the immediate office of the director that essentially provides the leadership for CD. C has also had.

Most of its leaders leave, including the leader for the Office of Communications. Communication activities had now been centralized at HHS. The Chief operating Officer has left the head of the Office of Equity, has left the Office of Program Planning and Evaluation Director resigned. The Office of Science Director resigned.

The Washington DC office of CDC Director was asked to leave Freedom of Information Act. Alito was asked to leave. I could go on, but I, I. Making the point that this is really almost a decapitation of leadership at CDC that has accompanied these reductions.

LINDSAY SMITH ROGERS: That's a really important point because I know we see these big numbers of, of layoffs, which in and of themselves are shocking, but to know that so many of them layoffs, resignations, people being asked to leave are in [02:11:00] leadership positions is really crippling for an organization of this size.

I mean, having worked with them for so long, what can you tell us about the, the expertise that's now been lost?

DR. DAVID FLEMING: Well, it's, it's irreplaceable. The expertise that, that's lost and I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this, but absolutely no warning was given to leadership that this was about to happen, and leaders were asked to leave within 24 hours of being no notified, and so there was no opportunity for planning.

I. For continuity of operations for the agency to say, with these drastic leadership departures, what is it that we need to be doing to make sure that we can continue to do, to do our jobs, that that opportunity is gone as well as the expertise that could have informed how CDC could best manage these reductions.

So it's a crisis. It's a crisis in the agency right now.

LINDSAY SMITH ROGERS: Let's talk a little more broadly. You know, you mentioned before that the CDC C'S core mission [02:12:00] is, you know, infectious disease surveillance and, and, and some of the, some of what has been talked about is that the CDC is returning to its mission. That was in some of the communication that went out.

Where does that fall in all of this?

DR. DAVID FLEMING: Yeah, I, I, I, um, respectfully would, would. Disagree with your notion that C'S core mission is infectious disease control. That's how CDC was founded back in the 1940s. But the CDC today, the CDC stands for centers, plural for disease prevention and control, and much if not most of what CDC does that's most important to the American public is not in infectious disease outbreak identification. Instead, it's work across the range of those conditions that are causing the most preventable death and disability in this country. Infectious disease is certainly important. That's how CDC tends to get in the news.

But most of what they do is quietly working with state and local health departments and [02:13:00] universities around the country attacking the leading causes of death and. Chronic diseases, tobacco, obesity in environmental issues like lead poisoning and asthma and birth defects and disability and injury and violence prevention.

That's really the value add that CDC has. I'm not trying to say the infectious disease part isn't important. It is, but equally, if not more important is the rest of what CDC does, and that's been most affected by these reductions.

LINDSAY SMITH ROGERS: What are you most concerned about?

DR. DAVID FLEMING: Well, this is really the worst damage that has been done to public health in this country since I've been working, and I worry most about two things.

Number one, I. Unless reinstated, it's irretrievable. And so we are facing a crisis not only today, but indefinitely into the future. And many of the effects are gonna take time [02:14:00] for their effects are known. It's gonna take a while for smoking rates to start going up or for blood poisoning to start affecting kids again.

But that is coming and I'm concerned about that. Second, and equally important in my mind, you know. Public health in this country is a joint federal, state, local responsibility. But I don't think that most people realize that over three quarters of CDC D'S budget goes out to state and local health departments all around the country to universities, to community-based organizations.

And so this is not just a. Problem for a federal agency. Instead, it's a problem for our public health system and for the ability of health departments to serve every community in our country to operate effectively and and to do what it is that people expect them to do. With all that's happening right now, with all the changes that are happening, it's difficult to get attention to any particular issue.

I would just, you know. Request that those people who are con [02:15:00] concerned about public health, who are listening audience, for example, um, to speak up on this, to, to, to let our leaders know what they think, in particular, to express concern about really the future of the public health system in this country that's been and is going to be profoundly affected by what we're seeing happening right now.

'The federal workforce feels tormented': Federal employees on the consequences of losing their jobs Part 2 - On Point - Air Date 4-1-25

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI - HOST, ON POINT: I just wanna play a little bit for all of you of one of the many things that President Trump has said about the massive reduction in the federal workforce. It's part of a push, he says, towards improved government efficiency.

DONALD TRUMP: We have to make our government smaller, more efficient, more effective, and a lot less expensive.

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI - HOST, ON POINT: This is the constant line that the president, that Elon Musk, that everyone associated with this really large reduction in force is giving, that the federal government is bloated, the size of the workforce is too large. It can get the same work done faster and more efficiently with fewer people. Emily, do you have a retort to that?

EMILY SPILKER: Oh yes. I [02:16:00] would say this, all of these ways of attacks of firing civilians and federal employees are not going to make the government cheaper in the long run. I would say.

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI - HOST, ON POINT: Why?

EMILY SPILKER: One aspect of the DRP is that position really ceases to exist, but what doesn't change is the size of our mission and the work that we need to accomplish every day.

So I wouldn't be surprised if they could possibly need to hire an outside contractor, which would be a lot more expensive than what we could have done as an in-house civilian.

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI - HOST, ON POINT: Okay. Arielle, same question for you. CMS is huge, right? Aside from the Department of Defense, Health and Human Services is the largest expense, essentially, other than social security, that the federal government has. Arguably there's room for squeezing some efficiencies out. What do you think?

ARIELLE KANE: Medicare and Medicaid are already very efficient programs. Overhead in the private insurance market is 15% to 20% of administrative costs for running a health care program.

[02:17:00] In the public sector it's around 2%. So you can already see that we are much more efficient than the private sector. There are ways to make things more efficient. But it's not through blanket, untargeted firings. First of all, I have now been paid for six weeks that I haven't done any work, because of how they fired me.

So that's not efficient. Secondly, they didn't give us time to do any sorts of handoffs. So I was working, and I had no opportunity to pass off the work that I was doing or the emails that were threads that were in my inbox to anyone else, before I lost access to my computer. So that's not efficient.

When I was working on a program that was intended to improve efficiency in Medicaid and improve outcomes, I know that Donald Trump and Elon Musk don't like to hear this, but to change public policy and to make it work better, takes time and evidence. You don't want to just [02:18:00] do across the board changes that you think might work.

You want to make sure that a policy idea does have the results it's intended to have. And so that takes time and expertise. And then once you know whether or not it's effective, you scale it, or you end it, if it's not effective. And in these large unconsidered cuts, we aren't doing things in a way to make them more efficient.

Passing legislation to reform the government to maybe get rid of some onerous, outdated reporting requirements or whatever. That takes time. You have to change the law to do that, and they aren't doing the hard work that requires. So I just don't think that what they're doing will make anything work better.

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI - HOST, ON POINT: I want to lean on your experience in the private sector before you came to work for the federal government. Because a lot of people look at what the three of you described about, the sudden notice, the immediately getting cut off from IT systems, et cetera. And they say, I've been through that a bunch of times working for corporate America.

That's just how it works. You get walked [02:19:00] into a room, if you're lucky and someone says, Nope, you are surplus to requirements, now you are being downsized, and they just walk you straight out of the building. So I think folks may come to this conversation with perhaps not that much sympathy on that front, just saying, federal employees have been insulated from the realities of the private sector for a long time.

And, welcome to our world.

ARIELLE KANE: Yeah, I get that maybe that's the expectation. I do think that I have two responses to that. I was working in public service, and the idea is that you're not working on behalf of a company's bottom line, but instead you're working on behalf of the American people to serve them.

There's like this social contract that's in place, is that in exchange for less money and less flexibility, you have stability. People make that trade off every day, because they value serving the American people. But when you erode [02:20:00] that contract, or that social understanding that we've long had, between the tradeoffs of working for the federal government and the tradeoffs of working in the private sector.

Why would anyone want to go work for the federal government? Because we already know that the opportunities are more lucrative. Yes. Maybe more risky, but more lucrative in the private sector. And I just worry that in the way that they're handling this, no one in their right mind would go work for the federal government, and that is a loss to the American people, not to me.

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI - HOST, ON POINT: Yeah. Yeah. Point well taken. Because one of the things that has long been thought about is that you want the best people to be able to do the kind of complex enacting, the kind of complex policy that the federal government is charged with doing.

Now, LG, let me just be blunt here. Because again, I'm trying to reflect on what listeners may be thinking. Why would the Office of Personnel and Management even need an office of communications? Like what does that actually have to do with serving the American people?

LAURA GOULDING: Yeah, I can understand on one hand where that might [02:21:00] be coming from, but the Office of Communications does a lot to make sure that the American people, the press, other agencies, other stakeholders know what our agency is doing.

Our agency dealt with workforce policy for the federal workforce, and that can be hard to understand. OPM is essentially the HR arm of the federal government, so we worked with concepts and products like health care retirement, and anyone who has worked in health care or retirement, or employment and performance management, that can be complex.

So we did a lot of work to translate that really complex policy and those complex actions to people, so they understood what their government was doing for them. In addition, when we would have questions from press, public, anyone who wanted to reach out to our agency to get more information, it was our responsibility to respond or make sure that we were working with the various subject matter experts to get that information and be able [02:22:00] to translate that for folks, so they know what's going on.

In addition, we had folks who worked to make things accessible. So folks with disabilities who may not be able to just listen to a radio show, go online to read the latest memo, or the latest policy. My team worked to make those accessible so that people with disabilities would be able to have the same access to this really incredible and important information.

Former Congressman Max Rose of VoteVets on Trump, Musk 'war on veterans' - The BradCast w/ Brad Friedman - Air Date 3-27-25

BRAD FRIEDMAN - HOST, THE BRADCAST: The Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday announced that it plans to lay off 10,000 employees.

As part of a major restructuring plan and shut down entire agencies within HHS, including ones that oversee billions of dollars in funds for addiction services and community health centers across the country cuts at those agencies like the Food and Drug Administrations Centers for Centers for Disease Control, national Institutes of Health.

And the centers of Medicare and Medicaid services will result in a [02:23:00] cut of some 20,000 federal jobs at the agency. The Department of Defense has already cut more than 17,000 probationary employees, though a federal judge has ordered that. It was done unlawfully by the Trump administration and its. Elon Musk Dobros and has ordered the Pentagon to restore those jobs.

The administration has said that the IRS will see layoffs of as many as 6,700 workers likely to severely impact the amount of revenue that the federal government will bring in. But few other, if any federal agencies are facing as many job cuts. As the Department of Veterans Affairs at the beginning of March, according to an internal VA memo, the new leadership under Donald Trump said that it was planning a reorganization that includes cutting over [02:24:00] 80,000 jobs.

From the agency that provides healthcare and other services for millions of American veterans, the memo instructs top level staff to prepare for an agency-wide reorganization this August to quote, resize and tailor the workforce to the mission. Revised structure, whatever that means. It also calls for agency officials to work with White House's Department of Government Efficiency or Doge, to move aggressively while taking a pragmatic and disciplined approach.

To the Trump administration's goals, quote, things need to change, said Trump's Veterans Affairs Secretary, Doug Collins, in a recent video posted on social media, adding that the layoffs would not mean cuts to veterans healthcare or benefits. Well, that seems like a lot of layoffs. Is it possible they would not result in loss of care or benefits to veterans?

This [02:25:00] administration is finally going to give the veterans what they want. Collins said in the video, president Trump has a mandate for generational change in Washington, and that's exactly what we're going to deliver in the va. He said, veterans have already been speaking out against the cuts at the va, where more than 25% of the VA's workforce is comprised of veterans.

But from layoffs at the Department of Veterans Affairs to a Pentagon Purge of archives that documented diversity in the military, veterans have been acutely affected by Trump's actions, AP Reports this week. With the Republican president determined to continue slashing the federal government, the burden will only grow on veterans who make up roughly 30% of the over 2 million civilians who work for the federal government overall, and often tap government benefits that they earned with their military service.

[02:26:00] Quote, at a moment of crisis for all of our veterans. The VA's system of healthcare and benefits has been disastrously and disgracefully. Put on the chopping block by the Trump administration said Senator Richard Blumenthal, the top Democrat on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. At a news conference last week, Blumenthal announced a series of so-called shadow hearings by Senate Democrats.

To spotlight how veterans are being impacted by all of this. Veterans are outraged. Said Senator Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat who's an Iraq veteran and former assistant secretary at the va. Quote, they said Donald Trump promised to watch out for them. The first thing he does is fire them. In fact, nearly six in 10 veterans voted for Donald Trump last year according to AP Vote Cast.

Yet congressional Republicans are standing in support [02:27:00] of Trump's goals, even as they encounter fierce pushback, including from many veterans. In their home districts, quote, they've cut a lot, but understand this essential jobs are not being cut. Said Congressman Ma. Mike Bost, the Republican chair of the House Veterans Affairs Committee during a tele-town hall last week, noting that he is working directly with the VA's secretary.

Uh, Doug Collins. We're all kind of wondering what's next said dan Foster, a Washington State Army vet who lost his job when the VA canceled a contract, supporting a program that educates service members on how to access their benefits and VA programs. Others are angry that they have been portrayed as dead weight and cut from jobs that they felt played a direct role in helping veterans get healthcare.

Democrats are already pressing their Republican colleagues to show their support for veterans in [02:28:00] negotiations to allow passage of a Republican government funding bill. Earlier this month, Democrats secured a vote to amend the package to include language that would protect veterans from the federal layoffs.

That amendment failed on party lines with Republicans voting against protecting veterans. Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona, who is also a veteran, said he was unsure whether veterans would shift their political allegiance or not, but he said it is at least clear veterans are quote pissed.

Last week, the nation's largest progressive veterans nonprofit organization, vote Vets launched a multi-platform six figure ad campaign targeting house districts. Around the country before next year's midterm elections, calling out Republican veteran members of Congress for being complicit and dodging their constituents.

As Elon Musk's [02:29:00] Doge fires veterans across the country, the ads according to the group will target Republican Congress members. Don Bacon in Nebraska, Jennifer Kiggins in Virginia, John James in Michigan, Scott Perry in Pennsylvania, and Zach Nunn in Iowa. The campaign includes billboards calling out the representatives for supporting Musk and the Doge Bros for slashing thousands of veteran jobs and.

It also includes 62nd video ads to run in those members, districts like this one featuring a group of veterans sitting in a circle and telling their stories of being downsized by Elon Musk.

VOTE VETS AD: I was at Barnes and Nobles with my two children, four and 10, and my husband. And I received a text from my coworker and he said, have you seen the email?

I I, I served in the military for over 33 years, just accepted a new position in the va. Come into the office. Fire up my computer and I come back and there's an email [02:30:00] sitting there for me. I knew then. I knew what was coming. I have not had a single negative performance review in my 10 years. It feels like veterans are being personally attacked by Elon Musk.

I did not put my life on the line for some tech bro, billionaire from South Africa to come in here and try to destroy our country. We are gonna bear a lot of this. A lot of this costs with rising cost inflation. I'm literally donating plasma to buy eggs and our Congress person does absolutely nothing.

Stop Elon's War on Veterans. Now.

SECTION C: MEDICAID & HHS

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally, section C, Medicaid and Health and Human Services.

RFK Jr. is doing Eugenics - Happy Pancake - Air Date 4-4-25

SKULLIE - HOST, HAPPY PANCAKE: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Of the Kennedy Empire is our newest United States Secretary of Health and Human Services. He's a Nepo baby. He's an anti-vax activist and a self-proclaimed brain worm landlord.

So naturally, I'm sure a person like him hasn't said anything worrying. Right. Every [02:31:00] black kid is now just standard put on Adderall, SSRIs, benzos, which are known to induce violence. Not true, and those kids are going to have a chance to go somewhere to get reparented to live in a community where there'll be no cell phones, no screens.

You'll actually have to talk to people. All right? A lot to unpack here. First of all. No, both parts of that sentence are lies and not based in fact or science. Second of all, whenever white people talk about re-parenting or sending children of other races away from their parents to be reeducated. This should raise some red flags.

I know we all feel inextricably bound to the hellish influence of technology in our lives, but gathering all of the black kids, taking them away from their parents, where God knows what is going to happen to them, where they will have no contact with the outside world, doesn't really seem like the best immediate solution.

In addition, this suggestion for black children on these medications which were [02:32:00] prescribed by doctors mind you being sent away to be reparented, uh, away from their families. Sounds eerily familiar to people who know anything about US History Residential schools in the United States were boarding schools designed to forcibly assimilate indigenous children into Euro-American culture, beginning in the early 19th century and continuing through the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

These schools operated under the motto, kill the Indian, save the Man. And the idea that by removing indigenous children from their communities, they would be healed from their quote Savage ways. The US government and religious organizations collaborated to remove native children from their families, prohibiting them from speaking their native languages.

Practicing their traditions or maintaining connections to those communities cut off not only from their families and their culture, but also the outside world. By the 20th century, attendance at these schools was often mandatory and indigenous families who resisted risked imprisonment. Many of these schools remained operational [02:33:00] into the late 20th century with some persisting into the 1980s and the devastating effects of which still impact indigenous communities today.

It's amazing that we still exist as Native American people. That was not the intent. You know, the intent was to. To destroy us as native people. Generations of Native Americans lost their language, their culture, and their spiritual practices. Survivors of these schools often struggled with PTSD, depression and substance abuse, contributing to cycles of poverty, addiction, and mental illness.

And the role of the US government and Christian organizations in the abuse of these indigenous children has led to deep distrust in these organizations. Understandably, and some of you out there might be saying, well, that's not what RFK said he was gonna do. We're gonna be frolicking in fields and picking our own fruit.

Yeah. I don't give a fuck what his intentions are. The road to hell was paved with good intentions. Mama, when you are talking about taking kids away from their parents for quote. [02:34:00] Re-parenting, you are taking away that child's cultural upbringing. You're taking them away from their community. And if the point is to take away their phones as well, how are these children supposed to defend themselves from any abuse that might take place?

They can't take videos, they can't document anything. And their kids, how are they supposed to hold adults accountable if there's no one there to vouch for them? And like, I mean, I hate to say the obvious, but why is he specifically targeting like black children? I wonder. First of all, black children are not the only children that are prescribed these medications by doctors.

Um, again, there's nothing wrong with your child being prescribed Adderall if that's what they need, but that's also like not the only section of children being prescribed these medications. Like he's just saying the quiet part out loud. But uh, shocker. That isn't the only worrying position that the current health Secretary has about black people.

Let's bring back that quote from earlier. Now we know that, you know, we should not be giving black people the same vaccine schedule that's given to whites because their immune system is better than ours. This was brought up [02:35:00] during his hearing before the Senate confirmed him and he defended it. He defended this position saying it's science.

SENATOR ANGELA ALSOBROOKS: What different vaccine schedule would you say I should have received?

ROBERT KENNEDY JR.: I mean, the, the, the Pollina article suggests. That blacks need fewer antigens, uh, than

SENATOR ANGELA ALSOBROOKS: this is so dangerous. So you get the same measles vaccine, Mr. Kennedy, with all due respect, that is so dangerous. Your voice would be a voice that parents would listen to.

That is so dangerous. I will be voting against your nomination because your. Views are dangerous to our state and to our country.

ROBERT KENNEDY JR.: I mean, do you think science is dangerous senator?

SKULLIE - HOST, HAPPY PANCAKE: But believe it or not, by saying it's science doesn't actually make it science. And this is why you should always check your fucking facts because the scientist that ran this fucking study and published the paper.

That he pulled this supposed scientific fact from, basically said that RFK doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Other experts say Kennedy's [02:36:00] response to Also, Brooks was based on a Mayo clinic study that examined racial differences in the immune response to vaccinations. But the study's author, Dr.

Richard Kennedy, who is not related to the nominee, told NPR that the data doesn't support changing the vaccine schedule based on race doing so he said would be twisting the data far beyond what they actually demonstrate. Guys, grandpa got out again, and if you haven't discovered this yet, the reason why this is so worrying is because this was the eugenics movement in the United States.

Again, not too long ago. The eugenics movement was a dark chapter in public health and social policy, and it has slowly started to creep back into the public sphere. For those that don't know, eugenics is the belief in improving the genetic quality of human populations through things like selective breeding and social interventions.

So this involves the cheeky little practice of getting rid of all the people with disabilities or mental illnesses or people that are poor or have quote, [02:37:00] undesirable traits, which just so happened to be all the traits of people of color and Jewish people at the time. Huh? I, I, I wonder why eugenics is like racism and ableism and classism had a.

Fucked up little baby. And this movement was popularized right before the Nazi rise to power and was later used as a tool for the Nazi regime, not only in establishing their racial policies and promoting a quote perfect Aryan race, but also included limiting medical access and vaccines to the groups they wanted to exterminate.

Since Joe Biden issued a sweeping vaccine mandate last week, right wing media and politicians wasted no time in deploying the Nazi comparisons, calling the move fascist. Totalitarian authoritarian and involving swastikas and the Nuremberg Code, there's only one problem. The Nazis didn't actually issue a vaccine mandate.

In fact, Republicans would've found much to like in the third reichs vaccine policies, which was very much in line with their current [02:38:00] recommendations. Above all it relaxed requirements for compulsory vaccination that had been in place in Germany for decades at that point, and went with a voluntary approach.

Instead, we even have records of private discussions of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi colleagues clearly showing that. Far from viewing vaccine mandates as the key to their genocidal goals. The opposite was the case. They knew that withholding compulsory vaccination and other German public health innovations would help kill more of the undesirable, inferior people who they wanted to rid from the world.

And I think the important thing to remember here is it doesn't matter what RFK says when he's enacting policies and stirring up vaccine speculation and anti-VAX rhetoric. These are the results that occur. Low income communities, communities with less education, these are the ones that are going to suffer due to anti-vax rhetoric.

Long-term, this has been his goal. Limiting vaccine accessibility has been his goal. He [02:39:00] literally gets paid. Millions of dollars to aid an anti-VAX rhetoric. He is making bank off of people suffering and dying when they don't get vaccines. Okay? First and foremost, vaccine skepticism is already higher in communities of color than it is in white communities, and part of that is because historically the systems of government have not protected people of color in the same way they've protected white people.

In fact, there's a long history of. Systemic and medical violence that has occurred against these communities, including things like forced sterilization. We've also seen things written into textbooks claiming that black people have a higher pain tolerance leading to black patients enduring unnecessary pain or being experimented on.

So we already know what he wants to do with black children, but RFKs, radically regressive ideas don't stop there. He wants people with drug addictions to go to labor camps disguised as what he is calling. Wellness camps. Now, some of you out there might not have any compassion for drug [02:40:00] addicts, and we would have disagreements about that, but you might be surprised to know what RFK Junior actually qualifies as drug addicts.

RFK considers anyone who takes medication for anxiety, depression, A-D-H-D-B-P-D, schizophrenia, and any psychiatric condition. A drug addict. So basically, if you take any regular medication prescribed by your doctor for a diagnosed psychiatric condition, that makes your otherwise difficult life easier to manage.

Sorry, you're a drug addict also. This is a quick reminder. In here that RFK is, uh, not a doctor and not certified in any capacity in the health field. In fact, he's been called out by doctors, psychologists, sociologists, and other medical and health professionals for not only being full of shit, but for actively spreading misinformation and direct.

Harming communities because of it. And while that he said that he doesn't plan on forcing people to go to these camps, he's part of an administration that also said they were only going to deport criminal offenders, and they're now going after permanent [02:41:00] residents and US citizens. So pardon me if I don't fucking believe you.

Republicans Move to Cut Medicaid. How Many Millions Could Lose Healthcare? - What A Day - Air Date 2-24-25

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: Health care policy is notoriously complicated. So to start this all off, can you give me a very quick primer on Medicaid? Who does it cover? How do you qualify and who pays for it?

SARAH KLIFF: So Medicaid is a major health insurance program in the United States. It covers about 80 million people. It is jointly paid for by the federal government and the states. And the way you qualify is by falling into a certain category. So Medicaid is a little different from Medicare. Medicare is the program for seniors. You qualify by being over 65. Medicaid, you have to have some kind of eligibility criteria? So you’re under a certain income, you have a disability, you are a kid under a different income threshold. You’re pregnant. There’s all these different eligibility categories. They vary a little bit state to state. They’ve changed a lot over the past decade. But basically you have to have some kind of need that the government has decided, yes, we’re going to have these people qualify for the Medicaid [02:42:00] program.

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: So it’s not just poor people, right? I think that that’s kind of the assumption, but it’s such a bigger program than that.

SARAH KLIFF: Yeah. And it’s especially grown over the past decade since Obamacare. One of the big things Obamacare did is it expanded Medicaid to cover anyone under a certain income. The very wonky threshold is 138% of the poverty line. I think that hovers around like 17, $18,000 a year for an individual person at this moment. And it also covers a lot of things. You might not expect, nursing care. Some people might be surprised to know that Medicare, the program for the elderly, actually doesn’t cover much nursing care. So a lot of people end up having their nursing care paid for through Medicaid. It covers children up to about four times the poverty line, so that’s definitely getting into middle class. It’s a really reaching program that’s, you know, covering one in five Americans right now.

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: And Medicaid has also been a political target of Republicans for decades. Why?

SARAH KLIFF: Yeah. You know, there’s a number [02:43:00] of arguments right now. And the ones I’ve heard kind of reporting in areas that supported Donald Trump heavily is, you know, a frustration with government dependance. The idea that people didn’t work for their benefits. You know, in the United States, we have a health insurance system where typically you get your health coverage at work. So I do hear this argument in kind of Republican circles about, you know, these people aren’t working. Why should they be getting this coverage and that they’re just kind of relying on a government handout? Versus doing the work they should be doing to get a health insurance plan.

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: Yes. Those babies got to get them in the mines.

SARAH KLIFF: Yeah. I mean, one thing I would even add about the adults on Medicaid, the vast majority of them are working already.

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: Right.

SARAH KLIFF: They’re working. But, you know, maybe they’re a rideshare driver. Maybe they’re at a low wage job. They’re working, but they’re not earning enough, and they’re not getting offered health insurance at work, which is how they ended up on, you know, a government program.

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: Right. And yet, even as Republicans have vilified Medicaid, as you mentioned, as a handout as welfare, they’ve failed to make the [02:44:00] kind of drastic spending cuts to the program they say they want. Why?

SARAH KLIFF: They’re in a tricky spot. I mean, you see this this kind of fracture right now between Republican rhetoric and what they’re actually proposing. So there’s definitely in the House budget, they’re aiming to cut roughly $880 billion in cuts over a decade. That works out to about 10% of all federal Medicaid spending. But there’s also this kind of hesitance among Republicans because they know so many of their voters rely on these programs. You’ve had Steve Bannon out there saying, don’t touch Medicaid. You’ve got, you know, Josh Hawley, someone who’s not known for his liberal politics, saying, don’t touch Medicaid. And I think it boils down to the fact it’s really hard to claw back benefits. We absolutely saw this during the Obamacare repeal debate. Once people are using a program and it turns out Medicaid is actually very well liked, the people on Medicaid give it very, very favorable remarks. That makes it really tough for legislators to, you know, just take 10% of the spending [02:45:00] away on a program like that.

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: Yeah. Let’s let’s get into the budget. How are they looking to get those major savings from Medicaid?

SARAH KLIFF: Yeah, I mean, that’s a wonderful question. And I would like better answers to. All we have right now is kind of a list of proposals they’re thinking about. One of the ones I’m pretty sure you’re going to see pass this Congress is a work requirement, basically requiring people on Medicaid to file paperwork showing that they’re working, or that they’re looking for a job in order to earn benefits.

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: But you mentioned that most people on Medicaid are working. So it feels like that’s not going to get you to 880 billion. That just is a thing that sounds good.

SARAH KLIFF: Well it’s well it definitely doesn’t get you to 800. It does get you to about 100 billion. We’ll get, you know, the small share of people who are not working might no longer have Medicaid, but there’s also just going to be some natural attrition, right? When you put up more things you have to do and forms you have to fill out, you’re going to see people fall off of Medicaid. When you’re looking for those big cuts, like when you really need to get 880 billion out of the program. There’s kind of two that jump out at me as the ones that would get you there. One that’s really floating around. [02:46:00] We’re working on a story about it right now is dialing back the funding for Medicaid expansion. This is part of Obamacare that expanded Medicaid well beyond the populations, you know, traditionally covered. People who are disabled, who are pregnant, children in low income households to anyone who earns less than a certain amount. And you can, you know, shave about I think it’s about 500 billion out of Medicaid spending by reducing the funding for that specific program. So that’s kind of getting you there. The other big one, it’s circulated in conservative circles for a year, is doing some kind of cap on Medicaid spending. Sometimes, like a per capita cap, that is a certain amount you get for each beneficiary. That would be a really big change from how Medicaid works now, where there’s no limits on a per person spending. You get the medical claims you pay them. This would put a firm limit that could be a pretty big cut. It all depends on like where you set that, you know, ceiling for spending, how big of a cut that one becomes. But those are ones kind of [02:47:00] circulating in the mix right now.

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: Yeah. I was thinking about how during Trump’s first term, he saw some of his lowest approval ratings ever around the time he tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. I mean, his approval rating was lower after the failed ACA repeal than it was after the insurrection. So why do you think that was the thing that voters seemed to really hammer him for?

SARAH KLIFF: I think it’s personal, right. You know, more personal than the insurrection is the idea like, oh, I’m not going to be able to go to the doctor. I’m not gonna be able to take my kids to the doctor. I’m going to have to think about, do I have the money to actually see someone? I think it just really hits people in a very deep, personal way that a lot of issues don’t. So even though you have this big lofty, you know, $880 billion goal now, there is a true question with, you know, some of the worry you’re already seeing. The rhetoric around not cutting Medicaid about whether they can actually, you know, achieve those levels of cuts and kind of get [02:48:00] their party behind them.

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: Do you think that Medicaid is a harder political target than Obamacare is or was?

SARAH KLIFF: Yes, I think so, because it’s it covers so many people. Again, like one in five Americans are on Medicaid. It’s a huge middle class program at this point with the way it funds nursing care. And I think it’s less polarizing than Obamacare was. I mean, Obamacare always had Obama in the name and tended to kind of divide along party lines, whereas Medicaid, I think, generally enjoys more support among Democrats, but it doesn’t have that same kind of um political division built into it in the way that Obamacare did.

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: And I think Trump seems to know that because we saw evidence with his win in 2024 of a major political realignment happening along economic lines, he was able to make big gains with middle and low income voters. But those are the voters, as you’ve mentioned, who are more likely to depend on programs like Medicaid. What specifically could these cuts to Medicaid mean for those voters who maybe took a chance on [02:49:00] Trump?

SARAH KLIFF: Yeah, I mean, they could mean losing your health insurance. So there’s about 20 million people who are enrolled on the Medicaid expansion right now, and a lot of them are in red states. You’ve seen a lot more conservative states signing up for the Medicaid expansion since the last time Trump was in office. So, you know, these are places like Montana, Missouri, places that, you know, do not tend to vote for Democrats quite as much. If Congress decides to dial back the funding. It’ll be the states who have to come in and fill that budget hole. And it’s a massive, you know, billions of dollar budget hole. I don’t think a lot of states are going to be able to find those kind of funds. So it really could come down to, you know, not having health insurance anymore.

INTERVIEW: Tim Faust on Defending Medicaid - The Worst of All Possible Worlds Part 2 - Air Date 3-31-25

JOSH BOERMAN - HOST, WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS: Coming down the pike, 600 to $880 billion worth of cuts, and this is all part of. The broader plan to make America healthy again, I guess. Um, I'm wondering if you could speak a bit more to [02:50:00] what that plan is, how it's being executed and why it's being executed in the way that it's.

TIM FAUST: I mean, I wish I had a more like complex answer, but it's class warfare, uh, that's being built by picking on people who are most vulnerable and therefore whom they calculate have least of a chance of fighting back.

The budget calls for a $4.5 trillion tax cut, half of which, um, is funded by cutting back government programs. Half of that comes from cutting Medicaid or other adjacent Medicaid programs. They're making the gamble that people on Medicaid are too diffuse and too powerless to force a a, a vote otherwise, which is the same gamble they made with the a CA in 2018 and it didn't work.

Um, so, you know, that's my silver lining is that we were able to stop these, the a CA cuts seven years ago, and that model might work again for Medicaid. Realistically, you know, I, I anticipate some, there might be a cut of some sort, right? They do have unilateral power, so I think we're [02:51:00] fighting for a 10% cut versus a 1% cut.

Both of those are catastrophic, don't get me wrong, but it's the difference, be it. It's the difference in the lives of millions of people about whether to stay in these programs. And so the shape of the cuts are still to be, to be determined. There's a lot of ways they can work it through a lot of accounting tricks, a lot of implementation, a lot of architecture.

But at the end of the day, any cut to Medicaid kicks people off the program and closes facilities that depend upon Medicaid payments. Half of rural hospitals in the US are more or less underwater, and Medicaid's the only thing keeping them afloat. We already see like a, a wave of, of rural hospital closures and closures of hospitals and clinics in low income areas.

You know, people in, in rural areas and people in poor neighborhoods have a lot more in common, um, than, than, than they might suspect. It's the same forces acting in both either places with low volume of care or low income patients. Overly index on Medicaid to keep themselves afloat.

JOSH BOERMAN - HOST, WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS: Just for people who might not be entirely familiar with how Medicaid actually works, this is a [02:52:00] series of federal grants that are made to the state level, and it's generally up to the state in terms of how they administer those funds.

Right? So right. At the end of the day, these cuts are going to be administered differently in different states. Correct?

TIM FAUST: To an extent. That's a good thing to bring up. So. Let's contrast it with Medicare. Medicare is an entirely federally funded, federally run program. Everything that happens in Medicare happens in Washington DC and they take care of everything.

Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal government and the state government and is administered by the state. So in different states, the federal government pitches in a different amount. In Wisconsin, it's 60 40, 60% federal of 40% state. Um, in other places it's, you know, 70, 30, 50, 55, 45, et cetera. I think nationwide, it's like 69, uh, 21.

Uh, that's, that's the breakdown. So the federal government is targeting that 60% or in nationally 69%. Uh, that's the [02:53:00] money that that's gonna get cut here. But yeah, they'll, they'll say, okay, Wisconsin, typically we give you $6.6 billion this year. We're giving you $5.6 billion. A 10% Medicaid cut shakes out to, uh, $1 billion fewer from the federal government to the state of Wisconsin.

And in every single state, Medicaid funding from the federal government is the largest pool of federal money that they get. This is a massive part of every state budget because healthcare is expensive and there's a lot of. That's why I think we need a Medicare for all. Um, but this is like a massive chunk of federal money that states use.

And so in Wisconsin, at least, just 'cause I have those stats on top of my mind, the state government would need to spend an additional $1 billion just to keep Medicaid where it is now. And we don't have that money, you know, our entire rainy day fund is $4 billion. And there's a lot of other things pulling of that because Wisconsin is a emaciated state.

In New York, uh, the projected cuts would pull $10 billion from the, the, the state budget. Like these are massive cuts, even on a small level because of that funding program. And [02:54:00] so the federal government can say, okay, you know, we're gonna cut back that funding by doing A, B, or C. And then the state implements it, or the state has to kind of maneuver around, um, the, the, the avenue set there.

A lot of this is frustratingly ambiguous because things haven't been determined yet. They kind of, like the dog caught the car and said $880 billion, which is important note is over a 10 year period, which is about how much Medicaid spends per year, $880 billion. Um, and now they gotta figure out how to, how, how to do that math.

And I don't think they figured that out yet because it's politically, they, they're learning that it is politically very dangerous, um, to cut Medicaid.

JOSH BOERMAN - HOST, WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS: Is there any particular reason that they've gone with 10% or is it just we need to do some austerity? So here's a number.

TIM FAUST: I would guess it's because, um, it's a nice, easy number.

Medicaid spends $880 billion a year, so cut it by 10% over a 10 year period. Um, it's just nice math.

JOSH BOERMAN - HOST, WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS: Cool. So. In terms then of the [02:55:00] immediate. Impacts. We've talked a little bit about what that could look like, rolling back, uh, particularly provision of care in rural areas, some of these specialized programs that deal with specialized populations.

Uh, what are other things that could happen as a result of these cuts?

TIM FAUST: Sure. So, I mean, they could open up the ability for the state to restrict who's on Medicaid. Um, Medicaid eligibility requirements were greatly expanded under the Affordable Care Act in 40 states. Um, in 40 states, if you have under 138% of the federal poverty line, um, as your household income, you are eligible for Medicaid full stop.

And then there's like bonus programs on top of that for disability children, et cetera.

JOSH BOERMAN - HOST, WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS: Is that just in Wisconsin or is that everywhere?

TIM FAUST: That's in all states. That's, uh, in Wisconsin. We don't have expansion in Wisconsin. We cap out at a hundred percent. Got it. And we're the, we're the most generous non-expansion, um, state.

Medicaid was rolled out as a, as part of, uh, assistance for families with dependent children, A FDC, which was turned into TANF, uh, under the Clinton era, but it was like an extension of state welfare programs, [02:56:00] which is why this whole thing is run by the states. And for a long time, states could determine who was eligible and who was not.

There are two consequences for cutting Medicaid that are non-negotiable, completely like what's gonna happen? Totally predictable and unavoidable. People will lose their health insurance and facilities, which depend upon Medicaid to. Break even will close. Now, the particular manner by which it's determined who loses their health insurance and which facilities close is largely up to the conversations that are, that are happening now, and then the resulting conversations that states have.

We don't necessarily know the criteria, how that's how it's gonna shake out. One thing that's passed around a lot is work requirements. A model that has been shown to be ins insanely and effective and not cost efficient. Penalizes people, not who aren't working, but who can't handle filling out forms every month.

'cause they're pretty byzantine and there's no, it's really hard to, to submit those, submit those documents, estimated that work requirements would kick I think 5 million people off Medicaid, which is a lot. There is [02:57:00] no way to finagle a cut that doesn't result in a similar number of people losing their health insurance.

That's the breaks. And so the choice Congress is forcing states to make is. Either raise taxes, spend money they can't afford to, to, to match or cut their Medicaid program. That's it. There is no other option. There's no work around, there's no hack. And what that looks like is a thing we will discover together over the course of the, of the, the next few months.

JOSH BOERMAN - HOST, WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS: When I hear that, and I'm sure when you hear that as well, the immediate impulse in my gut is, oh no, and I'm afraid, and there's something I think overwhelmingly I. Disabling about the fear sometimes if you let it really sit there. And this is the thing that I come back to time and time and time again as we are facing down the various tendrils of fascism and the mundanity of the way [02:58:00] that, uh, austerity just sort of ruins our collective society.

And so when you find yourself in those moments, I, I, I, I wonder what is it that you do to keep yourself from freaking out?

TIM FAUST: That's a great question. I'm trying to figure that out myself.

JOSH BOERMAN - HOST, WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS: Yeah.

TIM FAUST: Um, I mean, I won't lie, I feel like shit basically all the time. Yeah. However, you know, you can do a couple of things with feeling like shit.

You can stay in bed and roll around or you can get out there and try to like, help build the thing that pushes back. Right. We are living in a declining empire. I think it's more or less irrefutable at this point.

JOSH BOERMAN - HOST, WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS: It's the tagline of our show case studies in the pop culture of a dying empire.

TIM FAUST: But you, you've gotta.

I don't know. You got to, um, it's, this is, this is life or death for a lot of people, but it's coming for us next. Yeah. You know, we're all temporarily healthy. We're all temporarily able bodied at some point. A car accident, a pregnancy, a, a rabid raccoon, fucks up your healthcare, fucks up your life. So fighting for Medicaid now is a way of fighting for yourself later.

Credits

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: That's [02:59:00] going to be it for today. As always, keep the comments coming in. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991. You can now reach us on the privacy-focused messaging app Signal at the username bestoftheleft.01. Or simply email me to [email protected].

The additional sections of the show included clips from Nightside, The Hartmann Report, CounterSpin, All In, The BradCast, Democracy Now!, Public Health On Call, On Point, Happy Pancake, What a Day, and The Worst Of All Possible Worlds. Further details are in the show notes.

Thanks to everyone for listening. Thanks to Deon Clark and Erin Clayton for their research work for the show, and participation in our bonus episodes of SOLVED! Thanks to our transcriptionist trio, Ken, Brian and Ben for their volunteer work helping put our transcripts together. Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for all of her work behind the scenes and her co-hosting of SOLVED! And thanks to those who already support the show by becoming a member or purchasing gift [03:00:00] memberships. You can join them by signing up today at BestOfTheLeft.Com/Support, through our Patreon page, or from right inside the Apple Podcast app. Membership is how you get ad free and early access to our incredibly good and often funny weekly show SOLVED!, in addition to there being no ads, and chapter markers in all of our regular episodes, all through your regular podcast player. You'll find that link in the show notes, along with the link to join our Discord community where you can also continue the discussion.

And don't forget to follow us on all the social media platforms. We're on BlueSky, but also moving into video on Instagram and TikTok with our new show SOLVED!, so please support us there as well.

So coming to you from far outside the conventional wisdom of Washington, DC, my name is Jay!, and this has been the Best of the Left podcast coming to you twice weekly, thanks entirely to the members and donors to the show from BestOfTheLeft.Com.

1 reaction Share

#1704 Weaponization and Capitulation: Trump vs Immigrants, Universities, and Media (Transcripts)

Posted by · April 18, 2025 2:01 PM

Air Date 4/18/2025

Full Notes Page

Download PDF

Audio-Synced Transcript

Full transcript coming soon!

1 reaction Share

#1703 The Broligarchy and the Rise of Techno-Feudalism (Transcripts)

Posted by · April 14, 2025 9:56 AM

Air Date 4/13/2025

Full Notes Page

Download PDF

Audio-Synced Transcript

Full transcript coming soon!

1 reaction Share

#1702 Destroying Education, Boosting Christian Nationalism: Rewriting the Past and Hamstringing the Future (Transcripts)

Posted by · April 05, 2025 12:00 PM

Air Date 4/4/2025

Full Notes Page

Download PDF

Audio-Synced Transcript

Full transcript coming soon!

1 reaction Share

#1701 Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way: Installing the Backbone Democrats Need (Transcripts)

Posted by · April 02, 2025 4:38 PM

Air Date 4/2/2025

Full Notes Page

Download PDF

Audio-Synced Transcript

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the award-winning Best of the Left podcast.

Love them or loathe them, the Democratic Party is the political institution available to the left to structurally take on Trumpism. But we need a whole lot of new energy and new commitments to the fight to turn them into an opposition worthy of the moment we face.

For those looking for a quick overview, the sources providing our Top Takes in about 50 minutes today includes All In with Chris Hayes, Kat Abughazaleh, The Majority Report, Bean Thinking, and JB Pritzker via the Human Rights Campaign.

Then in the additional Deeper Dives half of the show, there will be more in five sections: Section A. Failures; followed by Section B. Conservatives; Section C. Energy; Section D. Pushback to the failures; and Section E. History.

But first, we are in major promotion mode as we launch our new weekly YouTube show, SOLVED! That's all caps, exclamation point. We really need every hand on deck [00:01:00] we can get. So subscribe to the Best of the Left YouTube channel, Watch, Like, Comment, all of those things.

Our super supporters are even helping to train the algorithm by watching other progressive shows on YouTube before jumping over to ours, so that the system knows who to recommend us to.

So thanks so much to everyone helping us get off the ground during this critical time. We are really proud of the show and want as many people as possible to see it.

Now as a sneak peek, I'm gonna share a special piece of our most recent episode, currently only available to Best of the Left members, but it's very relevant to today's topic and I love it so much, I can't resist sharing. I don't think I've even mentioned it yet, but we're making songs for the show, and they've been coming out better than I dared hope. So definitely get ready for that after our Top Takes section today.

And now onto the show.

'Now is the time to break glass’: Chris Hayes reacts to Schumer interview 'Now is the time to break glass’: Chris Hayes reacts to Schumer interview - All In with Chris Hayes - Air Date 3-19-25

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: Some people think we are in a constitutional crisis, that there is a plan [00:02:00] in place to impose a dictatorship on this country that is being executed as we speak. And Senator Schumer does not think we are quite there yet.

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: If democracy is at risk, that's a little different than what we're talking about now. Even a shutdown, as horrible as it is, we'll all have to stand up and fight back in every way.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: I think actually this is useful because I do think just in again, in a genuine sort of good faith way, that there's a lot of people, and I think I probably count myself among them, who think that that's where we are right now. That the plan being deployed right now --

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: Okay. You may be right. I don't think so. We're there. I think we're getting --

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: You think we're not there yet?

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: Well, I think we're getting there and we have to be really vigilant. I just had a meeting today with the Judiciary Committee to decide how we're working through this, as it goes further. It hasn't been up to the Supreme Court yet, which would be the classic, if they disobey the Supreme Court. We're on our way there, God forbid. But I think we are. And we'll have to go at it and at it and at it. And that is different than anything else. [00:03:00] Different than anything else. It's a quantum leap different because our democracy is then 248 years of American democracy, the Magna Carta is out the window, and we will all have to take extraordinary action.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: I gotta say, I genuinely hope that Schumer's read on this is correct, right? But it makes it very hard to imagine a leader meeting the moment if they don't believe the moment is here.

For me, Donald Trump's intentions are really very clear at this point. He is in the process of attempting to undo the Constitutional Republic. His executive branch is in the process of overtaking, of reducing to subservience the legislative and judicial branches of the government, Congress and the courts, so that he can act unilaterally.

Even within his executive purview, the president is purging anything, anyone that falls short of pledging unshakeable, loyal to him personally and his personal political project, not the United States, not the [00:04:00] Constitution, and not We the People. I mean from the FBI to the Department of Justice, to the Federal Trade Commission, and on and on and on. These institutions, day after day, are being cleared of officials, career officials, who may favor the rule of law over Trump's wins, and they're being replaced with loyalists, all in open flagrant violation of the law, like clearly illegal.

As the New York Times reports, Trump is using the vast powers of the presidency to hobble his political opponents as well, including bogus investigations into Democratic fundraising platforms, threats to shut down nonprofit organizations he sees as oppositional.

And it's not just the government or partisan entities. Trump wants to dismantle all forms of public opposition to his power grabs, starting with all sources of independent authority. Any institution with credibility must either be bent to Trump's win or destroyed. That's the goal here.

I mean, again, he says this every day. He's repeatedly threatened independent media [00:05:00] outlets, including this one, for coverage he deems to be insufficiently fawning. He said that he thinks it's illegal, that people should be in jail. He is currently conducting an unprecedented attack on American higher education, including just today, freezing $175 million in federal funding to his own alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania.

He's openly defying the Constitution. He tries to deport a legal resident for his protected political speech.

This is it, man. This is, he's, trying it. I'm not saying he is being successful. I'm not saying that all is lost and they're gonna win and doom and gloom. But they're trying to do it. They're trying to get rid of independent voices of authority, purge them, fracture a pluralistic civil society. It is clear as day to so many of us, including, I will say, scholars of authoritarian regimes and especially -- and this is pretty important -- [00:06:00] lots of folks who have lived through these regimes, like people that have been in dictatorships in Latin America or recently in Hungary or in Turkey or in Russia. Listen to them.

And part of the issue, I think right now, particularly with Democratic leadership and the role they're playing, in Democratic elected politicians, stems from a legitimate concern which ties to how we got to this point. As we heard last night, there's a sense among Democrats, one that is not totally wrong and based in some of the data that democracy itself, preserving the Constitutional order, is just not a particularly salient political issue, particularly for people that are not super, super paying attention. That's based on the facts that Democrats did spend a lot of the 2024 election cycle hammering their messaging about threats to democracy and civil society, and then they lost the election, ultimately because voters, particularly those voters on the most margins of paying attention to [00:07:00] politics and news, were most concerned about pocketable issues, specifically the high cost of living, which is what they told every pollster. And so because of that, I think a lot of Democrats in power, and political consultants around the Democratic Party, have come to conclude that democracy is a losing issue politically, and we should -- they should -- talk about Medicaid cuts, for instance, instead.

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: Every day we are hammering away at Trump. And we have a simple, simple thought that unites the Democratic Party from one end to the other. He's asking the middle class to pay for tax cuts for the billionaires. It unites us all. Bernie Sanders like it, and my most conservative members like it. We're hammering away at that. Today it was Medicaid. Tomorrow's gonna be, in the next few days, it's gonna be tariffs. He's raising those tariffs, raising your costs, Mr. and Mrs. American, by $2,000 a year if he raises all these tariffs, so that he can use that money for tax cuts for the billionaires. He's cutting your education funds and so [00:08:00] your kids don't get a great education and your school taxes will go up for that.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: Now, don't get me wrong. I think that's good and clear messaging and it, we do a lot of coverage of the economic dynamics and, destruction of Trump here. I understand the instinct to stick to kitchen table issues. I don't think it's necessarily the wrong lesson to have learned from the election.

But again, the terrain has shifted too much since November of 2024. And I do fear Democrats are caught fighting the last war. All of those things you enumerated, which all sound like good politics to me, are the kinds of things that you'd be doing if Mit Romney were president, that there's this weird asymmetry right now, which is that --

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: No, because --

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: They are acting in this totally new way --

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: Yes.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: In which they are ambitiously trying to seize all power and create a presidential dictatorship in the United States of America.

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: Yes.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: And the Democratic opposition is acting like, well, if we can get their pool rate down a few points, then what?

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: No. No.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: Then what happens?

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: [00:09:00] Well, what happens is, look, first we get it way down. He's gonna have much like -- this worked in 2017, we say it didn't. Now it's a different government.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: It's different though. My God.

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: Oh, it is different. But healthcare, we beat him. Taxes, we beat him. And guess what we did? Guess what we did, Chris? We took back the House and won in the Senate and that got, and then we were allowed to do all those good things.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: Again, Senator Schumer understands political strategy and he's right about that history, and he is right that that type of resistance did work eight years ago. And in many ways, that first Trump administration just politically was a failure. I mean, it got a huget cut to billionaires, surprise surprise, and corporations.

But again, it just -- when you are paying as close attention as we are here on this program, here at the network, and I think a lot of you watching at home, it just does seem that now is the time to break glass, that it's not the time for politics as usual.

I mean, first of all, Trump is already underwater for the first time in his career on the question of the economy, which is interesting, and I think [00:10:00] welcome news both for Democrats and those opposed to what he's doing. The state of the stock market amid Trump's trade war is doing a pretty good job messaging pocketbook issues itself, along with the terrorists that are coming April 2nd. But more importantly, I would say, you don't have to choose -- I strongly believe this. It's all one thing. It's all one thing. The threat to democracy has become so much more tangible than it was when folks went to the ballot four months ago, in part because this entire Mad King act is wreaking havoc in every direction.

And with that in mind, a lot of leader Schumer's Democratic colleagues believe it's time to basically fight back harder, as Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut has been out there saying.

SENATOR CHRIS MURPHY: This moment requires us to break norms. This moment requires us to take risks. And I get it. A lot of my colleagues said, shutting down the government, being in a government shutdown, that's a risk. That hands power to Donald Trump and Elon Musk. But how on earth are we gonna ask [00:11:00] the American people to take risks for us, right? When there's a five alarm constitutional fire, and we need them to be out on the streets, not with hundreds, not with thousands or tens of thousands of people, but with hundreds of thousands of people, if we're not willing to show courage and take risks ourselves.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, ALL IN: He's right. Hundreds of thousands of people, that's what it's gonna take. Honestly.

I think now is the time to take political risks before it's too late.

Why Are Some Democrats Trying To Be Republicans？- Kat Abughazaleh - Air Date 3-3-25

KAT ABUGHAZALEH - HOST, KAT ABUGHAZALEH: Politico released this article about a Democratic retreat in Loudoun County, Virginia last month. Attended by staffers, consultants, electeds, and party leadership, this group laid out 20 solutions to win back the working class. And all of them, at least the ones listed in this article, are various middle fingers. Because instead of reflecting on where they went wrong in Harris's campaign, like not differentiating her and Biden at all, or courting this mythical Liz Cheney super fan, or putting a muzzle on Tim Walz, these Democrats have decided it's just easier to become Republican light.

Here are some actual quotes from this Democratic party "Victory Plan." "Democrats should ban far left candidate [00:12:00] questionnaires and refuse to participate in forums that create ideological purity tests." This is a pretty obvious dig at an ACLU survey in 2019 given to Democratic primary candidates. Republicans exploited it for culture war reasons. I do think that that survey was unnecessary and weirdly worded, especially for a primary, but I'm not sure it's like the main thing we should be focusing on. Also, this point raises a lot more questions than answers. What counts as far left? In this case, would it be the ACLU? Why do you need to control or ban these institutions? And like how often is this an issue? Are you spending all of your time doing ideological purity tests? When is the last time you saw your children?

Okay, this one's my favorite. "Democrats should also move away from the dominance of small dollar donors whose preferences may not align with the broader electorate." Excuse me, what the fuck? Small dollar donors? You mean the average American who can only spare like five to 10 bucks 'cause they're living paycheck to paycheck? [00:13:00] Motherfucker, that is the broader electorate. Also, if you think corporate money and rich people are the answers to small dollar donors, guess what? You're a Republican.

"Democrats should push back against far left staffers and groups that exert a disproportionate influence on policy and messaging." Once again, what's the far left here? Also, what groups? That phrase is vague on purpose. But here's a little secret: Behind closed doors, a lot of powerful Democrats and donors refer to the millions of diverse, complex lives that make up our country as "the groups." And if that feels dehumanizing, that's because it is. Also, if you think transgender people or Muslims or disabled people had disproportionate influence over the last election, I'd ask how they feel about that. Candidates should get out of elite circles and into real communities, like tailgates, gun shows, local restaurants, churches. Hypothetically, this could be good, but you have to wonder what they mean by "elites." Especially because we know big [00:14:00] donors, i.e. rich people, are good. As someone who monitors political and particularly conservative media for work, I can tell you what it actually means. Academia, artistic communities, "the groups," you know, the opposite of real America.

Also, how fucking insulting is this? These devs watched one episode of King of the Hill, didn't understand what the episode was actually about, and was like, yeah, we're going with that.

If you actually want conservative voters, don't cosplay what you think they are. They'll think you're disingenuous, because you're being disingenuous.

But if you actually wanted to make a difference, you could use some of those big dollar donors to provide physical aid to people who have lost their jobs because of Trump, who can't access their Medicaid. You could be the tangible lifeboat to the effects of the man they voted for. That would change far more minds than pretending that you know how to shoot a gun.

But this leads beautifully into our last bullet. "The party needs to own the failures of Democratic governance in large cities and commit to improving local government." This is a right [00:15:00] wing dog whistle, plain and simple. Conservatives constantly complain about Democratic-run cities, so that way they can spread racist narratives that increase police funding and surveillance. It keeps their audience paranoid -- just how they want them. For Democrats to be saying that is scary.

I do agree, we need to support and highlight local government way more, but to do that you need to look at large cities. 80% of America lives in urban areas. Those people matter just as much as the other 20%. This is not moderation. It's soft radicalization. We didn't lose to Trump because Kamala Harris was too woke. We lost to Trump because the Democratic party refused to change. They refused to have an actual primary to give voters another option besides Joe Biden.

And once Harris was in, they stalled her momentum, reigning her in so she didn't go too far left. And it's not because they didn't wanna alienate conservative voters; it's because they didn't want those goals -- those far left ideas -- to happen.

Most [00:16:00] progressive policies are wildly popular if you don't market them like an idiot. For example, the vast majority of Americans would love for their tax dollars to pay for the doctor. The vast majority of Americans want more than a month off when they have a baby, and to be able to afford childcare when they go back to work. They want their tax dollars spent on fixing roads and funding schools and paying for their parents' social security rather than bombs and corporate tax breaks.

There is no reason we can't have all of this, except for the fact that it takes a lot of work, and corporations would earn a little bit less in profit. And I mean, we can't lose their lobbying dollars, can we? This is why a shit ton of people in Congress, regardless of party, don't even try to make things better, and why even more people in the media demonize those policies.

If these policies weren't popular, people like Rupert Murdoch wouldn't have to spend billions of dollars to convince you that they're not.

The Democratic party is supposed to be the opposition party. Yes, we deserve more than a two party system, but we don't have that yet. So this means right now, Democrats either need [00:17:00] to step up or step down.

We don't need an opposition party that tries to accomplish the same stuff as the other guys, but a little quieter, a little more polite.

There is one way to move the needle here, and we have to do it while we still can. The answer is to primary every Democrat who is not doing their job. And guess what? You can do it. You'll either win and then you can run in the general election, and try to make your vision reality in Congress. Or you lose, and that sucks. But guess what? Most incumbent Democrats aren't used to primaries. And by running against them, you have jeopardized their access to power, which is the only thing the vast majority of Congress cares about.

WATCH: Crowd ROARS As AOC Lays Out Fighting Strategy For Democratic Party - The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder - Air Date 3-23-25

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: You're starting to see polls out of a real dissent within the Democratic Party. And to be clear, these polls, 40%, I think it is -- this is off the top of my head -- 40% want the Democratic party, to move towards the center. I think it's 29% want to [00:18:00] move to the left. And I can't remember the third percent feels it's just right.

MATT LECH: All those people agree with Bernie the way that, in my opinion, the center moderation stuff I don't buy.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Well, the thing is, is that it's very difficult to quantify this, right? Or to qualify it. I have spoken to people many, many times who have said I was either gonna vote for Trump or Bernie. I have spoken to people who considered themselves moderate Democrats during the Biden years who supported Bernie over Biden, and I'm like, you realize you're to the left of Biden? And they just didn't know. It's just --

EMMA VIGELAND - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: That paradigm is not applicable.

MATT LECH: Very difficult, but liberal means professional type of stuff. Like Hillary saying "too big to fail" won't stop racism. That's what people are [00:19:00] reacting against. I'm convinced in those polls. That's the "liberalism" that they're rejecting.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Let's put it this way. It's very hard to assess when you start talking about these isms. But when you start talking about issues, and you go issue by issue, there is absolutely no doubt that people are going to align themselves with what AOC and what Bernie are talking about.

The vast majority of Democrats, and I would also argue a significant, if not a majority of even Republicans, are going to subscribe to 80% of what AOC and Bernie say in this respect.

EMMA VIGELAND - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: But the base wants fight against the Republicans. That's what's the polling reflects.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Here's the thing. Okay. Yes.

EMMA VIGELAND - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: But, right now they're associating themselves with fight. That's a good thing.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Yes. Across whatever, however people identify themselves ideologically within the Democratic party, the one thing they all agree on is that we [00:20:00] want more of a fight. We want partisanship here. And partisanship is the way that you get to the win. That's it. You cannot, and you cannot pursue any of these ideologies, you cannot pursue any of these policies until you're in a position of power. And the one thing that is quite clear is that the Democratic party wants a party that is going to fight.

Here is AOC in Tempe, Arizona.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: And lemme tell you something. This isn't just about Republicans either. We need a Democratic party that fights harder for us too. [long applause]

But [00:21:00] that means, here's what that means. That means our communities, each and every one of us, choosing and voting for Democrats and elected officials who know how to stand for the working class. And Tempe, I wanna give you your flowers for a second, because you all have been working overtime to make that happen. In fact, one thing I love about Arizonans is that you all have shown that if a US Senator isn't fighting hard enough for you, you're not afraid to replace her with one who will, and win.

EMMA VIGELAND - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Hint hint.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Oh, that's not a hint. Well, actually, I wanna continue on with just one more segment about that. Before we do, though, she's clearly talking about Kristen Sinema. [00:22:00]

EMMA VIGELAND - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: No. She saw and then, but the hint is: me versus Schumer.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Oh. yeah, I guess. But she goes on specifically, hat tip to Mark Kelly and Gallego. And let's be clear here. Mark Kelly, and Gallego, at least the way the Gallego has been functioning since he's become a senator, are not terribly aligned with AOC's policies and Bernie's policies. In fact, they could be close to on the other end about, as close to the other end of that spectrum as you could find. So what's fascinating here is she is, and people have talked about her filing down certain edges and not challenging the supposed vow she made to not challenge incumbents, to get that position, the committee. [00:23:00] She is on an agenda to amass as much party power as she can within the context of this party, while maintaining as much of her agenda as she can. That's what's happening.

EMMA VIGELAND - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: And her status as a critic of the party, which when you heard in the audience when she said that, that there is a massive appetite for overhaul of the party and she's representing that. I feel she's dissected endlessly and I think there's a lot of reasons for that. And one of them does include her gender. But this past month has been a master stroke. First of all, the fact that Bernie is still kicking and making this a priority, we have to give him his ultimate credit.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: It's amazing the energy this guy has.

EMMA VIGELAND - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: He has way more energy than Biden, with just a flashback over four years ago to the concerns about his health. But there's been a lot of discussion of who's the successor to Bernie, who is it? And I think he's making it fairly clear who he views as at least [00:24:00] one of his ideological successors. And he's touring around the country with her.

And Bernie did very well in both times he ran, with Latino voters. What was the constituency that Democrats lost the most ground with? Latino voters this election cycle, arguably. They also lost a lot of working class support as well. Who does well with working class voters is also Bernie.

And so going to Arizona here at the beginning of this tour, I don't think is an accident. I think they're trying to reenergize that part of the party around the issue sets that both of them represent.

Why Democrats Are Failing Us - Bean Thinking - Air Date 3-19-25

AHSANTE BEAN - HOST, BEAN THINKING: Part of why Republicans have been able to run circles around Democrats is because Republicans are the ones controlling the narrative. Republicans say that they're conservative and that Democrats are on the left or even the radical left, but that claim doesn't match the reality because our entire politics has shifted dramatically to the right.

Conservatives want to conserve the current social order. They [00:25:00] wanna maintain existing institutions. They're not totally against change, but any change should happen carefully, slowly, gradually. Essentially, they wanna maintain the status quo. They value social stability above all else.

Republicans are a radical right wing party. They are fundamentally changing the social order, really destroying the existing order in order to suit their own interests. They're overturning decades of Supreme Court precedent. They're taking away civil rights and due process. They're violating the Constitution. And as for the left, there is no left in this country. There's no elected politician suggesting that we should abolish landlords or eliminate private property. Bernie Sanders is advocating for social democracy, which is a moderate position, and it's no wonder that 70% of Americans agree with most of his policies. Social democracy is the norm in every other developed democratic country. Bernie Sanders isn't the outlier, we are.

And let me remind you that Bernie Sanders is not a member of the Democratic Party. So really when [00:26:00] we're talking about Republicans versus Democrats today, we're talking about radical right-wing extremists versus conservatives. When you understand this difference between the narrative and the reality, you can understand why Democrats are reading this entire situation completely wrong. They're buying into the Republican narrative. They're believing, "Oh, Republicans are conservative and Republicans are winning people over. Therefore, people must really want a conservative candidate, so we should be more conservative."

False. Republicans are radicals. Republican voters have been taught to think of themselves as conservative, but don't be bamboozled by the branding. The substance of what Republicans have been pitching is radical change. That's what's attractive to voters. If you continue to run like a conservative, you'll continue to lose. What's worse is that many Democrats are believing the Republican's narrative as to why Democrats lost. Democrats and establishment media have picked up on "woke" and "DEI" as some sort of bad thing, as if we shouldn't try to include a [00:27:00] diverse range of people within society. They allow Republicans to redefine woke as a slur instead of saying,

"Yes, we are awake to the ways that the systems in this country are keeping people down, because we want justice and prosperity for all people, not just for those at the top. Yes, we are awake to how the zip code you are born into can limit your opportunities for success, because we recognize that fairness requires not just competition based on merit, but also a level playing field. Yes, we are awake to how the privileged and the powerful within our society are controlling the rest of us, because we want everyone to be able to control their own destiny. Republicans want you to be asleep to how the system works so that you can be more easily controlled. So yeah, stay woke."

Nope, they couldn't say that, because Democrats are not the party of making systemic change because they're conservative. Republicans, on the other hand, being radical, are building something completely new. They're building out new interpretations of the Constitution that say, "actually, yeah, the executive is supposed [00:28:00] to be a king." They're building out a new media ecosystem with influencers and content creators that can reach the public more directly. And while Democrats are stuck in the old diplomatic way of doing politics, Republicans have embraced to the new coercive way of doing politics, including mass deception that's been enabled by that new media ecosystem.

To be a real opposition party, you would need to both counter Republican coercion and build something new yourself that speaks to your interest. If Republicans are trying to say, yeah, the President should be a king, you would need to say no, power is supposed to be with the people, and then would need to work towards a system that is more accountable and more representative of ordinary Americans rather than representing corporate interests. But that would require Democrats themselves to be held accountable and to be more responsive to the interests of their ordinary voters, which means giving up some of the influence of their wealthy donors.

If Republicans are doing campaigns of mass deception through new media, [00:29:00] then Democrats would need to do campaigns of mass education through new media, teaching people, how does power actually work? How does the economy work? What's the difference between market freedom and human freedom? And why does human freedom require social equality? But that would mean that Democrats are teaching us to question their power structure as well, and it would mean they'd have to embrace the two-way street of new media, rather than the establishment media power structure where they talk and we listen.

The problem is that conservatism cannot defeat destructive radicalism. The conservative strategy is essentially non-action or very minimal action; decorum, civility. But civility is an agreement between all parties that will be civil towards each other. If one party is sitting still and being civil and the other party is determined to drag everything to the far right, then everyone gets dragged to the far right. Even if you wanted to stand still, you would have to have a countervailing force that [00:30:00] pushes things to the left. If you have an opponent that's decided to wage war, and you've decided that you're only gonna act in peace, then you don't get peace, you get demolished.

Now, that's not to say that conservatives don't have a role in society, they do, but they're actually best as a counterforce to progressives. Progressives who are always trying to push things forward and try something new and experiment and innovate. Conservatives are the ones that say, "Hey, slow down, not so fast. Let's be cautious." It's like if our society was our little house in the middle of a big wide jungle, the progressive might be wanting to go out and explore and find something new and maybe push us into new territory, but the conservative would wanna stay inside the house and say, "Hey, not so fast. It's a jungle out there. We don't know what's out there. Maybe they're blood thirsty hyenas that are out."

Now, that makes sense if there were blood thirsty hyenas outside of the house. But if the blood thirsty hyenas are inside the house then you've gotta get out. You've gotta push for something new because the current [00:31:00] house is not working and hyenas are tearing it apart. Different circumstances call for a different strategy. This is a time to act, not to cling to a false sense of security within a status quo that no longer exists. You can see this conservative approach in the entire Democratic strategy, which has been, "Hey, don't you like normal? Don't you like the stability of the status quo compared to how scary and dangerous Trump is?" trying to convince people that normalcy is better. You understand why Kamala Harris' campaign started off sounding progressive and talking about freedom for all people and talking about price gouging and picking Tim Walz, and by the end of it, she was running like a female Mitt Romney. By the time the establishment got their hands on her campaign, they had dragged her into running like a conservative.

You understand Elissa Slotkin conservative response to Trump's address to Congress, why she praised Ronald Reagan and not FDR. Why she talked about American exceptionalism and not justice or equality. You understand Chuck Schumer's conservative decision to [00:32:00] try to keep the government running as close to normal as possible instead of taking a risk and using the leverage he had. Schumer believes in the current system. Based on what he said, he actually thinks that the courts could save us, or that we'll have a chance to renegotiate in September, but we know how quickly authoritarians consolidate power. In normal times then maybe you play politics and try to wait for Trump's approval rating to go lower before you step in and play hardball, but these aren't normal times. We're already in something unpredictable and scary. His only choice was between chaos, where he had leverage and chaos, where he has no leverage.

You understand why a OC was denied a leadership role. Sure, she has a huge following, but that's not our established process for seniority. Sure, she's the voice that resonates the most with this moment, but she has to wait her turn.

But when change is thrust upon you, you have to adapt in order to survive. You have to be [00:33:00] willing to try something new. Now, what does that something new look like? I think it looks like progressive folks getting together and setting the agenda.

Why Im Running For Congress - Kat Abughazaleh - Air Date 3-24-25

KAT ABUGHAZALEH - HOST, KAT ABUGHAZALEH: Donald Trump and Elon Musk are dismantling our country piece by piece, and so many Democrats seem content to just sit back and let 'em. So I say it's time to drop the excuses and grow a fucking spine. I'm Kat Abughazaleh, and I'm running for Congress in Illinois' Ninth District.

Unfortunately, this party has become one where you have to look to the exceptions for real leadership as the majority work from an outdated playbook. We need a makeover, which means we need a vision that's bigger than what we've been told is possible. There is absolutely no reason you shouldn't be able to afford housing, groceries, and healthcare with some money left over, families should have free childcare, social security should be expanded, and our inalienable rights shouldn't be dependent on who's in power.

That means standing up to authoritarians. Not shrinking away when the fight gets tough. And while current democratic leadership might be fine cowering to Trump, I'm [00:34:00] not. I've spent my entire career reporting on the far right and being attacked by them as a result. In fact, just a few months ago, Elon Musk's lawyers deposed me here in Chicago to ask about my mean tweets. Look, I thought comedy was legal.

Again, this is all to say I'm not scared of standing up to these people. I know how they think and I know how to beat them. But my campaign itself is gonna be different too, because I don't wanna wait a year to help people. We're focused on meeting constituent needs with one simple rule, what if we didn't suck? My campaign and I would rather spend our money on book drives and clothing exchanges and public events than fancy fundraisers for rich donors. I also want my campaign to be as transparent as possible. That's why I'll be posting regular videos about the costs and steps of running for office.

We all deserve better. We deserve human rights and financial freedom and a party that stands up to authoritarians. We deserve to thrive, not just survive. And I plan to fight for those ideals both on the campaign trail and in Congress. If you wanna know more about me and what I believe, you can go to KatForIllinois.com.

I do need to mention [00:35:00] that campaigns cost money and ask you to contribute what you can, but I promise your donation will not be wasted on old ineffective tactics. No spammy guilt trip texts, no focus groups to test my views, and no grifty consultants who care more about their paycheck than actually winning.

It's time to challenge the status quo, and if our leaders won't do it, we will. I'm Kat Abughazaleh, and I'm running for Congress because it's time for Democrats to do more.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker (D-IL) Speaks at the 2025 HRC Los Angeles Dinner - Human Rights Campaign - Air Date 3-24-25

GOV. JB PRITZKER: I've always embraced the norms and rules of decorum that have governed our democracy for almost 250 years. And as a Democrat, I believed that even when the other side of the aisle was periodically tossing those norms to the side, we had a responsibility to try and maintain the guardrails of our public discourse. I maintained that posture of decorum through the first two years of my term, which were the last two years of Donald Trump's first term, and I maintained that posture through the entirety of the Covid Pandemic.[00:36:00]

Now, I also maintained that posture during the the four years of Joe Biden's presidency. But despite my own experience with this president back in 2019 and 2020 and my own warnings to the public on the campaign trail last year, I hoped that some part of Donald Trump's cruel nature would bow to two and a half centuries of tradition.

For 10 years, ever since Donald Trump descended that ridiculous gold escalator, to announce his entrance into the political world, I hoped that the Republican Party would seek out and find its better angels. Hope is a delicate and wonderful thing, a seed that we should never stop planting, but I won't let hope be a blindfold. And I won't continue to advocate that we wage a conventional political [00:37:00] fight when what we really need is to become street fighters.

Now let me be clear that the Trump administration and his Republican lackeys in Congress are looking. To reverse every single victory this community has won over the last 50 years. And right now it's drag queens reading books and transgender people serving in the military, but tomorrow it's your marriage license and your job they want to take. Bending to the whims of a bully will not end his cruelty, it will only embolden him.

The response to authoritarianism isn't acquiescence. Bullies respond to one thing and one thing only, a punch in the face. [00:38:00] But you see that starts with fully acknowledging what is happening. The meme lords and the minions in the White House are intentionally breaking the American system of government so they can rebuild it in their own image. They've shut down cancer research and HIV prevention. They've eliminated drinking water and clean air regulations, and upended the lives of veterans. They've said that a recession that Trump is likely to cause will be worth it, which is an assessment worthy of Trump University.

At its core, what Elon Musk and Donald Trump are doing isn't about efficiencies or cost savings, it's about giving their wealthy friends a tax break and making the middle class and veterans and public school kids pay for it. It's a few idiots trying to figure out how to pull off the scam of their [00:39:00] lives. Meanwhile, the scariest part is that they're using the power of the presidency to try to delight their base by targeting vulnerable people, people they think can't fight back. Calling them domestic enemies or claiming they'll ruin American culture.

Remember their slogan. Make America Great Again. Authoritarians, target vulnerable minority communities. First because they think that if they can conquer those that they deem weak, they can show everyone else whose boss, which is why we can't sit back right now and wait to see what happens. If we wait. I guarantee you the battle will have already been lost.

Donald Trump cannot take anything from us that we don't choose to give him. He and his henchmen don't want people to realize that, but now is the time for us to wake up. The good news is, every day I'm seeing more and more people across [00:40:00] this country realize that they don't want to give him much at all.

The question I get asked most right now is, so what can I do? What can I do? And I'm gonna be blunt about this. Never before in my life have I called for mass activism, but this is the moment. Take to the streets! Protest! Show up at Town Halls! Jam the phone lines in Congress. (202) 224-3121, and afford not a moment of peace to any elected representatives who are aiding and abetting Musk and Trump's illegal power grab. This is not a drill, folks, this is the real thing. Seize every megaphone you have. Go online and make a donation to the legal funds fighting Trump, to HRC, and to the candidates for Congress that vow to take this country backward.

And [00:41:00] don't limit your voice to the traditional political channels. Be like Lucy Welch. When JD Vance went to vacation at the Sugar Bush Resort in Warren, Vermont. Lucy, who writes the Sugar Bush Daily Snow Report, used her report to defend her diverse and wonderful community ending by saying, quote, "I am using my relative platform as a snow reporter to be disruptive. What we do or don't do matters." what we do and don't do matters. It matters right now more than it ever has before. When my future grandkids look back on this moment, I want them to know that my voice was one of the loudest in the room, screaming for justice and fighting against tyranny. [00:42:00]

And in the midst of this existential fight, this battle that seems to consume everything, well, let's not take the soul sucking path of sacrificing the most persecuted for that which we de to be most popular. I know that there are transgender children right now looking out at this world and wondering if anyone is going to stand up for them and for their simple right to exist. Well, I am. We are. We will.

I know that amidst the ongoing assault on our institutions, it is easy for people to fall into despair about our democratic system, but I love this country too much not to fight for it. You're here tonight because you do too. And when I think about that love, I think back to all the times in our history when our ancestors had to fight back against tyrants and racists and those who couldn't understand [00:43:00] that freedom and justice are our foundational promises in this country.

That small group of people that got together in Chicago to found this country's first known gay rights organization. It was called Society for Human Rights. It was 1924 and the flicker of light was brief. It only lasted a matter of months before social persecution and criminal prosecution bankrupted the promise of the group's charter. But oh, that flicker ignited something.

By whisper and by word of mouth, folks around the country started to catch wind of the idea, and eventually it ended up in the ears of a man here in California who later said the idea of gay people getting together at all was an eyeopener for him. Well, that man's name was Harry Hay, and a couple of decades later he went on to found the Mattachine Society right here in Los [00:44:00] Angeles. It was the first sustained gay rights organization in the United States. Harry said that he was first told about the Chicago group as a warning. That the idea was too dangerous and nobody should try to pull anything off like that ever again. How lucky the world is that Harry didn't listen.

When we say history repeats itself, it's not because the villains and battles don't evolve with the ages, they do, but the fight itself remains elemental. It's always men who would be king, blaming the suffering of the masses on those who look different, or sound different, or live differently. And since the dawn of time, the triumph of good over evil has relied on those who believe in empathy and kindness, summoning the steel spine needed to defend those values, that by their nature leave us vulnerable to attack.

This [00:45:00] community knows that. You have lived and breathed this fight for generations. Our hope, our hope, lies in this room. The fact that we are still here today means that we have the faith and courage that we will win the battles that really matter. Now, when I first ran for governor in 2018, I started every single stump speech by saying, and this will tell you why Donald Trump doesn't like me very much. I said, at the beginning of every stump speech, "everything we care about is under siege. By a racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic, Donald Trump". And I ended every single speech with a question to the crowd, "Are you ready for the fight?" So, here we are again. Everything we care about is under siege, so I guess I [00:46:00] just have one question for all of you tonight. Are you ready for the fight?

Note from the Editor with a VM on trans kids and a seek peek at SOLVED!

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with All In With Chris Hayes discussing fears of a looming constitutional crisis under Trump. Kat Abughazaleh critiqued the Democratic Party's recent retreat in Loudoun County, Virginia. The Majority Report discussed the internal divisions within the Democratic Party regarding their ideological direction. Bean Thinking discussed how Republicans have effectively controlled the political narrative by branding themselves as conservative while actually implementing radical changes. Kat Abughazaleh announced her candidacy for Congress in Illinois's Ninth District, emphasizing the need for Democratic leadership to adopt a bold vision. And JB Pritzker emphasized the importance of fighting against Donald Trump's authoritarianism, urged mass activism to protect the democratic values and vulnerable communities, and invoked historical struggles for justice and equality.

And those were just the top takes. There's a lot more in our deeper dive sections. But first, a reminder that this show is produced with the support of our [00:47:00] members who get this show ad free as well as early and ad free access to our freshly launched other show SOLVED!—that's all caps, exclamation point —which features our team of producers discussing a carefully curated selection of articles and ideas to then solve some of the biggest issues of our day In each episode. Members get the podcast of SOLVED! first each week, but we're also launching it on the Best of the Left YouTube channel where episodes will come out a week later, because we don't wanna keep all of our great ideas hidden behind a paywall indefinitely

To support all of the work that goes into both of our shows and have SOLVED! delivered seamlessly to the new members-only podcast feed that you'll receive, sign up to support the show at best of the left.com/support. There's a link in the show notes, through our Patreon page, or from right inside the Apple Podcast app. And as always, if a regular membership isn't in cards for you, shoot me an email requesting a financial hardship membership because we don't let a lack of funds stand in the way of hearing more information.

Now, if you have a question or would like your comments included in the [00:48:00] show are upcoming topics you can chime in on, include the alignment of Christian nationalism with the attack on education, and the realities of the system of techno feudalism we very much seem to be living under. So, get your comments or questions. And now for those topics or anything else. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991. We're also now findable on the privacy focused messaging app Signal at the handle BestOfTheLeft.01 or you can simply email me to [email protected].

Now, as for today, to be honest we don't get many voicemails these days. We used to get a lot. we don't get many anymore, which is why you don't hear me play them. Makes sense. Uh, but we got a heartfelt message in response to the recent episode on trans rights that I wanna share.

VOICEMAILER DAVID FROM GAITHERSBURG: Jay, this is David from Gaithersburg calling the, um, last episode in your section five on trans joy and resistance [00:49:00] of the, dehumanizing trans people is always the first step for fascists. I was so touched by the young people in that section. It brought me to tears. Jay, your curation is wonderful. Thank you so much. I just wanted to find out more about the kids. I wanted to know what things they wanted to do, what they enjoyed. Trans is so much of their life, but I hope there's so much more in their life. I wanted to know, do they like tennis? Do they like soccer? Do they like dance? Do they like theater? Do they like reading? Do they like school? Do they like math. Anyway, thank you so much for your curation. Thank you so much for your show.

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We thank David for that message. It means a lot. David [00:50:00] also sent along a very nice email along with that audio and mentioned that he'd be helping out with the YouTube show, helping juice the algorithm and all that. So we very much appreciate his help with that as well.

I said at the top of the show that I was going to share a bit of the newest show SOLVED!, all caps, exclamation point. And this bit I wanna share is currently only available as audio for Best of the Left members, but it will be coming to YouTube soon. And I mentioned that we've been making music. This is a relatively new idea that came to me, but it has been working out so well that I quickly decided to make it a permanent part of the show.

Now, none of us are musicians and we can't afford to hire any. So yes, I am using AI to make the music, but it's much more involved than just typing in a quick prompt. And rather than explain all the gory details, just know that the song you're about to hear incorporates a huge number of references from the latest episode of SOLVED!, because it's intended to not only be catchy and fun, possibly inspiring, but also to help listeners remember the key points we cover in our [00:51:00] discussions.

The main theme of this one is about fighting a wildfire, and this is a metaphor that came from Senator Michael Bennett from a recent town hall meeting where he was attempting to reframe the current moment we're in. He compared the actions of the Trump administration to a wildfire and admitted that our ability to put an immediate stop to their actions is a bit like trying to extinguish a wildfire from behind. You can't do it. It doesn't work. What you need to do is regroup, rethink, and prepare to build fire breaks.

Other references you'll hear include Schumer's pathetic attempt to chant "we will win", Bernie's call for a collective action with his catchphrase "not me, us", emphasis on the need for overwhelming civic action combined with labor and non-labor groups coordinating together, and the long-term vision of Plan 2028, which involves an ambitious strike across industries in 2028. And requires the building of power right here and now to get [00:52:00] ready. Here's the song.

SOLVED! SONG! "Firebreaks": In a time of wildfires, set by vengeful hands,

The old guard chants "We will win" while the flames expand.

The smoke fills the sky, and the air is hard to breathe,

We're trapped in the chaos, with no way to leave.

Oh, the fire’s raging, tearing through the land,

But we’ll build firebreaks together, hand in hand.

It’s not me, it’s us, we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for,

United we’ll rise, stronger than ever before.[00:53:00]

They say drown the government in the bathtub

While corporations gum up all the works

The poor and working people need a voice

But they keep dividing us with false choice

They've doused the forest, set it to burn

Fiddling with joy while ignoring concern.

But we'll hold the line, refuse to fall,

Our strength and spirit will outshine it all.

Through unions' strength and civic might,

We’ll break their chains and claim our right.

It’s not about one, it’s about us all,
Together we rise, we’ll answer the call—

Oh, the fire’s [00:54:00] raging, tearing through the land,

But we’ll build firebreaks together, hand in hand.

It’s not me, it’s us, we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for,

United we’ll rise, stronger than ever before.

Plan 2028, it's a vision, it's a call

Align the unions, the people, one movement for us all

We’ll come together in strength, with hope to guide the way,

And write a new tomorrow, born of what we dream today! Oh, the fire’s raging, tearing through the land! But we’ll build [00:55:00] firebreaks together, hand in hand. It’s not me, it’s us, we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for. United we’ll rise, stronger than ever before!

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: There we go. That's pretty good, right? So that's the kind of stuff that we've been up to over at SOLVED! We are definitely having fun and we are really proud of the work it's taken to get to this point and extremely excited. It's finally ready to launch, so please support our work any way you can. Best of the Left members are currently making it financially possible and they're still getting both this show and SOLVED! ad free, as well as getting SOLVED! about a week before the video goes out on [00:56:00] YouTube. So consider signing up at best of left.com/support. But in terms of helping get the show to more people, we would love if you would help juice that YouTube algorithm with all the views and likes and comments and subscribes that you can muster. Thanks in advance.

SECTION A: FAILURES

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue to dive deeper on five topics today. Next up, section A Failures followed by section B, conservatives, section C, energy, section D, pushback to the failures and section E history.

Schumer’s Cratering Support ｜ Ezra Levin - The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder - Air Date 3-23-25

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Tell us, uh, broadly the, the brief history of Indivisible and what you guys, uh, do.

EZRA LEVIN: Yeah. So we started shortly. We started shortly after the, the first Trump election in 2016. Um, look, we, we started both because Trump was promising a, a heinous agenda, and also because there was a, a vacuum at the leadership level of the Democratic party folks not recognizing that they needed to fight back.

So people all, all over the country were saying, gosh, what do we do? What [00:57:00] do we do? And my, my, uh, co-founder and spouse, Leah, we are former congressional staffers, we saw the. Impact of the Tea Party. We disagreed with their radiology. We disagreed with their violence. We disagreed with their bigotry, but we saw them organized successfully locally.

And we said, gosh, that's what we need. We need people organizing locally to push their elected officials, fracture the MAGA Coalition and help Democrats find their spines. And that's what we've been doing over the last eight years. Uh,

EMMA VIGELAND - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: well, I mean, there's also, we need some more work, right? Like here, and I know that, uh, Chuck Schumer is gonna come up in a second, but why don't you go ahead, Sam, and then I'll ask about

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: that.

Well, uh, part of that wa uh, spine stiffening, uh, started, uh, it seems to me, um, several weeks ago in which at that time, um, we heard, uh, minority leader in the house, Hakeem Jeffries. And, uh, I remember one particular article, uh, Richie Torres, uh, Congressman, uh, from, [00:58:00] is it The Bronx here? Um, uh, were very upset that people felt like they weren't doing enough.

And I wonder how much of a coincidence is it that we saw them coalesce around and take what is a pretty bold step? I mean, at least. In the great scheme of things over the past couple of decades, the Democrats voting against the continuing resolution like they did in the house a week ago. I.

EZRA LEVIN: I don't think it's a coincidence.

I think one of the, one of the features of grassroots organizing and pressure campaigns like we do is very rarely will the target of your pressure admit, okay, it worked. I've shifted positions because you pushed me. Congratulations, you've won. No, usually it pans out this way. Pans out this way. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you.

Then you win and they adopt your position. So what we [00:59:00] saw in the house was a historic level all around the country of grassroots movement building bigger than we've seen since 2017. What they were looking for were for Democrats to start fighting back and they were calling and showing up at the congressional district offices and showing up at the town halls of Democratic members saying, Hey, we'll have your back, but you gotta fight for us.

You gotta fight for us. And it was slow going initially. Initially they were ignoring and initially they were pushing back. But look. I've been plenty critical of Hakeem Jeffries over the last few months. He whipped his caucus into shape. They held firm on this, and we should be praising them to the rooftops for doing that.

And I do think that's a direct result of organizing all around the country.

EMMA VIGELAND - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Uh, is there a different challenge with the Senate? Is it the fact that, I mean, Hakeem Jeffries was in part, able to keep his caucus together because everybody's up for reelection in two years, and they might be concerned about a primary challenge even soon, uh, closer or sooner than that.

And you know, when you look at the votes in [01:00:00] the Senate, uh, and who caved on this, on this, uh, on this dirty continuing resolution, these are all people who are far away from, uh, their reelection effort or retiring. I.

EZRA LEVIN: Oh, obviously of, of course. Look, the senate's a different body. It's not a majoritarian institution.

They actually had leverage, unlike the house, the house, you know, it's a majoritarian institution. The Republicans had it. They were able to pass the bill with their own votes, the Senate, not the case. They needed 60 votes to pass this. And I think, I mean, your, your point out something real here it is. No coincidence.

That every single one of the 10 Democrats in the Senate who happen to vote for this bill, they happen to not be up for election next year. They just happen to just be the folks who have a few more years to build up their reputation. Again, that's not an accident. I guarantee you there are a lot of other Senate Democrats who would've voted for this if they needed to, but they didn't want to face the pressure from the base.

So I think your point is something real here, but the basic idea. Of [01:01:00] local organized grassroots pressure works the same in the Senate as it does the house. It just works on a different timescale.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Uh, let gi give me your sense, um, and I wanna get to, you know, obviously you've been, uh, critical and, uh, it's been reported that, uh, Schumer in, um, what appears to be an ongoing and frankly, um.

Degrading, I guess not just degrading personally to him, but literally the exercise itself seems to be falling apart, uh, as the further it gets out. Uh, sort of like a, an apology tour or a rationale tour. But before we get to that aspect of it, what do you think happened? Because it's quite clear now that we have Nancy Pelosi coming out that when Hakeem Jeffries was asked, do you think it's time for new leadership in the, uh, in the Senate?

He said, next question. Uh, a OC when she released a statement suggested that the, the, the house members were blindsided. Do you have a [01:02:00] sense of a TikTok? I. Of what happened to Chuck Schumer's decision making? Was there any type of strategy involved? I mean, what's your sense of this?

EZRA LEVIN: Oh, yeah. Look, we were deeply involved.

We were working with members, uh, of the House Caucus and with, uh, Senate Democrats as well. Behind the scenes. I will say there were a lot of folks in the Senate Democratic Caucus who wanted to fight back and about five or six weeks before this. Came to a head, uh, in mid-March. We put out a call and we said, look, Democrats should be planning a flag right now.

They should be saying, we are not gonna give Elon Musk a blank check. If Republicans want our votes, they should put in some safeguards against Musk's rating of the Treasury and the rest of the federal government. And if Republicans refuse to agree to that, Democrats should say, fine. We will agree to a short term.

Clean funding bill to open up negotiation again. That was the plan that we put forward, and it's actually the plan that House Democrats embraced That is indeed what they embraced to their [01:03:00] credit. Here's what I really think, real talk, what actually happened in the Senate. I think Chuck Schumer misjudged the Republicans.

I think he thought they were going to fail to get their bill through in, uh, in the house, and he thought therefore, democratic votes were going to be necessary in just a different way. So he wanted to cave, but he wanted to cave for a long-term clean cr. That's my guess. That is my guess. Then Republicans managed to pass the bill on their own through the house, and he was presented.

With this new reality, and instead of updating his position and caving just for a clean, long-term cr, he caved for a Republican funding bill. That's my best guess. It was bad judgment at the outset, and then he did not update his thinking when the facts on the ground changed.

Woke Wars w/ Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor & Mike McCarthy - The Dig - Air Date 2-25-25

KEEANGA-YAMAHTTA TAYLOR: What was the point of the DEI bonanza in 2020 and now what is the point of [01:04:00] its destruction five years later? And so I think on some level it's obvious that corporations like Apple, Amazon, soul Foods embraced these varying initiatives around DEI to basically get out of the way of the ire of protests.

I think it's important to always remember that these were historic protests in 2020, what the New York Times estimated to be upwards of 26 million people in the streets. And so, you know, there was an obvious effort as there was in the 1960s. What they called it then was socioeconomic capitalism.

Capitalism with a conscience. These were efforts to avoid boycotts, to avoid protest and to [01:05:00] make it seem as if the largest corporations in America were on the side of, uh, black people. Um, some went even, uh, further in ways that you could see how there was also a realization that DEI could be profitable for them.

JP Morgan Chase. One of the reasons why they have continued with their DEI initiatives, despite the pressure to jettison them, is because mostly that these are loans that they agreed to make. They agreed to expand their, you know, low income home ownership portfolio. And so, uh, I think the 50 largest corporations in the United States made $50 billion in pledges to do a variety of DI diversity initiatives.

So that was obviously one manifestation of the DEI bonanza, but [01:06:00] that wasn't all of it. You know, I mean, most of the efforts have been centered around workplace culture, how to create what they describe as a more equitable workplace. And, you know, I mean, that is where some of the kind of conflicting.

Issues. I think with DEI are legitimate and raise I important issues and questions that we shouldn't kind of avoid, uh, talking about. But I think sometimes what gets lost is that this is in reaction to real issues, right? This is in reaction to real, uh, uh, racism in the workforce and on college campuses, which is one of the reasons why I think that given the relentless assault on these kinds of initiatives, they're actually not unpopular, right?

If [01:07:00] you look at Gallup APU polling adults in the United States, a majority of whom support businesses having diversity initiatives. And so I think that that all has to be a part. The discussion, real racism, that these are in reaction to, just like affirmative action, uh, was a real response to real racism, um, in society and workplaces on college campuses.

Do they go far enough? No, but there are plenty of reforms that exist within our society that don't go far enough, that we don't say. Thus, you should jettison them. Roe v Wade didn't go far enough. No one, you know, on the left with any credibility. It was celebrating its demise because it didn't go far enough and, you know, drove a wedge between men and women, um, in the working class.

I mean, it's a ridiculous premise. [01:08:00] So, you know, I'll just, I'll, I'll say that to open things up. There's more to say about it, but I think the context is important.

OLÚFÉMI O. TÁÍWÒ: I'll just add one thing to kind of underscore the last point Cange just made, you know, I think the, the argument that DEI, that anti-racist, that, you know, social justice policies in the workplace are suspicious because they don't go far enough, just strikes me as a particularly disingenuous kind of argument.

Um, for, for exactly the reason Kanga just said, right? Like, no one says that that dental, you know, right. No one in any part of the left thinks that the working class is a 5% raise away from dismantling capitalism, right? We fight for things that are less than the full society we want [01:09:00] because we value those things, whether it's, you know, dental, whether it's, uh, pay raise, whether it's better benefits, and whether it's.

Having less racism at work. And those are all just things that are independently valuable and that we should not confuse with the total victory of the class war. But there's no reason to think that we should replace the total victory of the class war with any of those things.

MIKE MCCARTHY: Yeah. I would just want to add, I think a real, a real puzzle is why is it that this bundle of things that are actually so completely different from from each other have come to have this powerful force in our society politically, you know, everything from cancel culture to race, prioritizing hiring and college admissions, to sensitivity training, to even, you [01:10:00] know, watching a com commercial and seeing somebody that appears queer to you and thinking, Ooh, that's woke.

Like how, how is it that all these things in our society have come to have this political salience when we can obviously recognize that they're of all sorts of different sorts? Right. And I, I think, I think it's important to keep in mind the, the role of liberalism and the Democrats in this story. To me, a key, a key part of the rise of anti wokeness is precisely the emptiness of liberalism and its own reaction.

To those movements and protests that Ang, um, was mentioning that sparked off in 2020. There's a really fascinating book. It's written by a, a Japanese Marxist named Saka, June, it's called the Japanese Ideology, published in 1935. June was basically the grump she of Japan. He was imprisoned, uh, under a fascist uh, regime.

[01:11:00] He died because of his treatment in prison. But he wrote this book and basically he argues that liberalism, it has basically three forms. It has an economic form, a political form, and a cultural form. The economic and political are basically about sort of, you know, freeness from the state, political or freeness in the, in the economy.

And when economic liberalism doesn't have legitimacy or salience, it can sometimes persist in its cultural form. And its cultural form is all about sentimentality and kind of empty ideas about the individual's freeness to identify themselves. What's interesting about this book and why I think it's actually relevant to this discussion is that after, um, the protests kicked off the response and the way they were integrated into political discourse, I.

By the Democrats and by liberals was in a de classed and a, uh, defanged way that presented them as simply a sort of free [01:12:00] expression of people's individuality and their own I and, and their own identity. And I think this, this kind of empty space, this empty reaction that liberalism had to Black Lives Matter created the context for the right to kind of subvert it and to turn this into like a politically salient and powerful issue in politics.

It was, it was precisely that emptiness of the Democrats in their response to Black Lives Matter that created the grounds for the right to sort of repurpose this. And so I, I think we really need to think serious about like, why is it that wokeness is even a thing? Like why, why can somebody say that? And, and, and we can kind of associate that with this bundle of very different sorts of things.

And I think, again, we gotta, we have to tie that in some way to the failure of liberalism.

The Democratic Downfall - The Muckrake Political Podcast - Air Date 3-18-25

JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: It's not just that the Democrats got in line in order to pass this and once more. I wanna remind everybody during the Biden presidency, I told you over and over again, they, everyone was like, oh, it's Joe Manchin. It's Ki Sinema. Those were the two people [01:13:00] that were chosen to carry that load because they were going to be politically safe because of it.

The Democrats are always going to wheel somebody in in order to. Pass these votes in order to make things run, because the Democratic party is loyal to two things. One is their billionaire donors in the market that they represent, and two is making sure that they're the party that keeps this government working, even if it's authoritarian.

The second part of this, and, and this is what really enrages me, Nick, there was no strategy here. There was no negotiation whatsoever. Schumer didn't get anything. He didn't get a single damn thing from this. He was more than happy to roll over and show the Republican party, his belly, and we have to talk about the fallout from this.

It wasn't just Schumer doing this. It wasn't just Schumer saying, we're gonna find a place where we have more leverage immediately after, because it's Chuck Schumer. He then went on to give an interview. Why Nick? Because he has a book coming out. [01:14:00] Got it. He had a book tour that he wanted to go on, so he gives an interview with the New York Times.

And in this interview, just a few choice highlights, Nick, the this is it's, it's like picking up a greatest Hits album. You wanna listen to some Neil Young hits. Put it on. We got Old man, we've got the needle, we've got it all. Let's just roll. He reiterates his belief that Republicans will eventually come around and work with the Democrats.

He comes around and says that the Democrats. We're on the right track now. We just need better social media. He blames Columbia for Trump going after Columbia during the whole anti-Semitic bullshit thing. He then refuses to de defend Mahmud Khalil. He won't voice criticism of Eric Adams or Andrew Cuomo.

This was the quintessential Chuck Schumer interview that we saw in order to try and get his book tour back on track, which has been canceled because he is loathed and reviled and if he went to a single one of those book, book tour, uh, appointments, he would have been [01:15:00] roundly booed out of the place and chase down the street.

Nick. Not only is it that he failed, not only is it he that he capitulated and collaborated, not only is it that he couldn't even come up with something decent to say about it. Chuck Schumer remains completely and utterly confident in everything that Chuck Schumer does.

NICK HAUSELMAN - HOST, THE MUKRAKE PODCAST: Yeah, I, I, I mean, again, it, it, I'm getting tired of saying it, but it's been five years.

I think we should go back and find out exactly when we started calling for him to step down. Um, it's just, it's, it's over for him at this point. Uh, and do you think is parenthetical to this, do you think that a OC is going to try and primary him?

JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Well, I'll tell you this. I have been talking with some of the people I know within Democratic politics.

This has resulted in one screaming match and breakdown after another behind closed doors. The Democratic Party is in complete and utter disarray. You have members who are pissed off, particularly in the house because they did their part. They said no to this thing, and [01:16:00] they expected their, uh, their Senate.

Colleagues to do their part. So many people right now are talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, either primary, and this would be in 2028 for the record. Either primary Chuck Schumer for his Senate seat or running for president. And you're not gonna do both. You kind of gotta choose one or the other.

But what we are seeing is that there is a revolt within the party. There's one main issue here, Nick, and it's something that you and I have talked about, uh, over and over again when it came to Schumer and Pelosi. Schumer has his position because he's the most effective at bundling fundraising. That's it.

Keeping democratic donors in line. Again, the biggest problem for the Democratic party in their minds. It isn't alienating the base. Everyone's pissed off. By the way, a new poll, Nick came out from NBC news. You, you wanna take a guess at the, uh, the approval rating for the Democratic Party right now? 20%. 27%.

Oh, and I'm shocked that it's that high. [01:17:00] A historic low. 65% of people say that they actually wanna see some fight out of the Democrats, the Democratic Party, the leadership, including Chuck Schumer, they're not worried about those numbers. They're not worried about small donations. They're worried about the big dollar donors at this point.

So the question is, can they exercise Chuck Schumer out of leadership? Can they exercise him out of his office while maintaining those donors? And do you know what my answer is to that? Who gives a fuck? Yeah, who gives a flying fuck? Get him outta there. This cannot go on.

NICK HAUSELMAN - HOST, THE MUKRAKE PODCAST: Here's the answer for you on that.

One is, uh, who raised more money? Uh, Harris or Trump? I. A Harris and by an order of magnitude. Who won the race.

JARED YATES SEXTON - HOST, THE MUCKRAKE PODCAST: Yep.

NICK HAUSELMAN - HOST, THE MUKRAKE PODCAST: So why do you think that these big donors are so important at this point? Right? If it's not gonna be about spending outspending your, uh, opponents and win a race, then let's not, let's put that aside and figure out how to get people back on your side.

'cause again, that's what they don't seem to acknowledge. This is not [01:18:00] even just like we're fighting the good fight. We're maintaining our, the sheen of keeping the government running. You now need to go back and, and, and get defectors from the Democratic party back on your side, and you have to go back and have town halls and listen to the people.

I I was almost trying to think what would the solution also be on a local level because they don't control the federal stuff anymore. Um, they need to be able to figure out ways they get wins on the local level of, you know, uh, things being built that create jobs. And they can have events around that, that bring constituents there.

And they can also have q and As and they can. You know what I mean? You can kind of bring people together to celebrate something and then expose yourself to be able to listen to what they wanna say, what what they have to say, and then do that part, right. And not do what the DOP is doing on their town halls.

You know what I mean? I feel like that's the new level they have to get back to on boots in the ground, real, um, folksy stuff, because if they don't, then these, this, the low ratings are gonna translate into maybe not even people switching to the Republican party, but certainly not voting at all.

Whither the Democrats? w/ Natasha Lennard Part 1 - Politics Theory Other - Air Date 3-20-25

ALEX DOHERTY - HOST, POLITICS THEORY OTHER: I think it's an important point that you make about the fact that [01:19:00] the Democrats are simply not willing to move left even if there are electoral gains to be got through through that.

Because some commentary that you see on on the Democrats is couched in terms of their incompetence. You know that they're useless. They dunno what they're doing. But, but we've, we've seen that they can, in certain circumstances, marshal their forces, be very effective, defeat their opponents. And, you know, a a case in point would be the defeat of Bernie Sanders during his attempts to, uh, get the, the nomination and, you know, the mud that was thrown, you know, the sort of Bernie bro stuff, attempting to portray, uh, Sanders voters regardless in fact of who they were as motivated by chauvinism.

Going back to some of your writing on this topic. I dunno if you saw this, but in a recent article in the Financial Times, Jemiah Kelley had an article on the Democrats in which she wrote that there are tentative signs of change. I. California Governor Gavin Newsom considered a likely candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2028.

This week launched his own podcast promising to [01:20:00] invite guests he deeply disagrees with. Now, in a recent article for The Intercept, you took quite a different position on Newsom's new initiative, particularly regarding the debut episode of his show in which he interviewed. Charlie Kirk, the co-founder of Turning Point USA, A Republican party activist, a man who's propagated anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and has spread various falsehoods about the COVID-19 pandemic and electoral fraud, and, and has made many straightforwardly racist statements as well.

I. Can you talk a bit about that conversation between, uh, between Newsom and Kirk and how it's perhaps indicative of the kinds of conclusions that you described that many Democrat politicians seem to have reached about how they can improve their electoral fortunes? I.

NATASHA LENNARD: Yes. So California Governor Gavin Newsom, who, uh, turns out has actually two podcasts running now and I think a TV show.

So really curious who's, um, bothering to run California, you know, within six months of some of the most devastating wildfires the state has ever seen, um, as the federal budget [01:21:00] gets hacked away. So, uh, clearly Gavin should maybe get off the mic, but he is, yes.

ALEX DOHERTY - HOST, POLITICS THEORY OTHER: I mean, every day there's a new reason to be ashamed of being a podcaster, I should say.

NATASHA LENNARD: It's

ALEX DOHERTY - HOST, POLITICS THEORY OTHER: literally the worst industry.

NATASHA LENNARD: No, being a governor is the worst industry. Um, but, uh, Gavin Newsom, uh, is yes, very much setting himself up, it seems, and he's not being particularly shy about it. For a 2028 run. The way in which he's doing it is in this, this mode of turning to the right, this classic gesture reaching across.

To find middle ground, but what it does is just say hello. This extremely far right force are fine, normal, and set. What the middle is, and we've seen this in Gavin Newsom's podcast. I think he's now had three episodes since the first Charlie Kirk won. The second was with Steve Bannon the the very man who

helped advocate for, for the sort of Trumpian disposition of [01:22:00] politics and mode of politics known as flood the Zone with shit, which with receiving in such aggressive doses right now from Trump and Musk and what Gavin is doing, and I'm calling him Gavin because I feel disrespectful is sitting and nodding along with these characters and you know, raising.

Mely mouth kind of challenges at a couple of points, but, but really in e, extremely weak ways, not calling out what are essentially. Fascistic, harmful, discriminatory, violent wealth, interested hyper capitalist, techno capitalist interests of this group of people. It is just this sort of performance of getting along at the very moment that the Republican administration, that these people have been influential in propagating ideas for, in supporting in agitating to the right of ripping apart the very.

[01:23:00] Means by which a parliamentary force could challenge them in opposition in the first place. So this is Newsom digging his own grave. So what did they talk about? They talked about the election and when they talked about the election, Newsom congratulated the Trump campaign for going so, so viciously after Harris for alleged support of, of trans people.

The example they brought up was when Harris was, um, attorney General in California. She was just following a legal case that said, under the constitutional protections against torture in prison, trans prisoners are like other prisoners. Required to receive adequate healthcare, and that includes by all scientific consensus, gender affirming healthcare.

So yeah, when Harris was top prosecutor in California and, um, it was affirmed as law under the constitution that trans prisoners are, you know, [01:24:00] required to have adequate healthcare. This was then used by the Trump campaign as a. You know, Harris for, they them, Trump for you. This was a highly successful campaign.

Sure. And the Democrats failed to combat it. They failed to demystify, they failed to challenge in exactly the same way that when the Trump campaign runs on fearmongering around migrant crime and America's incapacity to take in and care for millions more people, which it well can work it to have different economic policy.

The Republicans Fearmonger and instead of demystifying and doing their job as political leaders, Democrats cater towards. So this is what we've seen Newsom do throughout his podcast episodes since he started them. He also nod only nodded along with Kirk and congratulated them on their devious campaign.

He said he completely agreed with Kirk about trans women in sports. [01:25:00] Despite the fact that school districts, local authorities, state authorities, municipalities have been managing and dealing absolutely fine with transgender youth in sports for many, many years until this became a AstroTurf, completely fabricated Republican issue.

And now you have the governor of California who has always celebrated himself as an LGBTQ plus, um, champion when it came to things like gay marriage is jumping, going out of his way to agree with a man who has made his life about rolling back. Civil rights protections. So, you know, it's, it's, it's a strategy and you know, it's one of those ones that even if it works, what a grim, miserable, cruel, and mean state of politics, it is to win on that kind of acquiescence as opposed to building an actual anti-fascist counterforce.

To take on the ways in which the Republicans are decimating rights, lives, capacities for [01:26:00] living, modes of flourishing. So yeah, it's, it's, it's grim and disappointing, but also not surprising.

The Current Political Moment, U.S. Imperial Decline, and Organizing a Revolutionary Vanguard Party - Rev Left Radio - Air Date 3-19-24

BRIAN BECKER: Trump is the logical extension of the Democrats own policies over many decades. I mean, when, when, uh, Carter came in, he was chosen when the US government was in a state of collapse, and people worked at that time in mid seventies talking about the empire being in decline, and people thought it was on the way out, but of course, that was premature.

Uh, Carter came in as a, a handpicked democratic candidate who had no connection to labor, unlike earlier post World War II Democratic candidates, actually since Roosevelt. Then you had Bill Clinton in the nineties who adopted Ronald Reagan's program. He said, we're gonna end big government. We're gonna end welfare as we know it.

They eliminated 10 million people from. Uh, public support overnight. 7 million of them were children. Uh, it was who, uh, [01:27:00] implemented the, the NAFTA agreement, uh, which was really codifying neoliberal policies, allowing jobs to be crushed inside the United States so that capitalist corporations in the United States could make super profits by exploiting low wage labor, uh, out outside the United States.

That was the beginning of the era of so-called free trade, which is a stand-in term for basically corporate looting, plundering, and pillaging, or what we now call in a vernacular term that's not fully understood, but it's neoliberalism. Mm-hmm. The Democrats did all that, uh, when, when George W. Bush wanted to go to war against Iraq based on lies, and everybody knew it was lies.

The Democrats went along with it when, uh, Bush, uh. Sort of rounded up all of those Muslim and Arab and South Asian people. After nine 11, the Democrats went along with it. Uh, in the last years, right before Trump came into office, [01:28:00] 25 million people in the United States working class folks lost Medicaid coverage.

That was under Biden. It was under Biden that the, uh, that the $300 a month per child for families, that was initiated as a covid relief, uh, program. A, a program that, by the way, Eli, uh, reduced childhood poverty by 50% in one year by giving, uh, families $300 per child. Uh, Biden got rid of that. So childhood poverty went up again by it doubled, and that showed that childhood poverty was a po.

Uh. A policy choice by the Biden administration. So doing all of these things and then waging war, unnecessary, relentless proxy war in Ukraine, uh, and, and banging the door, the, the war drums against China. None of that is popular for the people in the United States. So it's inevitable not to mention the feeble quality of the candidates themselves, but their policies are [01:29:00] antithetical to the needs and interests of the working class in the United States.

That's why they failed and that's why Trump won.

BREHT O'SHEA - HOST, REV LEFT RADIO: Absolutely. Could not have said it better. And um, and so when you, when we hear Democrats and and supporters of the Democratic Party talk about them being the opposition party resistance, we have to stop fascism. We have to understand that they're completely complicit in this entire process.

That ends us right exactly where we are. And socialist, Marxist communists have been pointing at this out for as long as I've been politically conscious that this is where this whole thing was going to. To end up and sure enough we're here. You mentioned that you mentioned neoliberalism, and I think this, this gives rise to a very interesting question.

Um, somebody like, um, verif AKIs for example, talks about tech no feudalism, and I have quips with that because there certainly, there's no shift in the mode of production. This is still capitalism, but maybe it's helpful to think about capitalism or US capitalism entering a new phase. Maybe it's not. So how do you think about this?

Is this an acceleration of neoliberalism or would [01:30:00] we, can we start to see the outlines of like sort of a new phase of, of capitalist rule?

BRIAN BECKER: Well, I think it's definitely a new phase. I mean, you, when you think about the revolution in computer technology and electronics, uh, and in transportation, that allowed the capitalist basically to set up enterprises anywhere in the world.

Uh, and, and basically export, uh, factories. The, the means of production outside the Metropolitan centers, outside, say the United States, where millions of manufacturing jobs were lost during this three decade period. And those, uh, factories were taken overseas and the capitalists could make shirts in Bangladesh and sell them back in the United States for like $8 and still be making super profits.

So the technology itself, uh, allowed capital to spread to all corners of the planet, uh, and, and to do it in search of maximum super [01:31:00] profits. And so that had the effect of eviscerating, uh, working class communities and the working class writ large inside the United States, for instance, but also inside the other major advanced capitalist countries.

They were less devastated in Europe because there was a, a wider social insurance net. That provides basic things that people have there that Americans could only dream of. So, um, this is a new stage and a new phase, but it's, it's still capitalism. It's still driven by the same sort of basic principle of capital, which is to seek maximum profit.

It's only that the place maximum profit could be derived was for, for in the case of the United States, largely overseas. Um, then you had as a, as a consequence really of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp, the ability of US banks and western banks to impose. Strict austerity programs [01:32:00] on most of the formerly colonized or semi colonized parts of the world, under what was called by the IMF structural Adjustment, whereby basically emerging anti-colonial countries or countries whose existence was due to the anti-colonial project after World War II basically sold their water systems, their sewage systems, their electrical systems, their natural resources, um, to the highest bidder.

Or in some cases it was even the lowest bidder if the, if the bidder had a lot of state power behind it, which was certainly the case for American corporations.

Hmm.

So we saw a sort of a redistribution of the way production takes place and the way, uh, distribution of goods takes place, but still under the domination of the US capitalist ruling class.

So a kind of a new cruelty. Based on their ability to maximize, maximize profits by creating a globalized sort of system of production and [01:33:00] distribution. But when I think of globalization, I, I think about Christopher Columbus, um, 1492, the discovery, so-called by European Capital of the Americas. That was, uh, the beginning of real globalization.

And then when we go through the introduction of other technologies, the compass, for instance, whereby people could navigate the Seven Cs or other technologies, which under a socialist system could be emancipatory, were used by capital to bring, uh, European capital to, to grab workers, kidnap them, enslave them in Africa, and bring them to a third country or a third location, north America.

For massive plantation or South America for that matter, massive plantation labor for a global capitalist market. So there, there have been these different stages and phases of capitalism. The, the problem isn't really neoliberalism per se. The problem is that, [01:34:00] uh, the ruling class, this tiny clique of billionaires, and they're not all billionaires, but they're very rich.

Mm-hmm. Uh, they have a, a stranglehold over the resources. They decide where oil will be pumped or if it should be pumped, what should be mined. They, they, they now in the United States own, it's not just in Latin America, in the third world, they own many of the water systems. They decide if you haven't paid your water bill or your electric bill or your, your gas bill, whether they can shut off water or heat or lights to your family.

So it's. It's the same, the problem is the same, although we are in a different stage of capitalist production.

SECTION B: CONSERVATIVES

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering Section B conservatives.

Whither the Democrats? w/ Natasha Lennard Part 2 - Politics Theory Other - Air Date 3-20-25

ALEX DOHERTY - HOST, POLITICS THEORY OTHER: If Trump is as so many Democrat politicians say he is a fascist and a unique threat to American democracy. How do you account for this persistent asymmetry where the Republicans are ever more comfortable casting their opponents as illegitimate actors whilst the Democrats refuse to change their approach?

NATASHA LENNARD: I [01:35:00] think it's slightly different for certain, certain different Democratic figures, but it's a deep faith in institutions. This idea that that the institutions must be upheld through the practices and norms and conventions of civility, and that through upholding those practices required or expected of those institutions, the institutions will obtain, the institutions will protect and defend.

That's a kind of basic, almost generous read of Democratic Center's delusion because obviously like a, an institution can, can hold and do extraordinary harm. Look at the state of the Supreme Court right now. It is a, a right. Destroying machine and yet this rights destroying machine forged by Republican will, and in many cases, democratic incompetence and line faith in institutions serving them will be the thing we now have to rely upon to take some of the most crucial cases around Trump's executive orders.

They will end up in this supreme court and you know, that [01:36:00] is the sort of institution Democrats are trying to put all their. Faith in and, and all their eggs in that kind of basket. I think there's also a, a less generous read is that, you know, I think a number of these people on the edge of retirement, um, on the edge of the end of their lives don't give a shit and are not willing to fight and would rather play politics as usual.

Yeah. I don't think this is a political class of, of. People who are invested in change. I mean, that shouldn't be controversial to say at all. They've pushed off change in many, many ways, and there are a lot of sites of agreement, whether they came about by virtue of ill thought political strategizing to lean to some.

Imagined right wing, potentially democratic voting, Liz Cheney loving figure, or whether it is a genuine conservatism within the Democrats, which is very much a party of conservation. The result is the same. You have a party very much committed to [01:37:00] refusing to move the political needle, the economic.

Terrain, the economic status quo in a way that shifts the conditions of possibility for the sort of right ring evangelism that we've seen refusing to make people's lives consistently better and refusing to reorient the political economy of this country. I. And when that in turn creates a mass of deeply resentful people who can be weaponized by a very well organized Republican party without any scribbles at all, you don't need Democrats.

Appealing to institutions and the a rule of law that doesn't seem to hold much sway in the eyes of those in actual power. You know, we've seen this just now, Chuck Schumer in the Senate and 10 other Democrats voted to allow Trump's continuing resolution budget. To go through as opposed to letting there be a government shutdown.

[01:38:00] Chuck Schumer's logic is, oh, you know, the, the, what they really want is a government shutdown. That's chaos. What we must do is keep going and let their budget pass to avoid. Chaos. So we choose their chaos budget that we know for sure hands extraordinary power of the purse to Trump and Musk. Um, and this is the sort of Democrats we have.

We have democratic leadership going against many even surprising figures in the Democratic party. Not just the AOCs and the Sanders, but even people like Rosa Delario in the house saying, we, we should not let them have this budget. We should not pass this. And then you have. Chuck Schumer, Fetterman, Senator Gillibrand 10 Democrat Senators to allow this vote to go through and for this budget legislation to pass.

And it brings me no joy to say it, but there just quite simply is not a large liberal to left united front against Trump's agenda. I mean, I hope I'm wrong, but I [01:39:00] don't see a massive sea change in Democrats away from this moderation above all, continue as we work, continue to genuflect to the right. It's desperate that that changes, but I don't see it on the horizon.

ALEX DOHERTY - HOST, POLITICS THEORY OTHER: Perhaps this is naive, but I suppose one reason, I guess why there might have been some reason to suppose there would be a shift away from this obsession with civility is that Donald Trump is obviously such a personally vindictive character and, and, and we see, you know, an ever greater radicalization of the Republican Right.

To the point where, you know. Elite Democrat figures may have reason to not fear for their personal safety ne necessarily, but perhaps fear for some of their financial assets that clearly Trump is open to a bit of, you know, a bit of law and and so on. And I guess the other thought that occurs is it can be quite easy to think that the Republicans casting the Democrats as illist act as is a phenomenon just of the, of the Trump era.

But of course, I mean, this goes right back to at least to new Gingrich and the attempt to impeach. Bill Clinton. And then of course [01:40:00] we had the birtherism thing during Obama's presidency. So it's not as if the Democrats haven't had a long time to, you know, to, to change course and re rethink this. Um, I'm not, I'm not sure I really have a question there, but, yeah.

NATASHA LENNARD: No, but I, I, I see you say, and we've seen an articulation of what the Democrats think they're doing in the best possible of ways in these moments, and that's, you know, when Michelle Obama said, when they go low, we go high, which I think is obviously a, a terrible way. To take on a serious political opposition that is putting millions of livelihoods and thousands of lives, hundreds of thousands of lives and lives around the world, and an entire climate at extreme risk.

That is, it's very generous to say that they truly believe that this sort of moral high ground is the way to win. And I think, uh, I don't think we should be that generous. Um, I think more of the problem is that there are too many actual sites of agreement. There are too, no actual continuities. Between democratic policy and Republican policy over the last 30 years, obviously I, I [01:41:00] think Trump is making moves around governance control, executive power that are absolutely extraordinary.

But you know, this is an exacerbation of focus on a border regime. That was the rule of launder. Clinton, Bush, Obama. Biden and you know Trump won, and again, Trump two. This is a deep continuity, violent Islamophobia and anti Palestinian racism and state tools of repression. The most extraordinary oppression from rendition, extraordinary rendition, deportation, jailing.

Expulsion harassment, surveillance all built up since the War on terror and given license by Biden in his opposition to any sort of Palestinian solidarity movement opening the door for Trump's violent actions now for the sort of deportation regime we are seeing now. There's a way in which the Democrats claim to civility is all a smokescreen in in terms of [01:42:00] policy.

Even the collapse from Biden's Build Back Better, which was a more robust investment infrastructure plan. I. And its inability to pass a very conservative, even democratic led house and Congress when you had figures like Senator Manchin and cinema voting No on public welfare and investments. You know, you've got a Democratic party that's been very willing to pass very brutal, cruel, and support very brutal, cruel and anti-social laws.

So civility has always been like a li a limited and very unpleasant, I think smokescreen. Know, I'd rather they be deeply uncivil and actually fought for a greater good. But that would be, this is not a shift in the Democratic party, as you say. This is a, a continuity, and it's all, it's really just a matter of style. In substance there's been nothing more kind of civil, in the broader sense of the world of like towards civilians, towards a, a civic society. You could hardly say that's a badge of, of democratic politics.

The Qasim Rashid Show - Episode 164 - Let's Address This with Qasim Rashid Podcast - Air Date 3-24-25

QASIM RASHID - HOST, LET'S ADDRESS THIS: [01:43:00] We have to understand how we got here and simply blaming Republicans is not a strategy. It's not the American people, particularly the Democratic party's base. They're sick and tired of the hypocrisy in politics. They're sick and tired of the hypocrisy among Democrats as well. And until we change the Democratic party and our republic will continue to fall, and we must name the culprits, the culprits are corporate Democrats.

That's the obstructionism that we need to overcome. So let's start with some basic facts on what Democrats actually believe. More than 90% of Democrats believe climate change is real, and it's caused by human activity, particularly by big oil companies like Exxon. Not a controversial statement to make. More than 90% of Democrats believe climate change is real. More than 90% of Democrats believe civil rights are sacred and should never be compromised for corporate profits.

Like if you're a Democrat, tell me if you disagree. Are civil rights sacred? Yes or no? Okay, good. We agree they are so, they [01:44:00] shouldn't be compromised. More than 90% of Democrats believe banks should be regulated and taxpayers should stop bailing out major corporations when they run amuck and try to destroy our economy.

Let those banks fail. Stop using taxpayer money to bail out billionaires. Not a controversial statement to make. More than 90% of Democrats believe that corporate money has no place in politics. In fact, more than 90% of Americans believe that we want politicians to be funded by people, not by corporate or super pacs.

Again, not a controversial statement to make more than 70%. Some say 80% of Democrats believe that healthcare is a human right and they want to join every developed nation on earth to ensure guaranteed universal healthcare. More than 70% of Democrats believe in an end to the arms trade causing global conflict.

In fact, 77% wanted the Biden administration to stop arming Netanyahu. And while this is not an [01:45:00] exhaustive list, each of these are wildly popular policies among democratic voters that every democratic politicians should support it. So when I talk about this, it's not theory. This is reality, and I wanna provide in these last eight or nine minutes a clear case study of one corporate Democrat who if I didn't tell you he was a Democrat, I promise you you would think he's a Republican.

That question earlier, while a Democrat sell better than every Republican, keep that question in mind as I describe this corporate Democrat, because the thing is he's not alone. Too many corporate Democrats follow this model. It is an unsustainable model. These saboteurs are complicit in the collapse of our republic because they betray the Democratic party principles.

They side with Maggard Republic in their critical moments, and they give Republicans covered a claim that they're cruel and sometimes fascist. Yes, fascist policies have bipartisan support. [01:46:00] So as I list out these receipts, I want you to consider why we tolerate such politicians in our party. How as politicians are the cause of the distrust voters have with the Democratic party, and how much longer will we tolerate them before demanding they leave the party altogether, resign from their seats, retire, and just kind of go off into the sunset?

So in our case study, I present to you Congressman Bill Foster, a corporate funded multimillionaire politician who is on the wrong side of every one of these issues I mentioned earlier. Whose actively worked with Republicans to undermine our basic civil rights and human rights for corporate profit.

Foster, who I think turned 70 this year, people like him aren't, is a problem for the Democratic Party. Their policies are a threat to our democracy, and it does not hyperbole. It's a factual observation of his eight terms in Congress. Maybe it's nine terms. His voting record, his [01:47:00] financial ties, his outright refusal to stand for core Democratic party principles reveals a really harsh truth.

He's effectively a Republican hiding behind a blue label. But again, here are the receipts. Don't take my word for it. For example, more than 70% of Democrats believe healthcare is the human right fosters voting. Record doesn't now credit were due. He voted for the Affordable Care Act back in 2009. Good on you, bill.

Then he took about a half million dollars from big health and Big Pharma, and since then he's voted at least three times with Republicans to gut the a CA. He voted for HR 33 50, which rescinds the protection for people with pre-existing conditions. He voted for HR 35 22, which uh, would've rescinded the ban on charging women more than men for healthcare.

He rescinded, he voted to, uh, uh, [01:48:00] pass HR 1190, which would've rescinded a protection on seniors. Had these bills that Bill Foster supported passed, it would've meant that people like my, my own daughter, for example, who has an incurable disease that is fatal, if not treated, that is a preexisting condition, it would've meant that she would be denied care and foster opposes guaranteed healthcare.

He calls it unrealistic, even though every developed nation on earth has it. To him, it's unrealistic. Oh, and his beloved donors include United Health. Yeah. The Luigi Manji United Health, same company caught using AI to deny. 90% of Medicare claims were senior citizens, took their money, never returned it, never apologized, continues to cash their checks proudly.

Is this who we want representing the Democratic party? Let's talk about climate justice. 'cause folks are like, well, bill Foster's a scientist if you don't know this about him. He's a PhD scientist. He is a physicist. He brags about his PhD degree all the time. You would think it's tattooed to his forehead.

You can't talk to him for [01:49:00] more than five seconds without him reminding you that he's a physicist. Good on you, bill. But here's my problem with Bill and his physics degree. His voting records says otherwise he votes with Republicans to expand offshore drilling during a climate crisis. He supports fracking during the climate crisis.

He supports the junk science of carbon cap capture the same trash that Exxon Big Oil used to justify continuing pollution. And speaking of Exxon, guess who proudly donates to Bill Foster And guess who proudly takes their money? That's right. Bill Foster is happily funded to the tune of thousands of dollars from Exxon, and we are in a climate catastrophe.

California is on fire every year. Bill Foster is too busy counting Exxon's dollar bills in his campaign account notice, and the thing is, it's scientists like Foster that give climate destruction a stamp of approval because it lets corporations like Exxon say, Hey, what do you mean we're doing something wrong?[01:50:00]

Bill Foster, the scientist supports us. He's complicit in climate disaster. Let's talk about the arms trade foreign policy. Democrats want an end. To the arms tree, they want an end to perpetual war. 77% wanted to stop arming Netanyahu. Bill Foster happily takes money from defense contractors and pro pro war packs, happily fund a Netanyahu and voted for more arms for him to commit genocide and Gaza happily refuse to even condemn the genocide or call for a ceasefire or uphold the US Lehi laws or uphold international human rights law if he can't stand up against war crimes.

When the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice confirmed these are war crimes, what does he actually stand for? Rebecca, I'm telling you, his betrayal of international human rights translates to his betrayal of domestic civil rights. Foster is one of the [01:51:00] lead abusers of civil rights in this country, and I have the receipts to back it up.

The Americans With Disabilities Act was passed in 1990 as a landmark piece of legislation. To protect people with disabilities, to protect disabled Americans from abuse, to ensure they had accessibility under Trump. HR six 20 was proposed to make it more difficult for people with disabilities to sue if they were discriminated against more difficult.

Bill Foster not only voted for HR six 20, he co-sponsored it under a Trump regime. He chose to co-sponsor this cruel Bill Republicans in hopes that Donald Trump would sign it into law. Yes, apparently to Bill Foster. Disabled Americans have too much power in this country, and Bill Foster decided, you know what?

You disabled Americans have way too much power. We're gonna knock you down a size. This is the cruelty of this man. He voted to extend the Patriot Act to continue [01:52:00] mass surveillance on the American people. Even now, he's been silent on the arbitrary arrest of Mamud Klio. It's disgusting. This is the man who is representing Democrats in Congress, a person who wants more government surveillance, a person who wants less rights for disabled Americans.

And by the way, he co-sponsor that bill after taking thousands of dollars from a lobbyist organization working on behalf of. Corporations and businesses who are sick and tired of having to be accountable to disabled Americans. This is the kind of person that this Bill Foster corporate Democrat is. So when you say, well, isn't it better to vote for a corporate Democrat over a Republican?

My question to you is, what's the difference?

Trump Unhinged and Third Parties. - Unf*cking The Republic - Air Date 3-7-25

MAX - HOST, UNFTR: With respect to the State of the Union.

Holy hell, that was embarrassing. I wish other countries could not see this shit. Republicans looked [01:53:00] absolutely blood thirsty and manic in their fey to this creep, and the Democrats looked bewildered. They keep playing into his kabuki theater. The tiny pre-made little signs, are you serious? Only Bernie kept it real by storming out at the end and telling reporters follow me because he was giving the real response as usual.

He hit all the high notes, Medicare for all. Blowing the cap on social security to preserve the trust and perpetuity, making the rich pay their share, and increasing retirement benefits to seniors. Building housing on federal land to house the homeless. Continuing to center climate change in our minds as we move forward.

Progressive taxation and so on. It was all classic Bernie, with a few tweaks. It's kind of the foundation of our plan. There are a million other things that we can do once we take back this country and show these charlatans for who they really are. Instead of getting behind the most popular politician in the country who [01:54:00] just happens to caucus with the Democrats, they trotted out Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan to give the official response.

And here's what we got. I'm gonna give you the highlights of her speech in bullet point form, and uh, I'll link the transcript in the notes so that you can read it for yourself and I'll editorialize as we go here. So here are the points that she made in order. She was in New York on nine 11. She joined the CIA, and then the military mentions how George Bush and Barack Obama both believed in this country, said, we need to stop losing jobs to China.

Okay. Need to lower prices and get better jobs. The tariffs are bad, the national debt is too big. National security is of paramount importance, and we need to secure the border. Reagan, by the way, was a better Republican than President Trump. We're a nation of innovators and risk takers, and that we as Democrats should get engaged, do something other than doom

scroll. How about this? Go fuck yourself. We don't need her hawkish [01:55:00] Republican light bonafides. Don't give a shit that you are in the CIA. In fact, I hate that. And keep George Bush and Ronald Reagan's names out your fucking mouth. Don't say healthcare costs are too high, unless you're talking about Medicare for All. And hitting on national security, national debt, securing the border that were risk takers and innovators.

Are you fucking kidding me? How are we still leading with Republican talking points? This is how Kamala Harris just lost. We litigated this already. Even David fucking Brooks of all people was like, maybe Bernie was right all along. I mean, you can't be fucking serious. Now, for those who say it's a pendulum, it'll swing back.

It won't. Why would they destroy the economy on purpose? They say, first of all, why do you think they're all building fucking spaceships and designing chips to put in their brains? They're ready to piece out of this planet and they think they're [01:56:00] gonna live forever. And seriously, they don't care about you or the economy or economic theory, taxes, regulation, competition, whether anyone will even be able to buy anything.

And I know this is the hardest thing to understand, right? If they light it all on fire, won't they also go up in flames? Well, no. Actually, no. That's not how it works. Not for them. Again, we don't have to guess at this shit. They wrote it all down. The period of time in history that they covet the most is the second industrial revolution.

The mid 19th century is their Roman empire, as the kids say. All the trappings of a futile society in the beginning stages of industrialization, the haves and the havenots. Please read your dickens. Read hard times. Read Jacob Reese, and how the other half lives. They don't want one economy, they want [01:57:00] two.

One for you to service the one for them. See, they don't need all of you, just the ones that will help them and they're not gonna part with the penny to get there. What do you think the AI revolution is really about? Think about the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent. You got people like Larry Ellison out there telling you, listen, leave it alone.

They're gonna cure cancer with all this money and research. And sure, that might be part of it. That's the moonshot, I guess. Right? But if they destroy the healthcare system, then who the fuck is gonna have access to all these miracle cures from technology once they have them? Don't you see the vast majority of the money is going into labor replacing technology that is you.

They're trying to fire you. The guy they hired to run things got famous for the catchphrase. You're fired. So if they live in gated communities with armed guards and service people who [01:58:00] take care of them, they don't need an economy that works for you. They know this because mansions were built in the mid 19th century.

People had servants. They didn't pay income taxes. This country was theirs. That's the American dream in their minds. That's why they're working so hard and so fast right now to dismantle everything, and I mean everything. They want there to be nothing left to build by the time the Democrats get back into office.

See, they're not even trying to prevent Democrats from getting there. They know that they're gonna get there. They just want everything to be fubar when they do. So does that mean we're screwed even if we win the midterms? Yes and no. See, they're gonna drive the economy into the toilet and people are gonna be fucking pissed.

But we can't just take back a few seats and push that old pendulum back. We need to crush them in the midterms. We need to wipe 'em out in the house for sure, but we also have to send Susan [01:59:00] Collins, Tom Tillis, John Usted, Ashley Moody, Joni Ernst, Roger Marshall, Steve Daines, John Cornyn, and Lindsey Graham packing.

We need to make things impossible for Donald Trump and show a blue wave across the country that gives the house impeachment power and the Senate the ability to eliminate the filibuster and stand up to the oval office. I mean, make this guy's life a living nightmare. Bill after Bill across his desk that helps the American people, let him veto them and then mock his giant veto signature that overcompensates for his tiny little hands.

The way to get to Trump isn't to refute him, it's to mock him and then beat him at his own game. He can't handle it. Democrats have to play hardball for once in their political lives and be like, Bernie, not Chuck. I. It's our job now to show up at Democratic Town Halls and demand they get rid of this Alyssa Slotkin bullshit and run on Medicare for [02:00:00] all, housing First and Civilian Labor Corps.

Then once you're back in control, you can await further instructions from us, the people who put you there.

Why Schumer Caved to Republicans And Why It Might Be Smart - What A Day - Air Date 3-17-25

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: You wrote a column about how Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer did the right thing by not letting the government shut down the floor Is yours. Why was that the right move?

JOSH BARROW: Well, because what were the other options? I mean, people, you know, they, they, they want Democrats to fight.

I. And a shutdown would've been an opportunity for a fight. But I didn't see any of Schumer's opponents actually walking through what would happen next and providing a convincing story of why that fight would produce a better policy outcome for Democrats. I think, in fact, Schumer has a strong argument that would've produced a worse outcome, which is to say if you shut down the government.

You hand the president a lot more authority to decide what operations of the government to keep open, which ones to close. 'cause much of the government is supposed to close when the government is shut down. Things that are essential keep operating, and there's supposed to be some sort of objective standard for that.

But in practice, the president can basically say, this is essential. This is not essential. All this stuff that Doge has [02:01:00] been trying to close and is getting tied up with in the courts, he could just close those things and furlough the people and try to build exactly the government he wants with only the things he cares about, continuing to operate.

And because he'd have that power, he also has no particular incentive to want the government to reopen once it is closed. I mean, PE-people forget. Donald Trump did the longest government shutdown in history 35 days, 2018 into 2019, basically just for funsies. And that was even before he had Elon Musk there and was really actually trying to dismantle the government.

So if you, if you want the government to shut down, which has been their effort since day one of this administration, being handed a government shutdown is actually helpful for that. Meanwhile. Democrats, if the government is shut down, muddy the water about whose fault everything is. I mean, you know, you have the president seemingly trying to induce a recession in the United States pursuing this unpopular trade war.

You're seeing the stock market tank and you're seeing a growing realization that the stuff is, is his fault. And so then if you have this shutdown, then it makes it easier for Republicans to raise questions about, you [02:02:00] know, whose fault is all of this dysfunction in Washington? You, you don't want to get in the way of your opponent when he is making a mistake and forcing a shutdown here would've done that.

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: Yeah, I, I think. What we heard from some house Democrats was that passing this funding bill would give Trump and Elon Musk carte blanche to keep dismantling the government because the measure contained no protections for existing spending. But as, as you were saying, from Schumer and others in the Senate, we heard that shutting down the government would help Trump and Musk keep doing what they're doing.

So. House Democrats are pissed in lack of a better term. Why do you think that they are wrong? Like what, what is going wrong in their logic about this?

JOSH BARROW: Well, so I think there's a couple of things going on here. You know, the, the, the flexibility that the president has because we're will be operating under this continuing resolution, is the same flexibility that Presidents have from other continuing resolutions.

It would be good to have a full year proper appropriations bill that would set more restrictions, but we didn't have those in place a week ago. I think there's also something that's a little bit cheap politically where [02:03:00] house Democrats are able to vote no on this and say they did their part to block it and then blame the Senate.

Uh, and so, you know, the, when people in the Democratic base are angry and they are very angry, getting them also joining in the chorus, people who are mad at Chuck Schumer insulates them from, from political attack over this. I thought it was very interesting, the other nine Democrats who joined Chuck Schumer in voting for cloture.

'cause it was not a very ideologically cohesive group of people. You had some moderates, but you also had, for example, Brian Shatz, the, the senator from Hawaii who's pretty progressive. He's widely rumored to want to be majority leader in the future. And I think that was him showing, you know, I'm ready to take tough votes that are unpopular, but in the interest of the party in the long run.

And then the third reason I think they're angry is that I think, you know, while I think Chuck Schumer did the right thing in the end, he didn't telegraph it very clearly. No, he did not. No, he basically, uh.

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: You know, on Wednesday he came out and said Republicans didn't have the votes to pass the spending plan.

And then on Thursday he says he's gonna vote for it. And I think, [02:04:00] honestly, I think that that's part of why Democrats are so mad. I mean, there are lots of reasons why we're gonna get to that. There was a lot of mixed messaging. Do you think that was a failure on Schumer's part?

JOSH BARROW: Well, I, I think on Wednesday there was a failure.

I think, you know, up until Tuesday when this passed the House Democrat's strategy was, Republicans are incompetent. They cannot line up their very narrow majority together to agree on shared priorities, and Republicans would've to come crawling to Democrats to say, we have to do a bipartisan bill because we're too incompetent to do our own party line bill.

And in fairness to them, this, this has happened a lot over the last few years. Republicans have had terrible problems with cohesion. The problem is once. The, the thing passed the house on Tuesday, Democrats were just screwed. They had no, you know, the, and this is what happens when you lose elections or it's ordinarily what happens when you lose elections.

I think people have sort of forgotten because the Republican party has been so dysfunctional for so many years, they've forgotten that normally when you lose the election and the other party is in power, they pass their agenda. And that's a problem for you. And it, and it sucks. Like I, I, I get why Democrats are mad.

It sucks to [02:05:00] lose elections. Um, it especially sucks to lose elections and then have the party that won. Get its shit together and figure out how to actually do things that especially sucks. So like I get that it's an unfortunate situation, but the only thing to do about that, I mean there's two. One thing is that, you know, some of the things the administration is doing are illegal, and that's a matter for the courts, but ultimately the political win where you become able to block stuff through Congress, you have to win the majority back in the midterms next year.

And Democrats I think will work very hard to do that. But the problem is that. Those elections aren't until next year and Republicans run things for the next 22 months.

JANE COASTON - HOST, WHAT A DAY: Yeah, I think that there are two separate issues here. There's the micro issue of this cr, which sucks, but there weren't that many options.

Right? And then there's kind of the macro issue of people are furious and they're furious at Congressional Democrats. And Congressional Democrats are desperate for a way to push back against Trump, or at least be seen as pushing back against Trump. And that's what you see from the house. And I think that for many people.

I mean, you're hearing from pe, people [02:06:00] are talking tea party in a way that I haven't seen Democrats talk in a really long time. And the government funding plan, I think for some people was like the first real tangible piece of leverage that they had. So if not this, then what I.

JOSH BARROW: I think it's really funny when I see people talking about, you know, Democrats need our own tea party.

I think they should look a little bit about how the Tea Party worked and what it did to the Republican party. You know, you know, from start in 2009, 2010, when that movement starts, the Tea Party has over many election cycles saddled the Republican party with. Unelectable candidates. You have these revolts in Republican primaries insisting that you have to nominate these quote unquote ideologically pure fighter people.

And then they lose general elections to Democrats, even in places like Missouri and Indiana because they, you know, they forced the party into nominating, unappealing candidates and then they lose. The Tea Party also created this dynamic. In the Republican conference, in the house especially, and to a lesser extent in the Senate where you have these people who [02:07:00] define themselves by, I fight, I fight, I am obstinate.

I do not cooperate. And that led to this dynamic that that persisted basically up until this month where republicans could not get their ducks in a row, could not agree on a partisan agenda, and actually pass it through the house where they nominally had a majority. And that empowered Democrats, so. If you wanna rebuild that on the Democratic side, if you want to go lose general elections, if you wanna nominate presidential candidates and saddle them with platforms that will cause them to lose the presidential election.

If you want to not be able to have an effective Congressional majority, then go ahead.

Mehdi PRESSES Democrat Congressman on Voting With Republicans - Zeteo - Air Date 3-19-25

MEHDI HASAN - HOST, ZETEO: Many of you will have seen Representative Al Green, Democrat of Texas being removed from the chamber when he disrupted President Donald Trump's joint address to Congress after he stood up, shook his cane at the President and accused him of lacking a mandate. Many of you will have cheered Al Green's protest of a president who speaks and acts like an authoritarian.

But not 10 of his house Democratic colleagues who voted with all House Republicans to censure Congressman Green for his behavior. When I saw one of those 10, Congressman , Democrat of Connecticut, talking about the [02:08:00] importance of decorum and civility, I tweeted, we are 10 years into the Trump era.

Over a month into Trump term two, we watched a speech in which Trump castigated Dems as radical left lunatics. And use the racist jibe against the Democratic Senator. And this Democratic representative, Jim Hymes, is still talking about demo decorum and civility, really, really, to which the congressman responded, really, really champions for what is good and right, cannot win by suggesting that what is good and right can be compromised just because the other side does it.

That's crappy moral reasoning. And how you lose politically decorah may not matter much, but what is right does, let's continue that debate in person. I appreciate Congressman Jim Hines joining me now here, uh, in the studio with me to continue, I hope our good faith disagreement about the best way to approach, uh, Donald Trump and his authoritarian administration.

Um, in your own words. Congressman, why did you vote to censor your colleague Al Green for doing something a lot of grassroots dems are glad he did?

REP. JIM HIMES: Yeah. Yeah. And by the way, you can be glad he did [02:09:00] it. Uh, and I'm sort of ambivalent on that. Okay. And also vote to censure. Why? Okay. And that may actually be the way I feel about it.

Why it's not really about decorum, incivility. I put that in my tweet. Decorum. Incivility are important parts of a functional system. And yeah, I think we should be a little careful about the political aspects of casting aside decorum and civility. But what this is really about is the rules. Now I get this all the time, and as you might imagine, the last 72 hours, I've gotten it a lot.

Yeah. Don't follow the rules. Do not follow the rules. Well, so then I ask, um, activists who take that approach, what rules shall I not follow? Shall I stop following the rules against violence? Can I, can I now lie regularly? Because all of the rules are suspended? And I ask those questions to make the point that when we start talking about breaking the rules, we have to be enormously careful.

And we have over a century structured a way in which we break the rules and we feel good about it. This is the tradition of civil disobedience. And of course this was constructed by people like Moham Gandhi, Martin Luther King, who said [02:10:00] two things I. An unjust rule can be righteously and in fact should be righteously broken.

Now whether the house procedures are unjust rules, we'll set that aside. And then this thing, two part, and this is the nodding to the importance of rules and the concepts of the rules as the thing that stop us from chaos. You can break an unjust rule and then you happily accept the circumstances, which by the way, is where Al Green was.

Yeah. He said, I'm gonna get in the way and I expect there to be consequences. And on Twitter, he put the resolution and he said, guilty. So as a principle of reasoning, and this is why I talked about crappy moral reasoning, you can't say, and it's completely inconsistent with the tradition of civil disobedience to say you should break the rules, but seek to evade the consequences.

So just to finish this thought, so why does Jim Himes vote for it? Because I voted for the censure, um, of Joe Wilson when he shouted at President Obama. So now I get asked [02:11:00] by a, let's, let's, let's sort of transition this to a little bit of politics. I get asked by an unaffiliated voter who isn't very online.

Wait, you voted to chastise Joe Wilson, and then you didn't vote In the case of Al Green. In a world where everybody thinks that politicians have no principle and believe. That it's okay when our side does it. That's a bad message to send.

MEHDI HASAN - HOST, ZETEO: So cut. You said a lot there. A lot of interesting points, fair points.

Just on one of them. Even if you accept the consequences of what you do. The Republicans could have all voted to censor him and he could have accepted this cons. He didn't need 10 Democrats to join him. To use your analogy of Moham, Gandhi, of the Mahatma, you know, he accepted the consequences of the British punishing him, but his own side didn't punish him too.

REP. JIM HIMES: The question is, is punishment righteous?

And you can say, no, it's not. Which is by which is inconsistent with the traditional understanding of civil disobedience. And you can be angry at me for participating in that, which is a bit odd if you believe that the punishment is righteous. [02:12:00] But what you can't do is to say, we get. The one half of civil disobedience breaking the rules, but we're gonna seek to evade the other half.

Why? Again, you're absolutely right. I have thought about this a lot. Um, I could have voted no, and I could have constructed an argument that would've been about what is right and true. The people who visited my workplace on January 6th with the intent to stop a procedure to get in the way of the operations of the Congress, horrible, horrible thing.

In that moment, they and their supporters believed that they were righteous. So you can't simply rely on your own belief of righteousness. To say, I'm going to break the rules and I'm not going to accept the consequence.

MEHDI HASAN - HOST, ZETEO: I wanna push back and say, you kind of can, because it sounds like you're a little bit both sides in this, right?

The people who came to Congress violently to interrupt a illegal proceeding were breaking the law and doing immoral, dishonest things, right? Whatever they believed in their heads, and many of them who knows what they believed in their heads, that is not the same thing as a congressman standing up against a [02:13:00] president who is being authoritarian is violating the Constitution from day one. Um, and taking what you said, you, you even began the interview saying, I kind of admired what he did. Uh, in a sense it was a good thing maybe that he did it. So I'm not sure. I, I get this argument of saying if they do it, it doesn't mean we should do it.

And this is gonna sound very partisan, but, but when they do it, it's wrong. And maybe in this case it's right.

REP. JIM HIMES: Yeah. But, um, Medi, the whole concept of a society under law. Yeah. Is that you and me and no one else. Not the young man. He didn't break any laws. Uh,

MEHDI HASAN - HOST, ZETEO: people on January 6th. Broke laws. What I understand what law understand.

I understand. Rules. Rules, decor rules. I mean, Shannon, no, no, no, no, no. Let's just go back to decor. One second. 'cause you gave a very long answer at the beginning. You just bypassed the decorum. Yeah. You did bring up decor. I did civility. In your original remarks. I did, I did. Shannon Watts, who's a gun control activist, you may know her founder of Mom's Demand Action.

She had this viral post, she said, democracy dies in decorum. Kind of riff on the post Democracy dies in darkness. She's right, isn't she? Democracy's on the line. And people like you're talking about decorum.

REP. JIM HIMES: I think there's a lot of ways to fight. Righteous battles. [02:14:00] Think of the civil rights movement. Um, Malcolm X was part of that.

Stokely Carmichael. Fairly radical, right? Um, Martin Luther King criticized by radicals for being way too accommodating and moderate. You know, who else was important? John F. Kennedy. And Lyndon Baines Johnson, I, I think it's a mistake to get into the question of, do you wanna be John F. Kennedy, or do you wanna be Malcolm X?

All of those elements are really important, but I am gonna, and I'm going to acknowledge that focusing on decorum is the wrong thing to do. I probably should have said the rules, and I'm gonna acknowledge that rules and laws are different, but. They are alike in the way that if we are to live in a society of laws and rules, we have to take off the table that I can break a rule or a law simply because I have strong conviction.

This is why a young man murders the CEO of United Healthcare. He had strong conviction. This is why to bring up another potentially sore topic. Too many people seek to justify. [02:15:00] The extremely aggressive, brutal war on Gaza Because of the horridness Yeah. Of the murder of 1200 Israeli.

MEHDI HASAN - HOST, ZETEO: But those are, those are, those are killings and crimes.

We could disagree. Al Green saying the president has no mandate, is not in the same moral or political universe.

SECTION C: ENERGY

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: You've reached Section C Energy.

Bernie AOC Deliver Hope With Record-Breaking Crowds - The Rational National - Air Date 3-22-25

SENATOR BERNARD SANDERS: When Alexandria was a kid, you correct me if I'm wrong, she cleaned, uh, houses with her mom in order to make enough money for the family to survive. And then after she graduated college, she was a barista, working paycheck to paycheck. But what she did as she looked around her and in her community in the Bronx, New York, is she saw that change had to come.

And so what she did [02:16:00] is decided to run for Congress and people said, what are you kidding? The guy who represents the district was one of the most powerful members of Congress. He had access to unlimited kinds of money. How much money did you have when we started? You started None. None. Alright. But she put, she did what Real politics is about.

Real politics is not sitting at million dollar fundraisers. Yes, it's working with people in your community

and she worked hard and her friends worked hard and she pulled off and major upset.

And since then she has been a great member of Congress. But not only [02:17:00] that. She has been an inspiration to millions of young people all across this country.

Now, the reason I say all of that is not just to praise Alexandra and I love her, but is to tell you and the people of America. That what Alexandria did, you can do.

There are millions of young people out there who love this country. Who are disgusted with what they are seeing,

who are prepared to get involved in the political process. So Alexandria, thank you for being that inspiration.

DAVID DOEL - HOST, THE RATIONAL NATIONAL: I think this is one of the more important moments to come out of [02:18:00] these town halls is this message to the audience. Because these people that are, there are ones that are, that want to be more politically engaged if they aren't already.

And having a OC there as an example of what you can do, I think is, uh, a great way to, um, to message to these people who want to be more involved and understand that, hey, you could be a bartender and you could take down someone like Joe Crowley. One of the most important, or I should say powerful Democrats at the time.

In Congress take, you can take him down if you have an actual connection to your community and you actually are willing to fight for people. So it's a great message

Jasmine Crockett Puts Chuck Schumer & Hakeem Jeffries on Notice - Reese Waters - Air Date 3-16-25

RESSE WATERS - HOST, REESE WATERS: We have heard quite a bit from the Democratic caucus admonishing their own. And how they choose to object to Donald Trump.

REP. AL GREEN: I'm a son of the segregated south. The rights that were enshrined in the Constitution for me, my friends and neighbors denied [02:19:00] me.

I had to go to the back door and drink from a colored water fountain, sit in the back of the bus, and I had relatives who were locked up in the bottom of the jail. Uh, I, I have acclimated to this kind of behavior, but quite candidly, it is a double standard. And it is a form of invidious discrimination, but I, I was prepared to suffer whatever the consequences are when I decided that I would engage in this peaceful protest.

I never used any sort of a profanity. I never made any threats. I merely said, you do not have a mandate, and this is true.

CNN ANCHOR: Is there another. Pardon me. Is there another extension of this? Does, does your moment end up serving as a distraction to when your party seems to be struggling to exercise a real cohesive approach here?

REP. AL GREEN: I believe what I did puts a focus on Medicaid. I believe that this may be the means by which we can [02:20:00] prevent Medicaid from being cut, because I think it would be difficult now for them to move forward to cut it. Given that we have brought this to the attention of the public, I don't see it as a distraction.

I see it as a positive action to protect Medicaid.

RESSE WATERS - HOST, REESE WATERS: Now, I would like to, uh, reassert my feelings that rolling over and playing dead does not a strategy make. So if you aren't as outraged. By seeing the rampant corruption that we have seen just on the course of the last couple of months, and seeing our democracy not only in decline, but in actual peril.

If you are not as upset as I am, then what are you doing in Congress? We also, we also knew that it was only a matter of time before those more vocal members let their feelings be known and

we know who that was going to be.

REP JASMINE CROCKETT: It's [02:21:00] really bad because not only are we enduring something we've never experienced before, as we came up on the State of the Union address, we started to look through history and figure out what does one do when a dictator is coming through. Like, I mean, like, we were trying to figure out like what are the options and, um, it is true that we are in a time that we've never seen before.

RESSE WATERS - HOST, REESE WATERS: This actually reminds me of a tweet that I saw this week that said, we have no protections in our constitution and in the way our, um, elect our, uh, democracy is constructed. We have absolutely no protections against apathy. We have all of these checks and balances in place. But if people don't see fit to stand and do their duty to protect those checks and balances as set forth in the constitution.[02:22:00]

Everybody has had that one job where you knew the supervisor that wasn't going to enforce the rules. You, you know what I mean? You, the, the rules don't really work when you have the supervisor that, that doesn't enforce the rules. And by the way, shout out to Jerry 'cause I wouldn't have made it through my early twenties without you.

All those, all those days. I came in late smelling like mad dog. But when it comes to our constitution, the stakes are a little different.

REP JASMINE CROCKETT: We have someone that does not believe in co-equal branches of government. And then we have people that are party to those other co-equal branches that have decided that they would seed their constitutional oath and responsibilities, um, to kneel to, I don't even know if it's Trump.

Right? Like, it, it feels as if Elon. It is really like running everything and, and Trump is just hanging out, um, signing whatever executive order somebody puts in front of him and when he is not doing that, he's just posted [02:23:00] up in Mayor Lago. Um, you know, playing golf.

RESSE WATERS - HOST, REESE WATERS: And what she just did in, in combining Elon Musk and, and Donald Trump is obviously a sensible thing to do when you see two people together more than most. Middle-aged couples like that, that's, that just, that just makes all the sense in the world. But it's also why I have the bit of energy that I take towards the, the magos that have found out recently.

Because even in their finding out, even in the find out stage, as we saw with the farmers, as we see with federal workers, they will find a way to separate Donald Trump. From Elon Musk. Now, one of the reasons that you used to. To elevate Donald Trump over Kamala Harris when it came to their, their candidacy for president was that you needed a strong man, was that you need somebody [02:24:00] that can stand up to, uh, the, the leaders on, on the world stage and and advocate for America.

But you are perfectly fine for Elon Musk putting him in his pocket and leading him around by his ear to the point that you absolve Donald Trump of all accountability for the litany of things you object to Musk and Doge engaging in, that's insane.

REP JASMINE CROCKETT: Elon hasn't seen all the waste 'cause we've, you know, spent a whopping more than $10 million already.

On Trump and golfing and Mar-a-Lago, I'm sure there's a few things we could do with that $10 million that would be more productive. Um, and what's most concerning to me, and it's why I am so happy that I'm specifically here with this platform, is that there is not only an attack on us as Americans, and when I say us, it's not Democrats.

I specifically say us as Americans because there were those that [02:25:00] really thought that Donald Trump was gonna make their lives better. And they went out and voted for him because of that. Right. Right. But right now they're like, well, wait a minute. Veterans are being fired and you know what's gonna happen to the va?

Because they're talking about they wanna get rid of 80,000 jobs at the va. And if you know anything about the va, people been telling us more and more is needed. Not less. Not less, less. Right. Yeah. Um, or the people that don't understand that when you're looking at something like the Consumer Protection Bureau, that they actually have.

Fees that they charge, and a lot of those fees go to take care of a lot of the salaries. Like there are no savings really that we will see by firing people. But I can tell you that by firing people and with costs going up that a recession is upon us.

Resisting Threats to Democracy with Rep. Robert Garcia - Why Is This Happening? The Chris Hayes Podcast - Air Date 3-11-25

REP. ROBERT GARCIA: We do town halls all the time. I haven’t had a town hall in the last couple of weeks. We had a big telephone town hall, which we had 8,000 people on. I had a Spanish telephone town hall that [02:26:00] had 11,000 people on. And we’re having some in person town halls here in the weeks ahead. So town halls are important, and everyone should be doing them, especially, Republicans who are now choosing not to. But beside those, by the way, whether it’s the telephone town halls where I’m shopping at the grocery store, not one single person has come up to me and said, oh, by the way, you should lay back a little bit or be bipartisan or you should find common ground. No one has mentioned that to me. Everyone says, fight harder or thank you for taking on Elon Musk or please keep calling out Donald Trump whenever you can. Continue to be more aggressive or be even more aggressive.

That’s what people are saying, and I know that that’s what people are hearing. My other colleagues, by the way, are all hearing the same thing. People want people want us to be aggressive and tough.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?: Okay. I’m just going to make the argument on the other side, not that I believe it, but just to present it because I think it’s got some substance to it, which is the argument on the other side is this is precisely the problem that the Democrats have been captured by the [02:27:00] part of their electorate that are the kind of people that vote in special elections, the kind of people that consume a lot of news, the kind of people who are totally locked in. That’s the core democratic constituency. It’s a constituency that went overwhelmingly for Harris, but precisely the reason that Harris lost the election is people who are the most checked out went for Trump. And so if you allow yourself to listen to that most in tune group, you will be alienated from the marginal folks that you need the most. That’s the argument.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA: Yeah. I don’t buy that. I mean, look, I think first, we have to always excite the base. I mean, the base is something that I think we oftentimes don’t do a good enough job exciting, by the way. The reliable Democratic voter. Obviously, we’ve got to do that. We’ve got to do that by being tough taking on Donald Trump and do and being good Democrats. All the folks that I believe we actually have to reach in the election, those voters are casual voters. We don’t do a good job of actually reaching them because they’re not watching, like me or you. They’re not watching MSNBC or CNN or the cable news all the time. [02:28:00] They’re not reading the “New York Times.” What they’re doing though is they’re watching maybe their favorite YouTube show or pop culture or they’re invested in entertainment media, and those are the spaces where Republicans have learned to reach that casual voter.

We can win those casual voters, but we’re not going to win those casual voters by just doing politics as usual. I think we’re going to win them by trying to get their attention by being a little bigger, a little bit more in different types of spaces, and bringing those folks in and winning the argument. Now can we actually persuade them when we have their attention? I think that’s something that we’re going to find out. I’m hopeful that we can. I think we have the right people to do it.

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?: I guess the thing I’m sort of working through is, like, okay. So we agree it’s not normal. We know that Democrats are sort of locked out of power. So here’s my take on where things are, which is that elected Democrats are just not that important to this moment. That’s my feeling. My feeling is that, like, for all the people that say, [02:29:00] like, what are the Democrats doing, and I have Democrats on my show. I’m interviewing you right now. What matters is mass public opinion in civil society. That’s really what matters. And public opinion probably more than anything. A world in which Donald Trump’s approval rating is 30%, a world in which frontline members are like, really looking down the barrel is a better world for the outcomes it produces than the world we’re in now in which its approval rating is 45%. Like, I’m using these numbers, they’re just sort of rough estimates, but public committee matters. And the most important thing to do right now is to move public opinion against the person attempting an authoritarian end to the democratic project.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA: I mean, that is a hundred percent. And I also think that that’s where elected officials or people with some megaphone --

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?: Yeah.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA: -- have a responsibility to bring him down, right? So, look, there’s two ways we’re going to actually start winning. I [02:30:00] think one is, the issues are going to actually impact Donald Trump, right? His approval rating is going to be impacted by what? When he makes these cuts to Medicaid and people actually feel it. When tariffs actually raise prices, people are going to feel that. When eggs don’t come down and when people are going to the grocery store, those things are going to impact Donald Trump’s approval and bring him down and certainly keep at a minimum, it’s not going to let him go above where he’s at right now, and you can see his numbers continue to go down.

What else is going to bring those numbers even lower? Is those folks that have, particularly those that have big megaphones, Hakeem Jeffries, Alexandria. Now, folks that are coming up like Jasmine, other people that can actually take the mic and amplify a message of bringing Trump down and bringing truth the way he’s actually doing. He’s cutting Medicaid. He’s after Social Security. They’re trying to cut programs in your in your public school. That will also impact Trump, and it’s going to be amplified not just by a few of us, but by all of us. And so, where the Democratic caucus comes [02:31:00] in? I agree with you. First, it’s events that are happening on the ground, his policies will impact his members the most. But where we can actually have an impact is to every single day is talk about in as many spaces as we can --

CHRIS HAYES - HOST, WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?: Yes.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA: -- and not just traditional media, what the hell Donald Trump is doing and its impact to your family. That’s what we’ve got to do.

SECTION D: PUSHBACK TO THE FAILURES

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: This is Section D, pushback to the failures.

Ex-Dem Party Chair EXPOSES Corporate Machine Still MAKING BANK Despite Kamala Loss - Status Coup - Air Date 3-25-25

JUDITH WHITMER: After 2020 Nevada caucuses, 'cause we were still in the caucus system at that point, uh, we actually were able to organize.

And win big for Bernie in 2020 here in Nevada. Um, a lot of people don't realize that, but, but Bernie actually won Nevada in 2020 and that was because the organizing, the huge organizing effort we did on the ground. Um, in past, in past election, the past events starting in 2016, a lot of times we were unable to build on that momentum.

But after 2020, we decided we had to do something to keep [02:32:00] people organized. So the way we did that was to actually get all of his delegates, which was over 5,000 delegates to attend the state central committee meeting. Right. And so by doing that and by getting them enrolled in the state central committee, we were able to.

Affect the elections of the inner party Democratic party workings here in Nevada. But that took a lot of effort. I mean, organizing 5,000 people right, and saying has a big effort and, and getting them to understand the value of working. Toward that goal of taking over the Democratic party, and we were successful in, uh, 2020 through 2023, um, in controlling the party and making sure that the, that we conducted everything above board.

Transparently and that we were able to get young, progressive candidates elected to our state legislature. That was a big deal. Right? Um, and that wouldn't have [02:33:00] happened without that. Uh, because the structures, there's so much dark money even in our Democratic primaries, as. So much dark money that that's what we're always fighting against.

And that's why we need people to organize around candidates and to get these people elected. Like the energy here today was amazing. Yeah. But what do we do next?

TINA DESIREE-BERG: Well, that's my, Judith, that's my question for you. Um, so in, in response to progressives, the, the more establishment side, just for lack of a better word.

They weren't okay with you guys having control of the wheels. My, so my next question is that is how deeply did that affect the Harris outcome in the state? Because it was a very thin margin that Donald Trump won by.

JUDITH WHITMER: Right. So. All of that ugliness spilled over in the Democratic party elections, the Nevada Democratic Party elections.

And you know, they actually worked to make sure that progressives were [02:34:00] disenfranchised from the party. And that young people, a lot of young people were disenfranchised from the party. So when that happens, guess what? You wasn't with razor thin margins in your elections, like Senator Rosen barely pulled it out and we lost Nevada.

We lost the governor's race and we lost the President. So that's a big deal. It's a really big deal in a swing state that for the last few cycles, swung blue. Then all of a sudden, you know, vote for Trump. That means you're, you're doing something wrong as a party. And I think that the Democratic party needs to take a hard look.

And how they're doing business.

TINA DESIREE-BERG: You know, I do think that's part of it. The Republicans win by simply suppressing the progressive vote, don't they? So if, if the Democratic party appeals to its more corporate. Arm. Right? And they talk about putting, you know, not, not, I'm not talking about reaching out to grassroots Republican voters that are angry right now about Elon Musk and hurting financially.

We're talking about those [02:35:00] individuals. Some of those even guys even support Medicare for all. Right? Yeah. We're talking about the corporate interests, the big moneyed interests we're talking about, you know, that sort of thing where, where these two parties agree on that level, but if, if, if that is what's placated and not this.

Then it's enough to suppress progress progresses from coming out because the progressives are like, I, I'm not gonna be down with somebody that's anti-trans or racist. That's not what I'm here for. It's almost like Bernie made this, this, the divide isn't, is the divide, isn't this, it's this. What are your thoughts on that?

JUDITH WHITMER: Deeper than that though, because the machine, the corporate machine actually runs the Democratic party. It's not being run by individuals. It's being run by consultants and lobbyists. That are part of that machine. So there's a lot of people at the top still making a ton of money whether we win or lose.

And that's what, that's what we've gotta get past that cycle of corruption, right? Like we, when we have democratic primaries, people should feel that they have the right to elect their own [02:36:00] candidate, not have that choice taken away from them by dark money that comes in and says, okay, we're clearing the field.

Only this candidate can run because this candidate has pledged loyalty to them. The machine, that's what has to stop, and then people will start to feel like they're franchised again to vote. Right now, non-partisan voters make up the majority of the electorate in Nevada. People can't forget that the Democratic Party has disenfranchised all those voters.

And they're not doing anything to recoup those losses. Like, why aren't we reaching out to Nonpartisans? Why aren't we reaching out to small business owners? I mean, isn't just about corporate right in, in the state. There are a lot of small business owners that the Democratic Party should be engaged with and supporting as well as our unions.

Tim Walz EXPOSES Gavin Newsom Without Even Trying | The Kyle Kulinski Show - Secular Talk - Air Date 3-20-25

KYLE KULINSKI - HOST, KYLE KULINSKI SHOW: There's this podcast that went on between Gavin Newsom and Tim Balls. This is the, the first person who's left of center that was brought on by Gavin Newsom.

His, uh, [02:37:00] first podcast episodes were sloppy. Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, and Michael Savage. Three hard right wingers. And why is Gavin doing that? Because he believes in the first philosophy I told you, oh, maybe we got stuff to learn from him. Like that dumb bullshit. But what you're gonna see here is Tim Walls, without even trying, really ends up exposing how hollow and vapid Gavin Newsom's approach to politics is right now and why he's massively falling out of favor with Democrats, which I'll prove to you in a minute.

By the way, after we watch this clip, um, and why Tim Walls is, is. More on the, on the positive side of the democratic base. People are looking at him more favorably now because of how he's been acting. So let's watch and we'll break it down.

TIM WALZ: Base where we wanna, okay. We challenge you to a, to a, a, you know, a, a wwe e fight here type of thing.

But it is, it's

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOME: a natural reaction. I think it's one of the reasons we're losing so many men. And again, it's multiethnic. It's not just white men. Uh, we're losing them. We're losing them to these guys online. We're losing people that I'm bringing on this podcast as well. That's why I brought, these are bad guys though.

These are, I brought [02:38:00] Charlie guys, but they exist.

KYLE KULINSKI - HOST, KYLE KULINSKI SHOW: So who are they talking about? Charlie Kirk. Steve Bannon, Michael Savage. People like that. Oh, we're losing. We're losing to these guys, bro. So I'm bringing 'em on the podcast. Now, if Gavin Newsom brought these people on the podcast and fought them tooth and nail, I'd be saying, great.

I'd be giving 'em credit. I'd be covering the clips, but he's not. He's playing fucking Patty cakes with them, right? Look at Tim Wall's reaction when these people are brought up. He's like, these are bad guys. Which reaction is more in alignment with democratic voters in the Democratic base? I think it's Tim's. When you think of sloppy Steve and Charlie Kirk and, and Michael Savage.

These are bad guys is the correct reaction. All right, let's keep going.

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOME: And we could deny they exist. They exist. Not only they exist, they persist and they're actually influencing young kids every single day. How do push, how do.

TIM WALZ: Push some of those guys back under a rock is what I think.

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOME: We have to first understand what their motivations are.

I think we have to understand what they're actually doing. That's don think racism and misogyny. I think [02:39:00] there's a lot of that, but I don't think it's exclusively that. When you talk to a guy like Steve Bannon, I, you know, he reminded me a little bit of my grandfather when he talks about working folks and he talks about how we hollowed out the industrial for this country.

I understand that, but so I, we can dismiss the notion of, of election denialism. We could completely dismiss what he did on January 6th, but I don't think you can dismiss, uh, what he's saying reminds me a lot of what Bernie Sanders was saying reminds me a lot of what Democrats said 20, 30 years ago. I mean, he's arguing against, he, he hates Musk, right?

He hates Musk. He hates Musk. He hates the oligarchy. He totally agrees with you on the concentration of monopolistic powers.

KYLE KULINSKI - HOST, KYLE KULINSKI SHOW: Gavin Newsom is being played for an absolute fool. That's what you need to understand because here's the bottom line, Steve Bannon is lying. Gavin, he is lying to your face. He virtue signals and poses like, oh, I'm on the economic left.

Actually, I'm like against the oligarchy and stuff, bro. And then Donald Trump does a massive tax cut for the 1% corporations and he doesn't say Dick to oppose it. Nothing. When Trump backs every single thing Elon Musk is doing, cutting the CFPB going after social [02:40:00] security. Going after flight safety officials.

He might take some shots at Elon, but then when Trump comes out and says, I agree completely with Elon, Steve goes, yes sir. He's a posr. He's a liar. By the way, he also literally committed, committed a massive amount of fraud, stole money from the MAGA base by telling them we're gonna privately fund the border wall and just took the money.

This is a guy that you're doing well, you gotta hand it to him. No, you fucking don't. You gotta fight him. That's what you gotta do.

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOME: Completely. Uh, dismisses the notion that we should extend the tax cuts for corporations and the very wealthy he thinks we, and then

KYLE KULINSKI - HOST, KYLE KULINSKI SHOW: Trump

does it and he's got

Dick to say, and he still says, I want, he says, I want Trump to get a third term.

Even though Trump cut taxes for the wealthy in corporations in the first term, they're gonna do it again in the second term as they're broadcasting while raising taxes on the bottom. 95%. And Mr. Populist, I'm a populist. He sees Trump do this two separate times and goes, he's still my guy. Well then maybe just, maybe you're not a populist.

Maybe you're [02:41:00] not anti oligarchy. Maybe you're not left wing. Maybe you're a fucking liar who uses those issues to try to trick people into, into supporting your fascist regressive agenda.

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOME: Lower taxes, uh, uh, for the middle class.

TIM WALZ: I want to see increase taxes. Message. I, I can't message to misogynist. I can't message that women shouldn't have.

But I think if we say, so,

KYLE KULINSKI - HOST, KYLE KULINSKI SHOW: the point that the point that he's making is that like Gavin, these people are like beyond the pale. Like you have to acknowledge that they're beyond the pale. This is the point that Tim Wal is making, and this point is undeniably true, and Gavin is refusing to acknowledge it.

And if anything, he's normalizing and humanizing these fucking assholes. So let me prove my point here for you because this guys, I need you to stop and think about this. He had on three far right wingers on his podcast as the first guest. One of them is Michael Savage. A lot of you are probably too young to remember who Michael Savage is.

He was one of the biggest radio hosts in the country during like the Rush Limbaugh era, the Sean Hannity era, late nineties, early two thousands, right here. Here's what you need to know about Michael Savage. He was banned from the United Kingdom for his extremism. [02:42:00] He said, quote, I was very disappointed in Trump attacking white supremacy.

He said, trans healthcare quote should be outlawed. He said, Bernie and Hillary are communists. And then he used the famous quote of, first they came for the rich people and I said, nothing. I. To try to go after. Uh, Bernie and Hillary, he said, put down BLM protestors, like feral dogs. He compared Obama to Hitler and said Obama is doing white genocide.

He mocked PTSD and depression implying it wasn't real. He called Obama, quote, the new leader of the caliphate. He said Obama is spreading Ebola virus on purpose. He said Trump saved white kids from slavery. He defended torture. He calls left-wingers Vermins. He talked about wanting to reach for his Glock to shoot lesbians.

He said, quote, our children are being destroyed by gay marriage. He said, quote, the children's minds are being raped by the homosexual mafia. He. He said, white people are the only people that don't vote based on race. He says Autism is a fraud, a racket, a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out in 99% of cases.

He said, quote, we have to go to war with Iran. He said, quote, our freedoms are [02:43:00] choking us to death. He got fired from M-S-N-B-C because he screamed at a guy to quote, get AIDS and die. And then finally, his most controversial of all this controversial is one way of describing him, he said, we should kill 100 million Muslims.

This is who Gavin Newsom had on his podcast with. This is who he had on his podcast, and this is who he played fucking Patty cakes with. And again, it'd be one thing if you bring him on a fight with him the entire time until you're blue in the face, dog, I'd be defending you. You didn't do that. You didn't do it.

You didn't do it.

Hasanabi Bernie Sanders and AOC Have a Plan for the Billionaires - Novara Media - Air Date 3-24-25

STEVEN METHVEN - HOST, NOVARA MEDIA: Mainstream Democrats still haven't decided how to respond to the second Trump presidency, but some on the left of the party think the time for silence is over. At last, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders are on a fighting oligarchy tour of America. It's been drawing record crowds with 34,000 people estimated to have attended their stop in Denver, making it the largest rally of either of their political careers.

And in Vegas. The two politicians sat down with Hassan Piker for an interview.

HASAN PIKER: What are you guys, uh, [02:44:00] trying to accomplish with these rallies?

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: The kind of moment that we're in and also something that Trump was able to exploit was really practicing. Even though he doesn't believe in working class politics, they had a very focused working class strategy. And I think for a while, like democratic.

Party clearly didn't, wasn't affected at that, wasn't successful at that. And I think one of the things that we're here to do is to actually rally a class conscious movement to bring people together and to show that we can fight for a better future. Not in marginalizing and attacking people, uh, you know, marginalized people, but actually in rejecting the differences that we have to come together in common cause and to organize folks.

SENATOR BERNARD SANDERS: To me this country faces, I.

The worst set of crises that we have faced in a very, [02:45:00] very, very long time. Uh, we are looking at a nation, which is now oligarchic, and they don't hide it. I mean, I must give them credit for, but you know, they are, they're there out there. Mr. Must, the richest guy in the world is running all over the place, cutting veterans, the needs of veterans cutting after Social Security, uh, there are thir in addition to Musk.

He got 13. Uh, nominees of Trump, the head major agencies are all billionaires. So you got a government clearly no embarrassment of the billionaire class by the billionaire class for the billionaire class. And then what is, I would hope, would be upsetting to all Americans, no matter what their politics may be.

You can be a conservative about this. You got a president who is moving us very rapidly. Into an authoritarian form of society. I mean, you don't sue media in America because they say something bad about you. Alexandria and I got about 500 lawsuits there, but we happen to believe in democracy.

STEVEN METHVEN - HOST, NOVARA MEDIA: These [02:46:00] rallies have generated quite a lot of buzz.

Apparently there are like more people turning out than during Bernie's actual primary run is. Is that significant? What do you think is in the future for these two, if anything?

HELENA - HOST, NOVARA MEDIA: I think it's incredibly significant. This is a real kind of point of inflection in democratic party politics and where they want the party to move moving forward.

And we are seeing a real sense of anger amongst the Democratic base, right, in terms of what Trump is being allowed to do with very little pushback and a bunch of what was described by the Umani campaign in NYC as being a bunch of fossils and free people like Chuck Schumer. He, he's been, there's outrage, genuine outrage in terms of what we're seeing at town halls.

Somebody said. Clearly being nice isn't working. Have you tried violence? This is how angry Democratic party voters are with their own party. And Chuck Schumer, his decision to try and whip, uh, senators, democratic senators to vote for the, the budget bill, the Republican budget bill, to try and stop their being a shut down, as if that would look, make the Democrats look bad, rather than the Republicans has made every single Democratic party voter who is.[02:47:00]

Really angry at Trump personally and the Democrats for not pushing back, really feel disconnected with their elected representatives in a way they haven't felt in a long time. Noah really is a time for there to be a kind of democratic tea party moment, a real taking over of the party to change direction when the level to which the people feel represented by Democratic party politicians has never been lower.

They approve this is low approval rating. The party they've not seen in. Decades and decades and decades and at a time when people like Elisa Slotkin are being chosen as the democratic representative to respond to Trump X-C-I-A-A thesis slotkin. Mm-hmm. Giving a very kind of milk toast response that didn't mean anything really to, as opposed to, uh, a OC and Sanders.

Drawing huge crowds touring across the country. Speaking about, frankly, about the nature of billionaire capture and, and control of politics and oligarchy, this is where the divide is. It's grassroots politics versus establishment. Politics is the politics of appeasement versus their politics of opposition, and this is [02:48:00] what Democratic party votes as one.

Do we think this be electorally successful? I have no idea. I dunno what the long term future for this looks like. But in the absence of any action, in the absence of kind show themselves as being. Hardworking political operatives rather than just being people sitting there collecting their super PAC checks, right?

Sanders and a OC and people like, uh, Sean Fein, the leader of the United Auto Workers Union, who's spoken at a previous Sanders rally on his fight oligarchy tour. These are the only people who are showing some resolve, and there's a reason why we're seeing record out of crowds and from apparent reporting on the ground that I've looked at.

These aren't, you know, DSA members. The DSA have just moved away from endorsing a OC because she's moved towards kind of the Democratic party establishment to, for better or or worse. I will let viewers at home take their own opinions on this, but the people who are turning out to these rallies, these aren't hardened socialists.

These aren't people who've, you know, these aren't Marxist ISTs out there looking for a Vanguard party. They're just normally lib wine moms who are looking at [02:49:00] the Democratic party and seeing a pathetic bunch of appeases. And any amount of opposition, and now is the time to bring these people over, and I can have so much sympathy with people who are angry with a OC and Sanders for not being vociferous enough in their criticism of Biden and of Harris in terms of what's happening in Gaza.

I have that same criticism. I can certainly empathize with what you are thinking here. But this is, this is, this is the five alarm fire. This is, you know, this is Defcon one. Right now, when we're looking at the dismantling of American democracy, people being black bagged off the streets, we are seeing the potential for there to be an authoritarian coup of the government.

We're seeing what's happening with Elon Musk and Doge now is not the time for infighting. Now is not the time for partisanship. Now is the time for a popular and broad fund against fascism. And if. We are seeing a time when establishment neoliberal corporate politicians are doing nothing in response.

Now is the time to win people over and build bridges with people who otherwise would be Normie Libs who want to see some actual change. And if we can use this point of inflection to bring people to our side of the aisle by reaching [02:50:00] out and trying to get them to understand our anti-establishment politics that will, there will never be another time again.

So rather than I think what I think is some short term. Probably legitimate criticism of what Sanders and a C have represented for the past four years. Now is the time for reconciliation and thinking about what could be and how we use these moments. Just like we used the BLM uh, movement in the 2020s to rally people towards that kind of progressive politics and support of civil rights for the minority communities in America, now is the time to galvanize class conscious politics and to re make people realize internally amongst liberal circles that now is the time for class consciousness and think that every single person on the front line is somebody who can get a hit by the elites tomorrow.

SECTION E: HISTORY

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally, section E History.

Toward a Revival of Left Populism: What It Takes To Win - Keeping Democracy Alive with Burt Cohen - Air Date 12-6-24

BURT COHEN - HOST, KEEPING DEMOCRACY ALIVE: A lot of the, uh, people who in the Midwest, you know, middle America, Heartland of America, people who used to have unions as a place of, of gathering together, uh, feeling a sense of community.

[02:51:00] They're going into the, to the NRA meetings now and into church meetings and things like that. What, what's your, uh, sense about winning those people back into unions?

MICHAEL KAZIN: Well, as I said, union people have to organize the unions where they are. Yes. Um, but, you know, filling that, I mean, I think one thing I, I mentioned, um, in this piece you mentioned the dissent came out.

I wrote it just a couple days after the election was over, um, last month. Is, um, people, people want community, you know? Yes. Uh, people want a place to meet with like-minded folks, um, and. Um, and also I think they want a sense of power in their lives and, and to a certain extent in the society as a whole as well.

And, uh, one of the things the Democratic Party used to have, uh, way back was local parties. Sometimes they were machines and they were authoritarian. They were run by party bosses, but sometimes they were really more participatory groups and, and, um. One of the things that Ben Wickler, who's the, uh, [02:52:00] chair of the Democratic Party in Wisconsin Yes.

Has done very successfully, and he's actually running right now to be indeed head of the DNC. Yes. Is that the Wisconsin Republican Party has offices all over the state, including in some of the most Republican rural areas in the state, as well as in Milwaukee and Madison, which is the centers of, uh, democratic, uh, strength in, in Wisconsin.

People go to these, uh, places to of course, you know, uh, help to elect uh, local officials, but also they go there just for recreation to a certain extent. Sure. And uh, um, and it's in a lot of these towns, there's not a lot of places, uh, where you can go. People just sort of live online, you know? Um, yeah. Um.

Not even movie theaters anymore in a lot of places. So, so, um, this is not an answer to the lack of a working class movement, but it is an answer I think to the Democrats being seen as this elitist party that just, uh, has consultants and advertisers and pollsters who, who try to figure out what the ordinary American thinks and they sell it back to them.

Mm-hmm. The way the way [02:53:00] corporations do with consumer products. Um. Um, you know, I think, um, parties in Europe, by the way, Senate left parties and also www parties in Europe do have these local headquarters. Uh, Uhhuh,

I remember one time I was talking to, um, uh, at, at, at, uh, ban who for a short time was the head of the Labor party in Britain, and we had a, um, we had drinks, uh, the House of Commons a few years ago.

Um, and, and he asked me, why don't the Democratic Party have members. Um, and I thought, yes, that's right. You know, I mean, people consumer themselves to be Democrats, uh, with a capital D, but there's no membership. Uh uh you can give money, but there's not a sense of you're a member of a local party and maybe you do something without local party.

And that's something I think Democrats should, uh, should consider. But look, in the end. Movements are organized by people who are most affected by them. And, um, uh, democratic consultants who make six figures are not gonna organize people at Walmart. Uh, they have to, they can encourage people at Walmart to organize, but you're gonna have to have [02:54:00] a, the development of a working class culture that is friendly to unions, not just friendly unions, but also wants people to take the time outta their lives to organize unions.

Um, and on the positive side. There's a lot of support for unions out there. The Gallup poll. Yes, there is, uh, recently showed, uh, over 70% of Americans, uh, think unions are a good thing. And, um, uh, even Donald Trump, um, uh, and some of his, uh, advisors have said good things about unions. Republicans like Josh Hall, he just got reelected.

Um, senator from Missouri, um, uh, is friendly with the Teamsters Union in Missouri, which is an important union in Missouri. And as you know, uh, the head of the Teamsters Union. Uh, supported. Well, he didn't support Donald Trump, but he didn't support anybody. Uh, in, in the election he spoke at the Republican Convention.

So, um, even if you're a Republican working class person, you know, unions are, uh, are not, you know, anathema the way they, they, they once were to almost all Republicans. So. That makes it possible, I [02:55:00] think, to convince people across partisan lines, to, to, to, to organize unions. And once the unions are organized, then of course the Democrats have to be the party that supports them.

And as Joe Biden tried to too, um, but, but first the unions have to be there to, to be supported.

BURT COHEN - HOST, KEEPING DEMOCRACY ALIVE: They do. And his, his, as you say, Biden was the only president in history, I believe, to walk a picket line, but that was one afternoon. One of your suggestions in the article in dissent is that Democrats should quote, make their advocacy of unions central to their rhetoric and emphasize it all year long, end of year quote, and that there can be no true left populism without institutions that represent and fight for the needs and beliefs of the people themselves.

And I've heard stories about, uh, democratic politicians going into, uh, uh, black, uh, barbershops once a year. Just before the election, they go into black churches once a year, just before the election. You cite [02:56:00] one county in Pennsylvania where the idea of, uh, fighting for the needs of the people and connecting with people themselves.

MICHAEL KAZIN: One county in Pennsylvania where this was put into action and it worked. Tell us about that, please.

Um, unfortunately, your depiction of it is a bit too, it is a bit, a little too rosy. Yeah. Well, um, I mean, I, I was ca I was canvassing in York County, which is the southeastern part of the state.

MICHAEL KAZIN: Right. York, Pennsylvania is the, is the county seat. And, and then Democratic party basically was, uh, from what I could tell a little more then, uh, than the unions. Um, uh, the canvassing, uh, headquarters was at a rather large, uh. A building owned by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Uh, one of the, one of the, you know, important building, building trades workers, uh, building trades unions.

And it was a, a huge place. And, you know, there were meals and there were, uh, it, a childcare center and, uh, it was kind of community center. That's great. Mm-hmm. But. York County is not a Democratic county, it's still a Republican [02:57:00] county because most of your county is rural. And, um, and of course, most, most, most, uh, people in rural areas, whatever their income are now voting for, uh, right, for Republicans.

So, um. But it does point out something which, uh, I mentioned this other article, uh, in Descent, which is about, takes off from a very interesting book called West Belt Union Blues.

BURT COHEN - HOST, KEEPING DEMOCRACY ALIVE: Yes.

MICHAEL KAZIN: Wanted mention by, uh, by Theta Scotch Bowl, and, uh, can't remember her co-author, uh, who's a former undergraduate, a student of first, um, Laney Newman.

Yeah. Uh, thank you, um, letting Newman and, and, and, and Newman. Newman and, and Scott Poll point out that, um, one of the things that the same union, the IBW does in Winsell Penn, Western of Pennsylvania, which is what their book is about, um, is it brings together electrical workers and their families from different parts of Western Pennsylvania who usually work separately because they work in different building sites.

They sometimes work wiring up, uh, offices, you know, electrical workers do a lot of, a lot of kinds of work in different, uh, work sites. They'll work in factories for the most part. [02:58:00] Um. But they bring 'em together with, uh, softball games and with, uh, you know, pizza parties and, uh, they have family affairs of, of various kinds as well.

And it gives those workers, uh, in Western Pennsylvania, electrical workers and their families a place to gather a community. And not surprisingly, um, because those workers feel a sense of ownership of their union and the union leadership cares about them, um, and wants to help to nurture a community of, of their members.

Uh, they tend to respect the political opinions and decisions endorsements made by the leadership of the local union and the local union, like most unions in America, does support Democrats, uh, for state and local and, and national office. And so most IBW workers in that part of Pennsylvania vote for Democrats.

Whereas, um, Newman and Scotch Pole profile, United Steel Workers Union, which is one of the original CIO unions in the 1930s, a lot of the people organized CIO [02:59:00] unions were radical socialists and communists. Uh, but today the steel workers have shrunken to a, just a small fraction of its, uh, historic, uh, size 'cause steel, you know, steelwork steel has been made.

A lot of other countries besides this, uh, and um. But also, uh, the steelworkers Union doesn't provide that kind of community, doesn't define that kind, doesn't provide that kind of identity for steelworkers. Steelworkers who still exist in wins Pennsylvania. And so the steel workers, as you said earlier, um, in our interview, uh.

Gravitate towards other kinds of community groups, rifle groups, right? Evangelical churches, right? Conservative Catholic churches. Um, now it doesn't mean they wouldn't still be members of those churches if the union was providing them a community, but at least they have a, a, a countervailing, um, place where they could talk about politics, learn about politics.

But the Steel Workers Union, um, has a, has a headquarters in Pittsburgh, doesn't really go out to people much in the, uh, local towns where steel mills still exist. [03:00:00] Um, it's not a presence in their lives. And, uh, we often forget that when unions were strong, they were as strong as important as political institutions.

Yes, as it were, as economic institutions. Now, of course, if they hadn't done the job of representing workers, getting them better wages, better working conditions, health plans, and so forth, they would not have been right. Trust in political either. But, uh, but because they were trusted economically, uh, and they could make the case that Democrats were doing things for working people, whether they were in unions or not, um, they were trusted and, and, uh, union voters voted overwhelmingly for, for Democrats.

Um, and that was true up until the 1970s and 1980s when unions began to weaken in the private sector.

The American Presidential Election of 1932 - Mr. Beat - Air Date 8-8-16

MATT BEAT - HOST, MR. BEAT: The 37th presidential election in American history took place on November 8th, 1932. A lot had changed since 1928. Herbert Huber's time in office started out so promising, but on October 29th, 1929, also known as black. Tuesday, the stock market crashed and triggered a bunch of [03:01:00] events into motion that devastated economies around the entire world.

During the Hoover administration, industrial production shrank by 46%. Wholesale prices dropped by 32%, and foreign trade shrank by 70% while unemployment increased by 600 and. 7%. One in four Americans couldn't find work, even though they often moved across the country, sometimes on foot in order to find it.

Personal income tax revenue, and profits all dropped. The crime rate increased as unemployed workers often stole food to survive suicide rates and alcoholism. Rose marriages were delayed because many men wanted to wait until they could actually provide for a family less. Kids were born. It just sucked.

It really, really sucked. Today we call this period of severe economic turmoil. The Great Depression. Hoover had the great misfortune of being in charge when this happened, and so therefore became a great scapegoat. It's not like he didn't try very hard to stop it. [03:02:00] He called for billions of dollars and taxpayer money for public works programs to create jobs.

Ever hear of the Hoover Dam? Yep. That was named after him. He called for stronger labor regulation laws. He called for the federal government to start bailing out struggling industries to pay for this. He called for more taxes. Oops. He also raised tariffs by signing the Smoot Holly Tariff Act, and many argue that by doing all these things, Hoover was actually making the depression worse.

Economists. Still argue about this today, but the bottom line is, in 1932, Hoover was not so popular. You could see this by the thousands of World War I veterans and their families camped out in Washington DC demanding payments of a bonus that had been promised, or the slums nicknamed Hoovervilles, built by the poor people who couldn't find work.

Hoover had grown to hate the presidency, but he didn't think any other Republican could do a better job than him, so he decided to run again. What's surprising is that the Republican party overwhelmingly supported his renomination. Charles [03:03:00] Curtis would also run again as VP Baby Kansas represent, although he barely got renominated.

The Democratic Party seemed rejuvenated in 1932. They had three candidates competing for the nomination. Al Smith, the former governor of New York, seeking the presidency a fourth time, his friend, but increasingly vocal critic Franklin Roosevelt, who now was the governor of New York. And Speaker of the House, John Nance Garner, who was from Texas.

The Democrats went with Roosevelt, with Garner as his running mate. There were many third parties, but only one really stood out much. The Socialist Party they nominated Norman Thomas, a minister from New York. He also ran in 1928, but this time had growing support as so many Americans were unhappy with Hoover.

Yet also not satisfied with the Democrats. The socialist nominated James Mauer, a trade unionist from Pennsylvania as his running mate. On the campaign trail, Hoover did his best to defend his record, but the odds were against him. Not only did many Americans blame Hoover for the Great Depression, [03:04:00] most now were strongly against Prohibition, which was also associated with his administration.

Roosevelt now seemed like a rockstar, drawing huge crowds in inspiring hope that he had solutions to end the depression. While Roosevelt didn't offer many specifics solutions, he did get specific when criticizing Hoover Roosevelt criticized the Smoot Holly Tariff and the Hoover administration for taxing and spending way too much.

His running mate Garner went further accusing Hoover of quote, leading the country down the path of socialism. Toward the end of campaigning, things got downright nasty between the two. With Hoover calling Roosevelt a chameleon and plaid and Roosevelt, calling Hoover a fat timid capon. A Capon is a castrated rooster by the way, and here are the results.

No surprise here. Franklin Roosevelt won becoming the 32nd president in American history. He received 472 electoral votes and 57.4% of the popular vote. It was the first win for the [03:05:00] Democrats since 1916, and an impressive one of that Roosevelt received the highest percentage of the popular vote ever for a Democratic nominee.

Hoover got just 59 electoral votes in 39.7% of the popular vote. Norman Thomas finished third with 2.2% of the popular vote. John Nance garner AKA cactus Jack became the 32nd vice President in American history. This election was significant because it marked the beginning of 20 straight years of democratic control of the White House.

In fact, Democrats would be in office 28 out of the next 36 years

Credits

JAY - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: That's going to be it for today. As always, keep the comments coming in. I would love to hear your thoughts or questions about today's topic or our upcoming topics. Coming up, we have the alignment of Christian nationalism with the attack on education, and the realities of the system of techno feudalism we seem to be living under.

You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991. [03:06:00] You can now reach us on the privacy focused messaging app Signal at the username BestOfTheLeft.01 or simply email me to [email protected]. The additional sections of the show included clips from the Majority Report, The Dig, the Muckrake Political Podcast, Politics Theory Other, Revolutionary Left Radio, Unf***ing the Republic. the Rational National, Reese Waters, Why Is This Happening?, Status Coup, Novara Media, Secular Talk, Keeping Democracy Alive, and Mr. Beat. Further details are in the show notes.

Thanks to everyone for listening. Thanks to Deon Clark and Erin Clayton for their research work for the show and participation in SOLVED!. Thanks to our Transcriptionist Trio—Ken, Brian, and Ben—for their volunteer work helping put our transcripts together. Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for all of her work behind the scenes and co-hosting SOLVED!. And thanks to those who already support the show by becoming a member or purchasing gift memberships. You can join them by signing up today at best of the left.com/support, through our [03:07:00] Patreon page, or from right inside the Apple Podcast app. Membership is how you get ad free and early access to our incredibly good and often funny weekly show SOLVED!, in addition to there being no ads and chapter markers in all of our regular episodes, all through your regular podcast player. You'll find that link in the show notes along with a link to join our Discord community where you can also continue the discussion. And don't forget to follow us on all the social media platforms. We are new to BlueSky just like everyone else, but we're also finally making the move to video on Instagram and TikTok to support the new show SOLVED! So, please support us there.

Coming to you from far outside the conventional wisdom of Washington DC, my name is Jay and this has been the Best of the Left podcast coming to you twice weekly, thanks entirely to the members and donors to the show, from best of the left.com.

1 reaction Share

#1700 Dehumanizing Trans People is Always the First Step for Fascists (Transcripts)

Posted by · March 29, 2025 10:43 AM

Air Date 3/21/2025

Full Notes Page

Download PDF

Audio-Synced Transcript

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of the award-winning Best of the Left podcast.

You might not be trans yourself, but that's just like how coal miners aren't canaries, because when they saw that the canaries were under threat, they knew the danger was all around them. Fascists always start with those who are the easiest to dehumanize. But they never stop there.

For those looking for a quick overview, the sources providing our Top Takes in about 50 minutes today include The Blueprint, Politics Weekly America, CounterSpin, Amicus, The Majority Report, Democracy Now!, In the Thick, and the At Liberty podcast. Then in the additional Deeper Dives half of the show, there will be more in five sections: Section A, Policy rollbacks; followed by Section B, Dehumanization; Section C, Historical attacks; Section D, Stories; and Section E, Trans joy and resistance.

But first, [00:01:00] a quick note that I'm making a big announcement in the middle of the show. We are launching a rebranded new-ish show on YouTube. It's very important that you check out the show. Share it with everyone you know. Watch every episode. Like, comment, subscribe, the whole thing. For all the details, listen to my comments in the middle of the show.

But first, your Call To Action for the week.

ACTIVISM ROUNDUP

AMANDA: Hey everyone, Amanda here with your weekly roundup of activism actions. All links can be found at best of the left.com/action. A quick reminder that this is not an exhaustive list, just the largest nationwide opportunities.

As always, get involved in your local community, however possible. First up, a reminder that Saturday, April 5th is the big nationwide protest We've been waiting for Indivisible 50 51 Women's March, and many, many more have teamed up to organize the hands-off National Day of Action to reject oligarchy and demand a stop to the looting of our country.

There [00:02:00] will be a major presence in DC and Women's is offering bus rides .

to dc. You can find an event near you, their social toolkit, printable signs, and more at hands off 2020 five.com. Just a reminder that a core principle of the hands-off mobilization is a commitment to nonviolent action. March 31st is National Trans Day of Visibility, and if you're near DC Christopher Street Project will be holding a rally on the National Mall.

At least 15 members of Congress have confirmed their attendance. If you're not near DC, you can show your support in a wide variety of other ways, but check your local L-G-B-T-Q organizations for resources to share and advocacy. C Opportunities.

In light of Trump's latest attempt to unilaterally impose nationwide voting requirements with an executive order, it's a good time to call your members of Congress to voice your opposition to the Save Act.

AMANDA: This bill is a Republican fever dream to unnecessarily overhaul our elections and put barriers on the right to vote. There's so much crap in this bill, but some of the main highlights are requiring voters to show proof of citizenship documents most [00:03:00] Americans don't have and requiring names on birth certificates to match current IDs, which impacts both married women and trans people.

It also creates barriers for registering to vote by requiring a visit to a government office to show your documents in person. And finally, if you wanna call in favor of something, tell your members of Congress. You want them to pass the protect the right to organize or PRO Act

Per the A-F-L-C-I-O.

AMANDA: The Pro Act would restore the right of workers to freely and fairly form a union and bargain together for changes in the workplace. It is a response to the degradation of the National Labor Relations Act, which transformed Worker organizing in the 1930s. a reminder that All links can be found at best of the left.com/action. Remember that no one can do everything, but everyone can do something. Finding community and taking action are truly the best ways to deal with everything being thrown at us.

We don't get to choose the times we live in, so we need everyone to act like everything is on the line because it is.

The Threat of Project 2025 on LGBTQ+ Rights - The Blueprint with Jen Psaki - Air Date 9-16-24

JEN PSAKI - HOST, THE BLUEPRINT: I wanted to ask you about some of the legal cases that are referenced in here and you've worked on some of [00:04:00] them.

Bostock versus Clayton County, Georgia, let's talk about that one. What did that case establish and what are they hoping in Project 2025 to change?

CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah, so let's just get right down to what Bostock was about. Three employees, two were gay, one was trans, were fired from their jobs because they were gay and trans. That was the legal question. And the single question before the United States Supreme Court is, was it lawful under the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in employment to fire someone just because they are trans or just because they are gay? And the Supreme Court said that federal employment law that prohibits sex discrimination includes discrimination against LGBTQ people. That being gay or being trans and being discriminated against on that basis is a form of sex discrimination. And it was a very logical conclusion. It was a 6-3 opinion, in essence saying, if you are firing someone because they are gay, that is because they have an attraction to someone of the same sex. That is because of sex. There's no other way to look at it. [00:05:00] If you are firing someone because they are trans, it is because they are coming into work in a way that you don't think aligns with their sex at birth. That is because of sex. End of story. Very simple.

So that decision was decided in 2020. And then under the Biden administration, the administration, I think quite logically and rightfully, interpreted other federal laws that prohibit sex discrimination to also protect LGBTQ people. So that includes Title IX, protection from discrimination in education. That includes the Affordable Care Act, in healthcare. That includes the Fair Housing Act, in housing. These are just basic parts of society where, I think, generally, when people step back and think about it, we think we should not be discriminated against just because of who we are in these parts of life. This document says absolutely not, they want to erode all of those protections that were just confirmed in 2020, and they're attacking each regulatory and subregulatory decision by the Biden administration to ensure that LGBTQ people are [00:06:00] protected. And that will be a day one Trump administration action, to get rid of every single federal interpretation of law that protects LGBTQ people. You better believe it. That's happening right away. First hundred days.

JEN PSAKI - HOST, THE BLUEPRINT: It's sometimes hard to envision and understand what the impact of these flips, as you said, at the first 100 days, if they roll back these laws, what does it mean? But we have seen some states that give us a sense, right? Where as much as the Biden administration has tried to protect against discrimination, there are some states that have done the opposite. And some laws that are in place are a roadmap for what this would be like. Are there some that are most glaring to you or that you think people should really be aware of in terms of what this could look like if these protections are rolled back?

CHASE STRANGIO: Absolutely. I think this is all familiar because we've seen it in the states. We've seen it in Idaho, in Texas, in Florida, in Missouri. 25 states ban medical care for trans adolescents and ban trans girls from women's and girls sports. So we see the blueprint.

We have increasing number of states across [00:07:00] the country that restrict access to restrooms in schools for trans students. We have schools that are allowing teachers to misgender trans students in schools. We have laws like the so-called Don't Say LGBTQ or Don't Say Gay laws that restrict discussion of LGBTQ people in the classroom. Increasing censorship in libraries of books that simply mention LGBTQ people. And of course, they're being pushed in the states by the Heritage Foundation, by Alliance Defending Freedom, by America First Legal, Stephen Miller's organization.

And guess who are the architects of Project 2025? Those same organizations that have been using highly gerrymandered state legislatures to push and enact these policies, have them implemented by governors like Greg Abbott, like DeSantis. And then we see the impact.

JEN PSAKI - HOST, THE BLUEPRINT: One of the things that Trump has obviously been trying to do is back away from Project 2025, but there's a ton of overlap between his policies, what he's proposed, what he's advocated for, and everything in this document.

So if [00:08:00] we look at LGBTQ+ rights and the restrictions proposed in here, how does it overlap with what Trump has proposed and what his administration and people around him are talking about wanting to do?

CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah. Obviously the incoherence of Trump does make it hard to pinpoint a particular policy that he's proposing. But rhetorically, when he's talking about Tim Walz, for example, it's "He's deep in the transgender world." Well, of course, what he's talking about is he's conflating legal protections for people with an ideology. And it's all coming from the rhetoric from Project 2025. That is Heritage Foundation rhetoric. And he picked J. D. Vance as his running mate. Who could be more closely aligned with these policies and with this Christian nationalist version of society in which women have a singular role as bearers of children and caretakers of children and grandmothers? Yes. And post-menopausal women, as we know.

The assault on trans existence is central, actually, to this notion of how they understand [00:09:00] the gender binary more generally, and how they understand the role of cisgender women. And they are envisioning very much a society in which the role of women is as caretaker, as subservient to the husband. The childless cat lady is as much a threat as the trans person because both are an assault to this vision of the heterosexual nuclear family.

And so what transness becomes is an existential threat to that model. But ultimately what they want to impose on society is a model that has hugely detrimental effects for cisgender heterosexual women.

The fight to protect LGBTQ+ rights from Trump - Politics Weekly America - Air Date 1-31-25

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: And can you tell us Sasha, what are some of the other orders that Trump has signed that directly affect the LGBTQ+ community?

SASHA BUCHERT: One of the first one was their attempt to redefine sex.

CLIP: His executive order says "when administering or enforcing sex based distinctions, every agency and all federal employees acting in an official capacity on behalf of their agency shall use the term sex and not gender [00:10:00] and all applicable federal policies and documents".

SASHA BUCHERT: It's interesting because state legislatures have been trying to do this for a while. They have a whole range of different ways to define sex. They define it as your sex assigned at birth, or what's on your original birth certificate, or your chromosomes. In this case it's the small reproductive cell versus the large reproductive cell, and the only consistency that they have in these wildly different definitions of sex is that they carve out transgender people somehow from protections under the law.

That's the consistent motive behind this. But, the purpose of this is to weaponize these definitions throughout federal agencies in the United States. Specifically, this is the executive order that was issued on the first day, and this definition is being used to push out to agencies to issue their own definitions of how this would look.

And then another one that came out, I think, one, seeking to prohibit educational institutions from providing access to pediatric [00:11:00] gender affirming care.

CLIP: The president signing an executive order on Tuesday to end funding for gender affirming medical care for people younger than 19 years old. That includes puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgery. On his truth social platform, Trump said, "our nation will no longer fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support so called gender affirming care, which has already ruined far too many precious lives". He also went on to call gender affirming care barbaric medical procedures.

SASHA BUCHERT: The goal here is certainly enforcement, but it's also just to have a chilling effect. They want people to comply immediately, and to do so under a fear rather than having to actually cut the federal funding. That's part of the objective.

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: And, Sasha, we've already seen the courts forced to act against some of these executive orders, which, as you noted earlier, have been pretty poorly written. And we know that this is how Trump works: throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. It must be kind of exhausting to keep up with them and [00:12:00] fight these orders. What has that experience been like?

SASHA BUCHERT: Yeah, just to, first of all, it's a privilege to fight. I have no complaints. I am like, it's an honor. It really is. And, I just, I hope anybody listening to this podcast in the future, I hope that, now... there's no better time to stand up than now. So if you're going to do it, do it today. I worked in judicial nominees for a while during the first Trump administration. And, it's just not an issue that people resonate with in ways that they should, because, in the U S anyway, federal judges are appointed for a lifetime. During the Biden administration, last Biden administration, they really prioritized getting folks that come from different backgrounds, diverse judges instead of, unfortunately, the demographics for what we saw during the first Trump administration were pretty specific, and so that's really changed the makeup of the judiciary. And that's going to be so important as we move into the next four years for the courts to have courage and to be able to represent the communities they serve. And so I'm really excited about seeing how that will roll out in the coming years.

Of [00:13:00] course, these cases will likely bubble up to the Supreme Court, which has some deeply troubling decisions, but they've also issued really strong decisions in support of, LGBTQ people and trans people in particular. In 2020, they issued a decision upholding, our federal non discrimination law in employment to include protections for transgender people. I don't, I certainly don't think that's a given that they'll, uphold this kind of, the kind of discrimination that this government's seeking to inflict.

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: And you mentioned this earlier, but I totally agree that I think that so far, at least Trump's first days in office, even though we've seen this flurry of really controversial executive orders, they aren't spurring the same kind of energy on the left that we had seen during his first administration. It seems like there's a lot of fatigue and maybe even some despair among Democrats after they witnessed Trump's second electoral victory.

And I feel like there are some folks who are just saying, well, it's just four years, let's just get through it and get to the other side, as if to question [00:14:00] why you would bother bringing lawsuits against the administration or why the media would bother highlighting everything that he's doing. Why do you think that it is so important in this moment to fight this?

SASHA BUCHERT: Yeah, I think, history is not going to forgive folks that feel like they're just a little tired. People go to dangerous efforts to even vote in many parts of the world, and it's just so important that what is right is right is right. And, what's happening right now is wrong. And it's negligence and dishonorable in my opinion to stand by and watch this happen to not just trans people, but to immigrants, to women, to any, all vulnerable communities, and it's not going to stop. So it's important to raise your voice now, because it's just going to get worse, especially if people don't stand up and fight.

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: And on that point about this just not stopping, there are signs around the country that the restriction of rights is not going to stop at trans, non binary, and intersex people. I saw a story out of Boise, Idaho that the heavily Republican House State Affairs [00:15:00] Committee passed a resolution asking the Supreme Court to overturn its 2015 decision that gave same sex couples the right to marry nationwide.

CLIP: Now, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago, a concurrent opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas at the time suggested that same sex marriage could also be overturned on similar grounds. Idaho's measure now moves to the state Senate.

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: So, Sasha, how far do you think things could go here?

SASHA BUCHERT: Yeah, and we've, it's not just LGBTQ issues either. We've seen efforts in places like Oklahoma to impose Bibles into schools here and to eliminate any kind of curriculum that conflicts with the views of the government and all of that is deeply dangerous to the freedom of speech. And I certainly think that marriage equality has always been on the target list for folks that are on the far right and I think that's just the beginning, in my opinion.

So, I think that it's a downward slope and it's [00:16:00] hard to predict exactly where these folks are going to go. But I think there's just telling signs that this is a really dangerous moment for our country.

Ezra Young on Trans Rights Law, Anne Sosin on RFK Jr. and Rural Health - CounterSpin - Air Date 2-7-25

EZRA YOUNG: So this is just basic constitutional law, like I would teach my first year law students. Any one of them would be able to spot this. Under our Constitution, our government is one of limited powers. Those powers for the presidency are delineated in Article 2. The responsibility of the US president is to execute and enforce the laws that are passed by Congress, not to make up new laws, and most definitely not to infringe upon the rights that are protected by the United States Constitution.

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: Right. Well, we know that the law saying they can't do something doesn't necessarily mean -- we can already see that it hasn't meant that nothing happens, including things that can deeply affect people's lives, even if they aren't legal.

So accepting that [00:17:00] grayness, what should we be concerned about here?

EZRA YOUNG: Well, first and foremost, I'd push back on the sense that there's grayness. Okay. This is a situation where there's black and white. Our Constitution, which I firmly believe in -- enough so that I'm an expert in constitutional law and I teach it -- limits what a president can do.

So, let me contrast this with the president's power when it comes to immigration. There's a lot of power in the president when it comes to immigration, because that's an issue over which our Constitution gives them power. But our Constitution is one of the government of limited powers, meaning if power isn't expressly provided via the Constitution, the president can't just make up that power.

So for folks who think the president is doing something unconstitutional, or insists he has powers he doesn't have, the best thing to do is to push back and say absolutely no.

[00:18:00] Part of what we're seeing right now with some local hospitals in New York and elsewhere, essentially trying to comply in advance in the hope to appease Trump if one day he does have the power to do what he says he's doing, that's absolutely wrongheaded.

We don't, and no one should. That was why our country was founded, despite all the sins on which it was founded. A good reason why we were founded was to make sure that the people retain the vast majority of the power. And when politicians, including the United States president, pretend they have more power than they do, it's our responsibility as citizens and residents of this nation to push back and say, no.

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: Well, I appreciate that, and that the law is not itself vague, but that with folks complying in advance, as you say, and with us just general confusion, we know that a law doesn't have to actually pass in order for harms to happen, in order for the real world to respond to these [00:19:00] calls as we're seeing now.

So it's important to distinguish the fact that the law is in opposition to all of this. And yet here we see people already acting as though somehow it were justified or authorized, which is frightening.

EZRA YOUNG: It is frightening. And I think, again, that goes to our responsibility as Americans, citizens or not. If you're here, you're an American and you're protected by the Constitution. It's our responsibility to push back people who are all too ready to take steps against the trans community, against trans people, just like all the other minority groups President Trump is trying to subjugate, and to insist, hey, stop. You're not required to do this. If you're choosing to do this, that's a problem.

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: Well, we are seeing resistance, both these lawsuits and protests in the street. I feel like more today than yesterday and probably more [00:20:00] tomorrow than today. Do you think that folks are activated enough, that they see things clearly? What other resistance would you like to see? What do you think?

EZRA YOUNG: I think protests are a great way for folks who might not know a lot of these issues, or might have limited capacities, so they're not lawyers, they're not educators, they're not doctors, but they're people who care. That's a great way to push back, put your name and face and body on the line and to show you don't agree with this.

In addition to that, I would suggest that people read these executive orders and know what they say and know what they don't say. When I say right now for the trans community, complying in advance is one of the biggest problems we're seeing, I mean it. I've been on dozens of calls with members of the trans community, including trans lawyers at large organizations and law firms, [00:21:00] people who work for the federal government, who are not what my grandfather would call using their thinking caps right now.

They're thinking in a place of fear, and they're not reading. They're not thinking critically. As one example, if Trump were to put out an executive order today declaring the sky is purple, that doesn't change the reality that the sky is not purple. We don't need to pretend that is the reality. We can just call it out for what it is: utter nonsense.

Beyond that, I would say people should not change anything about the way they live their life or go about the world, simply out of fear that something will be done to them that no one has the power to do.

I can say it's kind of funny. I was at a really conservative federal court last year and I lost my passport. I thought I was going to find it again, but I didn't. And then I got busy with work. So, Trump came into office. So, I finally got my stuff together and [00:22:00] applied for a new passport. A lot of people in my community were concerned that I wasn't going to get a passport. And all I could think was I read all of the rules, I read all of the executive orders. There's nothing that says I can't get my passport. I'm not home in New York right now. But my understanding is my passport was delivered yesterday.

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: Okay. So just going forward, people think media critics hate journalists, when really we just hate bad journalism, which there has been a fair amount of around trans issues. But there are also some brighter spots and some improvements, like one you saw out of what might seem an unlikely place. Would you tell us a little about that?

EZRA YOUNG: One of my friends, Brittany Stewart of an organization called Gender Justice, which is based in Minnesota, brought a lawsuit against the state of North Dakota, challenging a ban on minors accessing trans health care. This case was filed about 2 years ago. And it just went [00:23:00] to a bench trial, meaning it was heard by only a judge in North Dakota last week.

Very lucky to the people of North Dakota, there's a wonderful local journalist by the name of Mary Steurer, who has been following the case for the last 2 years and attended each and every day of the 7 day bench trial. And each day after court, she submitted a story where there were photographs taken straight from the courtroom of the witnesses that were not anonymous and describing what happened for the day. And it's not just passive recording that Mary did. It's really critical reporting. She picked up on reporting in other states where the same witnesses testified, the shared long summaries of witness testimonies for the day. And my understanding is her reporting was so good that the 2 other major newspapers in North Dakota ran all of her daily [00:24:00] reports on their front pages.

JANINE JACKSON - HOST, COUNTERSPIN: Mary Steurer writes for the North Dakota Monitor. I looked through that reporting on your recommendation and it really was straightforward just being there in the room, bringing in relevant information. It just was strange in a way how refreshing it was to see such straightforward reporting. She would mention that a certain person made a statement about medical things, and she'd quote it, but then say, actually, this is an outlying view in the medical community, which is relevant background information that another reporter might not have included. So I do want to say, just straightforward reporting can be such sunlight on a story like this.

The Rights About-Turn on Parental Rights - Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick - Air Date 11-30-24

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: Chase, after Dobbs came down, you were on the show with a kind of clarion warning about how the Dobbs decision had just rocket fueled anti-trans legislation across the country and a real, I think, [00:25:00] straight line that you drew between what had happened in Dobbs and what we were missing if we weren't connecting it to the trans bans. And I would love for you to just remind listeners why Dobbs was never just about abortion.

CHASE STRANGIO: I mean, there's so many reasons, whether you look at the equality thread or the autonomy thread in Dobbs. This is about structural efforts to impede people's abilities to make decisions for themselves. And so the way in which Dobbs opened that door in particular for these anti-trans bans, is that first they revitalized this case that we know Justice Ginsburg hated and we know was really never really talked about for a long time called Geduldig. And Geduldig was the case in which the court said that restrictions on benefits related to pregnancy are not sex discrimination. And it allowed for this idea to sit dormant for quite a while, but to be reactivated by [00:26:00] Justice Alito in Dobbs, which is that when we're talking about things related to medicine or health or areas where we can claim that biological differences between men and women justify some differential treatment, we're going to start to erode those general protections that we have worked so hard to build for sex based protections under law.

And to my mind, what is happening here in the two and a half years since Dobbs was decided, is that you have people who have long wanted doctrinal openings to roll back anti-discrimination protections. Finding a group of people for whom there is more public support to target, and then using that to open the door to big possible doctrinal gaps and how everyone can be protected from sex discrimination. And I see this happening very [00:27:00] strategically. Within a week of Dobbs being decided, it was cited in every single anti-trans-related case that we were litigating. It was cited for the proposition that, in essence, special deference is owed to legislatures when they are regulating in the area of medicine, when it deals with sex-based differences between men and women.

And if we take a step back and look at this moment we are in, and the obsession with trans people during the 2024 elections, it wasn't really about trans people. What it was about, the organizing theme, was about gender roles more broadly. And this is where they are using these attacks on trans people to reentrench old notions of what is the proper role of men and women in society.

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: It's interesting, as you're talking, Chase, one of the things I'm also really reflecting on is that the two abortion cases last year, both Mifepristone and the Emtala case, in a lot of ways were not about abortion, they were about physicians and their rights and what kind of care [00:28:00] they could give.

And it is so striking to see a case now that's like, Oh, we don't care what the parents think or what the physicians think. It really is amazing that just as the parents are always right until they're wrong, physicians are also always right until they're wrong. And it really feels as though that's a through line that we are seeing of like deep, deep, deep trust and reification of parental roles and physician roles, until and unless those parents and physicians make decisions that the state disagrees with.

So it's just, it's not just that it's an entrenchment of gender roles. It's this notion that doctors are the only kind of important autonomous actor in the abortion context in both cases last year. But now they're just irrelevant. They're wallpaper.

CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah, and not only that, there's this stunning thing that we seemingly just accepted as a matter of public discourse, that not only are they wallpaper, they're part of this vast and far-reaching [00:29:00] conspiracy to provide harmful care. We're talking about care that is supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, the doctors who are providing it at the most preeminent research institutions in this country. And somehow the argument is they're all conspiring to provide harmful care to minors.

And if we take a step back, that is quite a conspiratorial argument. And whatever people may disagree about or feel discomfort about, these are still good faith parents and doctors trying to do right by their patients and their children. But yet we've somehow allowed this conspiracy to fester that actually everyone is just trying to provide harmful care, which is just absurd.

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: It's interesting. I was going to ask you about junk science and bad data, which has been like if our show has a major in the Supreme Court, our minor is like junk science. And this, [00:30:00] as you say, you just listed, just a tiny number of amicus briefs suggesting that medical and mental health groups and serious scientific entities, this is not something they haven't thought deeply about. All these professional organizations are right on one side. And then, as you say, on the other side, the Tennessee brief is just teeming with weird, deep state conspiracy theorizing. And I worry because, as I say, this is my minor now about junk science that infiltrates court doctrine that makes its way into opinions and then gets cited as though that junk science is real.

CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah, it's really scary. And I think it's also a function of the fact that the courts no longer really care or look at factual findings of the district court. They will just pull out the latest newspaper article that they see. And there is an actual purpose to testing the evidence and seeing whether it holds up, because when we've gone to trial in these cases and [00:31:00] these witnesses are cross examined, they have admitted that they're exaggerating, accepted that there's no underlying scientific support for claims that they are making, pointed to the fact that perhaps it is speculative or based on internet searches or Reddit sites.

And so this is why when we look at the outcomes of these cases in the district courts where the judges are the closest to the evidence, you have almost a unanimous set of holdings when heightened scrutiny is applied, that these laws just don't hold up. When you get more detached from the evidence and it becomes more about vibes, for lack of a better word, it becomes very untethered to what is actually going on, which allows people to say things like, well, there's no long term studies. Well, there are long term studies. There are studies that are tracking people for periods like six years, which is extraordinary long in pediatric medicine, and taking snippets of ideas out of context and not situating it in how [00:32:00] pediatric research actually happens.

And, I think that's where we find ourselves now. This medical care isn't new. It's been provided for decades. And that isn't new in medicine. Think about all of the innovations, even in just the lifetime -- I have a 12 year old -- in my child's lifetime that we've witnessed. And so I think that is just so much distortion and out of context polemics.

Humanizing Trans People Laverne Cox - The Majority Report - Air Date 3-23-25

LAVERNE COX: So I'm 52 years old and I have tried to be aware of...

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: You look great for 52, I should say.

LAVERNE COX: Thank you so much.

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: I have to say that because as someone else in the fifties.

LAVERNE COX: Melon is amazing. Clean living. I don't drink, never done drugs, never smoked. Anyway, thank you. I appreciate that. But so for my whole life I've been like following anti-trans legislation and the trajectory... I think it's important to remind people that in 2016, [00:33:00] HB2, the North Carolina bathroom bill, was introduced and failed and there were several bathroom bills prior to that year that failed. And once that failure happened, organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom, which has been at the forefront of a lot of this anti-trans legislation, did focus groups and asked people what trans issue would most galvanize you to be anti-trans. And they started with sports. The first anti-trans sports bill was introduced in 2019. It failed, but by 2021 the first sports ban on trans girls competing in sports was passed in 2021, and now I believe it's 24 states have bans on trans girls competing in sports.

Soon to follow was 'we have to protect the children'. These LGBTQ people are indoctrinating our children, and they use this old [00:34:00] thing. But, and then it started with gender affirming cure bans for kids. Now 26 states, I believe, ban those. So it's simultaneously a propagandistic measure that's happened in right wing media that they've pushed. If you watched Fox News, 'cause I did the research, if you watched Fox News between 2019 and 2023, you would think that trans people were dominating in sports and taking over because every other story, there were literally hundreds of stories on trans people in sports on Fox News, in conjunction with Alliance Defending Freedom presenting this legislation in mostly Republican led, legislators... we can talk about how all that happened, post-2010.

And what the sports thing did was create a permission structure for people to dehumanize trans [00:35:00] people. That led to 'what about the children?' That, now, we do have bathroom bans, right? The bathroom bans didn't work in 2016, but now several states, Florida, several states have bathroom bans that criminalize trans folks using the bathroom that aligns with our gender identity. Obviously, we will get to the federal in a second but one thing that I think this is all leading to is what Michael Noel said several years ago: we wanna eradicate transgenderism from public life.

There's a recent bill that was introduced in Texas, it's house bill—it's not likely a pass, but I just wanna make note of it because it's, I believe, a precursor—it's House Bill 3871 that was introduced in Texas. And there Texas is at the forefront of discriminating against trans people. And that law would make it a felony to assert that you are a gender other than you were assigned at birth to an employer or to the government. It would be a felony. I think two years in prison, [00:36:00] $10,000 fines, $25,000 fines, but two years in jail. So to assert your transness in Texas would be a felony. It's not likely to pass this session, but they're gonna keep reintroducing it. And what we are seeing now, particularly with people like Gavin Newsom and so much of the Democratic Party, who are capitulating to and conceding to right wing talking points about trans people, his just saying he thinks it's not fair, creates a permission structure for trans people just to be dehumanized across the board. And to watch, in the media, in congressional hearings, in Supreme Court confirmation hearings, the dehumanization of trans people.

And when I talk about dehumanization, I love what Brené Brown says about it in her book Braving the Wilderness. [00:37:00] She says that we dehumanize using "primarily words and images" to move a particular group into a place of moral exclusion, meaning that like we as human beings are not hardwired to harm each other, to discriminate, to commit violence against someone. But, if we take a certain group of people and move them into this space of moral exclusion where they're no longer thought of as human beings, then it's fine.

And I think when we look at how trans people have been spoken about in the media, particularly on the right wing that has infiltrated all of media, it is a coordinated, well-funded dehumanization project that has led to all the executive orders that are affecting trans people on the national level in horrifying ways and potentially genocidal ways. And I [00:38:00] use that term intentionally. It is really about erasing us from existence. They're erasing us from websites, literally, not acknowledging us, but all of this is in Project 2025. I did do a post. Literally, it's page four of the forward, if you recall—I don't know how long ago you read Project 2025—and on page four of the forward they said, "we want to eliminate these words" and some of the words from every government document, piece of legislation that exists, the words where gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender identity, sexual orientation, diversity, equity, inclusion, reproductive rights, et cetera.

And they're doing it. We see it in real time. It's a scary thing to read about and now just watch everything that they've written about come to fruition is horrifying. And I'm just gonna focus on the trans folks, but this is across the board, the dehumanization of [00:39:00] undocumented people. It is just... culturally... and then the relationship between... there's a lot of—and I wanna ask you guys about this, because you're steeped in this—a lot of folks, when they talk about trans issues or abortion, they call it cultural war issues. I prefer civil rights issues instead of that language. And then they also say that it's a distraction. And I get the argument that it's a distraction because we understand that there's a capitalist agenda here, that there's plutocrats trying to take over everything.

But when you read Project 2025, it's so clear that the Christian nationalist agenda is about a certain kind of patriarchal White supremacist order that is constantly intersecting with capitalism. So I don't think it's a distraction. For me, I think it's part of an overall plan that is White supremacist, [00:40:00] patriarchal, capitalist in a way that's predatory. What do you think about that?

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: I totally agree with you. I don't like the framing of distraction. I think it's minimizing and it makes it so that, once again, the person that's saying it's a distraction is validating the idea that trans people are just political footballs as opposed to people who are experiencing real outcomes based on what the Trump administration and what Republican governors across the country and legislatures are doing. And I guess like the trans sports as a wedge issue thing is something we've talked about before or it's there to evoke a visceral reaction to further dehumanize trans people.

The thing that sticks out to me is how Trump brought these folks to the inauguration and [00:41:00] Riley Gaines became this kind of celebrity. They're all White women, right? And they're using these tropes of White women being victimized or cis White women being victimized, whether it be by an undocumented immigrant, they're using that same playbook with the Laken Riley Act, or whether it comes to Riley Gaines who tied for fifth place in a swim meet with a trans woman.

They're using age old tropes about protecting White female purity to discriminate against all these groups, and then we're told, oh, this is a distraction. No, this is just White supremacy and Christian nationalism again.

Imperialism and Totalitarianism Go Hand in Hand M. Gessen on Trumps Policies at Home & Abroad - Democracy Now! - Air Date 3-14-25

AMY GOODMAN: M. Gessen, I wanted to ask you about the House subcommittee hearing that abruptly ended Tuesday after the Texas Republican Representative Keith Self intentionally misgendered the new Democratic Representative Sarah McBride, the first transgender person to be elected to Congress, by introducing her as [00:42:00] “mister.” As Chairman McBride delivered remarks, the Democratic Congressmember Bill Keating interrupted, demanding Self to reintroduce McBride. This was the exchange.

REP. KEITH SELF: I now recognize the representative from Delaware, Mr. McBride.

REP. SARAH McBRIDE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Ranking member Keating, also wonderful —

REP. BILL KEATING: Mr. Chairman —

REP. SARAH McBRIDE: I’m sorry.

REP. BILL KEATING: — could you repeat your introduction again, please?

REP. KEITH SELF: Yes. It’s a — it’s a — we have set the standard on the floor of the House, and I’m simply —

REP. BILL KEATING: What is that standard, Mr. Chairman? Would you repeat what you just said when you introduced a duly elected representative from the United States of America, please?

REP. KEITH SELF: I will. The representative from Delaware, Mr. McBride.

REP. BILL KEATING: Mr. Chairman, you are out of order. Mr. Chairman, have you no decency?

AMY GOODMAN: That was Congressmember [00:43:00] Keating: “Have you no decency?” What hasn’t been commented on as much is, after Mr. Self introduced McBride as “mister,” McBride responded, “Thank you, Madam Chair.” But, M. Gessen, if you can respond to this overall attack on not just trans people, but the overall LGBTQ community, including the national federal website honoring Stonewall removing the “T” from ”LGBT,” despite the fact that it was trans women who led the protest that really gave birth to the modern-day LGBTQ movement in this country?

M. GESSEN: Well, first of all, this isn’t the first time that this has happened to Representative McBride. She has been the target of systematic, explicit, humiliating, aggressive [00:44:00] attacks since she began her term earlier this year. And the fact that we just are watching this as a country and accepting it — not that the sort of television- or whatever-watching public has much power to stop it, but just being subjected to this spectacle of public humiliation over and over again is something that is so destructive to, I think, everybody’s psyche.

And I have a piece actually coming out in the Times this weekend talking about this attack on trans people. And it’s not an attack on trans rights; it’s an attack on trans people, of whom I am one. And I think it’s most useful to think of it in the Arendtian framework of denationalization. She argued that before people could be herded to concentration camps and death camps by [00:45:00] Nazis, they had to be denationalized, pushed out of the national community, stripped of their, what she called, their right to have rights. Right? We think that we have these rights guaranteed to us because we’re born. But, in fact, we have rights because we’re part of a national community, because courts will enforce these rights, because communities will enforce these rights.

And when they are taken away — and they’re taken away through a series of both legal and public rhetorical moves — what happens is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has dropped cases of anti-trans discrimination, even though there’s a Supreme Court decision from 2020 that makes it very clear that trans people are protected by discrimination because they’re covered by the clause “on the basis of sex.” And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is basically refusing to enforce the law of the land, because trans people have been placed outside the [00:46:00] law.

Trans people have been receiving — whoever needs to renew their passport have been receiving passports with the birth sex indicated on them instead of the gender marker that they’ve been living with. And I want to make very clear what that is. It’s not just an insult when you get this passport in the mail or pick it up from the passport agency. It’s a real obstacle to moving through the world, both sort of on a daily basis — opening bank accounts, applying for loans, applying for financial aids. If you have discordant documents, those are very hard things to do. If you have documents that you’re traveling with, whether inside the country or outside the country, that don’t match your gender presentation — you know, I was once detained in Russia by an officer who thought that I was a teenage boy — I mean, this was obviously years ago — a teenage boy who was using his mother’s driver’s license, because my driver’s license had a woman’s name and [00:47:00] gender marker on it. This takes away trans people’s right to freedom of movement, one of the fundamental rights of humans, we think. But they’re very easy to take away.

So, that’s what we are watching. We’re watching the denationalization of a very small, vulnerable minority group. We’ve seen in this country already the denationalization of noncitizens. Right? Noncitizens are not members of the political community. Noncitizens don’t have the same civil and legal rights as citizens. And now trans people are being put in the same category.

The Fight for Trans Futures - In The Thick - Air Date 12-12-24

MARIA HINOJOSA - HOST, IN THE THICK: So, as we head into a second Trump term, this case has far reaching implications, and its outcome could determine whether all trans Americans are entitled to receive protections from discrimination or not.

So, Chase, break down the case for us. What could it mean in terms of the future of trans rights? And when I think of you arguing in front of that Supreme court, I'm just like, what an out of [00:48:00] body experience, literally, because you know people who are there who absolutely hate everything that you represent. But tell us about the case, where it stands right now.

CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah. So to put it in some context, when Tennessee passed this bill, SB1 in 2023, it was the year that, in essence, half the country bans evidence based medical care for transgender adolescents. We went from zero states banning this care at the beginning of 2021 to more than half the country banning it now.

And so just to imagine that upheaval for people who have been relying on this care, for parents who have been ensuring that their adolescent children can get this care. And when Tennessee passed their bill in 2023, the ACLU and Lambda Legal and our law firm partners immediately filed a lawsuit, as we did across the country with all of these bills, because we knew how catastrophic it would be for these laws to go into effect.

And we were successful in the lower federal court, the district court. The judge issued an extensive opinion, making factual findings [00:49:00] that none of the claims that Tennessee had put forth in defense of this sweeping ban ultimately held up when you looked at the evidence and that the law likely violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Unfortunately, Tennessee was very aggressive in their litigation. They went immediately to the next level of federal court to the federal appeals court to try to block that injunction to allow the law to go into effect. And that's really when the tenor of all of this in the courts really changed, in the summer of 2023, because you had an appeals court in essence stepping in and saying, Actually, there's nothing wrong with this law. We are going to let it go into effect and issued an opinion that if allowed to stand would, in essence, not only green light government attacks on this health care for trans adolescents, but open the door to government attacks on this health care for trans adults and I think importantly, really started to use the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs overturning Roe v. Wade to expand the ability of governments to intrude upon [00:50:00] people's bodily autonomy by eroding sex discrimination protections more broadly. And that's really what's been going on here and what's at stake in this case that's now being considered at the Supreme Court and will likely be decided by the end of this term in June of 2025.

MARIA HINOJOSA - HOST, IN THE THICK: What you're saying, Chase, is that this is an issue that, even though you're not trans, it's going to impact you. It has to do with our bodies, right? And in this case, the government literally having power over our bodies. So, Raquel, you at the same time end up leading this fight in this moment in Washington last week in the Capitol. This extraordinary moment because of course the United States has a history of civil disobedience and resistance. You and a group of 15 other activists, including Chelsea Manning, are part of that history. Now you were arrested after participating in a sit in inside a women's restroom on Capitol Hill.

CLIP: Speaker Johnson, Nancy Mace. [00:51:00] Our bodies are no debate. Our bodies are no debate. Speaker Johnson, Nancy Mace...

MARIA HINOJOSA - HOST, IN THE THICK: The sit in was led by a group that you co founded. It's called the Gender Liberation Movement. So, Raquel, you were opposing a bill introduced by far right South Carolina representative Nancy Mace.

And this bill would ban transgender people from using the bathrooms that align with their gender identities in federal buildings. It's like, seriously? Seriously. The bill is part of a vicious attack being waged by the right on Congresswoman Sarah McBride, who we all know was elected last month to represent Delaware, and will be the first openly transgender person to serve in Congress. So, our history is kind of fugata, right? It's like three steps forward and 500 million steps back, right?

Raquel, talk about the wider implications of this particular bill and tell us about the action and what you and the liberation movement are calling for.

RAQUEL WILLIS: When I first heard [00:52:00] about what representative Nancy Mace was pushing in terms of this anti trans agenda, I, like, I think, many other Americans, felt disgusted. I felt like it was very much an invasion of not just Sarah McBride's dignity and humanity, but also all of the staffers on Capitol Hill who are also trans and non binary. I think that people often forget we've always been here, in every sector and corner of society. Maybe not every sector and corner of the government, but definitely within society.

And I also think the implications of this kind of bigotry to someone in our community who has achieved that status gives people permission to be bigoted towards trans folks who maybe don't even have that power and platform and status. I am constantly thinking about the young [00:53:00] trans people who see how she's being treated and anticipate that kind of treatment in schools, in public life, and also maybe even in their own families. And we don't need that kind of society for our young people.

So, those are the things that I think about going into this on a personal level. With this bathroom sit in, we really wanted to draw on the history of these moments, like the Greensboro sit ins, thinking about the Woolworths counter. Many of us have probably seen, if we had a good textbook, images of folks standing up against racial discrimination. And going to that counter and experiencing the hate, the vitriol from racist White people in that time, but there were also moments like the Julius Barr 'Sip-In' where gay folks in 1966 were like, [00:54:00] actually, you need to be serving us in these establishments, oh, also don't criminalize us, my existence is not tantamount to disorderly conduct.

We drew on that history because that is the moment that trans folks are in right now. And let's be clear, trans folks, and Chase has often always rung this alarm, have always in some way experienced some kind of criminalization or ostracization within the U. S. That has been a part of our existence probably since the onset. So right now, what we're saying is things are a little different, honey. We're not just going to sit back and take this. We have something to say, and we're going to act up in the face of it

Know Your LGBTQIA+ Rights with Chase Strangio - At Liberty - Air Date 2-13-25

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: Before I let you go, I just wanna get the State of the Union, or what are the rights as you see them in this current era of America? What are the LGBTQIA+ rights right now? If you're trying to update your [00:55:00] passport or your license or social security card, if you're looking for hormones or medical treatment, what are your rights right now in this country?

CHASE STRANGIO: Your rights, in terms of what the federal government is doing, are significantly constrained and we are fighting back.

So, for federal identification, moving forward, there will not be updates to sex designations. We are suing over that policy with respect to passports and hopefully we will prevail. For people under 19, federal government is endeavoring to create national bans on healthcare by coercing institutions to stop providing care by threatening to withhold their federal funding. So, there is a real assault on this medical care. I think importantly though, state identification is totally separate. Go get your state ID if you live in a state that allows you to do so. Go update your birth certificate in your state. That is not controlled by these executive orders and those are totally independent.

And schools, the administration is trying to punish schools that affirm trans students and we will, of course, fight [00:56:00] back against that. But I think the important thing for everyone: this is scary, but trans people have resisted so much. And I have been privileged to be in the presence of elders, to be mentored by elders who, you know, who led so many movements. Like, Miss Major was part of the Attica prison uprising, and was out in the streets and in Stonewall. Her motto is, "we're still fucking here". I don't know if I'm allowed to say that, but, and we are, and we've lived through many systematic attacks. And, so look to the elders and look to the ancestors who have paved a path. And, yes, the rights are constrained, but our spirit and our sense of possibility, I think never will be.

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: That's great. I hope we can say "we are fucking here".

CHASE STRANGIO: I don't know how it works.

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: Yeah, me neither. Me neither. It's free speech, right? It's a free speech organization.

CHASE STRANGIO: Free speech! [00:57:00] Yeah. Yeah, we're good. We're good. That's free speech.

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now, I also want to talk about people who are allies and want to be active allies. People who, I think about like federal and state employees, oh, real quick, there's a note in the chat that I'm following that says you're good to say fuck, obviously. So, we've been given official ACLU permission.

CHASE STRANGIO: Ok, well I would have said it a lot more, but I was trying to be respectable.

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: All right. This is not a time for respectability. The time for respectability has passed. Yeah. So, I think about somebody who, if you're a federal employee and you want to be helpful to someone who's in this position, who's coming to you to apply for this or change their gender marker there or whatever, or if you're a high school PE coach or PE teacher and you work at a public school and this kid wants to play sports and how do you, what would you recommend [00:58:00] to federal employees? What are their rights? If they want to be a good person, but maybe they also want to try to keep their job. I don't maybe that's not maybe that's an impossible thing to answer.

CHASE STRANGIO: I think the overall point is don't comply in advance. A lot of these executive orders haven't actually changed policy, and we're seeing a lot of compliance in advance. We're seeing, the NCAA rolled over in two minutes. That's ridiculous. There was no basis to do that. And as the NCAA themselves said, there are 510,000 collegiate athletes within the NCAA schools and there are less than 10 who are transgender. So, if we're sitting here, you're going to roll over for that minority group and when you do not have to yet, that is just disgraceful. And I do think we just, we want to see people not complying in advance. And of course, we know that there are times when you're under threat that you may not be able to take another course.

But there's other ways to be in solidarity with people who are under assault right now. You can be a part of changing the narrative about trans life. [00:59:00] We are facing, coming off of an election cycle in which there was 222 million dollars spent in anti trans advertising. We have to fight back against the narrative as much as we have to fight back against the policies because what's happening, as we were talking about, is that people think it's okay to suggest that trans people are a threat to others.

And once you legitimize that notion, you authorize the government to come in and attack a group of people. And we have to all be participants in disrupting that, just as we do in all sorts of other ways. If the government or if our rhetoric and caste and a group of people as an ideology or something the way that the Trump administration is doing with trans people, then it both legitimizes debate over people's existence and then legitimizes policies seeking to attack and eliminate the group. And that is just simply an unacceptable position.

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: That's a great reminder. I've seen that sentiment shared before. Don't obey in advance. Don't comply in advance. Just because the president signs a [01:00:00] thing, that does not always mean that you have to do what that thing says. So don't obey in advance. Yeah.

CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah, I think it's really important.

Note from the Editor on the launch of SOLVED!

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: We've just heard clips starting with The Blueprint explaining the plan to roll back sex discrimination protections for trans people. Politics Weekly America looked at the impact of Trump's executive orders targeting the LGBTQ community. CounterSpin highlighted the unconstitutionality of Trump's overreach. Amicus explained how the repeal of Roe versus Wade paved the way for broader discrimination based on sex. The Majority Report interviewed Laverne Cox about the past and present of anti-trans legislation. Democracy Now! spoke with M Gassen about the tactic of dehumanization being used against trans people. In The Thick had on Chase Strangio to discuss some of the legal cases concerning trans rights. And the At Liberty podcast also spoke with Chase Strangio about knowing your rights and the importance of not complying with discriminatory policies. [01:01:00] And those were just the Top Takes. There's a lot more in the Deeper Dive sections.

But first, a reminder that this show is produced with the support of our members who get this show ad free, as well as early and ad free access to our freshly launched other show, SOLVED! That's all caps with an exclamation point, just so you know. That show features our team of producers discussing a carefully curated selection of articles and ideas to then solve -- that's how the show got its name -- some of the biggest issues of our day in each episode.

Members get the podcast of SOLVED! first each week, but we're also launching it on the Best of the Left YouTube channel, where episodes will come out a week later, because we don't want to keep all of our great ideas hidden behind paywall indefinitely.

To support all of the work that goes into Best of the Left and have SOLVED! delivered seamlessly to the new members only podcast feed that you'll receive, sign up to support the show at BestOfTheLeft.Com/Support (there's a link in the show notes), through our Patreon page, or from right inside the [01:02:00] Apple Podcast app.

And as always, if regular membership isn't in the cards for you, shoot me an email requesting a financial hardship membership, because we don't let a lack of funds stay in the way of hearing more information.

If you have a question or would like your comments included in the show, upcoming topics you can chime in on include a deep dive on the shifting internal dynamics of the Democratic Party that absolutely needs some shifting, and the Republican effort to dismantle public education and the role of Christian nationalism in the effort. So get your comments and questions in now for those topics or anything else. You can leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991. We're also findable on the privacy-focused messaging app Signal at the handle bestoftheleft.01 or you can simply email me to [email protected].

Now for today -- and this is very much off topic I know -- but as promised, I just want to give a bit more detail about our new show SOLVED!

For [01:03:00] years now, the Best of the Left production team has been creating conversational bonus episodes for members, and that show is exactly what the new show has grown out of. What's different now is that we're shifting to, all new branding. SOLVED! All caps, exclamation point, and we'll be putting the show on YouTube and other social video sites.

Now to address the most obvious question first: If the show was for members only and now it's gonna be on YouTube, aren't I worried about members canceling because they'll be able to get the show for free? And the answer to that is Yes, I am very much worried about that, and hope that they won't cancel. And to that end, I'll explain why we're doing this.

For all that's great about podcasts, the big drawback is that it's very much more difficult to find new audiences compared to shows on sites like YouTube that have algorithmic recommendation [01:04:00] engines, so that when people watch a video it says, Hey, you might also like this. We don't get that benefit.

So as one point of reference, David Pakman is the host of The David Pakman Show. He and I are almost the same age. We started our shows at almost exactly the same time, and we've been friends for about 15 years. David just got to his 3,000,000th subscriber on YouTube. And we did not. You'd have to chop off several of the zeros before the decimal point before you started getting close to our subscriber count compared to his. It's not a perfect comparison. We do very different shows with different goals, but it still gives you an idea of the power of the recommendation engine.

So if we want to grow this show to a reasonable size, we need to branch out to these platforms that will help recommend our show for us. Now, what's a reasonable size, you might ask? The baseline goal would be to get to the point where everyone who works on the show could do it full-time [01:05:00] without having to hold down other jobs. And if we could do that, we could probably even produce more episodes. You know, if that's the sort of thing you might be interested in.

And of course it's not just about us. We believe -- and hope you believe too -- that we are creating shows that help boost good ideas into the world, doing what we can to help bend the arc of the moral universe.

So now you might be thinking, "Well, Jay! and his team seem like good folks and he certainly paid his dues curating the best of other great shows for nearly 20 years, if you can believe that. I wonder how I can help him launch this new project? Is there anything I can do to help?" To which I reply, "Well, that's very kind of you. I appreciate you saying that, and I'm glad you asked. Because the answer is a resounding yes!" Here is what you can do.

Number one: Of course, if you're a member, please don't cancel. We need your support and hope that you'll continue to come along on this journey with us.

Number two: No matter who you are, check out [01:06:00] the show SOLVED! on the Best of the Left YouTube channel. And -- and I cannot believe I finally have to add this phrase to my lexicon -- Like, Subscribe, Leave a Comment and hit the bell to be alerted every time there's a new episode.

But beyond that, if you wanna be a super supporter, I've got news for you: You can help us game YouTube's algorithm even more. Liking, Subscribing, Commenting, all those things send signals to YouTube that you are the type of person who enjoys our show.

But there's one little trick that I know sounds fake, but there's one little trick that can actually help supercharge the effect. Let's say in theory that we wanted YouTube to recommend SOLVED! To David Pakman's viewers or watchers of The Majority Report or fans of The Young Turks or Tom Hartmanniacs, which I assume his fans call themselves, or any other progressive show with viewers who would also like our show. [01:07:00] The way to train the algorithm to recommend us to them is for you, super supporter, to watch full videos, not just of us, to watch full videos of those other shows first. Like, Comment, Subscribe, whatever you feel comfortable doing. Pro tip: keep in mind you don't actually have to be watching the whole time you are "watching," right? If you know what I mean. And then flip straight over to an episode of SOLVED! Watch the whole thing or have it play in the background while you do something else. And then Like, Comment, Subscribe, the whole deal.

That way the recommendation algorithm learns that enthusiastic and engaged David Pakman Show watchers or Majority Report viewers or whatever are also likely to be enthusiastic and engaged SOLVED! fans. And then it will make the proper recommendation.

So that's the [01:08:00] news. A newish show, , on a brand new platform for us. I mean, we've dabbled in YouTube in the past, but not really. And a new goal to take this whole production to the next level. Oh, and make sure you're following us on all the video sharing platforms for the same reasons. We're gonna be posting clips on Instagram and TikTok at a bare minimum, so you can help boost 'em there.

And then lastly, did I mention that we decided to do SOLVED! as an animated show? I promise that it looks nothing like anything you've seen before in the world of news and politics. So check it out for the novelty of it, if for no other reason.

SECTION A: POLICY ROLLBACKS

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And now we'll continue to dive deeper on five topics today. Next up, section A policy rollbacks followed by section B, dehumanization, section C, historical attacks, section D, stories and Section E, trans joy and resistance.

How is sex determined Scientists say it's complicated - Short Wave - Air Date 3-12-25

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: OK, Han, so we were just talking about biological sex [01:09:00] and how there's, like, a lot of variation in other animals. But what about humans? Like, what's the determining factor for, like, sex in us?

CHINN: So in humans, sex is determined based on a variety of factors. But for the purposes of this episode, we're going to focus on three of the main ones-- chromosomal, chemical, and physical.

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: Wait, I think we need to slow down and, like, break down each of them, right? Like, so the first one you said is chromosomal, right? And I remember learning about this in, like, high school bio. All the genetic information in our bodies are packaged in 46 chromosomes, and they're coupled up to make 23 pairs. The first 22 pairs tend to look similar like in all humans, but the last one is usually either an XX or an XY pair. And XX is usually assigned to female. XY is assigned to male.

CHINN: Right, that's true for most humans, not all-- I'll get to that later-- but most. And Hannah Claire says that nowadays, when doctors predict fetal sex, usually, they're looking at the chromosomes.

[AUDIO PLAYBACK]

HANNAH CLAIRE: [01:10:00] So when folks say that they know the sex of their pregnancy, sometimes they're referring to ultrasound. But more often-- and especially after 2010-- they're referring to this test called cell-free DNA testing.

[END PLAYBACK]

CHINN: Hannah is a genetic counseling researcher with experience in OB-GYN clinics. We're not using her full name here or noting her employer, because she's concerned that speaking publicly could hurt her ability to fund her research. But she says this test is super common. Clinicians don't have to wait for the ultrasound to look at the fetus. They just do a little blood test.

[AUDIO PLAYBACK]

CLAIRE: As a pregnancy is growing, the placenta sheds DNA into the bloodstream of the pregnant person. And so what labs will do is take that blood, sort out that fetal fraction, and analyze that to look at the chromosomes.

[END PLAYBACK]

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: Wow, that's really cool.

CHINN: I know, right? So this test tells us the chromosomes that a baby [01:11:00] has, but the Y chromosome isn't, like, an on, off switch for sex. There are sex influencing genes present in the other 22 pairs of chromosomes, too. And there's a lot of variation that's still possible within those genes. So for a number of reasons, after birth, the baby can develop in a way that's different from what the tests predicted. And that's where this second metric for determining sex comes in.

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: Right, and you mentioned the second metric being chemical, right? Like, what do chemicals tell us about sex?

CHINN: Yeah, so a big part of sex and how it develops has to do with hormones.

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: Right.

CHINN: And those chemical hormones, they fluctuate through your whole life. Like, as a little kid, you had a different hormone profile than when you went through puberty or than when you start going through menopause.

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: Wow. Yep, yep. So when does this, like, first chemical change actually happen? Puberty?

CHINN: Way earlier. All humans have hormones like testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, et cetera. They just have them in different quantities and different cycles.

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: Wow.

CHINN: And those hormones really fluctuate through life. [01:12:00] So a fetus gets the first hit of these hormones in the womb. That triggers things like genital growth and certain types of brain development. Then there's another hormone surge in babies after birth within the first six months. It's one that endocrinologists call "mini puberty."

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: Wow, I did not know any of this. It's like baby puberty. OK.

CHINN: [LAUGHS] Yeah. And after that, in early childhood, the hormones kind of take a break. One pediatrician I talked to said-- and I quote-- that "the testes are fast asleep."

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: [LAUGHS]

[AUDIO PLAYBACK]

FAISAL AHMED: So the testes are active and inactive at specific periods during childhood and adolescence. I mean, these glands are not making things all the time. They kind of go up and down. So very similar to ovaries.

[END PLAYBACK]

CHINN: This is Faisal Ahmed. He's a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of Glasgow. And he says that once adolescent puberty hits, there's usually an increase in hormones.

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: Yeah.

CHINN: Those chemicals can also be delayed or boosted, for example, during gender affirmative hormone therapy. And they're usually what trigger the development of a bunch of other characteristics that we use [01:13:00] to determine sex. And this brings us to the last criteria, physical.

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: OK. And I'm guessing that's, like, genitals.

CHINN: Well, yes. This can refer to internal genitalia, like ovaries, or external genitalia, like penis and testes. Or we could also look at secondary sexual characteristics, things that usually don't develop until puberty, like breasts or facial hair, or even things that are determined, in part, by hormones and are often used to differentiate sex, like your voice or your height or the distribution of fat and muscle on your body.

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: Wow. I didn't even think about those last things. Like, you're totally right.

CHINN: Yeah. And those physical traits are really the main observable characteristics, the ones that don't require lab work. So usually when people who are not doctors or scientists are talking about biological sex, this is what they really mean. But these physical characteristics don't really fall on a strict binary. I mean, we have tall women and short men. We have women with flatter chests and men without facial hair.

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: Yeah.

CHINN: People's [01:14:00] appearances can really vary. But I digress.

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: OK, so physical traits, hormones, chromosomes-- we have all these different ways to determine sex. And I'm guessing, like, that most of the time, they align, but not all the time.

CHINN: Exactly. All of these things have the potential to differ from one another or to be ambiguous or unclear. Like, someone's chromosomes might be XY, but they don't have a penis. Or they do have a penis, but they also have internal ovaries. And these differences generally fall under the umbrella of something called "intersex conditions."

ILENE WONG: Intersex is an umbrella term for biological conditions where a child is born with, like, physical characteristics or genetic characteristics that don't fall into our society's neat definitions of what is male or female.

CHINN: This is Ilene Wong. She's a physician, specifically an adult urologist. And she says that although intersex conditions are rare, they're not as rare as you think.

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: Wait, like, how common are they?

CHINN: Well, estimates can vary, [01:15:00] but the most common number that I've seen thrown around is that intersex conditions overall affect 1 to 2 people in every 100. So that would make it about as common as having red hair and even more common than being born an identical twin.

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: So chances are, if you're listening to this episode and you're not intersex, you've probably at least encountered someone who is.

CHINN: Exactly. And Ilene is really passionate about intersex awareness because, she says, her training-- she went to med school at Yale; she did her residency at Stanford-- it still left her really unprepared to treat intersex patients.

[AUDIO PLAYBACK]

WONG: Once you operate on an intersex body, that patient will need to deal with those complications for the rest of their life. You can't fix you can't change them back to what nature made them as.

[END PLAYBACK]

CHINN: Ilene told me that in the past, there was this big push to normalize intersex patients' bodies. Doctors would look at an intersex child and operate on them, usually without those children's full understanding or consent, so their bodies would conform to more typical sex assignments.

[AUDIO PLAYBACK]

WONG: Kids were, quote, "normalized." They were stigmatized. They were lied [01:16:00] to. Their parents were told that they shouldn't tell their children because it would ruin them psychologically. They were subjected to surgeries, including literal clitoral amputations that caused dyspareunia, pain, chronic scarring, basically medical PTSD for hundreds and hundreds of people.

[END PLAYBACK]

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: That's really horrible.

CHINN: Yeah. And in 2018, the American Academy of Family Physicians issued a statement opposing medically unnecessary surgeries on intersex children, basically saying, this is harmful, and we shouldn't do it anymore. But Ilene says there's still a huge information gap when it comes to intersex bodies and medical treatment. Faisal specializes in this kind of treatment, and here he is again.

[AUDIO PLAYBACK]

AHMED: So sometimes people feel that, you know, intersex is a diagnosis, but it's not really. It's really like saying somebody has short stature.

[END PLAYBACK]

REGINA BARBER - CO-HOST, SHORT WAVE: Right, because, like, height is one of those physical characteristics you mentioned earlier.

CHINN: Yeah. Faisal says that if you're short, there could be a bunch of reasons why. Like, it could be that your parents are short, or it could be a nutrition [01:17:00] problem or a genetic condition. And depending on how short you are and the society that you live in, it might or might not pose a problem. Like, when I was talking to Faisal, he drew this comparison of urinal heights in Japan versus in Europe.

[AUDIO PLAYBACK]

AHMED: But if you go to Netherlands, they're much higher up. So society is creating this thing which makes people not fit in.

[END PLAYBACK]

CHINN: And that's the thing that's key, Gina. Even though a lot of these metrics for determining sex are based in science, the way we interpret them is rooted in society. All of the scientists that I talked to agreed. Biological sex is definitely not as simple as two separate categories. And we lose a lot of nuance and knowledge when we pretend that it is. Here's Anne Fausto-Sterling again. She's the biologist that we heard from at the very beginning of the episode.

[AUDIO PLAYBACK]

FAUSTO-STERLING: You can think of a model in which there is-- there's only two, and they completely don't overlap. You always know which is which, no matter what measure you're using, whether you're looking at the genitals or the [01:18:00] chromosomes or the gonads or the hormones. And the fact is that that model doesn't exist in nature at all.

Iowas Trans Protections Reversed, the Pentagon Targets Trans Troops & Paul Tazewell Makes Black Queer History at the Oscars - Queer News - Air Date 3-3-25

ANNA DESHAWN - HOST, QUEER NEWS: Those were the sounds of protesters inside the Iowa State Capitol in Des Moines on Thursday. Their signs read, love thy neighbor. We are human beings. Trans rights are human rights. Trans blood will be on your hands.

Trans people shouldn't bother you more than fascists. And honestly, family, this was my favorite. Is this hell? No. It's Iowa. Now, as somebody who went to school in Des Moines, Iowa, attended Drake University, I'm [01:19:00] familiar with this entire area. And Iowa's actually one of the leaders of LGBTQ rights. When they included sexual orientation and gender identity into their civil rights.

Policies 18 years ago. Well, here we are today. Nearly 2, 000 people gathered inside and outside of the Capitol to protest against Iowa removing gender identity as a protected class in their civil rights law. And it passed pretty easily. Let's be very clear. The Iowa Senate passed the bill 33 to 15 along party lines and less than an hour later The house passed the bill 60 to 35 and actually five Republicans joined Democrats against removing gender identity as a protected clause and family.

Can I just tell you how quickly this all happened? They just introduced this policy change a week ago, one week. So when they tell you [01:20:00] legislation can't move quickly, it's a lot. A week ago, they introduced this, it passed the Senate. And then less than an hour later, it passed the house. And then their Republican governor signed it into law just like that.

And so now Iowa makes the worst kind of history becoming the. First state in the country to remove gender identity as a protected class. And I just can't overstate how extraordinary it is. Right. To continue to reverse law in this way, just to be discriminatory, just to be hateful against less than 1 percent of our population.

And it's truly wild to watch your country regress in real time versus progressing. You feel me? And like I mentioned earlier, right? In Iowa, sexual orientation and gender identity were added. When the legislature was mostly run [01:21:00] by Democrats, right? And 18 years later, it's been removed. Iowa is basically following in line with Trump's executive order, declaring there are only two genders.

Which isn't even legally binding. These executive orders are declarations from the highest office. That is it. That is all. They absolutely have impact though. They aren't legally binding, but they have impact. Because when it comes from the president's office, it directly impacts federal government, funding, and the workforce.

It also greatly impacts policy. Here we are in Iowa. 167 people actually signed up to give public testimony during the 90 minute public house committee hearing. Only 24 of them were actually in favor of this policy. The people shared their stories. They pleaded to their elected [01:22:00] officials to not strip them of their rights.

Senator Tony Bezziano was truly a bright light who called out Republicans for their complete disregard for trans folks. He said this, These people aren't downstairs because they got nothing else to do. Their lives are on the line. And should be taken seriously. Most of you don't even know someone who's transgender.

You don't even know them, but you hate them. You have to hate them because you cannot do what you're doing today if you didn't. He goes on to say, Shame on all of you Christians. Who want to keep talking about your faith, when this is what God talked about. Family, he said, I don't know where you go to church, and I don't know what you read, but being a good Christian doesn't take much.

Do unto others, take care of your neighbor. It is so simple, but alas, here we are. And Republicans are claiming this isn't a step [01:23:00] back because federal laws offer protections and having it in the state law is redundant. Family, when I read this, I promise I said, I'm mad they get, they are gaslighting people with this propaganda.

I mean, it is literally gaslighting. Iowa's governor, Reynolds, said it's common sense to acknowledge the obvious biological differences between men and women. In fact, it's necessary to secure genuine equal protection for women and girls. Republicans continuing to say that this is about women and girls continues to infuriate me.

It's nonsensical to think that removing rights from a group of people somehow helps to ensure The rights for another group of people, I promise you, when you protect the most vulnerable among us, everybody else is more protected. Everybody. But [01:24:00] the moment you choose to remove, to pull back rights from people, you make everyone more vulnerable, especially women and girls.

So what does all of this actually mean? Civil rights acts prohibit discrimination at your job. When you're seeking housing, an education, applying for credit, and for public accommodations. So now, birth certificates in Iowa reflect a person's sex at birth. They also added new definitions for male, female, and sex.

The first trans person elected to Iowa's General Assembly, Representative Amy, said this, felt like a gut punch. This bill revokes protections to our jobs, our homes, and our ability to access credit. In other words, it deprives us of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She went on to say, our trans siblings in Iowa refuse.

Refuse [01:25:00] to give up in despair because the greatest act of rebellion that you can do in these dystopian times is to live your life unafraid and be happy. That is her message to our trans siblings in Iowa.

The Rights About-Turn on Parental Rights - Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick - Air Date 11-30-24

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: So Bostock is the thing that makes it hard to understand how the Sixth Circuit got where they got to, Chase, because in some sense, Bostock is a Title VII case. This is an equal protection case, but Bostock already decides that discrimination against trans employees. Is discrimination on the basis of sex, right?

Done and dusted. And I just would love for you to explain to us. And, and, and, and let's just explicitly say, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Chief Justice John Roberts agrees with the reasoning. The notion that this is, uh, untraveled ground goes away after Bostock. And yet, here we are. And I would just love for you to explain how the Sixth Circuit.

gets around it.

CHASE STRANGIO: So the Sixth Circuit decides, and this is a [01:26:00] departure from all other cases in which the court doesn't do this, but the Sixth Circuit in essence says, well, Bostock is just about Title VII. It is just about the statutory context in which people are prohibited from discriminating in employment because of sex and says it's based on the particular language of that statutory protection.

The problem with that is that, yes, Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause are different. Everyone agrees about that premise, but they're different in terms of what is ultimately prohibited, not insofar as what is identified as because of sex. If the funeral home in Bostock was a government employer and that government employer fired Amy Stevens for being transgender, the court wouldn't have said that, well, it is because of sex for Title VII, but it's not because of sex for the Equal Protection Clause because both provisions are about protecting individuals, and they make a big deal about this in [01:27:00] Bostock, that Bostock is about the individual.

But guess what? So is the Equal Protection Clause. It refers to any person. And for the originalists on the court, that provision of the Constitution was designed so that People were treated as individuals, not just as members of classes, and so they have that in common. And then the other piece is that, you know, Title VII asks, Would the outcome be different if you were of a different sex?

Well, so does Equal Protection. It asks, Would the outcome be different if you were of a different sex. And so the logic of Bostock applies to the Equal Protection Clause, and I think you have to do a lot of, you know, distortion to suggest that somehow a sex line becomes sex neutral when you're looking at it through the lens of the Equal Protection Clause.

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: You've slightly said it, but I would love to have you give the most charitable iteration of what Tennessee is saying in defense of its [01:28:00] law. I mean, I have to say, like, it's hard to read the brief because it's like, Europe, bad, you know, we found a doctor, like, give me the most, if you can, compelling argument for what Tennessee says they're doing here.

And I know, let me also be really clear, you said that. It starts from the premise that people make wildly reckless, unresearched decisions about their children.

CHASE STRANGIO: Right. That is sort of the underlying premise. I do think it's hard to come up with a grounded, doctrinal explanation of what they're arguing because even if you take everything they say about Europe, which we fundamentally disagree with and the record doesn't support or the risks of the treatment that simply does not change that it is a line based on sex.

So that is still not answering the question of sort of what has Tennessee done if not ban treatment because of sex. So that piece of it. It goes to whether that line is justified, and we obviously disagree about that [01:29:00] piece. The way they claim that this is sex neutral is in essence to say, we're just banning a medical procedure, not something based on sex, and this isn't about men and women being treated differently.

And I think that really is the crux of their argument about why the heightened scrutiny standard that attends to sex classifications doesn't apply here. And from my perspective, it's really hard to reconcile that with the text of the statute and the Supreme Court's precedent. And somewhat puzzlingly, Tennessee even says in their brief that a law that bans sex inconsistent dress would be a sex classification.

A law that bans sex inconsistent professions would be a sex classification. And this is just a law that bans sex inconsistent medical procedures. And so it is not clear to me how you get from those points about those other hypothetical laws to saying that this is not a law that imposes disparate [01:30:00] treatment based on someone's sex.

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: There's one other piece of this that I'd love for you to poke at with me, which is it's not just an argument about the civil rights of trans youth, but there's this argument about the rights of parents to make medical decisions about their children's care that is kind of the wrong. Beating heart of substantive due process.

It's the beating heart of how we think about, you know, family autonomy and privacy and everything that we have protected constitutionally goes to this notion that parents get to make their kids medical decisions. It is why we have judges who are saying, you know, parents get to decide if their kids can have an abortion or use contraception.

So how do you get around? I'm not. asking how you get around it. It is very, very strange to have Tennessee taking the posture that the state actually gets to override this parental [01:31:00] interest in making medical decisions about their kids.

CHASE STRANGIO: I completely agree. And of course, we have a due process claim on behalf of the parents that is not before the court because they did not grant that question, but it bears on.

The Equal Protection claim because at the end of the day, Tennessee is claiming that they are doing this to protect Children. But who do they otherwise expect to protect Children and weigh the risks and benefits of potential medical treatment, if not the parents? That is the role of parents.

Traditionally, and Tennessee is coming in and displacing the line judgment of an adolescent that adolescence parents and that adolescence doctor you have on one side, and The adolescent, the adolescent's parents, the adolescent's doctor, the entire mainstream medical establishment in the United States.

And on the other side, you have the government of Tennessee. And as you know, it is quite stunning to see state governments like those of Tennessee and Alabama and Arkansas, all of a sudden arguing that parents [01:32:00] rights don't mean anything because these of course are the same governments that have aggressively asserted the rights of parents to, for example, not have to.

have their children mask in school, not have to have their children get vaccinated, not have to have their children learn about other people in their school history and other classes. So of course, this is quite an about face for those who have been robust defenders of parents rights to come in and say, but not these parents, not these parents who are loving and supporting their trans children and making this.

same types of informed judgment that parents make every single day in complex medical decision making, because that is what we do. We know our children best. We are the ones who are incentivized to do the research to ensure that our children get the care that they need, and Tennessee has come in and decided that they know better.

DAHLIA LITHWICK - HOST, AMICUS: Right. I just think it's such a poignant Marker of where we are that after years, as you say, of hearing parents know best, get the state out of [01:33:00] my kids reading list, get the states out of my kids sex education, get the state out of my kids masking mandate, but parents. No best until and unless the state disagrees with them, which is in this instance, and it's really a shattering inversion of how we think about how families make decisions.

Iowas Trans Protections Reversed, the Pentagon Targets Trans Troops & Paul Tazewell Makes Black Queer History at the Oscars Part 2 - Queer News - Air Date 3-3-25

ANNA DESHAWN - HOST, QUEER NEWS: In more anti trans political news, the military is once again removing trans service members from active duty. In a memo filed in court last Wednesday, the Pentagon has 30 days to identify service members who have a quote, and I'm quoting here, a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria.

Once this list is compiled, family, all of these people will be removed and lose their jobs. They will lose their benefits, but you know, [01:34:00] because there's such good people, our trans siblings who are being kicked out of the military, they will be listed as honorable separation. Now a waiver can be issued for some trans service members, but you know, That comes with conditions.

These will be reviewed case by case. And essentially if they think you can fight and be an asset for war, you can stay. Let me tell y'all what it says directly. It says provided there is a compelling government interest in accessing the applicant that directly supports war fighting capabilities. They literally say war fighting capabilities.

These waivers can only be granted if the service member also can show evidence of 36 months of stability in their sex assigned at birth without distress or impairment, so three years, okay? They also must [01:35:00] demonstrate they've never attempted to medically transition and must be willing to adhere to the military standards for their sex at birth.

Now after hearing all of that, you tell me who's getting a waiver. Heh, come on, never attempted medical transition? Essentially, this memo just falls in line with Trump's, you know, Voldemort's executive order of there being two genders. This policy has stated that the greetings will be binary, okay? Yes sir, yes ma'am.

The defense department can no longer use funds for gender affirming care and surgeries that were scheduled are now canceled. No more hormone therapy either. Now last month, if y'all remember family, because let's be clear. All of this political nonsense is truly overwhelming, so it's hard to keep up. But last week I shared here on the pod, right, that there has been a lawsuit filed in response to Voldemort's executive order banning trans folks from serving, right, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, NCLR.

and GLBTQ legal [01:36:00] advocates and defenders are fighting on behalf of six active duty trans members and two trans members of our community who want to serve. They are standing on the 14th amendment's equal protection clause as why this is unconstitutional. Well, we already know lawsuits take a whole bunch of time.

Okay. Now the number varies. But approximately 10 to 15, 000 trans folks actually serve in the military today. And I will say this time and time again, we live in a country with a volunteer service with a service that is declining, okay, in recruitment. And yet here we are talking about kicking out 10 to 15, 000 service members who want to serve this country, Chile.

The last thing they need to be doing is kicking people out because guess who's not signing up. That would be me.

Gender-Affirming Care Gets Its Day at SCOTUS - Boom! Lawyered - Air Date 12-4-24

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Right, and I just want to, I just want to clarify that the DeAnda case you're talking about is DeAnda versus Becerra. It's [01:37:00] a case out of Texas. where this Christian patriarch basically wants to make sure that his, his potentially slutty daughters, you know, keep their legs closed and don't go to title 10 family planning clinics in order to get contraception on a confidential basis, which they are entitled to do.

This is a man who wants to make sure that his daughters who have never sought birth control and have never even expressed an interest in seeking birth control. But cannot seek birth control at some other point without his say so. And so the way that ties back into the gender affirming care cases is that you have to think about, about parents being aligned with their children in terms of seeking healthcare, right?

When it comes to LW, right? Who is the, the, the trend, the trans kid at the center of this, uh, the when it comes to LW and their parents. wanting to seek gender affirming care, then that makes sense because the parents are aligned with the kids. When it comes to, I don't know, parents trying to give their kids [01:38:00] lobotomies, which apparently is a problem in Texas, well certainly the child and the parent are not aligned in seeking that kind of care because the kid doesn't want a lobotomy even though the parent does.

So it's really, once you sort of look at the examples that they're given, they're giving, and then you think about them logically, you see what this is. It's about parents wanting to control their kids, and it's about states wanting to control the kind of care that parents can provide their kids.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: No, no, no, no, Imani.

It's not at all. If you ask Justice Kavanaugh, though, what this case is about is the importance of constitutional Right. The importance of doing fuck all.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: I think that's his memoir in the works. The importance of doing fuck all. Because he basically does fuck all on the bench. I'm still irritated that he's even sitting there.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: But, but truly, that is, that is the man's most Honest [01:39:00] principle as a jurist, he was up there today saying things like, well, you know, we don't discriminate on sex by not discriminating on sex, right? Like the constitution is colorblind, is neutral to these questions. And that should be a tremendous flag, because what that is, is caping, it's covering, right?

The constitution is not neutral on these questions. If it only protects the status quo, like the equal protection clause actually exists to disrupt that. And I thought that again, Solicitor General Prelogar, Prelogar, I'll never get it right, but the Solicitor General was phenomenal here. She was like, well, sure, Brett, like I take your point, but.

Have you heard of the 14th Amendment?

INTRO: Right.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: It exists

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: for

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: a reason. It exists, right?

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: And these principles aren't neutral, but what's irritating is that even, you know, the great Chief Justice [01:40:00] seemed to be siding towards, or leaning towards Kavanaugh's position of Well, you know, the science is just so unsettled, don't you know, and because it's so unsettled, we should just probably stay out of it.

Let the states do their things. We're just going to, we're just going to let the constitution leave this really hairy question of the science around trans medicine, puberty blockers, et cetera. We're just going to leave that issue to the people's representatives because that's where it belongs. It doesn't belong with us nine.

We're not doctors. However, could we possibly make any sort of ruling from a constitutional perspective on this very difficult issue? It's like, come on, man. You do it all the fucking time with abortion.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: I was just gonna say, are you familiar with a case called Gonzales v. Carhartt? Chief Justice Roberts and the unsettled question around abortion and the science, like again, we're still mad at you, Tony Kennedy, right?

Like this is [01:41:00] all your legacy, but you're exactly right. That's pearl clutching around like, Oh my God, whatever should we do? It was the same bullshit framing that they used in the state's battle around abortion until Dobbs. Right.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: And we have to remember, like, the reason we're still mad at Tony Kennedy is because in Gonzalez, they struck down a, they struck down a method of performing an abortion.

And in his opinion, he's like, I'm not really sure if those bitches start regretting them abortions. But they probably do. I don't have any science to back it up, but my gut says they do. So that's what we're going to go with. I mean, that's basically what he said. And there is that same sort of concern trolling about gender affirming care.

Like, I don't know. Are we using puberty blockers to block puberty because of precocious puberty or to deepen people's voices? It's real weird. I don't think we can really make a rule. It's just right. It was

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: fascination with D [01:42:00] transitioners, right? Like trans folks is justice. Sotomayor already comprised such a small fraction of the population.

And within that D transitioners even more. And that is the object of their focus.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: You know, you want to know who, I want to know what, what the object of focus was for a man that we both know. As Neil Gorsuch.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: That man was not even there today. You can not prove to me that he was.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Where the hell was Neil Gorsuch today?

Because frankly, the reason why it's significant that he did not have a thing to say. at all during these oral arguments is because he is the man who in 2019 said in a case called Bostock v. Clayton County that you cannot discriminate on the basis that, uh, on the basis of being trans because, because that is.

Discrimination on the basis of sex, right? You cannot discriminate against trans [01:43:00] people in the workplace. Why? Because that kind of discrimination is sex discrimination. There was so much discussion today during arguments about whether or not this Tennessee law was a sex based classification. And if it is, what do we do about it?

And Neil Gorsuch said nothing.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: He was the Mariah Carey GIF. Bostock, I don't know her. Never heard of her. Never heard of her. Don't know her. But for real, like, this is part of his legacy, being the great textualist, right? And Bostock had been something that he had been very proud of.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Until it became uncouth to be a person that stands up for trans rights, because you have to remember that Bostock was 2019.

That's a mere two years after the hubbub in North Carolina with that bathroom ban and the NCAA pulled out of North Carolina. And then I think Indiana tried some shit and everyone was like, don't you dare. People were up in arms in favor, backing trans [01:44:00] people's right to use the bathroom. And then here we are five years later.

And it's like the deluge of anti trans legislation has made anyone who stands up for trans people a victim of the woke mind virus or what have you. And so Gorsuch was just dead ass silent. And that bodes, that bodes ill in my, in my estimation.

SECTION B: DEHUMANIZATION

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: Now entering Section B dehumanization.

Trans Rights Under Trump Katelyn Burns - The Majority Report - Air Date 3-12-25

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: It's always like, we're pursuing this truth. There must be something here where we can portray both sides. But they, by asking some of these questions repeatedly and with the emphasis they do, yeah. They call into question kind of just like basic. Facts about trans identity, and it's this paternalism that bothers me.

Yeah. Of, uh, we know better as New York Times reporters than the very people who are saying, this is my reality. Um, yeah. What, like that, that, if you could just explain what that's like and, and Yeah. Yeah. [01:45:00]

KATELYN BURNS: Yeah. I mean, I always start this off by saying that, um, you know, gender affirming care for youth is probably the most prominent one that they.

Go long on all the time. Um, and the treatment that they're attacking has been endorsed by every major American Medical Association in existence. Um, it's endorsed by numerous international boards, you know, um, the French government just came out basically and said the affirming approach is. The correct one.

Um, so you have this laundry list of just the biggest medical experts. In the world basically saying this is the, the right treatment. And then you have like a handful of crank doctors on the other side saying, well, no, no, we think there's an issue with it. And the New York Times gives both of them equal weight or sometimes gives the crank doctors even more weight.

It reminds me a lot of the climate change debate, um, which they, I think pretty much did the [01:46:00] same thing. Um, but I, I'll say this about the New York Times. I think that they, more than any other news organization did more to take, uh, transphobia from a fringe right wing position to making it this hotly contested political issue that we have now.

Um, and bringing by bringing it

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: into polite, liberal discourse essentially, right? Correct. Yeah. And I would say hyping up hysteria, uh, in. Communities, like wealthier suburban communities that, uh, per, you know, about this being some sort of thing they'd have to worry about with their child that it's spreading.

So, so, um, uh, like, almost like they portrayed it as like, as it's an infection or something like that, right? Yeah. Um, and it's crazy [01:47:00] because in 2022. We saw the Republicans try to run on transphobia. Mm-hmm. And they did not do well in that election cycle. But I, it's hard for me to assess if it's just like kind of Trump and his force of personality or if it's what you described this like normalization of transphobia by these elite media institutions, or, it's probably both.

KATELYN BURNS: Yeah. Uh, I do think that the trans athlete issue more than any other is the most difficult for the left to counter. Um, I, you know, I've written about that issue more than probably any of the others in my career, but that's also because I have a degree in sport management. I was an athlete growing up myself.

Um, I have an inherent interest in it. Uh, people forget. I also have two cisgender daughters. Um, so. I can see all sides of this issue, and my focus has always been on the science and I, I don't think people have a grasp on the science of trans [01:48:00] athletes. I'm not gonna sit here and recite it back to you now because it would take too long, but I wish that science would lead on the trans athlete debate.

Instead of like this gut feeling, quote unquote common sense that we get, um, from conservatives and a lot of quote unquote conserved liberal.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Well, I mean, it's, frankly, it's a gut feeling because it's just this like old adage about protecting little white girls. Yeah. That you'll see across, uh, you'll see in historical portrayals of indigenous Americans, of black Americans and their threat to white women.

I mean that like, what, what's her name? The fifth place? Idiot swimmer. Oh, Riley. Riley Gaines. Riley Gaines. Like that. That's what she's invoking. Um, and. That when people say that's their gut reaction, it's like, have you ever seen ba, especially pre pubescent kids playing sports? Yeah. Like [01:49:00] there is no, there is nothing you need to worry about.

And if these trans girls get their gender affirming care in the way that they need, none of this is gonna be an issue. It wouldn't even be an issue without that. But it's solved just by trans care immediately. But they, but then those same folks are disinterested and skeptical of transcare,

KATELYN BURNS: right? It, it, it's really interesting that, uh, when they're making a medical argument, it's this, uh, like horribly irreversible, permanent.

Drastic change, but, uh, when it comes to trans athletes, transcare doesn't do anything actually. Yeah. Um, they're talking outta both sides of their mouths. Uh, and I mean, I've seen my own athletic performance. Uh, it, it dipped dramatically. I was a runner when I transitioned, although, um, I haven't been able to run since Covid, since getting Covid.

Um, and my times. It took an immediate dip when I started estrogen. Uh, it, [01:50:00] that's unscientific. Like there wasn't anybody studying the before and the after. It was just my anecdotal report. But every trans person I know that was an athlete before will tell you this. Um, so to us it's common sense to everybody else.

It's like, you know, these men who think that they're. Physically superior to all women. It's the same people who think that if they played Serena Williams in a tennis match, that they could win up and play off of her. And it's like, no, you, you're not going to. Right. Right. You just overestimate your own abilities.

It's like the guys who think that they can wrestle a bear and win, it's like, no, you would die.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Um, and, and as we wrap up, Caitlin, I guess that that part of it is really. Um, I think important for people to just think about the, the overfocus in particular on trans women versus trans men. Can you talk a little bit about what conservatives, why they're fixated particularly on trans women?

Yeah. I have my own theories, but yeah. What, what's your assessment? [01:51:00]

KATELYN BURNS: Um, I think it's easy. And girls, I should say trans women and girls. Yeah. I, I think that they. It's easy to demonize the appearance of a trans woman, especially somebody like me who transitioned a little older, um, and maybe doesn't pass as well.

I think it's easy to portray us as this grotesque other when in actuality where you're next door neighbor, you know, we're the. Best player in your video game lobby. Sorry. It's true. Um, you know, we, we use your grocery store. We, you know this, that I could go into everything. We are your neighbors. Um, but it's very easy in an online setting to go.

You know, they could take my worst selfie. And believe me, I've taken bad ones who hasn't. And say, look at this person. You believe that is a woman. And it's very, very easy to radicalize folks. And I think that's why there's so much focus [01:52:00] on trans women. Um, and the thought that I'll leave you with is this.

The arguments for trans rights. What, in other words, what trans people are asking for from society haven't changed in 50 years? Um, I found a speech the other day from like the 1974 St. Christopher Street rally of a famous trans woman. I apologize her, her name escapes me off the top of my head. Um, it's the, y'all better quiet down speech.

If, if you're LGBT, you probably have heard of that. Uh, but. She's talking about trans people in prisons. She's talking about how the f you know, gay and trans people can't find housing. Gay and trans people can't find work. And those are the same issues that we've been asking for, you know, the same rights that we've been asking for for the last 50 years.

So there's this sense on the right that I think pervaded. Unquote Normy Society that, oh, [01:53:00] trans rights went too far. And my counter is, is I think you all became way more obsessed with us because what we're asking for hasn't changed in all of that time. I think that. You all just needed somebody else to focus on once gay marriage became the law of the land.

EMMA VIGELAND - CO-HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: Yep. Um, Senate Twink a great name, right? It's in Sylvia Riviera Rivera. Uh, I think it's excellent. Thank you.

Know Your LGBTQIA+ Rights with Chase Strangio Part 2 - At Liberty - Air Date 2-13-25

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: I mean, one of the things I've seen is the thing about passports and the, and gender markers on passports.

And there was a trans woman who had applied for her new passport and she had fully transitioned and had her F on the passport. And then she got her passport and they said, we corrected it. Uh, and turned your, turned your F back to an M. She did a social media video about it, and the ACU, I think, has taken on the case for just that idea of like, And, as she says, and I think this is such a complicated issue, but please talk about this, She presents as a woman.

So if you're not gonna make her go to the men's room, it doesn't make any sense.

CHASE STRANGIO: First of all, this [01:54:00] entire administration's policy is premised on the idea that every aspect of life has to be sorted based on our, you know, cell size at the time of conception. So the idea that if you have a large cell, you produce a large cell at conception, therefore you're a female and you go to the And if you have a small cell, you're male, we don't order the world that way.

It's not like people are walking around being like, Oh yeah, let me go to the small cell bathroom and then, you know, doing genetic testing at the door. Because of course, nothing is binary in that way, including, you know, the breakdown of any aspect of, of sex. And the reality is, is we live in. Move through the world with a self determined sense of our sex with that.

That's what happens. There's there's not guards at the bathroom door and and they're trying to enforce this idea that they alone can control what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman on federal identification in restroom [01:55:00] uses in public buildings in In sports and health care and how each individual and each individual family understands their bodies and and that is a dangerous thing to see to the government.

And the more we see that, the more we give them the type of surveillance and control over our bodies that allows them to build the type of government that they want, which is where they are singularly powerful and our rights as individuals are diminished.

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: I would imagine you're hearing stories from trans folks around the country about how this is impacting their life now.

Is there any stories you could share with us that you're hearing about from people around the country?

CHASE STRANGIO: I mean, it's I mean, I can't even tell you it's so it's so many stories and I'm, you know, first as each of these executive actions with the health care, you know, I'm hearing from what's so heartbreaking is I got so many message from from 18 year olds who are like, I was waiting and waiting until I was a legal adult so I could go out and have control over my body over my life.

And they canceled my doctor's appointment on the way to the doctor because [01:56:00] of this executive order, or parents who have, you know, their kid has been so distressed about the onset of puberty, and they've only ever been known in the world as a girl, but were assigned male at birth, and they were on the way to the doctor to get the care that the parents and the doctors and the young person all agree was essential.

And then care is shut down. And families who already relocated from a state where their care was banned moved to another state only now to have the care band. Again, I mean, these stories are are just so devastating. And then with with identification. I mean, for me, I've had an M on my driver's license, my passport for a very long time.

And the idea of me having to leave the country with a document that classifies me as female. Um, and when you're traveling abroad, you use your passport for everything. You check into a hotel, you, you turn over your passport. So it would, in essence, announce in every interaction, you know, both with private citizens and with government officials that, that [01:57:00] you're trans.

Then they, you know, and it brings suspicion. It creates instability. And, and that's what people are. And that's what I'm fearful about is, is to be forcibly, um, misidentified by the government and then to have to carry that around, not just domestically, but around the world. And, and, and I think people are very, very scared, which is why, you know, we're taking legal action in the context of passports, in the context of healthcare, uh, in the context of schools, because we need people to feel like they can exist in the world safely.

And, and, and if, if litigation is one way to show people that we're fighting back, then that is what we're going to continue to do.

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: Yeah. And we've talked about this a little bit, but I'd love for you to sort of even go a little further about how the Trump administration, some middle aged comedians, uh, have made it seem like trans is separate from all other categories.

So you can't be, you can't be black and trans or trans is you can't, trans is just trans. It's not. Poor and trans. It's not rich in tra like, you know, in that that there's just this category of people called [01:58:00] trans or separate from the rest of us. Can you talk about how those intersections actually do impact the trans people's identity?

CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah, I mean, I do think there's this way to try to exceptionalize trans existence in an and, and it happens in a number of different ways. It's sort of this idea that transness is so foreign that you can't ground it in anything else that we might considered human. Um, but then of course, that's so disconnected from, from reality.

Uh, where obviously there's, you know, there's unhoused trans people, there's disabled trans people, there's black trans people, there's trans immigrants and all, you know, there's trans people in all communities and Al always, there always have been across, you know, all of history and they, there is this effort to sort of cast transness as this new and, and, and, and weird and unsettling thing.

But, but transness has, has always existed and, and simply mocking. trans people doesn't make us any less real and make us any less part of, of all, uh, all these communities. And at the end of the [01:59:00] day, what all of this reflects from the government policies to comedians fixating on trans people with basic jokes that aren't even funny is that the, there's an anxiety about, uh, sort of the malleability of, of the gender binary, the idea that there are.

So many ways that we can be, you know, more than just, uh, sort of how we think of men and how we think of women. And that causes people a lot of anxiety because it does remind us that the world is more expansive than we're told. And with that freedom comes a lot of questions for people about, well, what, what am I supposed to do with all of that possibility?

And so I think the reaction is to try to make people. smaller. Um, and that happens by suggesting that trans people are so anomalous. But another thing I think is important is the very same ways that trans people are cast as dangerous or weird or different than other historically oppressed groups, that every [02:00:00] iteration of discrimination looks precisely the same way.

Gay people, also, we don't want you in our, that, you know, the same stories were told. We don't want gay people in the locker room because they will sexualize us. We don't want gay people in the military. We don't want gay people to be teachers. That was Anita Bryant's campaign. And then, you know, we moved on from that, sort of, and put the hatred on, on, on trans people.

But, and then, you know, historical oppression and anti blackness takes the same form. It's the same story over and over again, suggesting each time that it's new. And it's not. It's never new. It's always the same.

Gender-Affirming Care Gets Its Day at SCOTUS Part 2 - Boom! Lawyered - Air Date 12-4-24

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Um, but what was surprising to me was the ways in which Justice Barrett so easily piggybacked onto that with this idea that like, wait a second, you're telling me trans folks have faced discrimination historically?

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Get out! Well, I'm that out! What? What? I don't know if trans people suffer the kind of discrimination that the Blacks did. I mean, Jesus [02:01:00]

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Christ. Is there a history of de jure discrimination? And if so, can you explain it to me? I, which, I mean. They did. Yeah, Chase was like,

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: uh, cross dressing bands. Have you heard of them?

And she literally was like, Oh, well, gee whiz, I didn't even know that such logs existed. Like Jesus Christ, Amy, you're only sitting on the bench about to rule on one of the most historic cases facing trans people in history. You don't think you could have taken some time to read any of the 7, 000 amicus briefs that were filed in support of LW's position talking about the ways in which these bands will be.

It will be expanded to reach things like cross dressing. I mean, how do you, how do you sit on the bench and ask that question? But she

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: is exactly the kind of justice that the conservative legal movement wants to continue to, uh, you know, sort of bring up. Like I made this point on blue sky, which by the way, so fun.

Thank you for bringing me [02:02:00] over there. But blue sky, I was like, this is why conservatives pursue things like. Book bans, right? Like, um, control over curriculum, abstinence only, like the lack of knowledge and particularly historical knowledge drives present day policy. So if you control the historical narrative, you control the legal narrative.

And that's what Amy, uh, Coney Barrett was showing in her ignorance on the bench today.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: But it's like, where is the historical narrative? They don't even understand the historical narrative because apparently, Sonia Sotomayor is like the only justice who's ever read the goddamn Federalist Papers.

Federalist Paper number 10, to be precise. Oh, we're going to talk about Jimmy Madison?

INTRO: Like For fuck's sake,

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: look, I don't want to sit here and have to quote these old white wig, wig wearers of yore, like that's not my jam, but this falls squarely into what James Madison, y'all conservatives love James Madison, right?

We [02:03:00] don't leave the rights of the minority to the tyranny of the majority. That's just, that's basic federalist paper number 10 101, right? And, and trans people are 1 percent of the population. Sonia Sotomayor pointed this out. Trans people are 1 percent of the population. How is it that they are going to, they're going to, they're going to somehow, uh, be protected by the democratic process?

Right. But they want to just send, just send the issue back to the people's representatives. The democratic process will take care of it. Well, as Sonia Sotomayor pointed out, it, it took, it took judicial intervention to protect black people who are about 13 percent of the population to protect women who are about half of the population.

So what the hell are trans people who are 1 percent of the population supposed to do? Where's the political power that they have accrued over the years, right? It doesn't, it's just nonsense. And it's, it just, it's such bad faith. Right. It's just such bad faith.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: I got to say, and again, a point that I made on, on social media, Justice Sotomayor sounded [02:04:00] weary in today's arguments.

Not like unhealthy weary, but just tired of this shit. Right. And at the same time was one of the most effective and forceful. advocates for trans folks and trans kids in particular that I've heard from anybody in a position of power in a long, long time. And it was refreshing and I can't even imagine what that must have been like for trans folks who are listening to the arguments because she just straight up wasn't having any.

of it today. Yeah.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Yeah. I mean, this is who she is on the bench, right? She ties these vaunted legal principles, these constitutional principles to real life consequences to what people are going to face. How is this going to affect actual people? Not just some sort of chin stroking exercise. That's a lot of these conservatives seem to want to have.

And just as sort of wary. [02:05:00] or weary as Sonia Sotomayor sounded, Jackson sounded like a combination of like beast mode and also extreme frustration, right? Like real frustrated with Tennessee's lawyer for just being a jackass, right? And refusing to see clear connections between, you know, SB1, this, this gender affirming care ban and Loving v.

Virginia. Am I right?

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Right. Oh, yeah. No, this woman ate her Wheaties today. She was sounding the alarm on the fact that Tennessee was putting forward arguments that would upend almost all of equal protection jurisprudence. She came into this argument clearly suspect and then saw they were going for it and was like, guys, what the fuck?

Like.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: And you can hear it in her voice, you like, but why, what are you talking about? I don't understand what you mean. No, that's not what you've been arguing. You've been saying this. I mean, it was very, she [02:06:00] was really going back and forth with the lawyer and the lawyer was just kind of like, almost like, I don't know, like the conservative is going to rule in my favor.

Why do I need to even make sense? Right. Right.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Great. No, I mean, he, you know, he didn't have to think about it. And the reality is, is that Justice Jackson is the deepest constitutional thinker we have on the bench right now. The fact that she came into this argument and was immediately able to make the equal protection analogy between what Tennessee is trying to do here and in Loving versus Virginia, which is the interracial marriage case.

And basically she said, look, Tennessee, it sounds like Virginia could have gotten away with its anti miscegenation ban if they had just classified it differently. And Tennessee was like, yeah, probably.

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Right. And, and, and Tennessee, you know, wants to classify this law as an age classification, right? It's preventing.

Minors from using puberty blockers or wants to say, well, even if it is a, even if kind of, even if it is a sex based classification, it discriminates, discriminates against [02:07:00] boys and girls equally, right? Because neither can use puberty blockers. And Jackson's point is. Well, you could say that the anti miscegenation laws discriminated against white people and black people equally because it disallowed them marrying each other.

But the point is, it's still a racial classification, right? The point is, the gender affirming care ban is still a sex based classification. Even if there is some other component, the fact that it's sex based, the fact that in loving it was race based, that triggers heightened scrutiny. That just makes sense.

And the Tennessee lawyer was like, no, well, and then shot, you know, started making analogies with morphine and euthanasia and really degrading just the level of care that is just degrading trans people, degrading their lives, to create degrading what they need in order to live full, successful lives.

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: And what is so important and what was so smart about what Justice Jackson was doing in arguments today is that it really [02:08:00] exposed the lie or the truth, depending on how you look at it, behind the Tennessee ban.

And, you know, that is that Tennessee is insisting that this, that the purpose of the ban is, you know, A medical classification ban. It's not sex based. It's dependent on the care, right? That's a tell though, because to make the argument, Tennessee has to say that gender affirming care is never medically indicated, right?

That there is no, since there is no case where puberty blockers, for example, for the purposes of transitioning would be allowed. That's the same argument conservatives make with abortion. We saw in Tala, we see it all over the place that abortion is never medically necessary. In other words, neither abortion nor gender affirming care are healthcare period.

Full stop. If you ask conservatives

IMANI GANDY - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: and they, they have such disdain for gender affirming care, that they're even willing to go outside the country to find other countries who have. [02:09:00] similar disdain for gender affirming care, like the UK, for example, is become just like turf central, right? Like, or gender critical.

Now they're calling it the gender critical movement. And they put out this report, the cast report, which was referenced multiple times during oral arguments and the cast report, you know, there are There's a, an organization called Transactual that is made up of trans people who basically debunked the CAST report as having used a fatally flawed methodology, as having recommended things that would be harmful to trans kids.

It dismisses all clinical evidence about how trans people need this kind of health care and the, the, One of the, the heads of transactual said that underpinning this cast report is the idea that being trans is an undesirable outcome rather than a natural facet of human diversity. And if you keep that in the back of your mind, you can see why these oral arguments went the way they did, because they're not comfortable.

with even the idea of transness and kept wanting to [02:10:00] liken gender dysphoria to just having psychological problems, right? Or like being mentally ill. And we don't use this type of medical care for the mentally ill. And it's just, I find it, I find it disgusting, disgusting and distressing. And I can only imagine what trans people listening to this bullshit.

feel like after having to listen to all this crap. I just,

JESSICA MASON PIEKLO - CO-HOST, BOOM! LAWYERED: Absolutely. And I, in Tennessee, the, you know, the, the guy from Tennessee was basically arguing that, I mean, he said at one point that the, there is a state interest in gender conformity and that exists well beyond blocking access to gender affirming care for minors, gender.

Conformity and a state interest in that is how you got cross dressing bans. It's how you could be fired for being gay. It is how women could not own property in their own name. Right? Like that is when people say that these are the canary in the coal mine kind of cases. That's precisely what we're talking [02:11:00] about.

Trump Drops Eric Adams Charges, And Stonewall's Trans History - Brian Lehrer A Daily Podcast - Air Date 2-14-25

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, BRIAN LEHRER: A DAILY PODCAST: Last thing, on an entirely different matter, and I ask because Stonewall is in your district. Um, I don't know if you've seen this development from the Trump administration or the response to it.

I have a statement here by New York State Senator Brad Hoylman Siegel on what he describes as the decision to remove references to trans transgender people at the Stonewall National Monument. And according to the senator, The Trump administration has decided to strike the word transgender from the website for the Stonewall National Monument.

Did you know about that, and is there anything, as, you know, the congressman from Stonewall, as well as the rest of your district, of course, um, If there's anything you would do about it.

REP. DAN GOLDMAN: It's, it's despicable, Brian. Um, and the way that this, uh, this Trump administration is essentially trying to [02:12:00] erase all diversity in our country.

Uh, it is attacking, uh, is misrepresenting DEI. It is attacking diversity. It is attacking the very groups that create the dynamism and fabric of this country. Uh, it is true with Black history. It is true with Asian American history. And so we will continue to speak out.

BRIAN LEHRER - HOST, BRIAN LEHRER: A DAILY PODCAST: And just as a matter of factual history it's probably worth noting for some people who don't know that history from long ago that there were some trans individuals who were very prominent in the original Stonewall Uprising.

So it's not like it was gratuitously put in there for any reason. There were individuals who were central, uh, To, to that day and those days, and they're taking that identity out of the And I will just say Brian is Lawyer's website apparently.

REP. DAN GOLDMAN: Yeah, it's an attack on transgenders, but it's an attack on all of us.

And we all need to unite [02:13:00] against this disgusting hate. Against transgender and everyone else. And I take it personally, when they go after the transgender community, which is a vulnerable community. People trying to live their own lives as they want to. And the government is trying to come in under Donald Trump and tell people how they should live their lives.

It is the same. exact thing as they're doing with reproductive freedom. They're trying to be in our, uh, doctors offices. They're trying to be in our places of worship. They're trying to be in our, uh, community centers and cultural centers. It's despicable and it's anti American.

Humanizing Trans People Laverne Cox Part 2 - The Majority Report - Air Date 3-23-25

LAVERNE COX: Absolutely. Absolutely. And, and what we're seeing too, and, and a OC made this point, like, how do you enforce a bathroom, a bathroom ban, right?

Are there gonna be police outside bathrooms, sort of inspecting genitals? How to use enforce the sports band, right? Are we inspecting people's genitalia? But then what we're. Seeing in real time empirically is that there are gender police, trans investigators, [02:14:00] um, saying, oh, I think a man, man just went into the bathroom.

And we see, um, many cases on TikTok where usually women of color have been accosted in bathrooms. You are a man, you shouldn't be in here. And they're not men, they're not even trans. They don't identify as trans. Um, they're just cisgender women who are trying to use the bathroom. So these, what, what, what we know, um, is that these anti-trans laws a, um, affect all women in negative ways.

I mean, the Imani Klif situation at the Olympics last year, I mean, there's so few trans athletes that we have to invent them. That was. So incredibly shameful in how, you know, the, um, JK Rowlings and Trumps continue to assert that she's, um, trans and she's not, is sort of an indication if there's a certain kind of, but then that again is linked to a certain kind of, um, white supremacist delusion that, um, [02:15:00] wants womanhood to be a certain kind of woman.

Yeah. And also. But it's linked to capital and, and, and rates. Yeah. I I would add

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: that the way I think, I mean, what you're talking about, uh, to just go further in that, that connection is, you're talking about control as if we're talking about a piece of property. Yeah. And, and, and ultimately this is a, a property Right, that goes along within the context of that hierarchy.

Uh, and you know, we don't hear that much about trans men. In the context of, of, of, of these things. And I think that is, uh, a part of the conscious effort by, you know, sort of like making it clear, um, when we put people in front of the, uh, the women's bathroom because of it, because we're protecting our property, women's bodies, essentially.

We have the ability to inspect it. And that inspection also sort of edifies the idea. This is our property. I would inspect it is we would inspect any [02:16:00] other goods that are, uh, you know, traveling across state lines or, uh, you know, uh, and this all, I think, uh, uh, ties in. I mean, I think there's no doubt that the, um, this, the, the use of this by the right is, was in part distracting, but really ultimately to feed in and essentially fire up those cylinders from an easy entrance.

From their perspective in sort of like triggering that notion of hierarchy and triggering that, that notion of patriarchy, which both functions within the context of, of Christian nationalism and within the context of, of, of, of capitalism. Because, you know, you, I just remember like, you know Paul Ryan with that fake story about the brown and bag lunch of kids.

And, and, and the, the whole push in that era of Republicans to talk about [02:17:00] rich people as being morally righteous and poor people not being, I mean, this is why Donald Trump was able to get on that stage with eight other Republicans and completely blow them away because George Bush had set the table. We need a CEO presidency.

The idea of moral righteousness being a function of how much money you have. Uh, you know, so who's gonna argue with Donald Trump definitionally everything he says is correct because he's, uh, you know, a supposed billionaire and that. That, that's where it begins to tie in. It's no coincidence that, you know, Kings were there because God said they could be.

They were the sort of the first stop on the hierarchy. They also had all the money. Yeah. And, and that's where this all sort of, I think sort of like it, it combine. So I. Um,

LAVERNE COX: yeah, I had, I was on the view, um, promoting my, my new show, clean Slate, currently streaming on Prime Video. Well, I wanna talk about that too,

SAM SEDER - HOST, THE MAJORITY REPORT: but,

LAVERNE COX: but on, when I was on the View, I, I, I, I said that, um, [02:18:00] we're, um, they're, they're focused on the wrong 1%.

That it is not trans people who are, are the reasons for the price of eggs and that we can't, you know, housing prices are through the roof and people can't afford healthcare. Trans people are not the reason. There is another 1%, um, that is responsible for that and that. I think for, I think part the damage, so much damage is being done.

And you've, you've spoken about this across the board on so many levels that, that it's gonna be really hard to undo. But I think on a messaging level, on a cultural level, um, for people who claim to be allies, people who are, you know, liberally or in the Democratic party are left aligned. What I would really suggest is, um, is.

Embarking on a rehumanizing project and, and setting that agenda instead of reacting to one that we, you know, that, that, that, that everyone [02:19:00] does ultimately, like some of these, um, anti-trans laws too, were also a response to states, uh, state legislatures including trans people and civil rights protections in states.

Right. That literally was what, what happened in North Carolina. But so, so we have to. Change rehumanize trans people. We, and, and that is about language. When we use words like, um, chemical castration, mutilation of children, um, surgeries on trans, all of that language is false and it's dehumanizing. So we have to, and I don't wanna be language policed.

And I think that like it's, we get really tricky around like, you know, people feeling censored, but language matters. And, and for me, I think. Thinking about whether this language is dehumanizing or not. I mean, it was really clear when Trump said they're eating the cats, they're eating the dog. But that was dehumanizing.

But when, um, um, Rand Paul or um, or Josh Hawley says, you [02:20:00] know, um, they're mutilating, um, and chemically castrating children, that language is dehumanizing. And it redu and it re because it reduces us to procedures and medicalization and. That of human beings. There was a recent, um, um, bill in, uh, two bills in Montana that one would ban, um, drag all together.

And another one, I forget it was Vanessa Anti-Trans Bill and Zoe Zephyr, um, got up and made this impassion speech and. Another, then a Republican woman stood up in support of her and they overturned this bill. And I think part of it is that they, these legislatures and legislators in Montana know Zoe, uh, and, and work with her.

And most Americans don't actually know a trans person. They've met her child. Um, she is human to them, and that is so much of the work. And since most Americans don't know someone trans, the media is. Really [02:21:00] important in that, and that's part of what I try to do with my work as, as an, as an, as an artist, as an actress, as a documentary filmmaker, et cetera, is it is to humanize us and invite people to see us as human beings and not as these sort of.

Made up fictional characters that have come to sort of ruin, um, humanity.

SECTION C: HISTORICAL ATTACKS

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: You've reached Section C historical attacks.

Hungary Viktor Orban Bans Woke Pride Marches in Anti-LGBTQ Crackdown - Firstpost America - Air Date 3-20-25

ERIC HAM - ANCHOR, FIRSTPOST AMERICA: And today we end In Europe, Hungary is witnessing massive protests at the Prime Minister. Victor Ban's government passed a sweeping new law banning all LGBTQ plus pride. Marches. The law is being seen as the most damaging crackdown on lgbtq plus rights in Hungary. Now, while Orban claims the law will quote, unquote, protect children from woke ideology, his critics are calling it a systematic attack on the rights of Hung East gender minorities.

Our final story has all the details. Hungary, a country once known for its vibrant pride [02:22:00] marches is now at the center of a human rights storm. Earlier this week, within a day of introduction, Hungary Parliament passed a controversial law that bans lgbtq plus pride events, calling them harmful to children.

The passage of the bill sparked chaos inside the Hungarian parliament. Where opposition lawmakers set off smoke bombs and threw leaflets during the vote. Amid chaos and a pro, the bill was passed with a 1 36 to 27 majority pride. Marches have taken place in Hungary for three decades, but under this new law, any event that violates a 2021 ban on lgbtq plus content for minors is now illegal.

The violators will be fined up to $500. Police will also use facial recognition to identify offenders. What is happening in the country is worrisome. They're trying [02:23:00] to take away more and more from the Hungarian people what is actually ours and our rights. Hungarian's latest crackdown on lgbtq plus rights has drawn alarming parallels to the suppression of lgbtq plus freedoms in Russia.

If Jenny ov a Russian living in Hungary believes that in restricting lgbtq plus freedoms, prime Minister Victor oban is simply following his Russian ally President Vladimir Putin. It's quite terrifying, to be honest. 'cause we had the same in Russia. It was building up step by step and this is what's, I feel like this is what's going on here.

Uh, I'm not surprised that Victor Orban doesn't have any regional ideas. He only hoping, uh, Putin or Trump. Uh, but it's really terrifying. I just only hope that there will be more resistance like this in Hungary. 'cause in Russia, we didn't resist on time and now it's too late. Ban's party was instrumental in getting the new ban passed and the Hungarian Prime Minister has [02:24:00] vowed to protect his country's children from what he calls is wok ideology.

A tone which is similar to OBA's closest ally in the west. US President Donald Trump. Trump and oban call themselves the crusaders against woke ideology, and they are both cracking down on rights of the LGBTQ plus community. At the same time, human rights groups have called the New Law a distraction from the country's deeper problems.

As smoke lingers in the Hungarian air on Budapest's bridges and in the Parliament, the message from demonstrators is loud and clear. And engage art. And engage art, and engage art. Despite increasing restrictions, the lgbtq plus community and its allies say they will not be silenced

for them. This isn't just about pride.

It's about the right to be seen, to be heard, and to [02:25:00] exist without fear.

How the British Empire Exported Homophobia - Empires of Dirt - Air Date 11-5-20

ZING TSJENG - HOST, EMPIRES OF DIRT: When the British were busy colonizing the world between the 16th and 19th centuries. They also exported their own laws to the places they took over. It was kind of like the rest of the world were school kids who had to play by their rules. One of the laws they exported was the charmingly named Buggery Act of 1533, which was passed by Parliament during the reign of Henry VIII.

You know, the one with the six wives. The Buggery Act did pretty much what it said on the tin. It banned male homosexuality and made gay sex punishable by death. But it didn't bother to ban lesbianism, probably because nobody really thought about women at the time. When the British Empire got going, the authorities were keen to enforce their idea of morality on the people they'd colonized.

They also wanted to make sure that its soldiers and administrators weren't tempted to shag each other or their new subjects. So they imported this anti buggery law overseas. Homosexuality was finally decriminalized in England and Wales in [02:26:00] 1967, but not before the U. K. had done some extremely uncool stuff, like force war heroes like Alan Turing to undergo chemical castration or throw people in jail simply for being gay.

But although gay sex stopped being illegal in the rest of the U. K. by 1982, the laws that forbid homosexuality are still in the penal codes of many of our former colonies. It's the reason why LGBTQ people in countries like Barbados, Pakistan, Guyana, Kenya, Ghana, and Singapore, where I'm from, still don't have equality today.

Many of Britain's former colonies don't have histories of being hateful towards LGBTQ people. Basutu women in present day Lesotho, Africa, still engage in socially accepted relationships with each other. They call each other their motswale, or special friend. Mwanga II, the 19th century king of what is now modern day Uganda, had sex with men until white missionaries brought Christianity to his kingdom, and everyone changed their minds about their gay king.

Britain [02:27:00] literally exported hatred and homophobia to the countries it colonized. It's not like these laws just gathered dust in the wind. They continue to be used against LGBTQ people to this day. Between 2010 and 2014, almost 600 people were prosecuted under Kenya's anti gay laws, according to official government figures.

In 2010, two gay men were sentenced to 14 years hard labor in Malawi after being convicted of gross indecency and unnatural acts. They attracted the attention of the authorities after holding an engagement party. When the judge passed the sentence, he said he wanted to protect the public from people like you.

In August 2018, 20 men were charged with illicit behavior after a raid on a gay club in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Uganda still actively persecutes gay people to this day. In November 2019, police raided an LGBTQ bar in Kampala. dragging out at least 120 people and arresting them and [02:28:00] throwing them into the backs of vehicles.

Because institutional homophobia runs deep in so many former colonies, some countries have chosen to keep these regressive laws in their penal codes. In March 2020, despite the best efforts of LGBTQ activists, a court in Singapore ruled in favor of keeping homosexuality illegal. Jamaica was once known as the most homophobic country on earth, with gay people being lynched by angry mobs into the 21st century.

These days, we've mainly left it up to LGBTQ campaigners to sort out the trouble that the UK left behind. Would these countries be such difficult places for queer people if it wasn't for the British? Even former Prime Minister Theresa May doesn't think so. In 2018, she said she deeply regrets the role that the UK had to play in introducing these anti gay laws to its former colonies.

It's a nice gesture, although extremely belated. But saying sorry doesn't mean anything to the people who've had to live in fear and [02:29:00] hiding all because of their sexual orientation. Some sins you just can't apologize away.

Persecution and Resistance LGBTIQ+ People Under Nazi Rule - United Nations Outreach Programme on the Holocaust - Air Date 11-25-24

TRACEY PETERSEN - MODERATOR, UNITED NATIONS OUTREACH: And again, you know, to the point that the ambassador was making earlier, all of this was taking place without any legal recourse. or any kind of protection. So even if the community no longer supports you, there are no laws that you can look to to defend you. And, um, would you say that the homophobia and the transphobia was part of the totalitarian ideology of Nazi Germany?

And the second question, how is it used for Nazi propaganda?

KLAUS MUELLER: So the Nazi state labeled many groups as worthless and even subhuman. And one could say more and more groups, the longer they were in power, so anti Semitism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, the persecution of people with disabilities of Roma and [02:30:00] Sinti became the foundation upon which a racist German society was built.

So yes, homo and transphobia were central elements of the totalitarian ideology in Nazi Germany. The Nazis employed propaganda to divide society and promote the belief of racial superiority by marginalizing minority groups. Propaganda framed homosexuality as a threat to the racial purity of the German.

And accusing someone of being homosexual was also a way to discredit them. Everyone knew that few people would defend homosexuals. And the Nazis made use of that.

TRACEY PETERSEN - MODERATOR, UNITED NATIONS OUTREACH: So it could also be used by the Nazis to silence any form of a, um, opposition. If somebody was being problematic, this was another [02:31:00] accusation that they could potentially lay against the person and isolate and remove them.

KLAUS MUELLER: They did in politics, political opponents, military, the churches, they used it many times.

TRACEY PETERSEN - MODERATOR, UNITED NATIONS OUTREACH: How did the nature of this persecution change?

KLAUS MUELLER: Persecution escalated quickly, so after the Nazis changed paragraph 175, in 1935, the police and Gestapo started to target homosexuals, Systematically. And in 1936, the Reich Central Office for Combating Homosexuality and Abortion was established, directly linking the fight against homosexuality with Nazi population politics.

So arrests became routine. In 1940, SS leader Heinrich Himmler ordered that convicted homosexuals would automatically be [02:32:00] deported. Two concentration camps after having finished the sentence in the prison. And each year, stricter measures were added. Even castration was discussed.

TRACEY PETERSEN - MODERATOR, UNITED NATIONS OUTREACH: So as the atmosphere closes in and becomes increasingly terrifying, what was the response from gay men and lesbians? Did LGBTIQ people, sorry, IQ plus people foresee the radical persecution coming after 1933?

KLAUS MUELLER: Tracey, this was a community that was just starting to find its way. No one expected that something as simple as address books or private letters could become evidence against them.

So if you could have imagined that the country would transform so quickly into a totalitarian state, that would eventually become [02:33:00] The killing machine. Most other communities did also not foresee such a descent into barbarism and evil. So the exception were those who already had been directly attacked.

Many of them went into exile right away to survive, but many others believed or hoped that fascism would not last.

TRACEY PETERSEN - MODERATOR, UNITED NATIONS OUTREACH: And how did the rest of German society or to the matter other countries react to the persecution of LGBTQIQ plus people?

KLAUS MUELLER: I don't think that many people were concerned about what was happening to homosexual and transgender people in in Nazi Germany. Many denunciations coming from neighbors and from inside Germany seem to have been motivated by proving loyalty to the Nazi regime.

And in many European countries in the United [02:34:00] States, they've also lost discriminating against homosexuals and widespread prejudice. So I researched, for example, whether homosexual men could escape Nazi Germany by going into exile. And one key requirement, as one survivor shared with me, was to be very, very secret about your orientation, your sexual orientation.

No one would have given you a visa.

LGBTQ Persecution in the United States Lavender Scare DOCUMENTARY - The Cold War - Air Date 6-4-22

DAVID SCHROEDER - HOST, THE COLD WAR: The 1950s and 1960s saw the rise of the term Lavender as a code word for homosexuality. Senator Everett Dirksen stated that a Republican victory in the 1952 election would mean the removal of Lavender Lads from the State Department, and in 1969 Betty Friedan would comment on how the Lavender Menace, meaning lesbians, would destroy the credibility of feminists.

Therefore, titling this 20th century moral panic the Lavender Scare is actually pretty fitting. While the topic of same [02:35:00] sex relations may have been glossed over or even a bit taboo for most of American history, with sodomy laws dating back to the early colonial period in the 1600s, the fact is that most of these laws had not been strongly enforced, and most did not even specifically target same sex relations.

It wasn't until the 20th century that American culture began to seriously enforce sodomy laws and with that came additional risks for homosexuals. This was likely magnified by the fact that homosexuality was becoming a subject that the public was itself becoming more aware of with the publication of Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male published in 1948.

OK, with that background, let's look at how this manifested in the early Cold War. On February 9, 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy made his infamous claim of having evidence of 205 known communists working at the State Department. Eleven days [02:36:00] later, he revisited the issue with a lengthy speech on the Senate floor which offered more specifics.

It was in this speech that he made the link between homosexuality and communism. But this wasn't out of the blue, mind you. Prior to McCarthy's statements, anti homosexual programs and laws were already beginning to appear in America. Beginning in 1941, the military discharged suspected gay men with so called blue discharges.

In 1946, the State Department had begun more stringent security checks. 1947, the US Park Police began the Sex Perversion Elimination Program, which targeted gay men for arrest and intimidation, and even labelled them as mentally ill. This atmosphere of institutionalized oppression towards homosexuals, especially homosexual men, was an ideal breeding ground for McCarthyism's anxieties about communism to become enmeshed with fears about [02:37:00] homosexuality.

McCarthy claimed that intelligence officials had told him that, quote, Practically every communist is twisted, mentally or physically, in some way, end quote, and it was from there that McCarthy made the logical jump that because homosexuals were mentally ill, or as he put it, had peculiar mental twists, That they were more susceptible to communist recruitment.

There were also concerns that homosexuals were more at risk for blackmail by the Soviets, making them a greater risk for national security. A week later, deputy under Secretary of State, John Puro, the same purify who would go on to beat US Ambassador Greece, and then Guatemala revealed the firing of 91 homosexual employees from the State Department as they were deemed security risks.

And with that, the Lavender Scare was officially off to the races. Two government committees were formed during this time to investigate the issue of homosexuals employed [02:38:00] by the US government. The first, which operated from March to May of 1950, was known as the Wherry Hill investigation, and consisted of only two men, a bipartisan team of Republican Senator Kenneth Wherry and Democrat Senator Jay Lister Hill.

Unfortunately, very limited records from this investigation have survived, but we do know that they heard testimony from the head of the DC Metropolitan Police Department, Vice Squad Lieutenant Roy Blick, who claimed that 5, 000 homosexuals lived in Washington DC and that 3, 700 of them were employed by the federal government.

Figures, by the way, that appear to have absolutely no basis in fact, but were highly reported by the media at the time. Lt. Blick also claimed that since the committee had begun their investigation, almost every agency of the government had sent an official to him in order to ask Blick about his knowledge of any homosexuals employed by their [02:39:00] agencies.

Blick believed that around 100 moral perverts had recently resigned or been fired since the Wherry Hill investigation had begun. The Civil Service Commission sent recommendations to the Wherry Hill Subcommittee on suggestions for a routine procedure to rid the offices of government of moral perverts and guard against their admission.

These suggestions included a recommendation that all arrests related to homosexual activity should be reported to the FBI so that the Civil Service Commission could be alerted, thereby ensuring that all federal employees arrested for reasons related to sexual perversions Could be removed from employment.

Both Senators wary and Hill believed that this information meant that a wider investigation was required. And on June 7th, 1950, the Senate resolved to undertake a more comprehensive investigation of the alleged employment by the departments and agencies of the government of homosexuals and other [02:40:00] moral perverts.

On the Senate's recommendation, the HOI Committee was formed a much larger undertaking far from the two members of the Weary Hill. This investigation had seven Senators and various other investigators and clerks. Included on the committee were Chairman Senator Clyde Hoey, three Democrat Senators, James Eastland, John McClellan, and Herbert O'Connor.

and three Republican Senators, Karl Mundt, Andrew Schoepel, and Margaret Chase Smith. Senator McCarthy was on the subcommittee originally, but ended up excluding himself from the investigation, although he did periodically forward information on suspected homosexuals. to the committee. The Hoey committee sent out questionnaires to all branches of the military as well as 53 civilian departments and agencies.

Committee investigators also interviewed agency officials and summarized these conversations in memoranda. The agencies came out strongly against the suitability of [02:41:00] homosexual employees in the federal government. In Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer's response to the committee on July 24, 1950, he said, The privilege of working for the United States government should not be extended to persons of dubious moral character, such as homosexuals or sex perverts.

The confidence of our citizenry in their government would be severely taxed if we looked with tolerance upon the employment of such persons. However, some responses took a slightly less aggressive tone, including this statement from Howard Colvin, Acting Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

Since it is possible, according to our understanding of medical and psychiatric opinion on the subject, for a homosexual to lead a normal, well adjusted life, we do not consider that such a person necessarily constitutes a bad security risk. We believe that each such case would have to be decided on its own merits.

Not [02:42:00] exactly an endorsement of civil rights for homosexuals, but certainly a bit more progressive a stance than most of the government were expressing at this point. However, many investigations begin to have greater and wider impacts. Government employees could not even resign quietly without having the permanent tag of possible homosexual on their record.

At the end of their investigation, the Hoey committee issued a report entitled Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government, which indicated, among other things, that during the three years of the committee's investigation, close to 5, 000 homosexuals had been detected in the military and civilian workforces.

Additionally, the Hoey report also indicated that all the government's intelligence agencies are in complete agreement that sex perverts in government constitute security risks. The report concluded that gay people should not be employed by the federal government because they were generally unsuitable and [02:43:00] constituted security risks.

In addition, it reported that gay people had a lack of emotional stability, weak moral fiber, and were a bad influence on the young. The report warned that, quote, one homosexual can pollute a government office, end quote. This report would go on to be highly influential in shaping government security manuals for years after the investigation concluded.

Persecution and Resistance LGBTIQ+ People Under Nazi Rule Part 2 - United Nations Outreach Programme on the Holocaust - Air Date 11-25-24

GURCHATEN SANDHU: the question that you hold here is, is, is, is, is critical and history or herstory, as we like to call it is, Is something that the, our movement, um, has been built on.

And to know history is and to know history herstory is critical for, um, our movement to not just only survive, but also thrive. Um, this history is also in particular cri um, um. Key for our movement because often we think of our movement starting as early as the 60s or [02:44:00] as recently as the 60s and 70s with the Stonewall riots.

But what Klaus and the work Joanna has shown is that no, in fact, our movement building predates Stonewall. We have always been here as a movement, and I think it's really critical to mark that from the beginning. Then I think for us, this relevance is to understand the roots of oppression. I mean, as Klaus pointed out, the Nazi era marked one of the darkest history, darkest periods of history for LGBTIQ plus people, particularly gay men and trans people who were targeted under paragraph 175 of the general penal code, where we saw thousands arrested and thousands sent to concentration camps and forced to endure inhumane conditions.

And whereas this did not You know, end with the fall of the Nazi regime, but continued for decades after, and many survivors were then reprisoned post war as well. Um, we look at the resilience of the individuals [02:45:00] who then formed secret support networks. Klaus mentioned the work of, uh, uh, Gerhard Gadbeck, um, and those who survived even within concentration camps and worked covertly to protect others, such as those that Klaus also mentioned.

And these acts of defiance were not just about survival, but they were about preserving their identity and humanity against all overwhelming odds. So here we're really talking about a recognition of resilience. And these stories, um, strengthens the LGBTI community's understanding of its own resilience and capacity to fight oppression.

And so we have seen this before. We have been through this before. And we will go through it again, sadly. Right. And we are going through it again sadly in parts of the world where we see the rise of the anti rights movement. And so as a community, we will learn from this and how they have survived, as how our ancestors and transcestors survived through this, but how we [02:46:00] will then also thrive and rebuild from this as well.

So from this history, this is what has actually shaped modern LGBTIQ plus activism. The pink triangle that Klaus and Joanna also mentioned, and that has been reclaimed as a symbol of resistance and pride. You know, movements like ACT UP, which drew on this history to fight against the AIDS crisis. Um, slogans such as the lie, silence equals death have been picked up by the HIV and AIDS movement, by other movements, by Um, movements, um, are pushing back against current conflicts going on around the world.

And this history is important to ensure the, uh, to preserve and prevent the erasure of LGBTIQ plus histories from mainstream narratives. This is critical. The work of Klaus that they have done is very critical to ensuring that preservation continues. And this marginalization ends to the ongoing struggle for recognition.

So, um, recent efforts have [02:47:00] included, uh, classes where, you know, the work that class has also done and the perspective in Holocaust remembrance, such as memorials, museum exhibits and scholarly academic work. Let's just say that Joanna refers to. Um, so remembering this history is not just about past, but it's shaping the future.

And ensuring that these voices are heard, but it's also relevant to the current, um, um, context that we are facing with over 110 conflicts going on in the world and how LGBTIQ plus people are particularly vulnerable during this situations, whether it's in Syria, whether it's in Afghanistan, whether we've seen the specific targeting in Chechnya right now in Russia, in other parts of the world as well.

And therefore we can learn from this history. So documentation is key. You know now, and this is how we sort of build our resilience. One of the key things and key activities we do as ILGA World is work with human rights defenders where [02:48:00] persecution continues. Against our identities on how to document these crimes, and we've been able to learn that from the past histories and bring this evidence to the forefront and use it not just for archives and a memory as a preservation, but actually as a form of resistance and as justice for our communities as well.

So there, I think it's very important. Um, and I think in terms of going back at just one more point that, um, Klaus mentioned was around the deep roots within genetic purity. We've seen this, many of this, uh, work and this press, this, um, acts of crimes against us, uh, this preservation of society in particular around eugenics, this sort of ethnical, uh, ethnic cleansing, it's, um, And this denunciation or perception of homosexuals continues to this very day, where someone perceived of homosexuality is punished.

You know, if you're in, it was only up until recently, where if you were [02:49:00] not wearing the right type items of clothing, i. e. what is considered masculine clothing, you could be arrested on the streets. You could be, you know, and this sort of fear and perception of homosexuality as well. We also saw, you know, LGBTIQ plus people.

I think I'm perhaps, um, jumping onto the next part, but what we're actually seeing as well is, um, this sort of targeted, um, examples where experiments were conducted on gay men in particular to convert them and to, um, um, see if conversion therapy can work. And we still see that today. We still see those continued practices.

We still see forced sterilization, as particular against our trans siblings across the world, who are forced to be sterilized if they want to transition. So this is something that Restarks reminds us what this is where it's deeply rooted in, and that we are still facing this, and how it's [02:50:00] spread and used across other countries as well, especially with the rise of the anti right movements.

TRACEY PETERSEN - MODERATOR, UNITED NATIONS OUTREACH: Gosh, thank you so much Namu for elucidating so clearly, uh, why the past matters, uh, and And for the LGBTIQ community today, both in terms of a reminder of the resilience, uh, that, that is there, and that should serve as an inspiration today as we go forward, and to also understand, you know, that this is not the first time that one can recognize, obviously, and understand the differences, as no history is ever identical, but to understand why it is important to be vigilant for the signs, and, and so thank you so much for doing that.

A follow up question. Why would anyone who doesn't identify as LGBTIQ, why would they, why should they care about this history? What does it got to do with them?

GURCHATEN SANDHU: Well, this is our history. Yeah. Um, and I'm, in my opinion, and this history or this [02:51:00] history is to, is how we can draw parallels from Um, other persecutions under the Nazi regime.

We've seen how, and Klaus and Joanne have talked about how the same machine was used to oppress LGBTIQ plus people today and used against Jewish people, against Romani people, Sinti people, people with disabilities, as well as others. Um, and understanding how the system targeted specific groups helps us see the broader dangers of authoritarianism and unchecked prejudice and how we must work to maintain the sort of balance and checks against.

Um, of power and how democracy today, which is under threat in many parts of the world is integral to this, despite its flaws that we know that democracy is not perfect, but we know that this is the one tool that we must preserve to keep, um, Human universal human rights, um, um, applicable to all. And this, I think this is also clear that there's a universality of human [02:52:00] rights that applies to all of us as well.

Um, and I think it's also back goes back to this idea of of impression that. Talks about, for example, Nazi ideology talked about those who were deemed a degenerate, unfit, and that characterized a span of many groups, and this is deep rooted in eugenics and a medicalized model. And this continued today, even in today's systems as well.

It was only until the late 90s where the WHO De pathologized homosexuality. I mean, the word homosexual, as Klaus rightly pointed out, comes from German, comes from German psychologists. And, and, the word that we, you know, and it, with the pathologization that we needed to be fixed. And, and we've seen this throughout history, again with conversion therapy, but we're not just seeing it with homosexuals.

We're seeing this now with our siblings who are intersex. We are seeing this now with our siblings who are, are, are trans as well. And these examples of [02:53:00] medical experimentation on marginalized groups, including LGBTI individuals, shows how these systems of oppression can harm different populations. We also have a historical responsibility again.

I think after the war, after the Second World War, especially after the Holocaust, we said never again. But sadly, we see that we're still Still not learning from those mistakes and still crimes against humanity are being conducted, uh, being carried out across the world with these 110, uh, conflicts that are ongoing.

And then we still see a lack of apology as well. Very few countries have apologized publicly and openly to LGBTIQ plus persons. Canada, UK, the USA, Germany. And I think there are a few others to mention, but very few as well. And so when we talk about the importance of this, it's stronger that we protect the most vulnerable members of our society.

And how we must stand up for minorities. I think it goes back to that, you know, that very, very famous quote [02:54:00] of Martin Niemöller, and it's been overused. And I am, I'm sorry to those who know this, but you know, first they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me as well. And this is a stark reminder that, you know, um, it goes back, uh, how united we must be. And I really liked, um, what, um, Klaus talked about population politics.

And this is really what we're facing today. With the rise of the anti rights movement, we see, uh, abortion rights, sexual reproductive health rights, feminist rights. Um, Women's rights, all being attacked. And these are the same rights that are being attacked that are the same as LGBTI rights. It's all comes down to bodily autonomy as well.

SECTION D: STORIES

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: This is Section D stories.

The fight to protect LGBTQ+ rights from Trump Part 2 - Politics Weekly America - Air Date 1-31-25

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: This is Max Kuzma. [02:55:00] He's 33 and he lives in rural Ohio. Max grew up in a very conservative Catholic family.

MAX: There were like times when I was a child where it was time to go to church on Sunday and they wanted to put me in a dress and I was so opposed to it that I actually tore the dress as a child.

Max voted Republican for most of his 20s. I was. Very conservative politically, I very much felt like I had to be a one issue voter on a lot of things, kind of looking away and voting, like not looking too deeply, just voting for the thing that they kind of told me to, to vote for and just moving on.

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: But in 2019, at the end of Donald Trump's first presidency, Max decided

MAX: to transition.

I didn't just come out and be like, all right, everybody, I am now transitioning. And now all my political views are super different. And like, everything is completely changed. I tried not to make it a bomb, but, uh, what ended up happening is that like, when I talked to my immediate family, [02:56:00] my parents, My mom's reaction was, transgender is a political word, and kind of just hung up the phone.

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: Max

SASHA BUCHERT: doesn't speak with his

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: parents anymore, and he has lost a lot of friends. But he's happy, and he feels transitioning helped open his eyes to what else was happening in the

MAX: country. I really felt that when I transitioned that I became political for the first time and I think that my mom in a way was right when she said that transgender is a political word.

Not because transgender people in and of ourselves are an ideology or anything like that, but because to be a marginalized person means that politics are so much more important to your life because it really tangibly affects you. Max found last year's campaign hard. It was very painful to experience the escalation of the anti trans atmosphere and attacks that had been, already been going on, just to know that the, the Trump [02:57:00] campaign Spent more on anti trans ads than they did on almost any other strategy.

COMMERCIAL: It's hard to believe, but it's true. Even the liberal media was shocked. Kamala supports taxpayer funded sex changes for prisoners and illegal aliens.

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: Every transgender inmate would have access.

COMMERCIAL: Kamala's for they, them.

SASHA BUCHERT: President Trump is for you.

COMMERCIAL: I'm

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: Donald

JONATHAN FREEDLAND - HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: J. Trump.

SASHA BUCHERT: Now we are seeing the consequences of all of that rhetoric in policies that will actively harm transgender people.

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order, which said that from now on, it will, quote, be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female.

CLIP: The executive order requires, quote, government issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and global entry cards, accurately reflect the holder's sex.

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: Following up on that order, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, ordered the U. S. State Department to freeze all [02:58:00] applications for passports with ex sex markers and changes to gender identity on existing passports.

SASHA BUCHERT: My transition was already well underway when the election results were announced, but there were a few Legal things that I hadn't fully buttoned up yet.

I had a court order for my name change already from a judge, but I hadn't gone through and updated every single federal document and all these other things that need to be done. And so, that was honestly my immediate move, was to make sure those things were buttoned up.

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: Max is now in limbo with some of the documents he didn't get sorted in time.

And he isn't sure what will happen over the next four years.

SASHA BUCHERT: Sitting on the sidelines as somebody who is a white man with a beard and a deep voice, and knowing that I'm probably not going to be the one who is attacked when I'm trying to go to the bathroom but having to know and watch and hear and see as the [02:59:00] stories are inevitably going to come out about violence towards the trans community happening.

That weighs really heavily on me. I also am not currently married and so some of these changes, depending on what happens with my paperwork with my official documentation or what happens with other laws. That could impact my ability to marry my partner, which is something I wanted to do.

JOAN E GRIEVE - GUEST HOST, POLITICS WEEKLY AMERICA: Despite his anxiety, Max has

SASHA BUCHERT: hope.

I take a lot of hope from knowing that trans people and LGBTQ people firstly have, have been around forever throughout all of human history. And also that We have faced challenges like these before I have had to find my own family, a found family. I have had to learn how to engage in mutual aid and social action that tie together solidarity amongst marginalized [03:00:00] people into resilience.

And it's that resiliency that is one of the most beautiful gifts to me of the LGBTQ community. And I know that it's that resiliency, which is what is going to sustain those of us who have to go through these next four years into whatever may come into the future.

Gender is a negotiation whether you realize it or not. - It's Been a Minute - Air Date 3-12-25

BRITTTANY LUSE - HOST, IT'S BEEN A MINUTE: I'm glad to hear you describe this as your like Americana Western story because I want to shout out how incredible the language was throughout that novella, it was all in this old timey vernacular and it gave such a clear picture of the world that the characters were in. It gave me such a clear picture inside Babe, the main character's mind.

The thing I was really interested in was Stag Dance. was how Babe came to understand his feelings about gender without having any of the modern language that we have. But even when there are no, you know, available words for Babe to understand his desires, he goes on desiring to feel [03:01:00] Feminine anyway. In what ways does our language around gender today help people to understand themselves?

And in what ways does it fail at explanation?

TORREY PETERS: Yeah, I mean that was actually part of the project of that story, is that I've been, you know, talking about trans stuff for ten years, and in a lot of ways I oftentimes feel That the language is ossified, that actually it's, you know, you hear a word like gender dysphoria and you have a sense of what it means, but you don't really have a sense of how it feels.

And in writing this book, I came across this dictionary of logger slang, so like a word for egg, for instance, might be cackleberry, like the hen cackles and it lays eggs, which are like berries that they can pick. So they would say we're eating cackleberries. And so the language is totally strange. And the project was partially.

Can I describe the feelings that I relate to in language that's totally alien to me, that's strange to me? And I found that over the course of the project, yeah, I could. Actually [03:02:00] because, again, the feelings of like trying to get right with yourself, the feelings of having desire, the feelings of frustration with the body that you might have, these aren't things that you need, you know, a degree in gender studies to talk about.

And they were actually almost fresher and more easily available to me once I sort of develop the cadence of this character's voice where I could put it in weird logger slang and I'd be like, Oh wow, that's actually exactly how it feels for me too. Even though obviously I would never have said it in logger slang.

BRITTTANY LUSE - HOST, IT'S BEEN A MINUTE: You mentioned that Babe is the biggest, strongest, ugliest person in the entire Logging camp, there was a lot of discussion of Babe's looks and Babe's actually a mean nickname because you know He's described as looking like Babe the blue ox like Paul Bunyan's ox It hurt my heart a little bit every time I saw you know, this character respond to that [03:03:00] name But there's another person at the camp who's also going to the stag dance as a lady named Leeson who's smaller prettier more feminine.

I understand that this is kind of taboo to discuss, like who passes less naturally, or as my producer, Liam, tells me, you know, calling someone quote, unquote, bricky, why was it compelling to you or interesting to you to explore that?

TORREY PETERS: Well, one of the things I was kind of looking at is actually what constitutes a transition.

In the logging camp, anyone who had a brown fabric triangle over their crotch would go to the dance as a woman. And that's like a very gendered symbol. I oftentimes think of transition as you're kind of putting on symbols because a transition You know, I think in the sort of, like, dogma of, kind of, trans thought, the idea is that, like, well, you declare yourself a thing, and then you go out and kind of become that thing.

And that's [03:04:00] not actually how I see it working. I think that oftentimes gender is actually a negotiation. with all these people around us. The dream is that you live in a society where you can just say, this is who I want to be and everybody accepts you. But in fact, they don't. You're sort of negotiating with people.

And I don't just think that's trans people who are negotiating. I think if you're a woman and you're like, I want to be taken seriously at the office, well, you might wear a suit because that's a symbol, you know, and it's unfortunate that one would have to like, sort of take on these gendered symbols. In order to get respect, but we're all constantly negotiating that way, including trans people.

Whenever you decide that you're making a transition, you take on certain symbols. And the thing is, those symbols, they don't work equally for everybody. The reality of the way that we treat bodies in this moment is that. Certain people could say, well, I'm going to transition, like the Leeson character who's young and pretty.

He puts on a triangle, he goes to the dance. Everyone is going to use she pronouns because they all want to dance with the prettiest [03:05:00] logger. Well, when Babe shows up, there's no amount of symbols and makeup or anything. That he could put on his body to have people agree to that negotiation. And so there's a way in which certain transitions become felicitous and certain transitions don't become felicitous.

And for me, I wanted to write about it because it seems like something that's actually very painful. Within kind of queer liberation, you can say whatever you want and that's what you are. But pretending that's the case when people are actually in pain, when they're like, no, nobody's treating this way, even though I'm doing it, it's a painful thing.

And it's something that's difficult to talk about. And for me, those kinds of stories work best in fiction. I can create a logger and I can be like, how might this feel? What's this frustration like? And when you say that your heart breaks for that logger, every time He calls himself ugly, that's the kind of empathy that I'm looking for.

I'm looking to generate that for [03:06:00] readers.

BRITTTANY LUSE - HOST, IT'S BEEN A MINUTE: That makes me think also about how, like in the 1960s and 70s, they mostly let people who were thought to be people who could pass easily get gender reassignment surgery. You know, that also affects who we understand as trans historically.

TORREY PETERS: Yeah. And certain people.

Those symbols work on them even though they're not trying to transition. I know somebody who is a sort of masculine presenting woman who is cis and considers herself cis. She doesn't identify as trans. And you know, she had an altercation in an elevator because somebody misunderstood the ways that she presented herself.

You know, these are things that are operative for all of us, all the time. And I think it's why I sort of say that like, oh, this binary between who's cis and who's trans. I'm interested in kind of breaking it down and seeing how it works for everybody.

Radically centering trans teens with Nico Lang - Everyday Trans Activism - Air Date 10-1-24

NICO LANG: Well, I think the most obvious one is you wouldn't see it as much like thematically of them just being like, I am putting this together. You see it more like externally kinds of like. They're taking in their own lives. Mm-hmm. The most obvious one for me is [03:07:00] our third chapter was about a black gender fluid teen, a Micah in West Virginia who had recently been experiencing some pretty grave depression, which was a surprise to me because when I met Micah, I.

They're just such a force of nature in this really larger than life personality. Like just so big, so buoyant, so just lovely and full of life. And one of the reasons I wanted them to be in this book was to showcase that, right? Like, here's this person that just was this incredibly vibrant personality. I was thinking like, wow, that's a character that would just really leap off the page, you know?

Mm-hmm. Because if you meet Micah, you'll never forget it. And I wanted to give readers like, you know, someone they'll never forget. And I, we still do get to that. Micah is still all those things. But at the same time, Micah was experiencing a pretty severe mental health crisis. Hmm. And that had to do with the fact that for years they'd had this dream of going to NYU majoring in musical theater, and they sort of had this entire like life plan mapped out for themselves.

But unfortunately, as sometimes [03:08:00] happens, they bombed their audition. Mm-hmm. Um, they had covid during the week of their audition. I know, I don't know why they didn't reschedule, but that's another thing. Mm-hmm. Yeah. They go with the au through with the audition. They're barely able to sing, very pitchy, you know, as, uh, Randy Jackson was once says, and I think starts crying during like one of the numbers because they know they're not doing well.

Like this is not going the way they thought it would because they, you know, they just had this built up in their head for such a long time. Mm-hmm. And then seeing it actually was, was just soul crushing. And of course they ended up not getting in. Mm-hmm. It was just kind of like, well, what is my life now?

Essentially, I was there as this like young person, was really realizing just how difficult life can be and that your dreams don't always work out for you in the way that you thought. Right. And it's like how? Right. How do you sit with this person as they're finally realizing that? How do you tell them to like, it's okay, you can still go leave the house.

You can, you know, there are other dreams out [03:09:00] there. They were still figuring that out and they hadn't left the house in like weeks, like months even, because it just had hit them so hard. And Micah just wasn't the person that I knew. Mm-hmm. But, you know, through two and a half weeks of me being there, have somebody.

To just like witness your pain and like the grief and trauma that you're going through. I think that it wasn't anything I did, I think it was just my physical presence because they had someone to share with. Mm-hmm. You know, to share. And it wasn't like it was just them doing it because, you know, they, their family is there and supportive and like trying, but their mom's busy.

You know, she has to work, they have their own stuff going on. Mm-hmm. Feel sometimes, like they can't always make adequate space for each other's struggles. But here you had somebody whose job. It was to be there for your struggle. Mm-hmm. And to talk about, yeah. And that really made a big difference. And sadly, not all kids get that.

Right. Not all kids are gonna have this reporter come to their home to listen to them for two and a half weeks. Yeah. So I think for me, I hope that, you know, [03:10:00] seeing Micah and the journey that Micah goes on during, you know, during the two and a half weeks we were there, they ended up accepting, how do you say it, the acceptance admittance.

Mm-hmm. Um, to another call. Um, that they've been going through and doing great. Okay. Um, they, you know, they started leaving the house again. They started volunteering with the A-A-C-L-U of West Virginia. Mm-hmm. We went on tour, all these different places that they might like, get a job and, you know, it all ended up going okay.

But the thing is, is that it went okay because they had an ally, they had like support and mm-hmm. Other kids need that, right? Mm-hmm. So for, don't have. A private social worker to come to their home or a journalist for two and a half weeks. You know, what can we do in local communities to make sure that they do have access to those resources?

Mm-hmm. You know, that can be pride groups, that can be like a local community center, but again, not everybody has that. Yeah. Something I think is. Great is that, um, there's this Alabama organization called the Magic City Acceptance Center, and they have a discord platform for L-G-B-T-Q youth across [03:11:00] the state where people can come, they can like build community, they can just like vent if they need to, and especially if they can't access that in-person space, it means that they have a digital space that they mm-hmm.

And I just wish more queer youth and wherever they are, wherever they happen to live, had something like that. Mm-hmm. Or even had an. Community that would be even better, just so that way they can have these kinds of experiences. I think we just forget like how impactful and transformative small things can be, especially when you're young.

MANDY GILES - HOST, EVERYDAY TRANS ACTIVISM: Definitely. I was just talking to someone about this the other day, about having peer spaces for trans and queer youth and how important that is, and having the, the, like you said, the mentors and the allies to listen to them and, and help them along in these journeys. Like if you, if you don't have a, you know, live in social worker for, with you for two weeks and, and the demand for digital online virtual services because.[03:12:00]

You know, like in Houston where I am, we are so lucky to have a community center that has an in-person youth group, and I'm not sure if they have the discord. They probably do, but not everybody has that, and so I. That, that's something that I know parents struggle with to try to find that space for their kids.

The parents who recognize like, my kids need something else besides me to, to, for me to talk to, they need some, a third person, a third party, to, to hear them and to, to get advice from, you know, something that struck me when you were talking about Micah's story, just thinking about how universal that is of this either unfulfilled or I guess shattered dreams or just this.

Oh, it just, my heart hurt when you were talking about I'm clutching my, my chest in thinking about just watching someone grow up in a way, in real time and, and recognizing that those things don't always come true. And I would, I would hope that that kind of thing [03:13:00] resonates. With a very wide audience and not just someone who is, or, or, or maybe a reader, an audience who's looking to learn more about trans kids, but just like, here's what teens are going through.

They have to learn these really hard lessons and kind of grow up right in front of your eyes, which is heart wrenching and beautiful in a way. I guess just watching that process, I'm wondering if there were any. Themes that you saw with the eight kids that, that you talked to and followed? Anything overarching?

NICO LANG: No. And that's what's cool about the book is that one of the things that made this book so hard to pitch is that publishers didn't understand what it would be. Mm-hmm. And that all of the kids have such different stories from each other. Like people wanted this idea that I'd be really like drawing out connections and making.

Like, you know, bigger proclamations of like, oh, these two kids were both like this, thus all trans or kids are like this. Mm-hmm. You know? Um, but I [03:14:00] thought what was so neat is that, and this was not, I kind of wanted this a little bit, but I got it even more than I thought. Like I wanted people who would have different stories.

From each other. But I didn't just realize like how wildly diverging everyone would be. That you'd have like, you know, some, one kid would be like, I love being trans and it's the coolest thing about me. And another kid would be like, I hate being trans or not, I hate being trans, but I hate being known as being trans.

Right? Like, that's not my goal at all. Like, um, Clint is a great example. He was our like. Six, seven. Wait, how does this go? Fifth chapter, um, in Illinois, like he said that his goal is to be known as a boy, not a trans boy, and that he doesn't really identify with his transness. It's not that he thinks there's anything wrong with being a trans as a trans person, it's just not really how he thinks of himself.

Especially because he had such severe dysphoria about his body before, you know? He's got underg undergone, like, you know, a medical transition and it's gone really well. And it's been such like a benefit to his life that he [03:15:00] doesn't want to think about all that stuff before. And when he thinks about being trans, it forces him to think about like where he came from, right?

Mm-hmm. And all these things he had to go through to get to the good place he is now. So he doesn't really identify with that. He identifies with his muslimness, um, because his family is Pakistani Muslim, right? Mm-hmm. So. That's the part of his identity that he puts first. And that felt like a really cool perspective to include because I just never heard anything like that.

MANDY GILES - HOST, EVERYDAY TRANS ACTIVISM: Mm-hmm.

NICO LANG: And I think with this, with this book, I really wanted to make space for so many kinds of stories that I just hadn't heard in so many different ways. Whether that was the stories of the kids, the stories of the families, or just like the ways that they exist in the world. For me that like multiplicity, the ways in which all of these families are so divergent from one another.

That's what makes a book like this really special. 'cause it makes it feel like life. Like we're all so different from each other. Mm-hmm. We all have such different ways of existing in the world. Why would I want to create a book where I'm trying to make the [03:16:00] argument that everybody is the same? Mm-hmm. To me it's, the argument is everybody is different.

That's really good. We should protect that difference. We need laws protecting that difference. Because right now I think you have all of these lawmakers who are going, well, these trans kids, they're different in a way that I feel like I don't understand and doesn't comport with my worldview. Or, you know, my religion seems to like, you know, cast aspersions on.

And because of that, that difference needs to be restricted or illegal. Right. And the more that we'd make it clear that these kids might be different from you. They might be the same as you. You could have a lot in common with them, right? Some of these, like kids, there's so much that we had in common, even though we've come from different backgrounds, different experiences, there was just so much that we would just really bond over.

Like whether that's, you know, shared interests, liking the same movies, having some of the same things happen to us. But at the same time, there were ways in which we couldn't relate at all. Right. And that we were just so different from one another. And I think that both of those two things are equally beautiful.

Gender is a negotiation whether you realize it or not. Part 2 - It's Been a Minute - Air Date 3-12-25

BRITTTANY LUSE - HOST, IT'S BEEN A MINUTE: To your point about the possibility [03:17:00] that the things that you write about, things that you're thinking about could be weaponized, I mean, I get the sense from reading your work that you cover a lot of stuff that perhaps trans people don't always want to talk about in mixed company.

And to a certain degree, I get that. Like in a way, being at NPR for me is being in mixed company. Uh huh.

TORREY PETERS: Yeah. Yeah.

BRITTTANY LUSE - HOST, IT'S BEEN A MINUTE: You know, this show has. It's a really wide, diverse audience with all kinds of people, which I love, but it's a very different experience than the kinds of shows I worked on in the past. Like for years, I hosted shows that were primarily speaking to black audiences.

And so, you know, I felt free to talk about certain things without adding as much context. But even now, you know, sometimes it's worth saying something. a little spicy, or, or getting into a conversation that might, you know, not be so cut and dry, because I value having a certain conversation more than the possibility of non Black people being in Black people business.

Yeah. But I see you having this like [03:18:00] very rich line of inquiry into all of these taboo topics. And it feels like a bid that it's worth discussion. Like you say, it might help somebody, it might free somebody. Talk to me more about how you value, you know, getting into it more than you're worried about anybody or any haters, let's say, weaponizing it.

TORREY PETERS: Well, I think that there's a tradition of this, outside of just trans communities, of great writers creating characters who are really difficult to talk about the real issues in a way that feels, in the end, liberatory. You can think of Philip Roth writing Poor Noise Complaint, you know, which was totally Jewish communities were like, this is an outrageous caricature.

I think a lot about Toni Morrison writing The Bluest Eye. Oh, yeah. There's kinds of things that The 10 year old girl thinks about, you know, sort of valorizing blue eyes or certainly the treatment of her very abusive father towards her in a black family. All of that could have been [03:19:00] weaponized. But to me, you can't understand the context of racism if you don't see the tragedy of it, if you don't see the way that it can warp a young girl's visions of beauty or warp the way a family looks.

And similarly, I think you can't see Like, how transphobia and fear of trans people's expression and the way that that locks us down can cause such suffering if you don't show the bad parts, if you don't show the consequences of that. And to me, I think that's both important for trans people to recognize and it's important for other readers to recognize that if you say this character seems to me sort of monstrous, Well, why?

You know, the first story, they unleash a contagion that kind of almost destroys the world and world ending fury is a result of the kind of treatment that these characters feel.

BRITTTANY LUSE - HOST, IT'S BEEN A MINUTE: Yeah, let's talk about that story called Infect Your Friends and Loved Ones, if you don't mind giving us a synopsis.

TORREY PETERS: Sure, it's the sci fi novella in the book.

It takes place in [03:20:00] Seattle where two trans girls infect the entire world with a contagion that has the effect of blocking the body's ability to produce hormones so that everyone will have to basically take artificial hormones because their own body's not producing it. Meaning that everybody in the world will have to make the explicit choice to cultivate their gender.

That trans people already have to make. And so the question is sort of like, What if everybody has to choose their gender the way that trans people do?

BRITTTANY LUSE - HOST, IT'S BEEN A MINUTE: First of all, I want to say you were in your bag writing this genre. I just want to say I was like the pages turned themselves. I think it's really interesting to make a world where everyone must choose, but in that world it's still a very constrained choice.

It's not like a utopia of gender where, you know, everyone can kind of pick and choose as they wish because it's hard for people to get some of these hormones. Talk to me more about that. Like why having to choose and [03:21:00] getting to choose are different things.

TORREY PETERS: My joke about it is that actually we already live in a world where everybody has to choose their gender.

And everybody already is choosing their gender. It's just they're not aware of it. They're like, oh, I was born in this gender. Well sure, you were born in that body, but you're choosing your gender. You're choosing how you present yourself. Based on the constraints that you have, what kind of clothes can you afford?

What kind of body do you have? How much time do you have to work on your body or negotiate that stuff with other people? These are all constraints that we already have. And so the irony is actually like a dystopian world where everyone has to run around trying to find the things that they can scrounge up to make a gender that feels good to them.

Well, it's almost exactly. The world that we live in now, the joke of the dystopia is actually like this contagion. Maybe it changed everything Hmm, or maybe it just reveals the world that we already live in.

BRITTTANY LUSE - HOST, IT'S BEEN A MINUTE: Yeah, you know I hate to bring politics up because I enjoyed your book and was interested in your thoughts [03:22:00] before This new administration, but we live in a country now where trans people can't change their gender markers on their passports.

And there've been executive orders aimed at restricting health care and sports participation for trans people. The T has been cut out of LGBT on things like the Stonewall National Monument website, which I'm like, there wouldn't be no Stonewall without the T. You know, it's, it's an erasure. Given all that, you started the book with the question, What does it even mean to be trans?

Does that question have a different dimension to it now?

TORREY PETERS: I don't think it has a different dimension, but it definitely has different stakes. You know, I spend part of every year in Columbia, and in a year I have to renew my passport, and the F marker, which I've had for years, and which corresponds with like how I look and things like that, is going to be taken away from me.

I show that passport, and there's a lot of police [03:23:00] blocks because, you know, the roads are just policed, so I show that. I'll be on the empty road somewhere showing my passport to a couple of cops. I do that frequently. And in two years, you know, I don't know if it's going to be a danger or not, but I'm going to be showing something that has an M on it, you know, in an empty road.

And that's a small thing. I wrote an essay about that for New York Magazine. That's a small thing, but it's A new and increased danger in my life that's a material danger in my life that is going to be the case. In so many ways for so many people that things are going to be more dangerous where prisoners, you know, they're moving all the trans women prisoners, or they're attempting to, to move them into male jails.

That's going to cause violence. Your listeners can look up the word V coding. V coding to see what happens to trans women in male prisons.

BRITTTANY LUSE - HOST, IT'S BEEN A MINUTE: Right. I will spell it out for them in case they don't have Google handy. V coding is the [03:24:00] practice of placing trans women in cells with male prisoners as a reward or a form of social control that hinges on trans women being raped.

TORREY PETERS: Yeah. These kinds of things, they have horrific stakes. And I hope to be able to, you know, kind of write into those stakes, even though I'm no longer eligible for an NEA grant, you know, I still, I still hope that I'll be able to write into those stakes.

SECTION E: TRANS JOY AND RESISTANCE

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: And finally, section E. Trans joy and resistance.

Know Your LGBTQIA+ Rights with Chase Strangio Part 3 - At Liberty - Air Date 2-13-25

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: But in December of 2024, you became the nation's first openly trans person to argue in front of the Supreme Court in U. S. versus Skirmetti. I, I just want a second, just the fact that you're Are you in front of the Supreme Court? I know it's hard to separate what you were arguing about, but I would imagine that that was a big day, that there was, that there was a lot going on for you that day.

CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah. Yes. Yeah, definitely.

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: I mean, I guess I'm trying to say like, there's the, like, I'm here to present the case, but also like I'm in front of the Supreme Court, you know?

CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah. [03:25:00] It was a big day and it was, um, It just, it takes a lot. It takes a lot of preparation. It takes a lot of emotional energy. Obviously, that emotional energy is escalated when it's a huge civil rights case and it's a civil rights case that implicates your own life.

Um, when there's this narrative of, of his, you know, it's the first of something which always, you know, in the U. S. people love that. So it creates all of this extra. feedback. Um, but in general, it is, it's, it's, it is somewhat surreal as a lawyer to say, okay, I'm, I'm walking up to the lectern in the Supreme court and, and going to start my legal argument.

It is a surreal experience that I certainly will never forget.

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: Was there any, I mean, again, I know that we were talking about the case. Was there any sort of Pride or joy in that experience as someone who's a lawyer that like, that's a thing that that's one of those like goals that I'm sure many lawyers imagine and have.

Was there, did you feel the pride of that moment?

CHASE STRANGIO: That's a, so in the moment, I [03:26:00] think I was just very focused. And so I didn't, I wasn't like, Oh, I'm very proud in this moment. It, it was also a very epic time because it was right between the election and inauguration. And I was very, uh, you know, wicked had come out the week before and I was like, very much like, Cynthia Erivo, Elphaba, like, it's just sort of like, this is going to drive me and Cynthia's voice is, you know, it was a little bit of defying gravity on repeat and trying to get myself into, um, to, to the zone.

And, and that was helpful, the, the sort of, you know, musical fight against authoritarianism, um, in the lead up to inauguration and our Supreme Court case. So, so that I think was, was where I found the energy in a, in a very dramatic sense. Um, and then afterwards, I think when I, when I was able to actually take a deep breath, I, I was like, wow, that, that actually happened.

And, and that I think was, you know, there was very little time to feel pride given that we went right into [03:27:00] planning for the Trump, Trump presidency and then inauguration. But I did try to sort of sit with it, um, and, and sort of feel the energy. And I, I did.

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: I love the idea of you like, on, with uh, Defying Gravity, on repeating Cynthia Erivo as you sort of like, we all have our get hype music, and that's a, I love that song being uh, the song that's getting you hyped to argue for trans folks in front of the Supreme Court.

That's beautiful.

CHASE STRANGIO: Uh, you know, it felt like it really fit, and, um, so Oh yeah, for sure. That, that was, uh, really grateful for, for Cynthia and Ariana and, and that coming edge on to it, to come out right before, uh, it felt really good.

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: I would, I would imagine they'd feel honored to know that you were, uh, that you were, that that was the song that was going through your ears before you argue for trans rights, before you were defying patriarchy.

CHASE STRANGIO: Yeah, exactly. We'll do a sort of

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: A remake, yeah.

CHASE STRANGIO: You know, a remake of it, yeah.

W. KAMAU BELL - HOST, AT LIBERTY: Cynthia Erivo, if you're, I know you pay attention to things, let's do defying patriarchy with Chase here.

Sam Nordquist deserves justice, Montanas big win for trans rights & MSNBCs Historic LGBTQ Move - Queer News - Air Date 3-10-25

ANNA DESHAWN - HOST, QUEER NEWS: Boom, [03:28:00] boom, boom, boom. Boom, boom, boom, boom. This win is coming out of Montana. Now, Montana is where Representative Zoe Zephyr serves.

And if you've listened to this podcast, you've definitely heard me mention her. Because she's not only made history in Montana becoming the first trans person to serve in the House. But she's also married to Aaron, who runs the Aaron in the Morning Substack, which is one of my trusted news sources, along with 20, 000 of you, okay?

She does an incredible job reporting on the news affecting LGBTQ folks across the country. Well, in Montana, something unprecedented happened. 29 Republicans stood up to their party and voted against anti trans legislation. That would have banned drag performances and pride parades, HB 675 and HB 754 that would literally take trans kids from their parents.

Yeah, you heard me right. Take children from their parents for being trans. Let's [03:29:00] start with the ridiculous drag ban. They would have also given parents the right to sue drag performers for harming children. Drag performers could have been sued. 5, 000 a pop by parents, they lost that vote. Okay. 44 to 55.

And for context, the Montana house is controlled by Republicans. The count is 58 Republicans to 42 Democrats. Yo, this is huge. Their house speaker tried to say. Actually, he didn't try, he did, said that transgenderism is a fetish based on cross dressing. That's how he described it. In response, Representative Zephyr said, When I go walk him, speaking of her son, to school, that is not a lascivious display.

That is not a fetish. That is my family. This time her speech hit home. And it wasn't [03:30:00] alone, Representative Sherry Easeman, a Republican. Representatives spoke up against the bill. She said. So much here, in just a few lines I want to share with you. Everyone in here talks about how important parental rights are.

I want to tell you, in addition to parental rights, parental responsibility is also important. And if you can't trust a decent parent to decide where and when their kids should see what, Then we have a bigger problem. She went on to say, trust parents to do what's right and stop these crazy bills that are a waste of time.

They're a waste of energy. We should be working on property tax relief and not doing this sort of business on the floor of this house and having to even talk about this. family. After these speeches, 13 Republicans flipped their vote and voted against the bill.

And get this, that wasn't it, right? You heard [03:31:00] me earlier. There were two bills. That was just one. The next anti trans bill was up and trans representative S. J. Howell spoke up. They said, I stand to oppose this bill. When a state intervenes to remove a child from their family, that is one of the most serious and weighty responsibilities that the state has.

That is not something to be taken lightly. Every time a child is removed from their family, it's a tragedy. Sometimes a necessary tragedy, but a tragedy nonetheless. This bill does not come close to the seriousness with which those decisions should be contemplated. They went on to say, put yourself in the shoes of a CPS worker who is confronted with a young person, 15 years old, maybe, who is happy, healthy, living in a stable home with loving parents, who is supported and has their needs met.

And they are supposed to remove that child from that home and put them in the care of the [03:32:00] state. We should absolutely not be doing that. Come on S. J. Come on S. J. And thank you Erin in the morning for reporting on this. Family, I'm telling you right now. If you do not follow Erin's sub stack, do it. Okay, follow it.

Figure it out. You understand? The things she's reporting on are so important. The depth in which she reports is so important. Now. When this bill went for a vote, after S. J. 's speech, 29 Republicans voted against it. If you remember earlier, I said that there were 58 Republicans serving in Montana's House.

That was nearly half of them. Wow. Thank you, Representative Zephyr and Representative Howell. All of the activists and advocates in Montana that are doing the work every single day. Yo, I hope you got to smile after these wins and take a man a little bit Because I know y'all got back to work. I know you did.

I know you [03:33:00] did, but I really do hope That you were able to take this in a little bit, soak it up, because to get Republicans to cross the aisle right now in this climate today, that takes relationship building, that takes time, that takes getting to know them, right? This, this is what we need. More relationships being built, less ignorance.

New Administration - Trans Joycast - Air Date 2-8-25

ANDREW - HOST, TRANS JOYCAST: So the fourth executive order that I'm catching during the show here and the recording of the show is. called Ending Radical Indoctrination in K 12 Schooling, and I think for this one I'm gonna read a little bit of it because otherwise I'm gonna muddy the waters on it.

So, the purpose and policy, parents trust America's schools to provide their children with a rigorous education and to instill a patriotic admiration for our incredible nation and the values for which we stand. In recent years, however, parents have witnessed schools indoctrinate their children in radical, anti american ideologies while deliberately blocking parental oversight.[03:34:00]

Such an environment operates as an echo chamber, in which students are forced to accept these ideologies without question or critical examination. In many cases, innocent children are compelled to adopt identities as either victims or oppressors, solely based on their skin color and other immutable characteristics.

In other instances, young men and women are made to question whether they are born in the wrong body, and whether to view their parents and their reality. As enemies to be blamed, these practices not only erode critical thinking, but also sow division, confusion, and distrust, which undermine the very foundations of personal identity and family unity.

Need I go on? Probably not. No, no, you really don't. You really don't. You really don't. Yeah, so So this executive order references other executive orders in order to kind of bolster what its goal is.

ADAM - HOST, TRANS JOYCAST: I mean, nobody's been recording our history yet, so we're the ones doing it. We're the ones writing it.

That's what TransJoy is. [03:35:00] We're rewriting this narrative, right? We're going to keep making history. We're going to keep being us, whether you teach it in schools or not. And not only that, we'll make it accessible.

ANDREW - HOST, TRANS JOYCAST: Exactly.

ADAM - HOST, TRANS JOYCAST: The community will make it accessible to

ANDREW - HOST, TRANS JOYCAST: itself. Right, right. We talked last episode about Social media and its influence on our ability to do that and the reminder that I'd put out there Just like what we were talking about a moment ago is that we're creative.

We've we've got People in all walks of life with all manner of skill sets if we need to make another Site for our community. It wouldn't be the first time. It won't be the last time there's going to be places for us to Maintain our history document our history. I know that even here in Georgia. Is it Georgia State that had a project going on for?

documenting [03:36:00] LGBTQ histories QIA histories I can't remember how far out it expands whether it's like specific to Atlanta or or broader than that and their objective was to is was and is to capture stories of just You know, members of the community to get oral histories from. I participated in that a couple of years ago and that's here in Georgia.

So know that that work continues on and all the noise that's going on in public education. It's just noise. It's noise. all sorts of challenges around it. There already have been. And so we just got to keep doing what we're doing and bob and weave to adjust to, to the different tactics, tactics that come up.

So what day is this of the administration? 10, I think. When did he get sworn in?

ADAM - HOST, TRANS JOYCAST: Martin Luther King, unfortunately. So it was Monday. So it's been. Eight days, [03:37:00] right? I gave it too many

ANDREW - HOST, TRANS JOYCAST: It's fine Probably shouldn't even put that in here because it's going to take another couple days to get this thing out but right You know, so that's by the time you all are listening to this I'm sure there will be more that more to come out of that and I know I know that it's stressful.

I know that it is really difficult to read I I can say that for me some of what i've struggled with really It goes all the way back to, well, well before this too, but really at time of the election and all the commercials that were paid for that were anti trans and then the response from the media after the election of, you know, the Democrats really should have spoken out against trans ideologies and air quotes, you know, and that sort of thing.

All of that, it weighs heavily. It's hard to. Yeah. It's hard to constantly be surrounded by noise that doesn't, doesn't even, it's more than thinking that we're bad people, it's, it's thinking that we, like, [03:38:00] don't exist, and wishing that we didn't exist, and plenty of people being willing to make sure that we don't exist.

And that's heavy for us as adults, imagine that for those

ADAM - HOST, TRANS JOYCAST: children.

ANDREW - HOST, TRANS JOYCAST: Right. And so I know that I'm, I'm feeling the weight of that and as Adam said earlier on this show, we were talking about, man, how do we bring the, the trans joy, capital letters, joy into a space like this. And I think something that I have thought a lot about around these conversations, because truly we've had a lot of bad news over the last, really, since we started doing this podcast.

Uh, and, and. prior to that too. So I think some of what I continue to try to remember is that simply my existing, simply my willingness to laugh at myself and laugh at some of the silliness that goes on around us. Don't get me wrong. I'm taking it very seriously, but my [03:39:00] joy is resistance. My love of my community and my people.

is resistance, my love of myself, my respect for myself, my willingness to stand up for myself is resistance. And I, I just don't see a way for them to take that away from me. Oh, so I was on vacation last week. Part of the reason that we, well, the reason that we didn't end up getting a podcast out over the last week.

And so I'd gone on a cruise ship and there was a gentleman who was sat down next to me on the ship and All week i'd seen him around he'd been wearing this. We make america great again hat Of course, this is after the inauguration and i'm seeing some of these Executive orders getting signed and I was just so annoyed that he would have gotten sat next to me because Of all the people on this ship [03:40:00] Although my guess is that this ship was pretty I shouldn't say my guess there was a lot of this The ship is very queer family.

So I was thinking of all the people To sit next to, why am I sitting next to the MAGA guy? And there was something within me that just couldn't help but start speaking louder about just how much fun my trans ass was having on that cruise and how queer friendly the space was, and just how welcome I felt and how much I was enjoying myself.

And it was all true. Like it all, all, everything I was saying was true. And it was a, a good, I mean, most importantly, a good reminder to me of. Whatever, man. You do you. I'd rather not be sitting there grumpy looking like you are. You know, B, there was something nice about being able to know that I was talking about myself in such a positive way that somebody else really had to kind of sit and listen to, or I mean, I guess he didn't have to, but You know, he was stuck there next to me, at least until he finished his meal, [03:41:00] uh, if he wanted to eat.

So it was kind of one of my little ways of joyfully spreading the, the good news of being a queer person and just living a happy life. Didn't hurt him at all. It. Didn't hurt me, but there was something about being able to own myself and take my frustration with the things that are going on and turn it into something kind of honestly kind of joyful and be able to remind myself out loud that I'm having a wonderful time and that I am worthy of having a wonderful time and saying it loud enough that I knew that Somebody else who probably doesn't share the same ideologies I do could hear, and could hear a human speaking about.

Yeah, I don't know. Something about that helped me feel better.

Future Allyship - Supporting Trans Communities - T Break - Air Date 11-18-24

SOPHIA HITCHCOCK: It's obvious from what we've spoken about that there is a lot that still needs to change and so much that needs to happen. And it's [03:42:00] amazing that we've got such great advocates like you three who are helping that all happen. But I think You see that there is, there's obviously quite a lot of progression, especially with visibility of trans people as well at the moment.

And as you say, Sky, you were saying you grew up with no internet and such a lack of resources, and now we are in this age where people can actually find that information. really quickly and explore who they are a lot easier than when you were doing it, Bobby and Sky. But generally there is quite a lot of progression in some areas.

For example, Greece has just put in the anti discrimination law, which explicitly protects trans people in education, health, housing. You've got a lot of countries like Norway and Portugal who are prohibiting conversion practices on the grounds of gender identity, stuff like that. But then, We're also in other areas where stagnating or we're regressing that there's quite a few countries now who do not have [03:43:00] gender recognition or going back on their gender recognition or there are countries that even these countries who are thought of as progressive are actually elapsing on their equality plans and that's not great to see but I was wondering where you think we can take this in the future and what can actually be done about it and Bobby, to use your words, how do we get straight white men interested in this subject?

How do we take this forward?

BOBBI PICKARD - CO-HOST, T BREAK: So getting straight white men interested in EDI in general, I think one of the important things to do is to recognise that being, being a straight white man is a diversity type in itself and every diversity type, including straight white men, have diversity type challenges.

So I think if you can start exploring. The challenges that they face, always having to be seen to be in control, have the answer, always having to compete with the challenges of what to do with all their power and money, [03:44:00] all of those things. If we can explore those challenges that they face and start helping them deal with them, then hopefully that opens up those empathic barriers to them understanding that they can help other diversity types, uh, themselves.

We're in a very precarious place, I think, not just for trans and non binary people, but for societies in general. We're seeing a big resurgence in right wing beliefs across America, in the UK, across Europe and beyond. And that's fairly typical for a reaction to times of socio and economic pressure. And we've had some extreme pressures over the last five years.

We've had the pandemic. Before the pandemic, we were in a, Uh, a depression, then we've had the pandemic, and now we're in a time of economic recession [03:45:00] again. So one of our base instincts as a species is when we feel under threat, then the first thing we do is throw around protective barriers around ourselves and our families, our tribe, and anything that isn't part of that tribe or we perceive to be outside of that tribe is perceived as a threat.

And that's what the right wing. Views and political parties thrive on it, leverage, and that's what we're seeing. And that's why we're seeing the pushback against the trans and non binary community, because we're the easy target. We're the easy ones to start with, to start driving a wedge into wider human rights, whether that's bodily autonomy for women or rights for people of color or rights for the wider LGBTQIA communities.

So where do we go forward from here? Well I think really we've got to dig in, dig in and really start trying to push [03:46:00] forward, or at least hold the line. And I think that's what the trans and non binary community have been trying to do in the UK and the US for the last five or six years actually, is not actually make any progress, but just try and hold the line, try and be the breakwater for future generations, because it's, however hard it is, To here, I don't think we're going to really get any massive improvements to trans equality in my lifetime.

I would appreciate that my lifetime might not be as long as other people's lifetimes here. But I don't see that's going to be, I don't see we're going to have a lot of improvement now. Because we've had such regression, such pushback, such undermining of the foundations, that we've spent the last 50 years.

Building that actually, I think, just holding the position of where we've been. I mean, certainly that's what, why I've been doing the [03:47:00] last sort of five, six, seven years. And I've been doing it for 22 years now, you know, and the last seven years have been by far the hardest out of all of those times.

SKYE MORDEN - CO-HOST, T BREAK: If I just would jump in as well and following up on what Bobby said, we've seen, I think, a lot of like, intentioned work in the courts and politics get shot down very easily with what I would consider quite flimsy justification afterwards.

Not just what I mentioned earlier about the NHS, but recently Ryan Castellucci's case about legal non binary recognition. In the UK as well and obviously the SMPs self made the and making like a GRC slightly easier to get Getting shot down by the use of section 35. So and following up on like also another thing about how I think Trans people are just the current other.[03:48:00]

I would recommend anyone who listens to this to read a book that was really helpful for me for understanding the intersectionality of like, the issues that trans people face are often the same as how other previously and still persecuted minorities face, called the Transgender Issue by Sean Fay. This was a huge I think a hugely influential book from my understanding in early transition of actually i'm not alone There are things as a trans person.

I should be doing to help out cis people of color other lgbt people trans people of color immigrants people with uh Disabilities and that we we all could be doing that because a lot of the battles we face are the same secondly, I would this stuff you want to do to help there's so much you can do to help in the Immediate, in the immediate future, find mutual aid networks, not just explicitly for trans people, but for communities with large amounts of [03:49:00] trans people in.

Well, there are so many of us, like, who aren't as fortunate to be in a position that Bobby, Sky, or myself are in, who always need help paying rent, paying for healthcare, look at, if you know a trans person who's doing a fundraiser for surgery and stuff, consider giving towards that, there's all sorts of things.

I think we've seen, due to, I think trans people just broadly and statistically being among the more Prejudiced, or was prejudiced by the state members of society that, yeah, we've had to set up our own means of looking after ourselves. And there's a line I always hear about passing the same ten pounds or ten dollars back and forth amongst ourselves.

And I'd like, there's something I do with my career to help trans people, I'd like to make that amount a lot bigger for us. And be able to say, like, get in, uh, into a position where I can look at it. Make the type of work I do or the type of work that so many of us in the city do more [03:50:00] attractive for trans people to want to get feel they can want to get into no matter what their employment history or their transition history or If they've had problems or a gap on their CV or whatever because it's just that feeling like okay I'm in a position of what can I bring to the table right now instead of having to have lined your life up perfectly from The age of 13.

Yeah, so that's what I Like to achieve and what I tell people looking to be an ally to consider is not like just very obvious stuff about Oh Being nice and treating a trans person at work in the correct gender, but one thing to do, I guess, just a bit more reading into it. And being proactive, and I think that's so much beyond, I think, I've seen most cis people do that, anyone who does that, I think is like really inspirational.

The Fight for Trans Futures Part 2 - In The Thick - Air Date 12-12-24

MARIA HINOJOSA - HOST, IN THE THICK: Raquel, take us to the grassroots. Help us understand how you and your fellow activists are preparing [03:51:00] the conversations that you're having and especially for young people. I have so many young trans people in my life and so I'm wondering, you know, what should I be saying as a good ally?

RAQUEL WILLIS: Yeah, well, just to go back to talking about families and young trans people, what was beautiful about the day that Chase was arguing inside of the Supreme Court was that outside of the Supreme Court, there was this amazing, beautiful, glorious rally. Freedom To Be Ourselves, co created by ACLU, Lambda Legal.

And they really created the space on the streets outside of the Supreme Court that can maybe serve as a vision of what we want to see.

CLIP MILA: I'm 12 years old, I'm in eighth grade, and of course, I'm a trans girl.

Despite me having [03:52:00] a normal life, it's wild that people think that trans kids are just a danger to society. How did they get that? But, you know what? In spite of all of that, I'm standing right here in front of the Supreme Court because to make change, to do what's right, to make things, let me tell you something, I'm proud

of being a trans girl. They might want to take away our rights. We had a multi racial, gender diverse,

RAQUEL WILLIS: intergenerational, cross movement group of folks out there in the streets really just celebrating the fact that we are here and we're fighting as trans folks. and as folks who love and care about us. So I want to share that because [03:53:00] I think that that's kind of the perfect encapsulation of this effort, right?

We have Chase and other attorneys on the inside of this hallowed institution and then on the outside are folks who are both rallying themselves but also cheering on Chase, right, for being a champion. So that was beautiful. In terms of grassroots activism right now, I mean, obviously, I can't speak for everyone's experience, but I will say one thing I want to make sure I do is talk about really just what the bathroom said.

And it wasn't just the folks who got arrested, right? Who made that happen? It was all of the folks who maybe weren't in photos, right? Who haven't been quoted. who also made that happen. The folks who couldn't risk arrest, but showed up and put their body on the line in other ways. It was also the media folk, right?

Who were like, we need to document this. Oh, also we believe in what you're fighting for because we believe in the dignity of trans [03:54:00] folks lives. So that's important. It was the legal support, the safety support, all of these different elements that made that action successful. And I think that's how we have to approach Organizing always, but especially right now is that there is a role for everyone to play and you have to get creative with what your gifts are, what your skills are, right?

Chase is using his skills, his expertise in law to transform things. As much as he can, to what he was just saying, right? But folks are making sure that people are fed and housed, right? So we need to be putting resources into mutual aid efforts, into direct services, right? Which have been a hallmark of keeping our people alive in our community.

We need more political education, right? We have to be getting all of this brilliance. Out to the people because we know that the mainstream media ecosystem is failing a lot [03:55:00] of people. We know the educational system, even before Trump is in office is failing a lot of people. So we've got to be firing on all cylinders.

And I don't say that to be incendiary and violent. I just mean we've got to be active. I don't want the right to misconstrue what I'm trying to say right now.

MARIA HINOJOSA - HOST, IN THE THICK: I feel that. No, I, I, I absolutely feel that. And you know, Raquel, you've really been living this because last year you published a really beautiful memoir.

It's called the risk it takes to bloom on life, love, and liberation. And you tell your own coming of age story as a black trans woman from the South, and you detail your journey as an activist and as a journalist fighting simultaneously for your own liberation as well as. Collective liberation in your communities, right?

So I would love it if you would read a passage. It's from your epilogue and it feels really frankly pertinent right now. And you reflect on the disillusionment that you felt after many of the [03:56:00] revolutionary demands of the summer of 2020 were then brushed aside by politicians.

RAQUEL WILLIS: Many of us have realized that the precipice of liberation we tasted a short while ago is much farther than we imagined. I wish I could provide a soothing conclusion where everything feels hopeful and bright. But it seems we will have to continue to hold the uncertainty of progress. We'll have to find the balance in those things that make our lives harder and those things that make us helpful.

One thing is for sure, white supremacy, cisheteropatriarchy, classism, ableism, Christofascism, and other systems of oppression won't be eradicated unless we truly believe that we are the fruit of precious seeds. I am constantly in awe of what our ancestors and [03:57:00] trancestors were able to plant despite the wildfires they endured.

They didn't wait for the perfect conditions or to be understood. They had dreams and wittingly or unwittingly crafted the scaffolding for our movement. Like them, we must continue to build sites of accountability, connection, dreaming and healing. Even when the flames It

MARIA HINOJOSA - HOST, IN THE THICK: really feels very relevant for this particular moment. Chase, what's your message to the trans community and to all communities that are under threat right now?

CHASE STRANGIO: First, with Raquel's prescience and insight and wisdom and so I think just the reminder that You know, even if we are confronted with hope and then disappointment that we have the tools and the capacity to [03:58:00] rebuild together, uh, because I think one of the things that does happen is you are confronted with this sense of progress and almost intoxicated by the ideas of, of change and only to often be disappointed with the resurgence of the very things that you thought you were moving past.

And so contending with hope and despair together can be a draining project, but one that we can tackle together. And I guess for me, coming out of the argument at the Supreme Court, what I'll say to the trans community is, is going back to Raquel's message about the rally outside, which is that. You know, we are inside navigating these old, not very malleable institutions, and yet coming outside, you're reminded that no matter what happens in there, we are building something more beautiful outside of the literal architecture that this country was built upon.

And looking out at that sea of young people who had the self awareness. to demand that [03:59:00] they be allowed to claim themselves and listening to those young people interviewed on CNN that are in essence like, I exist. That is not an opinion.

MARIA HINOJOSA - HOST, IN THE THICK: So this is Violet Dumont. She's a 10 year old trans girl who traveled with her family from Arizona to DC to make their voices heard.

And here she is. 10 years old, being interviewed on CNN.

CLIP: What does that feel like, to have so much attention by all these politicians on your identity? It's probably, honestly, the worst thing I've ever felt. I've heard principal weak politicians that say, No, you have the wrong gender, you're confused, honey.

No, myself is a fact, not an opinion, and they don't get to decide that for me, I get to decide that for myself.

MARIA HINOJOSA - HOST, IN THE THICK: And here's Daniel Trujillo, a 17 year old trans boy who also traveled to D. C. from Arizona with his mom.

CLIP: When politicians focus on turning us into numbers, a lot of times they've never met trans people, they don't know trans people.

I've been [04:00:00] disrespected, misgendered, dismissed just because of how young I am by these people who want to protect me. Oftentimes our lives get turned into numbers. and trauma stories with no name and no face. Our existence is so, like, so beyond that.

CHASE STRANGIO: I am just so inspired by the power of our younger generations of trans people.

And so whatever is coming, I know that we're calling upon our transcestors and looking at the people who are much, much younger than me, that we have so much beauty that we're building and that those flames will not be extinguished.

Credits

JAY TOMLINSON - HOST, BEST OF THE LEFT: That's going to be it for today. As always, keep the comments coming in. I would love to hear your thoughts or questions about today's topic or our upcoming topics. We're doing a deep dive on the shifting internal dynamics of the Democratic Party that absolutely needs some shifting, and the Republican efforts to dismantle public education, and the role of Christian nationalism in that effort.

You can leave a [04:01:00] voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991. You can reach us on the privacy focused messaging app Signal at the username bestoftheleft.01, or you can simply email me to [email protected].

The additional sections of the show included clips from Short Wave, Queer News, Dora's Deep Dive, Amicus, Boom! Lawyered, The Majority Report, the At Liberty podcast, The Brian Lehrer Show. Firstpost America, Empires of Dirt, the United Nations Outreach Program on the Holocaust, The Cold War, Politics Weekly America, It's Been A Minute, Everyday Trans Activism, Trans Joy Cast, T Break, and In The Thick. Further details are in the show notes.

Thanks to everyone for listening. Thanks to Dionne Clark and Erin Clayton for their research work for the show and their participation in SOLVED. Thanks to our transcriptionist trio, Ken, Brian, and Ben, for their volunteer work helping put our transcripts [04:02:00] together. Thanks to Amanda Hoffman for all of her work behind the scenes and her co-hosting of SOLVED, Thanks to those who already support the show by becoming a member or purchasing gift memberships. You can join them by signing up today at best of the left.com/support, through our Patreon page, or from right inside the Apple Podcast app. Membership is how you get ad free and early access to our incredibly good and often funny weekly show SOLVED, in addition to there being no ads and chapter markers in all of our regular episodes, all through your regular podcast player. You'll find that link in the show notes along with a link to join our Discord community where you can also continue the discussion. And don't forget to follow us on all the social media platforms. We're new on Blue Sky like everyone else, but we're also finally making the move to video on Instagram and TikTok with our new show SOLVED. So please support us there.

So, coming to you from far outside the conventional wisdom of Washington DC, my name is Jay, and this has been the Best of the Left podcast coming to you twice weekly, thanks entirely to the [04:03:00] members and donors to the show, from BestOfTheLeft.com.

1 reaction Share