On with Kara Swisher - Trump’s J6 Pardons, the Militia Movement, and the Border

Episode Date: January 30, 2025

President Trump’s executive action granting clemency to all of the January 6th insurrectionists – violent and non-violent alike – has been met with concern by legal experts and people who have been studying and reporting on militia groups like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys for years. Kara speaks with Dr. Amy Cooter, director of research at the Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and author of Nostalgia, Nationalism and the US Militia Movement; investigative reporter Tess Owen who has covered violent extremist groups, including the J6 protesters extensively; and Paul Rosenzweig, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush, who specializes in issues relating to domestic and homeland security about the message the pardons send to violent militias, the impact of social media (and Elon Musk) on far-right extremism, and whether Trump has the authority to deputize these groups, especially on the border. Questions? Comments? Email us at [e-mail] or find us on Instagram and TikTok @onwithkaraswisher Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi everyone from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. This is On with Kara Swisher and I'm Kara Swisher. We're less than two weeks into the new administration and things are already feeling very, very different. In fact, it feels menacing and has a lot of momentum with Trump using executive orders as cudgels to all kinds of groups from LGBTQ plus people to immigrants to just about anyone who stands in his way. From the very first day, President Trump has been quick to fall through on some of his

campaign promises as I expected him to, including granting clemency to all of the January 6th insurrectionists, the nonviolent and the violent, including the ones who attacked the Capitol Police and commuted the sentences of 14 individuals charged with being seditious conspiracists. That includes the leaders of two militia groups, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys. Trump also directed the Justice Department to dismiss another 300 cases that were still pending in court. There is obviously so much to talk about here. The militias currently operating all over the country, their ideologies that separate or unite them, and any potential role they might have in the new administration. My guests

today are three people who've been studying and tracking the movements of these militia groups and their place in the current environment. Dr. Amy Coutter is the Director of Research at Middlebury's Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism. She studies domestic militias and groups of armed individuals who see it as their civic duty to uphold the Constitution the way they believe it should be interpreted. Tess Owen is an investigative reporter who has covered extremism in politics and events surrounding January 6 extensively.

And Paul Rosensweig is a cybersecurity lawyer who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush and now specializes in issues relating to domestic and homeland security. Our expert question comes from David Rode, National Security Editor at NBC News and the author of Where Tyranny Begins. Stick around. Support for the show comes from NerdWallet. When it comes to finding the best financial products, have you ever wished that someone would do the heavy lifting for you? Take all that research off your plate?

Well, with NerdWallet's 2025 Best of Awards, that wish has finally come true. The nerds at NerdWallet have reviewed more than 1,100 financial products like credit cards, saving accounts, and more to highlight and bring you only the best of the best. Check out the 2025 Best of Awards today at nerdwallet.com slash awards. Calling all sellers. Salesforce is hiring account executives to join us on the cutting edge of technology. Here, innovation isn't a buzzword. It's a way of life.

You'll be solving customer challenges faster with agents, winning with purpose, and showing the world what AI was meant to be. Let's create the agent-first future together. Head to salesforce.com slash careers to learn more. With TD Direct Investing, new and existing clients could get 1% cash back. Great! That's 1% closer to being part of the 1%. Maybe, but definitely 100% closer to getting 1% cash back with TD Direct Investing. Conditions apply. Offer ends January 31st, 2025.

Visit td.com slash DI Offer to learn more. Amy, Tess, Paul, welcome. Thanks for being on On. Thank you for having us. We're speaking on January 28th, just a week after President Trump took office, launching many executive orders, including issuing pardons and commutations to all of the nearly 1,600 January 6 protesters, as people have been following January 6th insurrectionist militia groups and Trump for years, give me one or two words that sums up your reaction.

Paul, you start, then Amy, then Tess. Shameful. Shameful. Shameful. OK. Amy? Unfortunately unsurprising. OK.

Tess? Surprised, but shouldn't have been. Shouldn't have been. OK. Let's start with that, Tess. Talk about these people, these nearly 1,600 people who are pardoned, and put them in groups, because I think differentiating them is important for people

to understand. I think it's them is important for people to understand. I think it's important to know that the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, the two main extremist groups who are among the January Sixers, those rightfully get a lot of attention because of what they tell us about society and political violence, but the vast majority of the violent offenders in that group were not affiliated with the extremist group. And I think that that's kind of something important to remember as we talk about this, that these are people who were radicalized into committing violence on behalf of Trump

on January 6. We know that 169, I think, is the right number of those people assaulted or pleaded guilty to assaulting police. Six hundred were convicted of either assaulting police or resisting arrest. There were groups, you know, leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers who were convicted of seditious conspiracy. Okay. So, Amy, you've written about militia groups actually tend to grow when they perceive themselves

to be targeted. The reason I'm asking is, do you think the Biden DOJ made a mistake of going after writers who weren't directly tied to these militia groups or by prosecuting people who weren't? They're like Proud Boys leader Enrique Tario or people who didn't commit extremely violent stuff, which were obvious from some of the videos. You know, I'm not the legal expert on this panel, but I think it was nonetheless important for the Biden administration to send a message. And I don't know that every single person was appropriately charged given the underlying action, but let's assume that they were.

And if we can assume that, I think it's really important to send a message that at its core says insurrection is bad. We need to support democracy and democratic principles. Militias had an interesting response to January 6th. We know that there were certainly some militia members involved in the insurrection, but many of them that I have followed for a long time were looking at that and thought it was terrible. Thought it was terrible for the country, thought it was terrible for the militia movement. And so they didn't necessarily complain when some of the perpetrators were held accountable. Because? Because they thought they deserved it.

They thought they were acting in a way that was not supported by the law, was not supported by patriotism as they understood it either. Okay, Paul, from a legal standpoint, Trump's argument has been that their sentence are ridiculous and excessive. He's called them hostages. Talk about these sentences, whether they're too heavy-handed, too broad, or just the right thing. Well, I think the only way to answer that is really on a case-by-case basis.

The reality is that the overwhelming majority of what you and I would consider the minor offenders, the people who pled guilty to misdemeanor trespass things, did no jail time at all. Yeah, there are a few exceptions, but by and large, the people who went to prison were the people who, as Tess described it, were convicted of some form of violence, some form of resisting arrest, some form of assault against police. And the people who got the most significant sentences, the ones that were in the eight, 10, 12 year range were some of the organizers of this, the proud boys and, and the oath keepers who were convicted of seditious conspiracy. That is a plotting to, you know, to disrupt the operations of Congress. And so by and large, I would say that the

president's characterization is inaccurate. The sorting function is by no means perfect. No one would ever say it is. But by and large, the judges of the District of Columbia but by and large, the judges of the District of Columbia District Court did a very good job of assessing individuals on the merit and kind of grading their sentencing based upon comparative guilt next to others. There are any number of instances, for example, of judges who issued sentences that were below that which the prosecutors recommended precisely because they perceived that the defendants who to some had accepted responsibility and expressed remorse, some had admitted only to nonviolent offenses, they racked and stacked them pretty reasonably. Again, I wouldn't validate each and every sentence, but for my money, and this is me speaking

personally, by and large, the judges were more lenient than I would have wanted them to be. LW So how did Trump's argument get such purchase? Now, I'm not talking about calling them tourists, which was insane, but the idea, why does it have such resonance, this accusation that Trump is making, from your perspective, from a legal standpoint? Well, I don't think it is a legal argument. I mean, honestly, because in law,

it never got any purchase at all. I mean, none of the judges, not even the ones who were Trump appointees in the District of Columbia ever accepted the, we're just tourists and they're being unjustly prosecuted. It gained purchase only, only amongst Trump's- Trump's supporters. Sycophantic supporters.

And as to their mentality, why it gained purchase there, you know, I'm going to turn it back and say I'm not the sociologist or the expert in militias and Trumpism on this panel. So I'll have to turn it back to them. Yeah, Tess first and then Amy. What do you imagine? Because there is, as it goes on, his accusations and arguments get some sort of purchase. It does. I actually, I spoke to some ex-DOJ officials about this idea of overreach and whether there was any merit to these arguments. And kind of what they said was sort of what Paul's saying is that overreach is a matter

of perception. Sure. And I think that what it was really about was about narrative. And kind of midway through 2021, we saw this narrative of the idea that these January Sixers, especially those being held in the DC jail, that they were being treated disproportionately poorly compared to others, that they were victims of political persecution, that they were languishing in these cells and being treated horribly, and that they were the victims actually of a kind of corrupt Biden administration that's hell-bent on jailing its political

enemies. And this narrative is really what helped rehabilitate the January 6th, but rehabilitate also the entire MAGA movement, which was kind of floundering at that point. And we saw Trump hitch his own issues, his own legal woes to the same narrative. Right, this idea of being persecuted and everything else. Tess, you wrote, you did write the article this fall for New York Magazine, what was happening inside the Patriot wing in your story and why it was titled, The Proud Boys Are Plotting a Comeback and They Want Revenge. I'd just like to add to that and then, Amy, I'd like you to weigh in after that is,

what are you hearing from these groups and what revenge would look like from their perspective if they have this narrative in their favor? It's a very good question. Because, I mean, as far as the Proud Boys are concerned, you know, we've definitely seen their MO or their activities shift since January 6th. We've seen them pivot pretty

hard into local activism, really until Inauguration Day. We haven't really seen them rally in a large place in so many numbers. We've seen them kind of targeting school board meetings and drag shows and taking on this culture war stuff. So it's unclear. There's also been kind of a splintering within the group where some have kind of sought legitimacy by allying themselves with kind of political groups, whereas others have aligned with more hardcore factions like neo-Nazis. And so when Tarrio and others talk about revenge, it's kind of unclear whether they see revenge as political violence or whether they see revenge as, okay, we hope that Trump and Trump's DOJ is going

to go after our enemies and go after the FBI agents and go after the prosecutors as, okay, we hope that Trump and Trump's DOJ is going to go after our enemies and go after the FBI agents and go after the prosecutors who, quote, did this to us. I think that's currently not clear. But what Taro did make clear in the interview he gave to Infowars after he walked out of prison was that he still very much sees the Proud Boys as a kind of defense force for Trump supporters. So, Amy, talk about the narrative and this idea of they feel they were unjustly, you know, there's sort of this story of the IRA, this has happened all over the world in this idea of freedom fighters versus terrorists essentially.

Right. And I think Tess is exactly right about what happened sort of following the event itself, but I think that the narrative thread started before that, that it's fundamentally the same narrative that pushed people to believe the election would be stolen, that it was being stolen, that it was in fact in the past stolen. And so even though some of the movement lost momentum during Biden's administration in some ways, that narrative was still in the backdrop. There was a belief among a lot of folks that Biden's administration was completely illegitimate, that Trump was going to come back and be victorious and swoop in and save them

regardless of whatever injustices happened that day. And so I think that there were things that happened in the justice system and around the narrative of unjust persecution, not just prosecution, that followed and amplified that. But I think that a lot of people just maintained that thread all along. All right. Every week we had a question from outside. Let's have a listen to this one. Hi, I'm David Rode, the National Security Editor at NBC News and a former guest on the

show. My big question is, will these prisoners be further radicalized now that they've been released from prison and further emboldened? Or do you think their time in prison might cause them to think twice about engaging in violence again? So, Paul, let's start with you. Do judges and prosecutors have a reason to be afraid? And what about this emboldenment when you get off like this? The entire theory of criminal punishment is one of deterrence, both general deterrence,

that is the idea that the judicial system generally deters most crimes, and specific deterrence, that is that I can convince you personally to refrain from bad conduct by imposing upon you personally adverse consequences. The pardons in this case do not serve the traditional purposes of pardons, namely correcting an injustice of some sort. Rather, they seem to me to be explicitly about eroding that deterrence function by making it clear that at least for so long as Donald Trump is president, people who engage in violence on his behalf, he will have their back and issue parties. Now, again, each case is different. I am 100% certain that there are some guys and maybe even gals, though it was mostly men, but some people who went into prison who had such a miserable experience that they're like,

I'm not doing that ever again. I don't care what Trump says, but there are lots of others, like we just heard about Tario and the proud boys and the oath keepers who are inevitably going to think that I can do what I want. And especially if what I want somehow manages to cement Trump or Trumpism in the next administration in four or eight years. So I think that much of what Trump has done is going to create a remarkably dangerous moment of violence in the next year or two in which some of his

supporters think that no amount of violence in his behalf is beyond the pale. So Tess, you had written about this in this Patriot wing where they became more emboldened. These were already some violent people. Talk a little bit about this question that David had, is will they be further radicalized from your perspective? Were they already there, essentially? So those who don't know about it, the Patriot Wing was the name that was adopted for this part of the DC jail

where January 6th was pre-trial, were kind of sequestered from the general population. The decision to put them all there, I couldn't quite get a sense of who made that decision, but what became clear through the reporting I did was that it was functioning as a sort of incubator for this very same beliefs that brought them all to the Capitol in the first place. And that there was a culture inside that wing where people were put through purity tests when they first arrived.

And if they showed any sign that they might be a quote fed or they exhibited views that were contrary to the others in the wing, they were shunned. It kind of operated a bit like a gang. And it's not just the people who were in the wing, but there's also this massive support system outside of January 6 activists that's putting money into their commissary funds and helping their legal defense funds, which are also shoring up these same belief systems. And so I think that was troubling.

They were already cooking in that direction. Yes. Amy, talk about this because if they were already radicalized, they got possibly got more radicalized in prison. Some of them regretted it, certainly. But a lot of the reaction when they got out was, I'm buying motherfucking guns, that kind of stuff. Well, I think Paul is exactly right, that there's going to be a bit of a split reaction.

In some past instances of militia violence, where militia members have really believed they were doing what they needed to do for the good of the country. They've been arrested, they've served time in prison. One case in particular with the Hattari militia in Michigan in 2009, most of those folks were actually eventually acquitted, but they had been incarcerated while awaiting trial. Sure. And most of them, once they were released, went back home and said, I want nothing to do with this ever again. It went further than I thought, and maybe I didn't really get punished for this,

but it was awful. It disrupted my life. On the other hand, especially with figures like Tarrio and Stuart Rhodes, people who already had a, frankly, a degree of clout in the movement before this ever happened, they're really in a position where Trump could, if not officially, effectively deputize them. And what I'm worried about most is the impact that that kind of perceived legitimacy from the highest office will have on border militias specifically. And thinking about just generally, as Tuss was saying, there could be a range of violence that is legitimized, that is seen as not only necessary in their worldview, but something that is being signed off on by the president. We'll be back in a minute. Support for this show comes from NerdWallet.

Listeners, a new year is finally here and if you're anything like me, you've got a lot on your plate. New habits to build, travel plans to make, recipes to perfect. Good Thing, our sponsor NerdWallet, is here to take one thing off your plate, finding the best financial products. Introducing NerdWallet's Best of awards list, your shortcut to the best credit cards, savings accounts and more. The nerds at NerdWallet have done the work for you, researching and reviewing over 1,100

financial products to bring you only the best of the best. Looking for a balance transfer card with 0% APR? They've got a winner for that. How about a bank account with a top rate to hit your savings goals? They've got a winner for that too. Now you can know you're getting the best financial products for your specific needs without having to do

all that research by yourself. So let NerdWallet do the heavy lifting for your finances this year and head over to their 2025 Best of Awards at nerdwallet.com slash awards to find the best financial products today. What's up Spotify? This is Javi.

I remember this one time we're on tour. We didn't have any guitar picks and we didn't have time to go to the store. So we placed an order on Prime and it got there the next day ready for the show. Whatever you're into, it's on Prime. you and for Canada. This situation has changed very quickly. Helping make sense of the world when it matters most. Stay in the know. Download the free CBC News app or visit cbcnews.ca. Biden preemptively pardoned former chief medical advisor Anthony Fauci, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

Mark Milley and members of the bipartisan select committee that investigated January 6, including Liz Cheney. Trump, on the other hand, revoked security protections and issued orders announcing investigations into the Justice Department. This episode is coming out on Thursday, January 30th, the day that Cash Patel's Senate confirmation hearing to become FBI director is scheduled. Paul, you said that if Patel becomes FBI director, he would be the poster child of vindictiveness. I think that's pretty clear. He would be not just a deputized person, he would be the official that would allow this to happen. Do you think

the preemptive pardons actually protect any of those people? Well, he wouldn't just be the officer allowing it to happen. He would be as director of the FBI empowered to order it to happen. The FBI's investigative authority is limited mostly by internal guidelines called the Domestic Investigatory Oversight Guidelines or investigatory oversight guidelines or diodes, which have been around ever since the Nixon abuses of the 1970s, which are intended to cabin the ability of the FBI to initiate investigations for pretextual reasons, for punitive reasons, for political reasons. Well, they are just guidelines, and each and every one of them is subject to waiver or change by the director of the FBI and the attorney general. We can't tell for

sure, but given what Trump has done in the last week, which has been the most expansive assertion of executive authority we've ever seen in this country in so many ways that we could spend eons talking about, It seems to me highly likely that one of the other ways that he would implement that authority would be to give Patel free reign to conduct investigations of anybody he wants. The pardons that President Biden issued to people squarely in Patel's crosshairs like General Meili and Liz Cheney and Anthony Fauci will serve as some protective benefit to them. It will mean that they can't be prosecuted in court. It's an open legal question whether it means they still have to suffer the

costs and distraction of an investigation even if that investigation can lead nowhere that's actually never really been decisively litigated. I would hope that it would prevent that as well. But those pardons have to be cold comfort. It's shocking that we've come to this. They could investigate and harass them, in other words, is what you're saying. Well, certainly they can investigate and harass people associated with them, and they might be able to make investigative demands directly to the pardoned people under the guise of investigating somebody else. I mean, if I'm investigating you and you've got a pardon, I can harass Tess and Amy all I want.

As your friends who have information, air quotes about you. And so it will be, I will be unsurprised at the depths to which the Trump vengeance tour goes. Okay. So Cash Patel clearly lined himself with the January 6 rioters. The FBI is responsible for tracking, quote, domestic terrorism. Patel has vowed to turn the FBI into a museum of the deep state and basically dismantle it. Amy, in your book, you write about how Trump has aligned themselves with militant accelerationists. Explain who they are and how the deconstruction of government that we're already seeing aligns with that mentality. And I will add that I have talked about this in Silicon Valley forever. They don't want to rebuild, they want to destroy.

They're more focused on businesses, but it's often those terms of destruction and disruption in a way that's destruction really. Sure. So accelerationism at its core is this idea that the decline of society is inevitable and probably catastrophic. There are some people who think it's their personal responsibility to hasten us toward that inevitable point through the use of violence. So we call them militant accelerationist. Not all militias are militant accelerationist in nature

because accelerationism is what we call ideologically agnostic, it can draw people from a variety of political perspectives. But anyone who has this standpoint that our system, whether it's political, social, economic, or all the above, are somehow fundamentally corrupt, not serving the interests of the people, that there's absolutely no way through the legitimate political process that we can fix this, kind of serve the interest of those accelerationists. Even if they themselves don't quite evince that hard line, many people can interpret

them as saying that there's no solution here short of violence, short of what we might think of as coming just a little bit shy of revolution. Most of the time, these folks don't really have an idea of the exact future that they want. And what we've seen among Trump supporters writ large is this idea that they don't like the system, but somehow they still trust Trump as part of the system to fix things. He has successfully marketed himself as a bit of an outsider to many of them in a way that they don't necessarily challenge him so much as what they

perceive to be broader problems with the government or the country as a whole. One of the ways this goes around is through social media. Now, I just noticed some recent polls that show voter sentiment is very low to what Trump has done here. Tess, talk a little bit about this because people don't seem to like these moves, right? And at the same time, these groups have returned to Facebook, they're reorganizing on there, and Metta has given them free reign, even if the average citizen thinks letting these people out was wrong. And most of these voter sentiment polls are showing this at this point. Other things are more supportive of immigration reform, etc.

I mean, I think that the idea, even if they don't agree with the pardons, the kind of anti-government sentiment that we've seen kind of boil up and over in the mainstream in the last few years, I think that and kind of the hostilities towards perceptions of the FBI, perceptions of the DOJ is corrupt. I think those have become incredibly mainstreamed in the last few years and you know, those views are shared widely and freely on places like Facebook and you don't need to be a part of militia to have those views, but we have seen also a militia And you don't need to be a part of militia to have those views, but we have seen also a militia resurgence on Facebook in the last few years, or in the last year especially.

And that causes them to be able to organize there, correct? That's how reorganize there where they organized previously. Yes, and it also creates a kind of a fertile environment to pull people into those. I've reported a little bit about on these groups return to Facebook and oftentimes what we've seen is that they use these sort of larger public facing groups that are kind of called something somewhat innocuous, but kind of centered around an

anti-government ideology. And from there, people are kind of siphoned off into smaller groups that are more targeted around kind of training and actually enlisting in a specific organized group. Yeah, so like a Patrick Henry group or something like that. Yeah, a bigger one like that. So the big reason these accounts were deplatformed in the first place is because Metta was afraid people were inciting violence, organizing violent protests on their platforms. Paul, from a legal perspective, do the platforms need to worry about this anymore?

They've certainly taken all the guardrails off, especially Mark Zuckerberg at Metta. Well, that is an interesting question. It depends, I think, upon what you think is going to happen to the tech industry in the next two years in the administration. Certainly, as a retrospective matter, the settled law is that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects against liability for what social media places post online. There's been a significant movement in Congress on a bipartisan basis to modify section 230. There has. Section 230. Most of that argument has revolved around keeping children safe online, child pornography, horrible sexual abuse materials that proliferate. But the legal principle would be the

same and liability for posting would extend if the law were changed to media companies that posted exhortations to violence that became real and that failed to exercise their newly enacted obligations to monitor the content of what is on their website. I am not a smart enough political analyst to predict how a fight between the people who want to reign in social media, kind of the Bannonites of MAGA and the tech bros of the Elon Musk variety actually plays out in Trump's head or in Trump's administration. But there's at least a possibility that two years from now will change. Right now they are legally protected.

Right now they didn't have to pull people off. They didn't have to deplatform anybody, correct? At this moment they're protected. So Amy, you write in the book about social media, especially Facebook played a huge role in giving the militia movement momentum and then deplatforming them disrupted their growth. I have warned about this for two decades now

about how they organize, and they're also in the WhatsApp. They're all over the place in various stuff that you can't hack into necessarily or see. So how important do you see them now as organizing principals, Meta and X? And what role do you think someone like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg play and the new moderation rules impacting the group's ability to proliferate. You know, it's interesting because there are some groups that have gone back to meta.

There are some that never really left. They were just a little bit more clever about how to stay on those spaces. But so many of them fractured and went to other places and frankly returned kind of to the practice of the 90s of really focusing on more direct communication with people who were already in their communities and using Zello, which is kind of like a radio almost that you can use on your phone. And it's just a way to stay more private, but also kind of again refocusing on that community initiative as opposed to what

was becoming a more national movement before January 6th happened and before Facebook deplatformed them. So it's not entirely clear to me that we're going to see some of the more dangerous elements really coming back to those spaces because I feel like they've talked amongst themselves about how to stay more off the grid so they can get away with more things quite frankly in some of those more private places. Or do they consult with ISIS on how to do this? I mean, I think that they've frankly sat back and reconsidered some of their OPSEC after Facebook deeply platformed them in particular because despite the fact that militias say

they're prepared for everything, the vast majority of them did not have a fallback plan for social media, should that disappear overnight. I do think that we are seeing some very loud voices on social media right now, particularly on X, who we've started kind of calling influencers, because often they keep their hands clean, but they certainly inspire other people into violence and other nasty actions. And there seems to be very little appetite to limit that or control their possible influence

right this moment. And I think that among the folks that I'm following, most of them are seeing Zuckerberg and Elon as proponents of free speech and like what they're doing to the platforms. They believe, even if they're very not racist themselves or at least try to be, they believe that the marketplace of ideas will naturally shut those things down. Yeah, that's their argument. But speaking of which, speaking of people who are doing that, before the pardons, we

saw Elon Musk do what was a fascist salute on stage during Inauguration Day event, which engendered controversy, but then followed it with a bunch of explicitly Nazi jokes on X. Talk a little bit more about these moments, Tess, in terms of his role, because that's exactly what he's doing. And it's not even dog whistle, that's even too subtle what's happening here. It's very explicit, and he's allowing others to do the same thing on a platform. Mark is being a little more implicit in terms of letting people do whatever they want. But talk about that and Paul, I'd love your insight into what that, there's obviously no liability, but what does that do? Test first.

I think Elon Musk is molded truly by 410 troll culture. We've seen this with the far right or with the alt right where you can say one thing and you know it's a dog whistle but then you can also say, oh, it was just a joke or where things have layers of meaning, whether he's trying to create these layers of meaning or he just simply doesn't care, I think it's more likely the latter. But I think that's a kind of a key rhetorical tool

that we've seen among this 4chan troll types online. And that's definitely kind of the culture that I think has shaped him. And what impact do you think he has? Well, I mean, the far right love him. The guardrails are completely off on X. It is a swamp of neo-Nazi content and far-right content. You don't have to be on there very long to kind of run into full-on holocaust nihilism.

Yeah, I call it a Nazi porn bar. I'm sure it'll be suing me at some point in that. But does it create a situation of these influencers that Amy was talking about? Where these influencers or where these kind of fringe voices are getting clout. Yes, definitely. I mean, also they have blue ticks by their name. You know, they've been able to kind of buy their way to some form of legitimacy through the kind of

different mechanisms that he's introduced or taken away from X. Right, and Paul, does it have any legal or can they just do this without any impunity? With impunity, excuse me. It's really quite interesting. In the United States, it's almost certainly action with impunity. What is developing, which is going to be quite interesting, is that Europe has much different sensibilities about free speech issues, especially with regard to hate speech and especially with regard to pseudo Nazi or Nazism speech, especially in Germany. There is a

burgeoning sense that Europe may try and deplatform X or regulate X or fine X. I think the problem with any of that is really that Musk is too rich to care. I mean, he'll spend any amount of money, he'll pay any fine. It's not just that he's a troll, it's that he's the uber troll who has absolutely no obligation of truth and veracity of any sort to anybody anymore. And he's mutated over the last five years. I'm not enough of a psychologist to understand why, but five, 10 years ago, Tesla was a cool idea and he was building really neat stuff and everybody liked him. Now he's giving Nazi salutes on TV. Absolutely. Again, with impunity. But Europe might push back. That would be the place you

could see it happen. It's the only possibility against the most Nazi aspects of his speech. It may very well happen there. And maybe at some point here in the United States, people won't push back legally, but there'll be revulsion at what he does. Anybody who defends him, I ask them to do the salute in front of their children. Clear your schedule for you time with a handcrafted espresso beverage from Starbucks. Savor the new small and mighty Cortado, cozy up with the familiar flavors of pistachio, or shake up your mood with an iced brown sugar oat shaken espresso. Whatever you choose, your espresso will be handcrafted with care at Starbucks.

Toronto. There's another great city that starts with a T. Tampa, Florida. Fly to Tampa on Porter Airlines to see why it's so tea-riffic. On your way there, relax with free beer, wine, and snacks, free fast streaming Wi-Fi, and no middle seats. You've never flown to Florida like this before, so you'll land in Tampa ready to explore. Visit flyporter.com and actually enjoy economy. Amy, as some of these groups support law enforcement, others see themselves as vigilantes to push back against officers who stand in their way, how do you make sense of these contradictions,

Amy? What's the through line of attacking law enforcement and then at the same time supporting them? Right. I think that there is nuance in this movement, but the thing that helps most cleanly explain this is that from the movement as a whole, they kind of draw a line between what they perceive as good law enforcement versus bad law enforcement.

And that's very subjective to them, of course. But they see good law enforcement as those they believe are upholding and following their understanding of the Constitution, their understanding of the nation. And those are the ones that they support and are willing to, in their view, protect at protest or some other kinds of events. Law enforcement officers or agencies, especially at the federal level that they see as defying that mission are the bad guys and must be opposed

with equal fervor. So in that regard, let's talk specifically about immigration tests. You've written about some of the paramilitary groups who've been patrolling the borders for decades in some cases. Some seem like they want to work for the Trump administration, some don't. Talk about the border militias who's patrolling there and what potential issues you expect to see there. And then Paul, I'm going to ask you a question about the legal issues around them in a second,

but go ahead, Teth. Sure. I mean, those groups were certainly very, very excited after Trump won, and they see a place for themselves in Trump's enforcement actions. I spoke with the leader of the biggest group, Arizona, Recon, who claimed at least that he'd been in touch with the Trump administration and that they were actually in discussions about working together. That could be bluster, that could be, I think these guys love to claim that they have ends

with people in power to give themselves legitimacy, but certainly that is their belief. We also saw this even with the Proud Boys recently. Since the pardons where they're very excited and ramped up and talking about real life activity, they're also seeing if there's some way that they could help out or contribute to ICE enforcement. And I also think to kind of go back to your point about the police and Tata Kudu, you were absolutely spot on with that.

We had, for example, Cash Patel on inauguration evening giving lip service to law enforcement saying, we support you. We have your back. And within hours later, Trump was signing pardons for hundreds of people who had attacked law enforcement. And so how the GOP and Trump administration

is going to have to square that as a party who has historically backed law enforcement with Trump's actions, which should be really interesting. Right. Well, I think he likes the blue he likes. So Paul, you were Deputy Assistant Secretary of Policy in the Department of Homeland Security during the Bush administration. Talk about the legal issues around these militia groups. The Insurrection Act allows the president to enlist able-bodied men of a certain age,

but can they be deputized to work on behalf of the government at the border? I mean, who's calling the shots if they were doing it themselves before? Well, assuming that the law applies and that Trump abides by legal restrictions, there is no mechanism by which he can deputize non-employees of the federal government by which he can deputize non-employees of the federal government as having law enforcement authority. That is to lawfully carry guns, exercise the force that police officers or sometimes authorized exercise in support of their mission to conduct arrests. That does not mean that the militia can't find a ready way of supporting the Trump mission through surveillance, through intimidation, through coordination of activity, all of which

would be well beyond what has gone before, some of which would almost certainly be lawful since there's no law against citizen patrols of the desert in Arizona. You and I can go there today and walk around and if we see people we think are illegal, we can call ICE and say, hey, we think we see something and they can respond or not. What will really make the difference is two things. First, the degree to which ICE and other federal law enforcement take that assistance to heart and really implement it. And secondarily, the degree to which state and local law enforcement who traditionally are on the sidelines of immigration issues are willing and able to assist. We've already seen a divergence in that,

for example, between the response in Texas where the governor is going to put out the National Guard to help and the response in Illinois where the governor, Governor Pritzker essentially yesterday said, we'll do what the law requires us to do, but we're not going to do a Whitmore. A thing more. Yeah, not a thing more. Okay. In 2017, President Trump defended the white nationalist protesters at the Unite the Right rally, and Charlottesville saying there were some very fine people on both sides.

Final question for all of you. Let's start with you, Paul. We've seen what happens when some of these groups act with impunity. Where do you see this going and what can people do to protect themselves this time around? Well, I see a diminution of legal limitations, especially at the federal level and in states that are Republican states, not necessarily in red states like New York

or Illinois or California. Blue states. I mean, blue states, sorry. or Illinois or California. Blue states. I mean, blue states, sorry. Yeah, sorry, red, blue. Yeah, blue states. That to me, the tokens increased violence of some sort, which to my mind, means two things. First, there should be, I hope, vigorous legal pushback by as many people as possible like me trying to prevent these things from happening and maintaining the guardrails of the rule of law. And the second thing is really, it's very sad to say, but people who are in at-risk communities, whether it's immigrants or LGBTQ or African Americans, need to think about how they

will collectively protect themselves. And I'm not talking necessarily about violence and harming themselves, but about watching each other's backs. And it's incumbent upon people like me who are not at risk to step up and do what I can to have their backs on a personal level as well. Okay, Amy and then Tess. I think that the best we can all do is try to support folks in our local community to try to send resources where we can to make sure that folks feel as supported as possible. I think that the average person's ability to challenge some of the legal precedents that are happening are very limited, but hopefully we can still try to hold our local officials accountable,

especially, for example, local sheriffs in border states who have already engaged some with militias in efforts to at least drum up support for anti-immigration activities. And so just being vocal and helping people know that they're not alone is one step, but it's a very minimal first step. I'm sure that we have those resources is the next most important thing, I think. Where are you in the level of studying this in terms of nervousness, I guess, or looking at what's happening? Because lots of things have come to a head in the United States and then they tend to

peter out, but they haven't always, right? Right. I mean, I always say that social scientists aren't known for their optimism. And I think that folks doing what I do have to be careful in this moment, but I also think that some of us have to be willing to take some risks. Otherwise, nobody's speaking out about this. Nobody's collecting good data and trying to do work that hopefully will outlive this administration. What are some of the most dangerous signs you see and what are some of the more promising ones? I hate to have to equalize it, but I

shall do that anyway. I think some of the most dangerous signs I see are just the rapid action, which we expected in the first week of this administration, but seeing how much is at the whim of executive order, seeing how much of history seems to be being rewritten in the context of that, especially perhaps right now around January 6th. I think the sign of optimism for me is how many people are actually talking about this and trying to say, hey, this is what really happened and we need to keep this in mind. We need to push back against these things. We need to make people aware of how these executive orders or these rollbacks are going to impact them and hopefully get some momentum against some of what we think will be other

negative changes going forward. All right, Tess, why don't you finish up? Sure. I mean, I think that, you know, this is exhausting. This is all exhausting. And I think that there's a real risk of people becoming numb to what's happening and also things getting normalized. I think we've already seen it to a degree since the first term of administration.

Things that shocked us in 2017 don't shock us anymore. I remember when Trump would say, oh, fake news, all caps, and people would talk about the erosion of democratic norms, and now we don't even blink when we hear that sort of thing. So I think that there is a real risk of things becoming normalized and making sure you don't play into that. And as well, you know, we know that the strategy of this administration or the past or, you know, the last time Trump was in power was, you know, Steve Bannon's flooding the zone with shit. And this is a strategy to kind of exhaust people and overwhelm

people where, you know, reporters and researchers are kind of left chasing their tails in circles. So I think, yeah, kind of keeping tabs on what is and isn't normal and not letting the kind of window shift. And when you look at that, what do you see? What is the most dangerous thing you've seen? And in that idea of not letting it shift, what's the most hopeful thing you've seen? Well, I guess the most dangerous thing that I see is, I guess, the idea of like a feedback loop.

When you have the fringes, the far-right fringes and the mainstream, both basically singing the same song, the people in power are, you know, and they're both playing off each other, that to me is the scariest thing because, you know, everyone in the middle gets kind of caught up in it. And then something you've seen that is shifted, because most of your stories, these people are not redeemed, you know, that's the Hollywood kind of thing. Have you seen even a sign of that yet? I mean, sure there are people, for example, among the January 6th defendants who do seem

genuinely remorseful and don't want to get involved again. There are examples of people who, since 2017, have genuinely left the movement and have gone through, you know, de-radicalization training. And, you know, there are stories like that. But I think that for me, what's alarming is the normalization and the mainstreaming of extremist ideologies. And is there one person you think is the most dangerous to be paying attention to? I'd say probably the most dangerous is Elon Musk. Because?

Because of the scale of his ambitions and the amount of power, the mouthpiece he has, how he can control the algorithms to sway public opinion. The scale of his ambitions as far as it concerns other countries beyond the US. I think that's what makes him particularly dangerous. I don't disagree with Tess. I do think that his intersection with Trump makes it even more dangerous because clearly they feed off of each other in strange ways. Trump wants to draw off of Elon's fame and sort of this tech bro status. Elon's looking for a daddy figure sometimes in Trump

and it just makes the whole environment even more toxic and the potential for and the scope frankly of the damage is really scary. All right. I think we'll end on that. Great. He hates Kara Swisher. That's great to know. Good to know. Anyway, thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Special thanks to Claire Hyman. Our engineers are Rick Kwan and Fernando Arruda, and our theme music is by Trackademics. Go wherever you listen to podcasts,

search for On with Kara Swisher, and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. We'll be back on Monday with more.