No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Republicans pull SHOCKING election stunt in Texas

Episode Date: September 2, 2026

Republicans continue their voter suppression tactic– closing a third of all voting locations in Tarrant County, Texas. Brian interviews Robert Garcia and Ro Khanna.Written by Brian Tyler CohenProduced by Sam GraberRecorded in Los Angeles, CASee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Republicans continue their voter suppression tactics ahead of midterms, this time as chaos unfolded in Tarrant County, Texas. And I've got two interviews, Robert Garcia and Rokana. I'm Brian Teller Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie. So this is what just happened at a public meeting in Tarrant County, Texas, as Republicans voted three to two along party lines to shut down 92 polling locations ahead of midterms. Here's the deal. Tarrant County, the third largest county in Texas, home to Fort Worth, and one of the

most important swing counties in the entire state is going from 316 polling locations down to just 224. That's nearly a third of the county's voting infrastructure that's just gone, right before an election that Republicans know is going to be brutal for them nationally. Now, one of the Democrats who was on the commission said, quote, it's not about cost. This is about power. This is very political. This is campaigning from the dais, which, by the way, is a pretty remarkable thing for a sitting commissioner to say directly to the people voting on this measure, that you're not. not administering an election that you're rigging one directly from your own seat on the dais. Now, the official justification here is that this is about saving money and efficiency,

and they've pointed to low turnout in low propensity locations. And look, in a vacuum, a county could make a boring technical case about resource allocation, but that's not what's happening here. And I think the timeline makes that obvious. Consider the fact that this didn't come out of nowhere. This comes on the heels of Tarrant County's 2025 redistricting fight, which already drew weeks of controversy and accusations of gerrymandering from residents, civil rights advocates, and local leaders who wanted that whole process halted.

So this is chapter two of the same story. First, you redraw the maps to lock in your advantage, which Republicans have already accomplished, then you make it physically harder for the wrong people to cast a ballot, which they're accomplishing right now. So what do I mean, by the way, by wrong people, the wrong voters? Well, look at who specifically loses access here. One of the sites on the chopping block is the University of Texas at Arlington polling location. That is a campus that has spent years actively building youth civic engagement, which, shocker, tends to skew Democratic.

Reverend Ryan Price and multiple community members specifically flagged that these cuts would disproportionately hit communities of color across the county. In other words, this isn't like some neutral formula spitting out random closures. This is the Republicans doing what they have been doing for years, which is to suppress the vote with surgical precision against communities, that don't historically vote for them. And I want to be clear about the scale of the opposition here because Republicans have tried to frame what went on in Tarrant County as some quiet technical adjustment that nobody cared about. That's not what happened.

Over 140 people signed up to speak against this. Hundreds of protesters stood outside the courthouse for more than three hours in nearly 100 degree heat. Public comment ran for over two hours, and law enforcement had to physically escort somebody out of the room. So this was not some sleepy bureaucratic vote that nobody was watching. Tarrant County residents showed up in force.

They were loud, angry, and completely ignored anyway because the outcome was decided before a single person even spoke. And it didn't stop there. After the initial vote, Democratic commissioners tried to bring back a proposal to reinstate 37 of the polling places that have been cut. The Republican majority voted it down.

Two times. The same three to two party line split. So this wasn't a case of like, well, maybe they'll walk it back once they hear from the public. They heard from the public, extensively, and they doubled down twice when they were given a chance to fix it. With that all said, it doesn't look like the voters in Tarrant County were willing to give up, because here's one clip from one attendee that gained traction online from within that meeting. I want to reiterate

with the nice lady before me said, you're fired. Mr. Tim O'Hare, Matt Krause, I guess maybe you're safe. Mani Ramirez, wherever he is, you guys are out. What, what? What, would be possibly be so important. Mr. O'Hare, can you listen to me, please? Hello? Hello? Can you look at my eyes, please? I can hear every word you're saying. I want you to look me in the eyes. I want you to look me in the eyes. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, look down.

Because down is what you're going in November. So keep looking where you're going. Okay? Because this is what we're doing after this from now until November, whether you cut these places or not. We're going and we're knocking on doors and we're bringing people out. And we're telling the more of the voter. are, and we're helping them get there, and nothing you can do can step us from removing you in November. So come November, you better find yourself a new job. And to Mani Ramirez, who is not

here me, you can hear me in the restroom, vote for an idiot in November. So if that doesn't give Republicans pause, I don't know what will. Now, here's the thing that really gives the game away amid all of this. This whole vote that these Tarrant County Republicans passed came just one day after Trump publicly vowed to end mail in voting entirely. And this was despite the fact that the president of the United States does not have the authority to dictate how individual states or counties run their own elections. Article 1 of the Constitution puts that power in the hands of states and Congress, period. But when you connect the dots here, Trump attacking mail voting, Texas Republicans, stripping in-person polling access at the county level, you start to see an actual

strategy. It's not one tactic. This is a two-pronged squeeze. Make it harder to vote by mail and make it harder to vote in person and hope that within that gap, enough of your opposites. just doesn't show up. And that really is the tell here. If you actually believe that you can win the argument on the economy, on health care, on any of the issues that matter in people's lives, you don't need to spend your political capital on shutting down polling places at colleges and community centers. You just make your case and let people vote. The fact that Republicans in Tarrant County chose this fight instead shows that they've already done the math and they know they lose if everybody gets an equal shot to show up. Next up are my interviews with Robert Garcia and

Rokana. No lie is brought to you by Simply Safe. So security is, of course, a big issue for me, considering politics isn't as safe as it used to be. But as I was considering home security systems, I realized that all of these home security systems are built for after. After the window breaks, after somebody's inside, after you get the notification, after the police come, Simply Safe is the first system designed for before, stopping a break in before it even begins. And there is a ton of peace of mind in that, especially if I'm leaving my family at home, my gear at home, whatever it may be, I don't have to worry over a long weekend. But knowing that I've

got real protection, that piece of mind is legitimately priceless. So here's how SimpliSafe makes that happen. It is designed to help stop intruders before they get inside. Smart AI powered outdoor cameras detects suspicious activity at the perimeter and alert live US-based agents to step in. SimpliSafe's agents assess the threat, intervene through the outdoor camera to scare off trespassers, and call for 911 dispatch. SimplySafe has been protecting your world for 20 years, celebrate their anniversary with us and save 60% on your new SimplySafe system at Simplysafe.com slash BTC. That's 60% off at Simplysafe.com slash BTC. Plus, when you order, write in our showname in the How Did You Hear About Us survey to let them know that I sent you. Don't forget, there's no safe like

Simplysafe. We have an explosive new whistleblower report today from someone inside the U.S. Postal Service outlining the ways in which Donald Trump and the USPS leadership were still moving forward. with their efforts to create this system where only certain voters would be able to cast ballots. So right now I'm joined by the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Robert Garcia. Congressman, can you explain what the Oversight Committee is doing right now in light of this new development? Right. So just last night, we actually our team met with the whistleblower.

And those conversations are ongoing. We, of course, have this report that was just released today. it was sent out. We worked on through both the Senate side, our partners there as well as us on the oversight committee. And so the whistleblower and the whistleblower's representatives are talking to both committees right now just to give us all the information. There is more to come, I will to say, on this topic. And I think there is more that the whistleblower and others will likely bring out, which is really concerning. And I think what for us, the most important thing was immediately to ensure that the whistleblower got, has protection, and if the information is out

to the public. That is right now the most important because this is an issue that will likely be heard, whether at the Supreme Court most likely, but still going to be heard. Right now there's a stay. But the Supreme Court hearing this is, I think, highly likely. So getting the information out to the public, having folks talk about it, it being reported on right now is the most important piece. Are you able to preview anything else that's about to be released at the the hands of the whistleblower? I can't say anything beyond what has been already been released, but what's been released is really serious.

I mean, we're talking about essentially Donald Trump and the administration, creating a system within USPS to kind of pick and choose on vote by mail ballots and trying to possibly slow down vote by mail, certainly cause havoc in the vote by mail process, removing ballots from being counted. And this is incredibly extremely extremely. extreme stuff and things that Donald Trump has been wanting to do from day one, we've been saying he wants to rig the 2026 midterm. We're aware of this. This is, they could impact 2028 as well.

And so we have to push hard. And now that there is somebody within the USPS. And quite frankly, it is a, as we've described it, an official within USPS that we believe is very credible. And more more to come, but we have to ensure the courts are aware of what Dr. Trump was trying to do within USPS right now. Is there a way to bring the Postmaster General and or other USPS leadership that was responsible for this in front of Congress to testify about what had taken place? And kind of a follow-up to that, would that, I presume that would require buy-in from James Comer. Do you know one way or the other whether he would be a willing participant in that? Yeah, we're not aware that there will be some actions in the next few days that's going to hopefully get us more information.

But I think James Comer has been unwilling really to do any sort of real oversight within the Congress. That's not something that we're expecting. But certainly we are in continue to push Johnson and Comer Republican leadership to actually do the right thing. I mean, vote by mail is happening not just in states where Democrats typically do better, but also in states where Republicans do well. They're used widely by rural voters, by Republican vote. I mean, the president himself votes by mail and did so in this last primary election in Florida. And so the fact that Donald Trump now is putting in place things he's verbalized, right? He has tried to stop votes some happening.

He's made calls to election officials in states. He, of course, denies that he actually lost the election to Joe Biden. These are all concerning actions. And now we know there is an actual real system in place. which, by the way, per court order, there should have been no execution of his executive orders, right? But the fact that has been moving forward against those court cases, we believe first and foremost strengthens our arguments in the courts and ideally hopefully puts this to bad once and for all. Donald Trump should not be allowed to move forward with this system.

And you're exactly right. There are two issues at play here. One is the fact that he went forward with this despite initial injunctions. I think the first one was handed down on August 27th. Then Judge Tawani issued the temporary restraining order. Still, this whole process moved forward despite all of that. And by the way, I should also add, despite the fact that the DOJ is 0 for 23 right now in court cases

where they're trying to get the voter rolls sent to the federal government. So I don't know how he can look at this and see a mandate when he is quite literally never won a single case on this issue. And the other one is the system itself that seems almost designed. to fail. But on the first point, and you just alluded to this, can you, can you speak on what you expect the judge will do, given the fact that her order here was outright flouted by Trump and the U.S.PS? Well, look, I think that I think it's very, I think it's pretty clear. I think that the judge in this case, but also other judges and other court officials that are reviewing more broadly

these actions by, the executive order, the actions by the president, there's no question that this is a complete disregard of the opinion and the order. There's also no question that if this gets to the Supreme Court,

this will be a huge part of the argument on certainly the argument that's going to be made to not implement, not allow Trump to give him the ability to actually implement all these actions. Look, we should be very clear, Donald Trump wants to disrupt the elections of 2026. He's been ordered by a court to not move forward on his plans to kind of redo how he wants to do vote by mail in his own warp vision of what he thinks should happen in an election.

And yet he continues to put in place a system at USPS to drastically alter the way ballots can be counted and the way ballots are actually reviewed. I mean, in some cases, we're finding out from the whistleblower that if there was a concern with a ballot, that USPS, officials would have the ability to then throw out that entire batch of ballots, even though there were likely no issues with all the other ballots that were being reviewed. And so this is basically the president's attempt to pick and choose where he wants to count ballots. And it's unconstitutional, it's illegal, and we're going to continue to push really hard on this. This is an incredibly important fight right now that all Democrats would be engaged in. Do you know if there's any legal exposure being shouldered by USPS?

officials who decided to move forward with this process despite the TRO or the federal injunction? I think that there is going to be an incredible amount of exposure for anyone that is involved in this. And you can rest assured that certainly in a majority, we are going to dig into this and understand who gave what order. But between now and the election and the time we get, we're able to have our own hearings, we've got to stop this program that Trump's trying to implement at USPS. That's the most important thing. In terms of the sell doctrine, this idea that you can't make changes too close to an election, otherwise you would cause chaos. You know, that's, that's a doctrine that's been exploited by Republicans in the past.

And so they will slow walk cases where Democrats are challenging unconstitutional maps and they'll only get a result or a decision or ruling too close to an election so that a judge will finally say, okay, we've made our decision, you're right, these maps are unconstitutional, they're illegal gerrymanders, whatever they may be. But it's too close to the election. that Purcell doctrine kicks in, so we'll have to look at it in the next term. And in effect, they basically get to steal a couple of seats every election cycle because they rely on this. Do you anticipate that the Supreme Court will still find Purcell an important doctrine

in all of this now that it's something that could be used to curb Donald Trump's willingness or desire to block Democrats from being able to use mail-in ballots? Look, it's hard to, I think it's hard to predict what the Supreme Court will do. I think your point is an important one. I think, and I do think that broadly speaking, the court has more time, you know, on enough occasions, sided with the broader view that the vote by mail system is secure and that and that voting in general is a right and something that needs to be preserved and the integrity of the votes just needs to be preserved. And Donald Trump has made attempts to go to the Supreme Court,

as we know, on a variety of definitions, a bunch of courts, as we know, on this very issue and is not successful. So we expect the Supreme Court to do the right thing here, but we have to raise the alarm so that not just the Supreme Court, but currently also the judge and those are currently involved in the state orders, everyone has to know exactly what Donald Trump is actually trying to do, and that is rig future elections and picking and choosing what vote by mail ballots actually will count. So there's two issues that we have to reconcile here. One is the severity of what he's trying to do, which you just put on full display. But the other is that there is, you know, this in and of itself, us talking about this is in a way lending itself to the voter suppression efforts that Donald Trump

is trying to carry out because if more people are uncertain about the confidence that they can have in the elections, then there might be folks who decide not to cast ballots or not to cast ballots in certain ways. It's not dissimilar to what happened in Georgia when Trump himself undermined confidence in the elections, which led to John Ossoff and Raphael Warnock winning both of their races because he had spent so much time basically telling his own voters that you can't You can't even bother trusting the election results. So why bother even voting in the first place? And so how do you reconcile those two things where people are going to be worried about voting?

But at the same time, that is exactly what Trump wants out of all of this. Look, I think I'm concerned about this as well. I think the more chaos and kind of confusion that Donald Trump causes, it will cost some folks to rethink what should I be voting by mail. As we know, vote by mail is sometimes the only way certain people can. can vote for a variety of different reasons, whether it's overseas, whether it's, so they might have some type of disability or access issue, people that are working class people that are working all day on election day. So there is a lot of barriers to vote in that still exist in this country, including efforts that are ongoing and trying to limit the amount of polling places on actual

election day or limiting the early vote in certain states. And so those are all real concerns. However, we have got to ensure that when Donald Trump takes these actions, we can't just hide, right? We've got to come out. We've got to ring the alarm. I'm hopeful that there will be clarity on this issue long before ballots start dropping in any of these states. So the sooner this is cleared up, I'm hopeful that in the next few days, we're going to begin to hear some of the actions, possibly, of a response to this. That is our intention. We want to raise the alarm, get the information.

out, make sure that you and others are covering this, that we're raising attention, and then hopefully the courts will do their job. Last question here. When can we expect some other announcement from the House Oversight Committee, or at least the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, as it relates to the whistleblower? We're having ongoing conversations with the whistleblower. And so when there is more information to present, which we think there will be, it'll be quick. Awesome. Well, I'm sure we'll have you back then. So I appreciate you taking the time Thanks for the work that you're doing on this issue. Thank you.

We now have a major update here as far as the Epstein files are concerned. This is amid continued obstruction by Donald Trump's DOJ. I'm joined now by Congressman Rokane. Congressman, can you explain the new avenue that you and Thomas Massey are taking to try and force some more disclosure here? The first Epstein Transparency Act we passed released millions of documents. It led to the arrest of dozens of people around the world, including former Prince Andrew and one of the sultans in Dubai,

it led to resignations of dozens of people in the United States. But there are still millions of documents that the FBI has, which name names, and they are totally redacted. And these should have been released under the First Epstein Act. The survivors need them. Sometimes the survivors need them to understand

what happened to them, and they still have no access to them. And this is a violation of the law, but our new law, would give states attorney generals the right to these documents so they can prosecute the people in these Epstein class. And it would give the survivors the right to sue for these documents. We now have a discharge petition similar to what we did for the first Epstein Act. And we're hoping to build the same coalition to get this past a second time. Okay. So why wasn't this included in the first round in the first Epstein-Files Transparency Act? And,

And if it wasn't included because of political reasons, why do you have confidence that it could pass this time around? It wasn't included because it would have been hard to get initially Republicans to go along with a private cause of action. And we wanted to have the least path of resistance in getting it through. We also did not anticipate that the Justice Department would have the documents, have credit of bill evidence and just not prosecute. And so that the state's attorney general is prosecuting is something that was a new avenue that we discovered along the way. Now, now when you've had all of this media attention on it, when public opinion is 90-10 saying,

let's get the Epstein class, there is much more. more awareness, we passed the first bill, there is a chance that we could get Republicans on board with the second version. But if we had tried this initially without any momentum, without any survivor stories, it would have been almost impossible. So to that end, what does the coalition look like in terms of who you're targeting to sign on to this second discharge petition? Well, we've lost Marjorie Taylor-Grange. She's no longer in Congress. Nancy Mace will, I think, sign Lauren Bobert is on the fence. We have a chance with Ralph Norman.

He initially had supported some of our work on Epstein. He didn't sign the original discharge petition, but he's lost his seat in South Carolina. Lost his seat, by the way, to somebody who Trump endure. So the fact that Darling Graham will be running for the U.S. Senate seat in South Carolina and not Ralph Norman is, you know, in large part thanks to Donald Trump himself. So in theory, the, motivation that he would have, the incentive that he would have to protect Donald Trump would

probably not be that high. Exactly. And then we have the retirement caucus after November, who people, Republicans are going to lose or would have lost their seats, who may join. Now, I'm hopeful we can do it. If we can't do it, the next Congress, certainly we would be able to pass this. And I want to give Teresa Fernandez a shout out too. She's a Democratic representative of New Mexico is a co-sponsor with Massey and me. We would pass it to the Democratic House. And then I would imagine it would still pass in the Senate because I can't imagine Republican senators

wanting to filibuster this kind of a bill. But, you know, we're hoping to pass it before we take over. Can you talk about the fact that this is being done kind of in tandem with the Katie Fang lawsuit? because clearly independent journalists or journalists have standing to bring lawsuits. That's why she's able to move this process forward in the first place. So can you talk about that whole process playing out in tandem with this? Katie Fang's efforts were brilliant.

She's proven that her original law had teeth. Basically, she sued saying they didn't give us the documents under the Administrative Procedures Act, which says that anyone from the public is entitled to information. that Congress says must be public. And the judge ruled that, yes, Katie Fang is the right theory and is now going through the process of ordering justice to comply.

But we want to make sure that we're not just leaving this in the hands of one judge or the judicial process where justice may appeal. And we don't know yet what this judge's final ruling is. We want to have other tools that survivors could sue and also that state prosecutors

could get the information. Is there a world where a higher court judge or even the Supreme Court could take away Katie Fang's standing, which would, you know, kind of increase the need for legislation like exactly what you are pushing for here? There is, and there's a chance that the lower court, which granted a temporary went to Katie Fang, when it finally adjudicates it may not adjudicate in her favor. There's a chance that higher courts, uh, higher courts, could strip away at it, take, say that the Justice former can claim broad privilege.

So I hope Katie's effort succeed. This is meant to be complimentary to it. Look, you have a scandal that has gone on decades of young girls who were raped, abused in traffic, and the rich and powerful covered it up. And they covered it up for multiple presidents under multiple administrations. So what Massey and I are trying to do is pretty

precedent and it's going to take more than just one lawsuit or one law to get justice for survivors and to take on some of the world's most powerful people who've given money to politicians who know presidents and world leaders. And my view is all tools should be on the table. And do you believe that all of those people are right now lending their voice and behind the scenes, I'm sure, to the Donald Trump's and Todd Blanch's of the world, which has in turn and push those people to suppress as much of this information as humanly possible. Yes, we don't have to speculate about this. We have two facts.

Marjorie Taylor Green, who said that the president told her that you're going to hurt a lot of my friends. Don't do this. So we know that Donald Trump is aware about the fallout to a lot of people who he's close to. And Marjorie, Maggie Haberman's book and Jonathan Swan's book showed that it was so important that after Massey and I introduced the first Epstein Act, Vance was there in the situation room, covering the whole thing up.

Think about this. The vice president of the United States in the situation room, planning how they could prevent the release of the Epstein files, reacting to what Massey and I were doing on the Hill. Yeah. In terms of the procedures of the discharge petition itself, can you give some insight into how this works and how long everything is going to take now?

Well, we need to get to 218 signatures. We already have good momentum of getting a lot of Democrats on. It's going to take every Democrat to sign, which I anticipate we will get. And then we need to work with the Republicans. And what I don't know is whether we're going to get it done before we adjourn or whether it's going to be in the lame dot. Now, there's a rumor that Mike Johnson is thinking of adjourning us and not calling us back for the entire month of September. Can you believe this, Brian? Just when kids are going back to school and when people are done with their summer vacations,

some things the idea is to give Congress a two-month holiday before the midterms. Why? Because he doesn't want us voting on this Epstein discharge petition again before the midterms. He doesn't want us voting on stopping the war in Iran before the midterms. He doesn't want us to vote on when Massey and I have now teamed up on banning federal funding for flock cameras before the midterms. So he wants us to just get out of here. And he wants us to take bogus votes on condemning democratic socialists instead of the real issues that affect the American people. I mean, there's precedent because he already prevented Adelaide Grahalva from getting sworn in for months because he knew that she would be one of the deciding votes on actually moving this discharge petition forward.

So it's not like this would even be the first time that Mike Johnson would benefit from, you know, some maneuvering behind the scenes in terms of when the House is actually even in session. But in effect, wouldn't he basically just be saying that the work of the House of Representatives is done for the rest of the term because it's just that important to make sure to protect Donald Trump and the rest of these co-conspirators contained within the Epstein files from not allowing anything to see the light of day. Absolutely. Look, the first time he did it, he really didn't think we would achieve what we did. He thought he could protect the Epstein class. He thought he could protect Donald Trump. He was shocked that Mansi and I defied the odds and passed the bill and then it passed the Senate and that it

blew this whole thing open. Now, I don't think he's naive enough to think that if he just adjourns Congress that he can make the whole Epstein situation disappear. But he has seen the same numbers that Thomas and I have seen. No issue, not a single issue, has been a bigger blow to Republicans, MAGA, and Trump than the Epstein issue, because it goes to the heart of what people are upset about, this corruption, the sense that the governing elite get to play by a different set of rules that they could do the most heinous things and not face consequences. And Johnson does not want a reminder of that heading into the midterm elections. You know, Congressman, you have been a champion on this issue. And you've done it along with your co-sponsor, Thomas Massey. Thomas Massey is now,

you know, facing, he's now in a lame duck session because he's no longer going to be a member of Congress. How has that changed the calculus? if at all, as we move closer and closer to the end of his last term? Well, it's made him even bolder. It's made him even more creative. He understands that his time in Congress is slowly coming to an end. So he's filled with ideas. But what Thomas and I have shown is that it's still possible to have unconventional

coalitions in American politics, that when it comes to stopping foreign wars, then when it comes to holding elites accountable, that when it comes to opposing mass surveillance, like with flock cameras, you can actually cross the aisle and you can actually try to get things done. And I've encouraged him as someone who's become a friend to continue his public service.

I believe that Thomas Massey, being in American politics, is good for this country, despite very serious disagreements on the Second Amendment and on his views and taxes. I just wish there were more people who would be looking to put the country before, party and try to think about unconventional coalitions that can get things done. On this last point, I want to make, you know, you had mentioned flaw cameras.

This is an idea that Donald Trump has thrown his weight behind this whole sector of mass surveillance, but not just that. Also data centers. He's planted his flag in the pro-data centers camp, even as seven and ten Americans oppose local construction of data centers, and that includes 63 percent of Republicans. Why do you think that Donald Trump recognizing the polling, recognizing the amount of time or what little time we have left until midterms continues to advocate for such an unpopular position? It cares more about Silicon Valley billionaires in my district than he does about the Republican

Party. I mean, the reality is the only people who are being enriched by these data centers being shoved down the throats of communities are the big tech companies in my district and these tech billionaires. That's why I said ban them in residential communities, ban them on farmland, don't shove them down the throats of communities. And people say, well, oh, what about our competitiveness? Really, you have to put a data center in a residential community? I mean, we can talk about whether it should be in a de-industrialized brownfield. But the reason that tech companies don't want to do that is it costs more. And what Trump is doing is not the bidding of our competitiveness. He's doing

the bidding of these tech billionaires. What angers me or frustrates me, or frustrates, me is you got the Silicon Valley congressman saying pause them and don't put them in residential communities. And you got the president who campaigned for forgotten Americans who campaigned against the coastal elites in my district now championing the very elites he campaigned against. Yeah, perfectly put. And a recurring theme across virtually every issue that he's campaigned on. We'll leave it there. Congressman, thank you, as always, for the work that you're doing. Thanks for taking the time today. Thank you. And congrats on the success of your book.

Thanks again to Robert Garcia and Rokana. That's it for this episode. Talk to you on Sunday. You've been listening to No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. Produced by Sam Graber, music by Wellesie, and interviews edited for YouTube by Nicholas Nicotera. If you want to support the show, please subscribe on your preferred podcast app and leave a five-star rating in a review.

And as always, you can find me at Brian Tyler Cohen on all of my other channels, or you can go to Brian Tyler Cohen.com to learn more.