No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen - Trump's polling crashes & burns as support evaporates

Episode Date: April 27, 2025

Trump’s approval rating craters. Brian interviews Representatives Robert Garcia and Maxwell Frost in El Salvador about their efforts to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the US, Katie Porter about her run for governor of California, David Hogg about his effort to oust Democratic incumbents to recruit younger candidates, and Norm Eisen about Trump arresting a judge in Wisconsin.Shop merch: https://briantylercohen.com/shopYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/briantylercohenTwitter: https://twitter.com/briantylercohenFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohenInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/briantylercohenPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/briantylercohenNewsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-upWritten 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.

Today we're going to talk about Trump's cratering approval rating and the lesson that Democrats can learn from Trump going net negative even on immigration. And I've got four interviews. I'm joined by Representative is Robert Garcia and Maxwell Frost in El Salvador to discuss their efforts to bring Kilmar-Abrego-Garcia back to the U.S., Katie Porter about her run for Governor of California, David Hogg, about his effort to oust Democratic incumbents to recruit younger candidates and Norm Eisen about Trump arresting a judge in Wisconsin. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen, and you're listening to No Lie.

So a lot of new polling has come out that signals really, really bad news for Trump, specifically the latest New York Times-Cyenne poll, which has Trump at negative 12 points overall and underwater on literally every single issue, on managing the federal government, on the economy, on foreign conflicts, Russia, Ukraine, but I want to focus on one issue in particular. The deportation of Kilmara-Bregor Garcia was viewed as a trap by Democrats. There was a story in Axios that garnered a lot of coverage and candidly probably represented the view of quite a good number of Democrats.

I'm going to read an excerpt from the reporting. It says, the second House Democrat who spoke anonymously, a centrist, called the deportation issue a soup du jour, arguing Trump is setting the trap for the Democrats, and like usual, we're falling for it. Quote, rather than talking about the tariff policy and the economy, the thing where his numbers are tanking, we're going to take the bait for the one hairdresser, they said, likely referring to Andrew Hernandez-Ramero. only if Trump tries to deport U.S. citizens, the lawmaker argued, will Democrats need to draw a line in the sand and shut down the House? So that was the excerpt from Axios. And look, I understand the argument that when Trump is so mismanaging the economy and doing so in the immediate aftermath of an election that he won based on the economy,

why in the world would you pivot to his best issue, the issue of immigration? And my pushback to that is that there is no world in which allowing Trump to disappear a legal resident with zero due process in defiance of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling demanding his release is popular and no world in which is acceptable where we just allow it to happen. Like, you can't be in politics

and think that is okay. If you're not going to go to the mat to defend the very concept of democracy, of due process, of checks and balances, then what's the point of any of this? And of course, you know, there were a lot of us making that case. And then going back to New York Times polling,

the immigration numbers came out. Trump is at net negative four points on immigration. The majority of this country now disapproves of him on the one issue that he had the highest support on. And as it relates to Kilmar-Abrego-Garcia in particular, he's at negative 21 points, negative 21, which tells us a few things here. First and foremost, do not shy away from culture wars, fight them and win them. Make the case, go everywhere, explain the facts, and repeat them over and over and over. I even debated Tommy Laron on my friend Alex Michelson's show on this exact issue. And she herself,

reiterated those nervous Democrats' claims about dying on the immigration hill. Here's a clip. If Democrats really want to die on the hill of bringing back plain loads of criminal, illegal alien gang members. But you haven't proven that they're criminals. That's the problem. Be my guess. Look, I will be the first one to say if there is a criminal, if there's a gang member in this country who is someone who has committed any crime, big or small, get them out.

Sure. I'll absolutely concede that. We don't need criminals in this country. But if you're talking about somebody who you don't know because you don't know, haven't afforded them due process, then you can't just make that claim. But the fact remains, President Trump is not only securing our border, but he is deporting criminal, illegal aliens. And if Democrats want to stand in the way of that, and they want to tell their constituents,

hey, vote for us in the midterms, vote for us in 2028, we'll make sure that the criminal aliens come back. Far be it for me to stand in your way, continue that message. Best of luck with it. And if Republicans want to run on, hey, we can disappear you with no due process, far be it for me to stand in your way. If Republicans want to turn the United States into Russia where we disappear political opponents with zero due process,

sending them to foreign gulag somewhere, if that's really what you're running on behind the banner of the party of law and order, be my guest. And yet, I trudged up that hill anyway, as did so many people on the left, as did Senator Van Hollen and Representative is Robert Garcia and Maxwell Frost, who you'll hear from in a moment, as did lawyers and pundits and electeds and commentators.

And we made the case, and we won the country over, because we didn't back down. Republicans were so excited to exploit this issue because they thrive in culture wars. They automatically think that if there is a culture war, they will win it. But the reality is that when Democrats are aggressive and coordinated and organized and fast, we win.

There has been a general posture of fight for the last few months, and when we make that posture the foundation of our politics, we can turn Trump's best issue into his worst. So I hope that serves as a warning, especially to feckless Democrats. you will not win if you play scared. But if you have conviction and purpose and speed and passion, then you will.

This is the test case. If we can fight and win on immigration of all issues, we can fight and win on anything. We just have to be willing again to go to the mat. Next up are my interviews with Robert Garcia and Maxwell Frost, Katie Porter, David Hogg, and Norm Eisen. No lie is brought to you by Beam. In today's America, every day feels like a...

barrage of news that keeps you up at night. Rights under attack, chaos dominating the headlines, the uncertainty, the stress, it is exhausting. And honestly, the people benefiting from this chaos are counting on you being too tired to push back. But here's the thing. Rest is resistance. You can't stay in the fight for what's right if you are running on empty. That's why I'm excited to tell you about something that's truly changed the game for me, Beams Dream Powder. I found myself endlessly scrolling through the latest outrages, my mind racing, and every morning I'd be exhausted, burned out, like I was falling behind on everything that matters. But when I started using Dream, everything changed. Dream helps me sleep through the night, no more tossing or

turning, and I wake up feeling refreshed, not groggy. It's become a must in my nighttime routine, helping me recharge so I can get up and stay engaged in what actually matters. So what makes dream so effective? It's packed with a powerful blend of all natural ingredients that actually works. Rishi, known for its calming properties, magnesium, which supports deep restorative sleep, Elthianine and amino acid that helps you relax without feeling drowsy, apigenin, which supports falling sleep faster, and melatonin to help regulate your natural sleep cycle. It is designed to help you fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer, and wake up feeling clear and focused. And the best part, no groginess. Unlike other sleep aids that leave you feeling sluggish, dream lets you wake up

energized, sharp, and ready to take on the day. Oh, and did I mention, it tastes incredible, smooth, delicious, easy to add to your nighttime routine. It is simple, effective, and it works. Since I started using Dream, my focus came back, my energy returned, I'm ready to face the day, and to fight for the things that matter. And I'm not the only one. Beam's Dream Powder has improved over 17.5 million nights of sleep for people across the country. Here's the deal. Beam is giving no-law listeners an exclusive 40% off.

That's right, 40% off their best-selling Dream Powder, but only for a limited time. All you need to do is go to shopbeam.com slash BTC and use code BTC at checkout. That's shop, B-E-A-M-com slash BTCC, and use code B-T-C. for 40% off, because let's be honest, you can't stay in the fight if you're too tired to show up. Rest well, wake up ready, and keep pushing for progress. Rest is resistance. I'm joined now by Congressman Robert Garcia and Maxwell Frost. Thank you guys both for joining me. Thanks. Thank you. 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? Well, thanks. Look, we both Maxwell and I have been very committed to the release of Kilmar, Rio Garcia. People are probably aware we have been fighting like hell to ensure that this country is a place that actually listens to decisions by the Supreme Court. Donald Trump is defying a 9-0 order by the Supreme Court to return Kilmar, who is illegally taken to El Salvador and 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 should have sent him there. So Maxwell and I requested an official delegation to El Salvador to James Comer. We're both on oversight. They denied that official

congressional delegation trip. And we said, you can deny us. We're going to come here anyways, no matter what. And so we're here in El Salvador on the ground now. And Maxwell and I and two other members are committed to this fight. So given the fact that James Comer denied your request for a congressional delegation, a CODEL, first and foremost, are you guys safe by virtue of being there without the protections that would be afforded to you if you had done it through a CODL? Obviously, there's always risks associated with all these trips, but we took that into account as we put together an 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.

But the other thing is, like Robert said, we didn't want to allow this denial 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 new process. Or I've heard from people who said, I see myself represented in the situation. Like, I'm Abrago Garcia. Like, this could be seen. And so for us, we don't want to wait until this situation gets out of hand. And Donald Trump is actually doing this to U.S.

citizens and even more people. Now's the time when we have to stand up for this. So, you know, we wish we'd be here on an official codell. Obviously, it gives us more resources, the ability to do a little bit more. But we didn't run for Congress to just cower away when a Republican idiot like Comer tells us no. And so when we got that letter, we, you know, called each other up and said, let's do it anyway. Perfectly put. And I would ask, too, like, what does it say that James Comer opted, when he had the opportunity to approve this Codell, that he opted, 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 prevent you from from this getting in the oxygen.

Well, I think, look, what's really important for all of, we're not going to be stopped by James Cohnman and Republicans. And let's be really clear, the only official codels that have had members come here from the House have been Republican codels with no Democrats. Right. For the House, for the House of Representatives to have only approved codels, for Republican, to come here, to tour other 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 Kilmar, but ensure that other people that are here are getting due process. We should be here meeting with

officials. And yet because they want to prove official CODELs, we're going to 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 to numerous press from El Salvador, in English, in Spanish. We're obviously both part of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus 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 that deserve their due process.

And have you been able to make contact with Garcia? And also, can you give an update? Because the latest reporting that we have is that he was moved out of Seacot to a different prison. And so what was the significance of that move? So we made an official request to meet with him to make sure he's okay. And, you know, one of the people we're here traveling with is the lawyer of his family that they want to know where he's at. They want to know if he's okay. They want to know what's going on.

And so our request to meet with him was denied by the government. They said because it wasn't an official trip, which I guess hopefully if an official trip happens when we're 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 left with the understanding that the Trump administration has not told the embassy to comply with the Supreme Court ruling at all 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.

So they are willfully flipping the bird to the Supreme Court, which also shows that we're in a constitutional crisis right now as well. So there's many reasons for this trip, but everyone should understand that this can happen to anyone if we don't stop it now. That's why we're here. No, no. I just want to add one thing, which I think is really important because we were obviously meeting with the ambassador today. And there's no question that the embassy has not begun any process to facilitate this release, which the Supreme Court has mandated. So that's be crystal clear. They're defying the Supreme Court to be clear. The second thing is we also understand that this is an issue that's bigger than just Kilmar, right? This is about due

process. It's about the separation of powers. And it's about other people that are here in El Salvador that are essentially having no due process. We have a story which a lot of folks have covered about Andre Romero, a young man 19 years old, 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 want to 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 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. Right. And it makes sense because, I mean, there are a lot of people on the right who say, oh, we're perfectly fine with immigration, but you just have to do. do it the right way. This is somebody who did it the right way and yet still was disappeared to a foreign gulag. Right. That's exactly right. I want to dig into the point you made just prior because I think that's especially important, this idea that the Overson window shifts so easily with this administration and we're seeing it happen to legal residents. And now we're finally seeing reporting that American citizens are being detained. They're being detained at airports. They're being detained at different ports of entry. And so have you heard of any of your

for example, who are American citizens who are being detained. And can you just speak more broadly about this idea of 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? Yeah. So we actually just had a situation like this happened in Florida, in North Florida. We had a person who is a citizen detained 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 48 hours for ice to come pick them up so they held this guy and he the the the family went to the court proceeding holding up the birth certificate holding up their paperwork 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, because of the law, we have to wait for ICE to get here, for ICE to tell us what to do. So it's the federal government, but we also can't take our eyes off the states that are, you know, it's a race to the bottom. And who can impress Trump the most to make the worst, most authoritarian, inhumane laws that even if you're a citizen

and 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 for ICE to come and get you. We heard about a similar thing happened 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 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 out of hand when citizens are being sent to foreign countries when a congressperson can be like i'm not trying to scare people but this is what's going on in my state right now and in certain things 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 really led to charge on this we're following his lead there's going to be more people coming we've been talking with a lot of our colleagues. There's more trips. And Brian, let me have one thing to what Maxwell said. It's really important that I know there's some some are saying some Democrats are out there saying that this is a distraction or that perhaps we should focus on other things. And then there are a lot of things to focus on. We can do all things at once. We can take on this injustice that is happening to kill more and others. We can take on Elon Musk and the billionaire class. We're 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 got to be all in and we've got to 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. Right. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. And if we are not willing to go to bat, to go to the mat when we are talking about basically turning the U.S. into Russia where the president can unilaterally disappear his political enemies, then I don't know what's fighting for, if not that. So look, I appreciate both of you putting your own safety on the line, taking big swings here and figuring out a way

to make sure that we continue talking about this very important issue. So thank you both for taking the time today and for what you're doing in El Salvador. Thanks, ma'am. Thanks, man. No lies brought to you by Smalls. So I am the biggest animal lover that you will ever find. I'm sure that if you've seen my content,

you've often seen my dog sitting behind me. But I also have a cat, although he's not specifically my cat, His neighborhood cat comes to my door every single day to the point where I now buy food every single month for a cat that isn't technically mine. But I love this cat. He is my responsibility, and I have to make sure to feed him every day and to feed him with food that is actually good. And that's why I love Smalls. Smalls cat food is protein-packed recipes made with preservative-free ingredients that you would find in your fridge, and it's delivered right to your door. That's why Cats.com name Smalls their best overall cat food.

And you're probably wondering, why can I just feed my cat kibble? Believe it or not, your cute kitty descended from ferocious desert cats who hunted live prey for food, and your cat isn't any different. They still need fresh, protein-packed meals to be at their best. Other cat food brands know this, but they choose to put their wallets first. They fill their food with mysterious meat, byproducts, artificial flavoring, and preservatives with names that I don't even want to try to pronounce. If that sounds gross, imagine having to eat it every day. After switching to smalls, 88% of cat owners reported overall health improvements. That is a big deal.

The team at Smalls is so confident that your cat is going to love their product that you can try it risk-free. That means they will refund you if your cat won't eat their food. For a limited time only, because you're a no-lie listener, you can get 35% off Smalls, plus an additional 50% off your first order by using my code BTC. That's an additional 50% off when you head to Smalls.com and use promo code BTC. Again, that's promo code BTC for an additional 50% off your first order plus free shipping at Smalls.com. I'm joined now by California gubernatorial candidate, Katie Porter. Thank you so much for taking the time.

It's great to be here. Well, congratulations on your announcement. And so as we enter this period, we have obviously seen Governor Newsom just a few days ago announced that he is suing the Trump administration over their imposition of tariffs. And so I'm curious as you move forward with your run for governor, how do you view California as best position to fight against the Trump administration or not fight against the Trump administration? Well, as the largest state, California is going to bear a lot of the consequences. And they're going to be sizable here. For example, if Congress follows through on cutting Medicaid funding, that would have a devastating effect on California. California is also a big part of the engine of the entire country's economy. And so Trump's tariffs are going to damage California's economy, therefore the entire United States economy. So I think when we see California push back on Donald Trump's harmful ideas,

is it's not just California that we're fighting for. It's actually fighting for the entire country. There is no doubt that a lot of what Trump is doing is going to make life more expensive for everyday Californians. And I think a big part of this governor's race is understanding that bringing costs down for everyday Americans, what we heard was really, really important to people in the 2024 election and standing up to Donald Trump are one and the same now because what he's doing is driving up costs. Well, look, I think that there has been a lot, a big sense of fight among a raft of people either in the federal government or in the states against this administration.

What we've also seen from Democrats for the better part of a decade is that there is asymmetric warfare happening with this administration where we will move forward with the tools that have historically been at our disposal. And the Trump administration moves forward with tools that they concoct out of thin air. And so it always does feel like Democrats are fighting a different game or, you know, bringing a knife to a gunfight, whatever, you know, analogy you want to use. And so with that in mind, how does that inform how you perceive the fight ahead, knowing that really the Trump administration doesn't view themselves as being bound by any sense of law or certainly not norms or anything like that? Yeah, so we're obviously going to see some of those Trump actions be challenged in court as we should, because they're unlawful. And our California Attorney General Rob Banta has spent the fore of a lot of those lawsuits. And I'm grateful that he's going to run for re-election here in 2026 and hopefully continue in that role. But I have thought a lot about what you say about Democrats being sometimes very slow, very deliberate, very bound by process to the point where at the end of several years of leadership, what have we done? Voters want to know. And so I'm thinking about a particular moment, actually, where I think I was able to cut through that consistent with respect. for the law. So during the COVID pandemic, two months in, or a month in, we had a hearing with the CDC director. And there was an existing statute already on the books, existing law that

provided that the CDC director could make testing, treatment, and other things for free in a public health emergency. And I pushed in that questioning and got the CDC director to commit to making testing free. Recently, I was talking to someone who was on the COVID task force at that time. And she said when I got the CDC director to yes, to use the existing law, while Americans felt really relieved and happy to know the government was doing something and testing was going to be free, some of the people in the government were sort of panic. How do we do that? Where's the rules? We haven't investigated this yet. So my getting the CDC director to yes caused them to work quickly and to lean into the existing law in the moment.

So I think there's a lot of areas in which Democrats need to be willing to rethink whether longstanding laws are doing what they're supposed to be doing. We're seeing this play out with some of our environmental laws here in California that aren't protecting the environment. They're just being used to slow down things that we desperately need like transportation and housing. Right. And so I want to get into that a little bit about this idea of getting to yes. And obviously the Ezra Klein abundance discourse has been very prevalent here in California. and he spoke in his book a lot about how the existing environmental laws are actually an obstacle to the very forms of transportation that would ultimately be better for the government more broadly because they would allow for high-speed rail, for example. And so I'm curious when you look at that kind of thing, which is this pie-in-the-sky idea, I mean, I say pie in the sky, but it's not like all of these other countries don't already have high-speed rail. But I guess for us, it's this pie-in-the-sky idea where we have high-speed rail going from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

That gets whittled down from Merced to Bakersfield, which is the sprawling metropolis of Merced to Bakersfield. And even now, I mean, at this point, obviously, it's normal to have a healthy dose of skepticism as to whether even that will get done. And so I'm curious, as you look forward, how you view California's place as being able to actually get things done so that it can serve as some type of, a test case for people around the country to know that it's not enough to just elect Democrats because they are not Republicans, but to elect Democrats because we're capable of governing and building big things and dreaming up these big ideas and not just getting bogged down in, you know, with the intricacies of our own bureaucratic red tape.

Yeah. So look, I think this is where oversight in part comes in, something I'm known for. That was a big passion of mine in Congress, and I thought it was something Democrats could have done more of, not just when Republicans were in the White House or when Republicans were in the majority, but all of the time, part of believing that government can accomplish things for good is being willing to do the oversight to make sure it's actually happening. And if it's not being willing to make changes so it does. First, let me say that our Central Valley, cities like Bakersfield are almost half a million people. Central Valley is a huge. important part of California and is the home to so many of our important industries, including agriculture, but also increasingly some of our green energy. And so having that transportation corridor all the way from Los Angeles to San Francisco, hopefully we can get it down through Orange County in San Diego someday is really, really important, but it is taking too long.

And what that does ultimately is drive skepticism about whether or not the things that we're paying for, the things that we believe in can actually happen. And I think the point I take from Ezra's book is that, you know, the things that Democrats have done, the great things that governments, Republican and Democrat have done, have required an urgency and a commitment to outcome, not just a process that we sometimes are lacking. So look, Trump is threatening to take away to federal funding for high speed rail. It's another example of an attack on California. We should fight to get that funding. But we also need to have a governor who's going to hold everyone accountable to get that project done on time and on budget. That reality is that has not been the case.

And so if we're going to build political will for the things that we believe in, whether that's environmental things, green energy projects, transit, more housing, after school care, then we have to make sure that we're getting them done quickly. And I think a lot about the Biden administration with this and the Inflation Reduction Act, some pieces. of that rolled out really quickly, right? Like the grants to trip manufacturers. Other pieces, like the tax, the rebates, excuse me, the rebates that people were supposed to be eligible for administered through the states when they bought home energy appliances, not one of those programs, not one of the 50 states rolled their program out, to the best of my knowledge, before Biden was out of office.

That's too slow. And so I do think sometimes Democrats get too into being administratively, process, perfect, exactly fair, balancing every single possible equity and concern at the expense of delivering for people. And I do think that that's an important point, and we have to keep that in mind as we lead forward. Democrats need to have our democratic states and our Democratic cities be centers of excellent government, because that is going to be part of our reputation and our ability to win in swing areas, whether it's here in those Democratic states, like Orange County or swing states in New York or whether it's across the country where we can

win in Republican states. Let's talk about wildfires because that's something that any governor will inevitably face during their time in office in California. And so I have two questions here. One is, what is your plan to deal with wildfires in a way that is different from the way that we're currently dealing with them? And second is as we begin this rebuilding process, a lot of – and this kind of goes to the question we were just talking about, but a lot of the –

The red tape and processes that are currently on the books that make building housing slower in California were discarded in deference to speed with the rebuilding process in the Pacific Palisades, for example. And so is there a world in which that can be a more across-the-board tool that we can use to promote building housing in L.A. and across the state more broadly? Yeah. So with regard to wildfires, look, some of this comes from climate change. we know that and we have an administration that's going to take us back on those efforts.

But we also need to make our utilities, our utility providers, make them spend the money to invest in wildfire prevention. That means putting more of the electrical lines underground. That means doing the maintenance that can help prevent it. It means having early warning and detection systems. And so utilities and their shareholders need to bear those costs, not customers, not taxpayers, but utilities and their shareholders. They've reaped the profits of providing electricity, and they need to bear the costs of doing that. That cost includes wildfire prevention. Let me interrupt, just to ask a quick question on that.

What if they just altogether decide it's not the juice isn't worth a squeeze, and they're just going to pull out of, and they want to just pull out of the state entirely? We've seen insurance companies, for example, refuse to even offer their services in places like Florida. Yeah, so look, I think utilities are a little different than insurance companies because of the amount of infrastructure that they own and have. So it's not as easy to pick up and cart off. But of course, we want utilities to be able to make a profit here. They're not going to provide this service if they don't make a profit. That's why we have regulation about utility costs. The question is, when we give those utilities their share of the profits and they have made profits, what are they doing with that money? They need to be reinvesting a portion of that. profit into making sure that they can continue to operate successfully in the future, not just making sure that they're delivering short-term shareholder profits. That's true, by the way, for every business. We need to make sure businesses across the country are putting their money, their earnings, into creating the next generation of jobs and resources. The homeowners insurance

challenge is going to be big, and the next governor of California is going to have to work on this. We need to make sure that we can make it profitable for homeowners. insurance companies to be here, how are we going to do that without raising rates? Because Californians can ill afford higher expenses right now. And so this is something where we're working on thinking about concepts of reinsurance, making sure there are backstops. One of the problems with fire is it's very, very, very geographically intensive. And so we need to be able to spread that risk. And I think the state can be part of figuring out how we can do that. On your last point about rebuilding in the palisades, rethinking the kinds of procedures that we use when we require housing. Yes, we are

seeing not just when there has been a wildfire, but also efforts in our state legislature to try to make it faster to build housing, infill housing, for example, making it exempting that from some kinds of environmental reviews, some kinds of permitting. I think we need to be pursuing that across the state for all kinds of housing. We need workforce housing here in California. We need housing for our college students desperately. We need housing for our aging population. And so I do think we need to figure out how we're going to build that housing. Part of that is about supply and building more, just building more and bringing price down. And part of it is about public investment in making the costs of building cheaper. That could be through things like

incentivizing the use of more modern materials, building housing that's going to use less electricity, making investments in the utility structures that housing needs, bring down the ultimate cost. So it's not an ideological issue. We are seeing progressives and environmental champions push for the faster building of housing and for just examining whether our environmental laws are actually serving their purpose. Can I ask why we don't have housing being built right now? There is obviously a major, major demand, at least from my city where I live in Los Angeles, there's a major demand for housing. There has been an exodus out of the state of folks who simply can't afford housing as it stands right now.

And so that would lend itself to reason that if it was built, people would move into it. And so what's stopping the housing from being built right now? So there are a number of things. One is that land is scarce near the urban cities where people generally want to live where the jobs are. One of the solutions to that is to permit more infill housing, to rethink some of our zoning, to permit, for example, accessory dwelling units in backyards, to think about whether we can make modest rezoning that might permit a building that, you know,

a three stories tall instead of two stories tall, whether we can limit the number of parking spaces that we mandate in places that have public transportation and are well suited for it. So some of this is about what we've already seen Governor Newsom do, which is hold cities that are refusing to build their share of housing, particularly affordable housing, to account. We have seen the state of California sue to try to enforce. that. But we also need to think about how can the state be affirmatively burning down costs. We could think about using state land, providing that land, for example, as a land trust to build housing on. The state would own the land. People could buy the properties, the condo units, the

apartment units, the townhomes. That's one idea. But the other is the time and delay that it takes to get through the permitting process. When builders go to build a project, they have to commit that money up front, three years later, the costs of the materials have skyrocketed. And that's going to be so much more true. And that's to say nothing of the carrying costs for all the time that they're waiting to get those permits handed down and whatever it may be. Right. That's all the time value of money that they're carrying. And then the materials get more expensive. The labor gets more expensive. Ultimately, the housing gets more expensive. And so we can build expensive housing in California. What we're struggling with is building housing for our workforce, for our future

generations, and that's where we need to be focusing. I do want to ask a question that I spoke with Governor Newsom about just last week, and that was the idea of how do we restore our film industry here in Los Angeles. That was the lifeblood of L.A. I've been here for 15 years. I've watched the film industry go from bustling to basically a shell of its former self as we've lost the industry to other states like Atlanta. Georgia has a major film industry. New Mexico, Louisiana, New York. Vancouver and Toronto have taken up a ton of our business, and I've watched my own friends who are not just actors in the industry, but also work behind the scenes. They're cinematographers

and PAs and writers, all of whom have watched this industry leave. And so it's, again, it's not just, you know, the stars who are watching the industry go away. It's the folks who make the whole town run, and then who go into restaurants and buy housing here. It's this whole ecosystem. It's this whole trickle-down ecosystem that relies on having a healthy film industry. And that's basically been completely gutted. And so is the restoration of California of LA's film industry a priority of yours? And what steps will you take to ensure that it comes back in a healthy form for the 21st century for the moment that we're living in right now?

It's incredibly important to make sure California has a strong economy. And what I mean by a strong economy is that we have good, high-paying jobs in industries that are going to continue to grow and be important. And certainly the entertainment industry, Hollywood, those are important things. I think we have to recognize what you really illustrated is something that I think sometimes California has wanted to have this idea of California exceptionalism. You know, we're the fifth biggest economy. We're so big. We're so special. The reality is we are in competition. We are in competition for jobs with other states. We are in competition for jobs with other countries.

And we can, because of our resources, because of our human resources, the amazing people who live here, our natural resources, our location, and our history, our culture of innovation, we can win those competitions. But we have to see them and we have to decide that we are going to make this a top priority. I think the governor is focusing on that now. I think that we have to make sure that if we're going to do things to create those jobs, that we're building in mechanisms to make sure those. those programs are actually going to create jobs, right?

They're not going just to line the pockets of people at the top, but those kinds of programs are actually delivering. So we need to make investments in growing our economy here in California. And certainly the entertainment industry has to be part of that. Would you commit to making sure that any, I mean, really, really the name of the game in the film industry and the TV and film industry is the size of the tax credit that a state is offering. that's what's allowed places like Georgia and Canada to really grab hold of the industry that used to reside here.

Would you commit to making sure that California's tax credits are competitive, if not more, than what we're seeing from other states and countries that are competing with us? Well, as I said, we certainly have to make sure California is recognizing there's a competition and that we are winning that competition. Tax credits are a piece of it, and I know the legislature is right now going through the process of looking at how we've done our tax credits, not only at the size of them, but about whether they're creating jobs, particularly jobs for entry-level people, for jobs that cannot be replaced by AI, jobs that are going to be there for the future, because we very much want those people to live and to work in California that's ultimately about having that. I do think we also have to recognize that some of the states where housing is cheaper, where the cost of living is cheaper, where they're aren't labor laws. Those are also things that come into play. And so I do think California, we can't have it be a race to the bottom. We have to be true to our values. But we also have to think about how can we make these projects pencil? Because ultimately, businesses are going to choose to be in California when it makes business sense to do so. And so we have to make sure that we're providing the kinds of cost of living, making sure we're providing the kinds of tax credits,

the kinds of investments in the pipeline of workers in the industry that are going to keep those businesses here and bring them back, hopefully. And finally, let's finish off with this. I usually don't give a shit about horse race politics, but I am curious how the potential entrance of Kamala Harris, if she does decide to run for governor, how that would impact your campaign or if it would have no impact on your campaign at all. Yeah, look, I mean, Vice President Harris is going to be a tremendous factor of force in whatever she chooses to do next.

And so she hasn't made her decision yet, whether she's going to return to national politics, whether she's going to run for governor, whether she's going to do something else. I know I'm very confident knowing her well that she's going to be a tremendous force for good and whatever she chooses to do. I think if she enters this race, given her name recognition, given her history of being our attorney general, she would be a formidable candidate. I think every candidate, including me, is going to have to be aware of what that name recognition, what that fundraising potential is. That said, I am doing everything I can to make sure that I am centering on winning this campaign. She's not entered the race. She's not made a decision. And she said

it may be many months until she does so. In the meantime, Californians are very, very eager to think about what do we need to do to withstand Donald Trump. What do we need to do to bring down costs? And our governor's going to have a huge role to play in that. I think everyone is seeing how much states are going to absorb and have to react to the brunt of what Trump does, how much our states are going to be there to kind of buoy us up, both in terms of value. but also in terms of actual social services and support. So I think people are eager to begin talking to their future governor, to begin hearing their ideas.

I'm certainly benefiting from having had this time to listen to people, to meet with people, to tour businesses, to listen to workers, to nonprofits. And so I'm going to make every bit of use of this time all the way through the primary, which is about 13 months from now in June, to make sure that I'm raising the resources and earning the votes and trust of Californians.

Okay. So with all of that said, how can my viewers right now and listeners help your campaign? Well, I would love to have people join our team. They can do that at katie porter.com. They can follow us at social media, Katie Porter, OC. I'm really excited to have a substack called Beyond the Whiteboard in which I'm putting together and putting out policy ideas to help California. Right now, our campaign is working hard to build the resources

that's going to take to communicate in this big state. And so I hope everybody can sign up, can chip in what they can. It would really mean a lot. Great. Well, I'll put that link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. I appreciate you getting into the weeds with me on these issues and I appreciate your time today. Katie Porter, thank you so much. Thanks so much. I'm joined now by the vice chair of the DNC and the president of leaders we deserve, David Hogg.

David, thanks for joining me. Thanks for having me. You have been very much in the news as of late in the aftermath of your announcement that you would be looking to primary Democrats who are in safe seats as an effort to, you know, as part of a broader effort to, you know, as part of a broader effort to, bring fresh blood into the party and help our ailing approval rating. I think Democrats are in, you know, roughly high 20% approval rating. And so there's been, obviously, a lot of pushback to what you're doing. So first and foremost, what I want to do here is kind of have a little back and forth and, like, a quasi-debat, so to speak, and you kind of explain your positioning here against all of the criticism that you have received here. So first and

foremost, I think the main thing is that folks are saying we should be spending money, attention, resources on winning back these battleground seats. And so why focus our attention, our limited resources on the Democrats who are in safe seats? Look, I think it is possible for us to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. Leaders we deserve is also focused on supporting candidates that are critical to gaining majorities for Democrats, both in the House and in state legislatures where we did a lot of work, last election cycle. So I would say to that comment, right now, we're going to have to spend several hundred million dollars no matter what supporting, and by we, I mean, the party in general

is going to have to spend several hundred million dollars supporting frontline candidates that are critical to winning back the majority. If there are young people that are running there that are aligned with our values of leaders we deserve, we plan on supporting them so that we can win back the majority. We also need to realize, though, part of the reason we need to spend that much is because our approval rating is awful. And that goes beyond just what our candidates and our frontline districts are doing. That is a culmination of how to, you know, all 200 plus members of Congress that are Democrats, what they do and our other elected Democrats around the country.

And what we're trying to do here is show how we're actively working to make sure that our members of Congress are meeting the moment. And this is not just about age. Yes, our candidates, they are younger. But we are not just challenging people because they're above a certain age. They're older and younger people. Unfortunately, there are people of all ages who suck. There are plenty of young people who are not great.

There are plenty of older people who are not great. But what we're looking at is it's not out with the old and in with the new. It's out with the ineffective and in with the effective. Because I think if you look at Congress right now and think that this is the best that the Democratic Party can do, I think we need to dream a little bit bigger right here. And having a healthy process of offering in some of these races, the voters, the option in voting for somebody else who is younger, typically, or at least. more common or less corrupt and able to meet this moment isn't a bad thing when last cycle

we had two billion dollars and we still lost and I think part of that is because of our brand and approval rating as a party and people say all the time this is a messaging problem this is a messaging problem sometimes it doesn't matter how good the script is it could Shakespeare could write it for all I care if you have bad actors it does not matter if the message is not getting through right and so what does effectiveness look like and this is a tack that I've been on for for quite a long time, which is why this caught my eye, because I have been especially focused on this idea of fight. And the example I use, and I'm sorry for the folks in my audience who've heard me use this example a couple of times, but the way that the Democrats broach the topic

of the parliamentarian, and if the parliamentarian says no, Democrats are like, well, that's it. The parliamentarian says, no, what could we possibly do? Meanwhile, the Republicans see the parliamentarian say no, and they're like, fuck it, let's just fire the parliamentarian if we have to. Right now, Republicans are engaged in a scheme to just outright protect. 10, the parliamentarian doesn't exist. And so that is the asymmetry at play between the two parties. And so, anyway, going back to the question for you, what does effectiveness look like? What it looks like are people, whether it's AOC who's going out there and rallying tons of people,

who, by the way, got there by challenging somebody in a primary, imagine if we didn't have her right now out there rallying tens of thousands of people. But it also looks like people like Cory Booker as well. And I know what it doesn't look like is saying, well, we're just in the minority. can't do anything right now. Fuck that. We need to fight and show our base how we are fighting back even if we don't have that much power. Sometimes what that looks like is people like Senator Van Holland saying, you know what? I'm going to go to El Salvador to ensure that we're fighting to make sure that all people in this country have a right to do process and that we understand

and we call out the Republican Party. When they go out there and say that they're the party of law and order, you cannot say that if you are not listening to the Supreme Court and you are not adhering to the Constitution and the requirements of due process within that in the first place. I think that is part of what that looks like. And what we're seeing are the people that are going out there and speaking and doing these town halls and doing these rallies and listening to the base are raising incredible amounts of money. And that is part of what we need to do to be able to support those frontline races is we need

a base that is excited and feels like we're fighting for them. And what's not going to help with that is right now, if you ask people in a focus group, if the Democratic Party was an animal, you know what the most common answer is? I'm afraid to hear. A turtle. A turtle. You know what it is for Republicans? A shark or a lion or some other kind of apex predator.

People want somebody who fights for them. And I think what we need to do right now is show the American people and especially our young people what we are doing to revive the American dream and focus on issues that affect Americans across the board, across all races, across all ages. What are we doing to actually lower the cost of health care so that Americans, like my family, don't have to make impossible decisions, right? Where when my father was in the final weeks of his life with Parkinson's disease last September, his cost of care, despite being a veteran Navy helicopter pilot and a medically retired FBI agent,

was $19,000 a month. The only reason why my family didn't go bankrupt was because of, A, the Social Security Safety Net that Democrats built, and B, because my father, unfortunately, did not live long enough for us to go bankrupt. And there are way too many people having to make those decisions in this country right now. And I think what we got to talk about, too, is what are we doing to keep people safe from gun violence, right? Everybody, no matter if they're a Democrat or Republican, they want to make sure that their kid comes home from school. And lastly, what are we doing to reform our campaign finance system and fight against corruption?

Everybody hates corruption. Those issues, I think those are things that we can get elected on. and then we can legislate on all the things that we care about. So let's talk about money for a moment because I know, again, going back to my first question, a lot of the concern, the consternation surrounding this was we should be spending money on candidates who are in front-line districts and not in safe democratic primaries. But where is the money for this particular effort going? I'm assuming it's from Leaders We Deserve, the organization that you're the president of.

And if so, are the folks who are donating to leaders we deserve doing so for the express purpose of primaring these, what they view as weak and effective Democrats? So what we do at leaders we deserve is we have worked in primaries and previous elections as well. Those primaries were predominantly just open primaries where, you know, there was no Democratic incumbent there in the first place. And what we're doing here early on in the cycle telling people, yes, this is part of our process. But we also understand that we need to, we need to defeat Republicans. That is part of the reason why we are doing this is to help address our brand, not even address our brand problem. It's not even about that. It's about the fact

that we are just fundamentally failing to meet the moment right now. And that is why our approvals are so low. As Donald Trump is trying to eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid, we unfortunately literally had two members of Congress that passed away that resulted in some of those happening. That's ridiculous. I'm sorry. That is ridiculous that that happened because it's not just members of Congress that are paying the price with that. It is millions of people, Americans, around the country that are paying the price of that in the first place. And right, right? Right now, we need to do some serious reflection on the fact that despite the fact that Donald Trump is disappearing people, despite the fact that he has crashed our economy and he is

toying with people's lives and attack and disappearing them for simply disagreeing with the administration, that our approvals are still as low as they are. That is an indictment of the Democratic Party, and that is not going to change until we put a real call out there to say, either we need to get our act together or you need to not seek re-election because we are in a moment of crisis right now in our country that frankly far too many of our members of Congress, not all of them, but far too many of them are falling short to me. Okay, David, to that point then, can I get your reaction to the fact that just this past week, Dick Durbin, who's been in an office for decades and will be 80 years old, did announce his

retirement? It's a good thing because now, first of all, Senator Dick Durbin did an incredible amount on immigration reform, on things like DACA and so much more to help, you know, promote democratic policies that have helped millions of people. But he has the maturity to know that he shouldn't, he needs to pass on the torch and help mentor the next generation. And I have an incredible amount of respect for that. We need more of that in our party. We should not have members that are knowing that they may very well likely pass away in office. And with them, they're going to lose that institutional knowledge as well. We need to pass that torch down and

train the next generation. And not just institutional knowledge, by the way, we may lose their. in the case of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just lost the seat altogether because we, because, you know, it's kind of ingrained in democratic, like our ethos that you just stay there kind of until you die. And that somehow if you get, if you've gotten that seat and you've earned, earn that seat that somehow you're entitled to it for the rest of your life. And frankly, that's ridiculous. Like, there are incumbent members that have been there for a very long time that do a great job. And let's be clear, too, there are some members that are there when they're older because they couldn't get elected when they're younger like john lewis right who got elected when he was much older that i think

certainly deserve that spot there what we're looking at though is regardless of your age are you effectively meeting this moment right now and what i think to build more of a culture of in our party is if you know you're not able to meet either meet that moment either because you aren't you don't believe you're the best person to serve or because you aren't able to if it is your age or something else that you have the maturity to step aside and not run for reelection and we celebrate that as a party as being the mature thing to do to ensure that we have the strongest Democratic Party possible right now. David, can I have your response to a story that just broke that the DNC chair, Ken Martin, is expected to unveil a proposal that would require DNC officers to stay neutral in all primaries,

which the article here that I've got up on the screen says that would complicate your plans to primary longtime Democrats? Like, I'm going to have discussions with the chair, obviously, But ultimately, if there is not an agreement that we're able to come to and they decide to remove me, I'm going to do everything that I can to support this party and build the strongest Democratic Party possible because ultimately my loyalty is to the Democratic Party. I'm not a member of this party because I think we are the greatest, we are God's greatest gift or that we're perfect by any means. It's because I believe in what we can be.

That is why I'm doing this work. And I know that there are far too many young people that are losing faith in our party right now. And I believe part of doing that is ensuring that we have the best representation possible from Democrats across the board, especially in our frontline seats and making sure that people know that we are fighting for them and the issues that they care about. But, you know, I look forward to those conversations with the chair. And look, ultimately, if I, if I get removed, I don't take these things personally. These are strategic disagreements right here. In the bylaws currently as it has, we can't be officers, cannot be involved in the presidential primary. That makes sense.

I don't, I don't plan on doing that as a vice chair of the DNC. I don't want to repeat of 2016 or any accusations that there's some kind of bias in the presidential primary. I totally agree with that. But let me be clear. The work that I'm doing here, I don't have any of the DNC's resources behind this effort at all. The money we're raising, that was money that we've been raising since before I was the vice chair. The email list that we have, those are all emails that we deserve has curated over the past two years. And I don't even have access to the donor lists of the DNC.

So I'm not using any of their resources. And this is work that I've been doing long before. I was the vice chair of the DNC. And if they decide to remove me, I will continue doing long after. Because I believe it is an essential part of building strongest Democratic Party possible. And finally, David, you know, for the folks out there who are supportive of your efforts and the efforts of those at Leaders We Deserve, how can they help? They can go to Leaders We Deserve.com.

Great. I'll put that link right here on the screen and also in the post-scription of this video. David, I appreciate your time. Thank you. to our judiciary is beyond me. Yeah, so when the American public hears this, and they think these were once upstanding people in their communities and their professions, and they put it all on the line for this. Have you dug into their motive?

Like what inspired them to carry out these acts in harbor criminals? They're deranged, is all I can think of. I cannot believe. I think some of these judges think they are beyond and above the law, and they are not. And we're sending a very strong message today. If you are harboring a fugitive, we don't care who you are. If you are helping hide one, if you are giving a TDA member guns, anyone who is illegally in this country, we will come after you and we will prosecute you.

We will find you. I'm joined now by the co-founder of State Democracy Defender's Action, Norm Eisen, Norm. That was a clip from Pam Bondi just today after the DOJ opted to arrest a judge in Wisconsin. And you heard some of the language that was used in that clip. We will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you. We're sending a very strong message to the judiciary today. So this is basically the Trump administration declaring war on the courts.

And so can I have your initial reaction to what we've just seen and heard from Pam Bondi? Brian, we've seen Donald Trump now lose in court for almost a hundredth time. We have almost, it's over 90, almost 100 losses in 100 days. and what we saw today from Pam Bondi was shameful. There was no lawful basis to arrest this judge because she didn't detain someone in her courtroom. Judges are allowed to have control of their courtroom. It's crazy. There was a similar case in Massachusetts Trump tried in the first term.

It had to be thrown out. And Pam Bondi made clear this wasn't about, that Milwaukee judge did because she said she's sending a larger message to the judiciary. She addressed the judiciary as a whole. It's naked intimidation. It's unconstitutional. The television program should have been enjoined as a constitutional violation because, Brian, Article 3 of the Constitution gives judges the power to control Article 2, the president, when he violates the rules that are set under the Constitution by Article I, Congress. That's why Donald Trump has lost almost 100 times, not because of judicial impropriety.

And this is going to backfire on them in a big way. But we've seen the way in which the Trump administration has been perfectly content to do this without even feeling like they need to backtrack at all. I mean, they just defied a 9-0 Supreme Court case as it relates to kill me. Mara Brego Garcia, and rather than relent a little bit when it was, when it became clear that they were in the wrong and that they were acting unconstitutionally, they just doubled down. Hell, they lied outright and said, you know what, screw it. You know, the Supreme Court says we won, and they just lied about the whole thing and just

created out of whole cloth, this alternate reality. And so we're seeing the same thing here, where rather than feel constrained or bound by what the courts are doing, they're just trying to usurp all the power from the judiciary in very much the same way the legislative branch has already voluntarily contracted their power to the executive. But they're failing, Brian. And it makes a larger point that the first hundred days of Donald Trump had been a failure. He has not succeeded in transforming the government in the way that he sought.

Take Abrago Garcia. You're right. The Supreme Court ruled against them. They went back to the court. They tried to mischaracterized in the lower court what they did. But that judge didn't let him get away with it. She put the wood to him. The result is there's now a consensual one-week pause.

I've been practicing law for a very long time. That is DOJ signaling that they want to find a settlement. They want to find a way out of their bind. It may or may not work. As you know, we're active in all of these cases. We add state democracy defenders' action, and our associated groups, more than 60 cases. And we are getting court orders this week.

We got them at the rate of one every two days. Voice of America, preliminary injunction, Donald Trump, you can't violate the law and shut down voice of America. Donald Trump's election EO, preliminary injunction, Donald Trump, you can't reset the federal election registration form. That's not up to you. And on and on, we've got many. of these orders. As a result, Donald Trump, because of what's happening in the courts of law and all

the other dimensions of our democracy, there's even as we speak, there's a peaceful, large, vigorous protest in front of the courthouse at what Donald Trump has done. He's not getting away with it. He had lost the first hundred days. And this lash out by Pam Bondi is just why he lashes out at me sometimes. It's the same thing. They're losing, and it makes them angry. But Pondi went too far. She crossed the line, and the judges are going to rule even more against DOJ as a result of what she said today. They're backed up by the American people. 80%. 80%, Brian, and say Trump should abide by court orders, should follow the judges.

That includes his own voters. So I'm feeling better about the pushback on Donald Trump's autocracy today as we near the end of the first hundred days than I have at any point since the administration began. Norm, I do wanna take into something that you said. You had mentioned the fact that Donald Trump did call you out. He did so publicly in front of the Department of Justice,

obviously with the intention of trying to give them kind of a wink and a nod, let them know who he wants. wanted them to go after. What happened to you in the immediate aftermath of that? What, I guess, give our audience some insight into what happens when you are name-checked by the President of the United States.

What comes in the aftermath of that? I think I did my very first media hit, of which there were quite a few with you immediately after that happens. Well, Brian, it's like when you receive any other extremely public backhanded compliment. there's uh you do get some threats and uh some negative incoming but there was much more support that i got people saying they have my back of public statements by other democracy leaders friends

calling me uh and uh you know uh i take it as an encouragement i worked extra hard that day i wrote two lawsuits that day instead of just one Donald trump has taken my security clearance away three times. Brian, we've talked about this more. Either he's frustrated because he's losing so much in court. He takes it away. He says, turn it back on so it can make me feel good to take it away again. Or something's not quite right upstairs. He's tweeted about me. Elon Musk has tweeted more than 20 times. Do I look like that slowing me down in any way? at the rate we're going, I thought we might have 100 lawsuits in 2025. I think we're going to have more than that.

He's certainly given you enough material to actually bring those lawsuits. So I think that what we're seeing from Donald Trump, I'm just back from a trip to Europe and we're seeing the same with his inability to deliver the peace results that he promised, what you're seeing from Donald Trump, what you saw with Pam Bondi with those absurd and ridiculous comments today, is not strength. It's weakness. He lost the first hundred days. His co-president, Elon Musk, is on the run. He lost the Wisconsin referendum, the people versus Musk. He's been laying low ever since. Toxically political. The Doge Project is a failure. They keep shrinking the amount of money they're

saving down. They haven't transformed the government as they promised they would do there. these almost 100 losses in court. Donald Trump's approval rating is lower than any other president at this point, including Trump one. Musk, the co-president, is hated. And on and on, the American people aren't buying it. He's got his lowest numbers ever on immigration, on the economy, those are supposed to be his strengths. People are sympathetic to Abrago and the others who are being unlawfully abducted. Donald Trump needed to come to his job. Donald Trump needed to come to his job, with a scalpel. People wanted him to do a good job. Instead, Ian Musk took a chainsaw, total failure. Norm, going back to Pam Bondi for just a moment, you know, you where the ethics

are during the Obama administration, what would you have said in response to a attorney general doing something similar or something analogous if this was the Obama White House? Well, I would have gone right to President Obama and said, the AG must be fired. If you can't get the AG's resignation, then you shall have mine. There's no place for those kinds of threats and attacks on the judiciary. If you have an issue with this judge, that's one thing. But she couldn't focus on the judge really.

You notice it was a totally fact-re presentation, Brian, because the judge didn't do anything wrong. there's no legality or so. Instead, she made clear that this was an act of intimidation against the judiciary. There has, there's no place for that. I can tell you, if anybody had done that in the, any AG had done that in the Obama administration or a Democratic or Republican administration, they would have been history. And it's reprehensible. It's just reprehensible. Well, to that point, Norm, no one, no one is doing as much as you are in the courts right now in terms of bringing these lawsuits. As you mentioned, you have several dozen working their way through the court system, including cases that you've outright won already. And so for folks who are

looking to help you, to help the fighters out there, what can they do to help? Well, they can find our websites. So you can look for state democracy defenders' action. We welcome you to support the fight. You'll see if you go on our websites, you look at the different things we do. We do in partnership with labor, with wonderful civil rights organizations, with individual human beings, with the other democracy groups. So help our democracy group, help any democracy group. And folks, keep on doing what you're doing. Doing the ultimate power of democracy is people power.

And Brian, your viewers and listeners are out there participating. We've got Brian Tyler Cohen Watchers who are at that Wisconsin. courthouse right now, peacefully, vigorously, lawfully demonstrating in defense of the judge and in defense of our democracy. Keep it all up, folks. We're very grateful to you. And we're grateful to you, Norm. Thank you for the work you're doing.

Again, I'll put the link that you just mentioned right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. Norm, talk to you soon. Thanks, Brian. Thanks again to Representative Garcia and Frost, Katie Porter, David Hogg, and Norm Eisen. That's it for this episode. week.