The Daily Signal - The Daily Signal Presents “The “Signal Sitdown - Exposing Antifa With Harmeet Dhillon

Episode Date: September 27, 2025

There are few, if any, more qualified to talk about America’s scourge of left-wing violence and the organizations that commit it than Assistant Attorney General ⁠Harmeet Dhillon⁠ who heads the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. In the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University two weeks ago, President Donald Trump has activated his administration to confront these anarchists head on, going so far as to designate Antifa a “⁠domestic terrorist organization⁠.” For more than a decade prior to taking her post at the Department of Justice, Dhillon was suing Antifa members and institutions that suppressed free speech due to the threat of left-wing violence on behalf of clients across the country. Dhillon joins ⁠“The Signal Sitdown”⁠ this week to discuss how the Trump Justice Department is restoring law and order in the public square. Keep Up With The Daily Signal   Sign up for our email newsletters:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.dailysignal.com/email⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠     Subscribe to our other shows:    The Tony Kinnett Cast: ⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL2284199939⁠ The Signal Sitdown: ⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL2026390376⁠   Problematic Women:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL7765680741⁠   Victor Davis Hanson: ⁠https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL9809784327⁠     Follow The Daily Signal:    X:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠https://x.com/intent/user?screen_name=DailySignal⁠ Instagram:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.instagram.com/thedailysignal/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Facebook:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Truth Social:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://truthsocial.com/@DailySignal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  YouTube:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/dailysignal?sub_confirmation=1⁠    Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform and never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak equipment modernization. We're fluent in data digitization and expansion into foreign markets. And we can talk all day about streamlining manufacturing processes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. Business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us. And contact Desjardin today.

We'd love to talk. Business. Hi, Bradley Devlin here, politics editor of The Daily Signal, and I'm excited to share this episode of my show with The Daily Signal with you. The Signal Sitdown is one of the Daily Signal's other podcasts, and each show I bring you inside the biggest battles in Washington, D.C., with some of the biggest names in politics.

So if you like what you hear today, make sure you subscribe to the Signal Sitdown for weekly episodes. We'll see you there. Someone asked me what I think is, one of the, or the most critical civil rights issue of our time that's on a daily basis. And I said, I think it is, it's not even in the Bill of Rights, it's the fact that Americans feel like they have to lie every day to get through the day. They have to lie about pronouns. They have to lie about the person in the cubicle next to them being qualified if they aren't.

They have to pretend to laugh at and like certain types of jokes, late night comedians when they don't agree with them. They have to tell their friend in the book club that it's really cool that they're transitioning their five-year-old child. When they don't believe that, it's ultimately very corrosive to our souls, but also to our society, to constantly be lying. So personally, I feel very,

it's very refreshing to not have to lie. Thank you so much for tuning in to The Signal Sitdown, but before we get to the interview, we'd love it if you'd hit that like and subscribe button on YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you may be joining us. And please remember to give us a five-star review because we love your feedback. Remember, it's your government,

and together we'll expose how it really works and how to affect real change. Without further ado, here's the interview. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dillon, welcome to the Signal Sit Down. Thanks for having me. Well, welcome us to your building. Thank you for hosting us here at the DOJ.

So glad to be having this conversation with you because there is no one in American politics that I can think of who has more experience addressing the threat of left-wing violence, particularly on college campuses and how it threatens free speech. Both of us lost a friend two weeks ago now in Charlie Kirk. I know you had a personal relationship with him. He'd call you in and say, hey, I have friends of mine who have their free speech suppressed

or students of mine who was having their free speech suppressed. Can you help us out? These last two weeks have been difficult for all of us, but how has it been for you? Yeah, I know, I got to know Charlie actually back in the era where you and I first met when I was representing the Berkeley College Republicans suing UC Berkeley. And at that time, Turning Point was a relatively younger organization, but they were bringing speakers to campus and like my client Young America's Foundation. I know you guys engaged with them at that point. So since that time they grew and, you know, of course, as a member of the Republican National Committee, I really worked a lot with the turning point folks, turning point action, when I ran for

RNC chair. And so we used to text and talk regularly. I was a guest on a show many times. And he came to visit us in the DOJ just a few weeks before he passed away to talk about some important issues that his organizations are working on. And so it's even still hard to believe, like such a huge, but young life snatched away. and what it means for all of us. I mean, what it means for me as a DOJ official

who takes on controversial cases is, I've increased my security. You know, I've been to court just yesterday and was escorted by US Marshals. So, you know, we've increased our security in response to these threats. And that's really unfortunate. America is such a free and open country.

It's not some, you know, place with, which you would think would be, as dangerous and yet people, evil people, violent people are threatened by the ideas of liberty that we're all promoting in this administration. And so it's just such a difficult time. But whatever our losses as friends, you know, you just look at his family and you understand the perspective and that kind of pain just is kind of just almost unimaginable. So yeah, it's very sobering. I think we're seeing a revival of faith in our country in response to this. That's a positive thing.

Charlie would have liked to see that. And hopefully it's sustainable because that's one of the things that I'm very passionate about here in the Department of Justice is protecting our citizens' rights to worship whatever faith they want freely, not have their houses of worship attacked, and not have their way of life impaired because of their faith. So, you know, all of these things are coming together, and we will honor him best, I think, by continuing to fight for those principles that he held so dear. And you sit at the nexus of all those issues that he cared about so deeply.

Religious liberty, Christianity, bringing that faith into the public square, free speech, dialogue, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, that is where civil rights office in the DOJ really exists. And I'm so glad that you brought up your relationship with Charlie stretching back to the first Trump administration, those early days of the campus free speech wars. It seems like every day you check the news and there's another example of left-wing violence, oftentimes on college campuses, but elsewhere in the public square as well. You've interacted with these universities on a number of cases.

You understand how these administrations work. How have these universities gotten to this point? where it just seems like day after day, we find out another, there's another professor talking about how Charlie Kirk was just the tip of the iceberg, or there's another professor that talks about how there should be a violent Marxist uprising in the United States.

I mean, how did these places become such hives of leftism? Well, I would say the campus free speech wars probably do date back to, you know, Socrates in the Athenian Nagara, So it's actually been a constant in academia that young people are liberal and their professors are accused of corrupting them. I mean, that's literally the story. I certainly experienced it in college when I was at Dartmouth in the 1980s. The fads of the day then were trying to force the school to divest from companies that did business in South Africa. That was one.

And then there was the liberation theology movement of Marxists and priests in Central America and a lot of violence that came out of that. So those are the big issues then. The issues have just simply morphed to other issues. And today it's free Palestine. You know, the free Nicaragua people have become the free Palestine people. So, but unique in the world, this country has this robust tradition of the First Amendment. And, you know, generally it applies to public institutions like.

UC Berkeley, but there are some aspects of it that are now touching almost every institution. And so I've been a free speech lawyer for decades. Even when I was at Dartmouth, my newspaper was under attack by our administration and some of my colleagues were suspended and we had to go to court to get them reinstated. We won. And so I've been fighting the speech wars on the campuses for close to four decades now. So today, the scope of the investment of the federal government

into these schools is massive, trillions and trillions of dollars. And almost every one of the 6,000 plus institutions of higher learning in the United States gets some type of federal funding, usually from multiple different agencies. And so what this administration is doing for the first time is holding those institutions accountable,

for their flagrant violations of federal law. Now, since the first Trump administration, we've had some developments in the law. One is students for fair admissions, the Seminole Supreme Court case that held at Harvard and some other schools, UNC, Chapel Hill, were in violation of equal protection

by using quotas and suppressing the opportunities of certain races to get into these schools. And so that's been a sea change because for decades, these schools have really relied on quotas to achieve their, you know, whatever Rainbow Coalition looks they like for their brochures at the expense of white and Asian students, for the most part, qualified students. The second thread that's happened more recently in this Trump administration is a Supreme Court case that says, that majority plaintiffs do not have a higher burden of proof than minority plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases. And there's a lot of employment discrimination

along similar lines at these institutions of higher learning. That case is Ames versus Ohio. And so we've gone to these institutions and said, look, guys, you have to start complying with federal law. You can have to stop the racial discrimination, gender discrimination. There's some other things they're doing, like forcing girls to be in close quarter

contact with men in the sports arenas. There's the gender surgery on children, which is being done by institutions that are receiving federal funding. There's some other policy issues as well. So we're saying, look, if you're in violation of federal law, under federal law, you can have your funding terminated. So it's a big coordination effort that we're doing between the DOJ, health and human services, like any of these institutions that does a university hospital or research on medical issues, they're all getting money from HHS, NIH, etc. Some are getting money from the Department of Education, grants, some are getting money from Department of Defense to do defense research and so forth, GSA. So there's so many different agencies. So it's really

a very complicated endeavor. But one by one, we're approaching these top institutions forcing change by negotiation. And I think it's a successful project. We've seen several institutions of higher learning come to the table and negotiate with us. And I think the culture of diversity of thought on campus is going to follow changes in personnel and the makeup of who the students are and who the faculty are. It isn't going to happen overnight. If you were even to impose a mandate on these institutions of higher learning, which we are not doing at our government, that they have actual parity in hiring of professors by political viewpoint. There aren't enough conservative professors in America to fill those schools. So it's going to be a pipeline process, but I'm confident

that if we're able to make durable change in this area, it's going to have a very positive impact on American society at large and culture, because the young minds, that are rotted with Marxist trash in college and are in an echo chamber politically, including a lot of foreign students with foreign agendas, they become your boardroom executives. They become your government supervisors. And so there's just a ripple effect of all of that. It isn't just good, clean fun at the college level. Yeah, I'm so glad that you brought that up because some institutions willing to come to the table

and negotiate. Others are much more aggressive. Right. And others are aggressive and pursuing policies that just tinker on the margins. They want to, that signals to me, at least, that they want to continue to violate federal law. And you just, it makes you wonder, why is these specific violations of federal law when it comes to woke issues or when it comes to DEI issues, are such a sacred cow for them. You just wonder why it's just, it's opening the door to them to be, you know, the government to inject itself and say,

hi, you are in violation of federal law. We need to address this problem promptly. All sorts of damages have been done over the course of these years by, by, as you mentioned, suppressing representation at these institutions from white and Asian students. and yet they still want to keep themselves wide open to this type of treatment. Well, look, one fundamental thing that people have to understand is that as we've had this vogue in academia

of these sort of liberal, progressive type of pseudo-disciplines, women studies and race studies and critical race theory and, you know, gender studies, okay, those people come out of their schools, with few marketable skills, but among those skills is becoming a diversity officer or DEI officer, equity officer, what have you, at some institution of higher learning or some corporation. So for decades, there's been a cadre of people who've, for lack of, first of all, for affinity for the job and also lack of, frankly, skills to do anything else. No science skills, no writing skills, no creative skills. They become professional race hustlers and, you know, sort of DEI householders. And now those jobs are literally being eliminated in one fell swoop. And so they're

fighting for their jobs. They're trying to get themselves, keep their jobs. And it's a religion. It's a way of life, really, for some of these people. They're true believers. That's such an interesting and good point because there's an entire industry that's banking on this. It needs to be propped up. I mean, I was in private practice for years. And my own law firm, we did not have any of this. But when I was in big law firms, I was dealing with a client who has some diversity mandates in their law people. I didn't even do business with those law firms, but to get hired as an outside lawyer

in any of these major American corporations, and there's a trial, they want the trial team to be diverse. So you have to then hire a bunch of people who may not be as qualified for the job just to staff the desires of your client who in turn are virtue signaling to their institutional investors who have these requirements. And so this race hustling lies

have actually permeated every level of our society. And then there's influence groups that put pressure on boards that you have to have diversity quotas and criteria, and that flows down to all the vendors. And the vendors can't compete unless they're going along with it. I mean, I managed to have a successful law firm that didn't do any of that. But when I was in big law firms, you know, that's how they would pitch their cases.

They would make sure some diverse people are on the team to, you know, pitch the case and so forth. And someone asked me what I think is one of the, or the most critical civil rights issue of our time that's on a daily basis. And I said, I think it is, it's not even in the Bill of Rights, it's the fact that Americans feel like they have to lie every day to get through the day.

They have to lie about pronouns. They have to lie about the person in the cubicle next to them being qualified if they aren't. They have to pretend to laugh at and like certain types of jokes. the late-night comedians when they don't agree with them, they have to tell their friend in the book club that it's really cool that they're transitioning their five-year-old child when they don't believe that.

So it's ultimately very corrosive to our souls, but also to our society, to constantly be lying. So personally, I feel very, it's very refreshing to not have to lie. It is. Tell the truth. It's really simple. And that answer explains why these violent levels, left-wing organizations that are capturing headlines now use these universities as incubation chambers for the next generation of their activists, of their rioters.

You have more experience than any lawyer I can think of in the United States with these violent left-wing organizations. How do these institutions work? Because a lot of people in the past have said that these violent left-wing organizations organizations are just ideologies and they're just ideas. Yeah. But you know personally it's more than. I've dug into it as a lawyer on a few different cases that have been in the news.

First of all, dating back to the UC Berkeley situation, Berkeley wasn't allowing certain speakers to come on campus because one or two of them had attracted a negative reaction from Antifa types, Black Block, what have you. And so that was the excuse that Berkeley gave and other schools have given for charging conservative student groups much higher security fees. It's called Hecler's Vito. So we saw that, and they were immediately able to basically shut down conservative speech on campus

by rioting a little, okay? And similarly, you saw the Black Lives Matter movement, you've seen Occupy Wall Street. These are all strains of different, you know, sort of European-centric Marxist violent ideologies that have come to the United States. Now, the most dangerous and pernicious of these is Antifa, and standing for anti-fascist.

which is anything but really. I became acquainted with a young journalist named Andy Noe back in the 2018-2019 timeframe. I just saw his work online. He's talking about Antifa. He met me one time in San Jose. He wanted to meet me. He was visiting a family member, so I met him after court one day and got to become friends with him. And then he was violently assaulted in Portland while he was reporting on an Antifa rally slash riot,

violently assaulted, and these criminals have. tactical military gear, hardened gloves, weapons. They came to harm and maim. It's not a phenomenon we see on American streets typically. It's kind of shocking. And all of them in the same outfit. They're wearing masks. This isn't just organic.

Pre-COVID, they're wearing masks on their faces, balaclava's and their faces are covered and they're there to do mischief and mayhem. And so, I helped Andy in that situation as his lawyer. Eventually, he was attacked a second time. Then he stopped doing his own because he became too recognizable to these criminals. And so he continues to report but through proxies.

And there's violence against the press is literally something that a civilized society like ours cannot tolerate. And yet we do tolerate it. Violence against the police. Portland Antifa, Seattle, Antifa, they've put federal buildings and federal law enforcement, federal courts under siege. And so all I could do is a private lawyer and private practice is I started a nonprofit, Center for American Liberty, and we represented Andy ensuing Antifa. Kind of novel, because Antifa is a shadowy criminal organization, hard to file a lawsuit

against someone, just hard to serve them, hard to find them. It was a very challenging case. And I'm proud of that case. The case went on for years and we tried to serve people and all of that. We ultimately won a settlement from one of these criminals. And we won default judgments against some of them. We're never able to serve some of them. And they are...

So what makes it so shadowy? Well, they're a shadowy on purpose. They operate in tiny cells like a terrorist organization. They use burner phones. They, I think they actually prey on and recruit disillusioned, disaffected young people in our society. Quite a few trans people are in the Antifa movement. I was, I don't think I had seen more than one trans person in my life in the wild until the Andy No case. And as I'm researching these people who attacked him, we would use videos, we would crowdsource who they are.

Several of them were trans. I don't know if it's the hormones or the fact that they're unhappy with their lives that made them, good targets for this sort of anarcho terror organization, but they are. And so they form and they have their little cells, they do little little things, and then they disperse. They have leaders who travel from city to city and riot to riot. So they have leaders. We were able to identify some of those leaders. Networks. And so Andy is really the expert on this. I would recommend anybody to read his books on these issues and is reporting. It's fascinating. It's a whole whole world I never knew existed. And frankly, for too long in this country, law enforcement hasn't

done anything about it. And now the president has announced to focus on it. And so we have to get to the bottom of this because nobody is free. If there are cities in the United States with terror networks and cells plotting disruption of our transit or blocking our way to our courthouses or ICE or the police or journalists literally attacking the heart of truth in our society. I'm so glad that you went back to what law enforcement needs to do on the federal and local level, because when we talk about issues like free speech, we think of suing a university because heckler's veto. But what you're seeming to outline here is that this is actually a much broader constellation, as our friend Michael Nolan, has taken to saying in the day since Charlie's death is you can't have a free

marketplace of ideas you can't have free speech if the marketplace keeps getting shot up so it's it's a top to bottom effort to restore law and order in this country how are how was the DOJ going about that well let me talk about first of all how the DOJ has caused a problem in that in the past okay so there are instances every organization has a bad actor or two and police brutality can occur, police misconduct can occur. We prosecute police brutality, police misconduct in my division in the Civil Rights Division. I think we just got a prosecution this week of somebody who abused his trust to assault women in custody. For women, yeah. Yeah. And so, but again,

looking at this critical race theory approach towards restorative justice, you see from people like Kamala Harris and other people like that, sort of these woke prosecutors, their view is, is, well, there's a bunch of people who are African-American who have been incarcerated and there's over-incarceration. So let's solve that problem, not by perhaps offering opportunities to people in the inner city and helping them out of that lifestyle, but let's just arrest fewer of them and incarcerate fewer of them. And if a cop attacks somebody or happens to arrest somebody and uses extra force, let's put the whole police department under what's called a consent decree. Again, the civil rights division is what has been doing that for decades now. Enforcing

entire sheriff's departments, police departments, cities to pay a federal court monitor tens of millions of dollars to supervise the police, make them fill out a bunch of extra paper. What happens? Good cops decide they would like to go across the river and work at that next police station across the next county that doesn't have these dumb issues that they have to deal with because they're not the one who arrested somebody falsely or shot somebody or did something wrong. They just happen to work in that police department. Everyone is paying the tax. And so the tax includes on these citizens a spike in crime because that's what happens when the cops can't do their jobs. And so cops get disciplined for doing their jobs. So they

stopped doing their jobs. I saw this in real life in the riot that took place in 2016 in San Jose, California, where I went to support my favorite candidate Donald J. Trump, who came to speak at a rally there. There was only, I think, his first rally in California. He spoke at a big convention center there. And I did the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a beautiful event. My husband and I went. My husband was a huge Trump supporter like me. We got to meet him backstage. I did the Pledge of Allegiance. He had a beautiful speech. And then we leave. And there's a bunch of cops there, of course, as a presidential candidate under Secret Service protection there. He got to speed out to the airport. But what happened next was really shocking in America. I'd never seen it before. There was a

violent riot waiting for us when we left. And there was a bunch of cops. And these cops stood there and watched. Worse, they blocked the exits to safety. They would not allow us to go to the shortest route back to our garages where all the cars were parked. They trapped us in a canyon of violence and fear. People ranging from teenage to in their 70s had their glasses ripped off, hit in the head with bags of rocks, violent attacks on American citizens in San Jose, while 250 riot-gear-clad police stood there and watched. It's a miracle that I didn't get injured. My husband and I and a friend of ours were able to barricade ourselves in a restaurant

before they shut the doors. And I sued the San Jose police for creating more danger. I mean, they're not required under the law, unfortunately, to actually intervene, but they are required to not make it more dangerous for people, like blocking the safe exits. So what I learned in that case was it wasn't that the cops didn't like Trump or something like that. That was not the case at all.

The mayor didn't like Trump. He tweeted some nasty things about how we kind of were asking for it. But it has become standard police practice in the United States to not engage. DOJ is responsible for that in a way. Because when you engage with a riot, some people are going to get hurt.

Some bad guys are going to get hurt. Maybe a couple of not-so-bad guys are going to get hurt. but we've tied the hands of the police to the extent now that they can't do their jobs and they stand there and watch while rioting occurs in our American cities in Minneapolis and Los Angeles and Louisville and you name it. And so the average citizen is defenseless.

The average owner of a shop is defenseless. Mayhem and rioting and looting takes place in our cities. And we have come to accept that as a cost of society. Well, it doesn't have to be that way. This Department of Justice is not seeking consent decrees routinely for the occasional bad cop doing something stupid or illegal. We're prosecuting that cop. We're prosecuting potentially that cop supervisors.

We're forcing change in those policies. We're not going to put the whole city at risk and all the citizens at risk for one or two people's mistakes. That's not productive. It's not what the citizens deserve. It's excessive overreach by the federal government. We are dismissing consent decrees. I've dismissed numerous consent.

decrees or consent decree investigations that I believe were built on junk science and flawed methodologies by the prior administration who really had dozens of lawyers whose job all day sitting remotely on their sofas, you know, during COVID, was concocting really weak cases against police and police departments and law enforcement. We threw those out after reviewing them carefully. And so that's a material impact that has really allowed the cops to do their jobs. I've seen it here in D.C. where I've lived for a few months. When the president invited in the National Guard and said, now we're going to have law enforcement, I think that all the cops are pretty happy, you know, because their hands were untied for the first time. They could

actually arrest people, do their jobs. We've seen the National Guard leave now, and I was just walking outside my building here, it's starting to disintegrate again a little bit. But, I mean, I was walking near the White House just at the beginning of this National Guard deployment, and two different homeless people tried to, like, one tried to steal my phone, one tried to steal my water bottle, three blocks from the White House. So not good.

So we need to make policing great again. And citizens have a right to expect safe streets and safety in their communities. It is literally, even, I'm sure, dating back to the caveman era, the first form of government, the first form of society is protecting one another

from anarchy and violence. And if we don't do that in America, we can't have a civilized country. I've got one question for you before you go. I know you're tight on time. But given the civil rights offices involvement in this, the DOJ's involvement in this, at the same time, this was a plot by money left-wing institutions

to put some of these prosecutors in power on the local level. And now, The Trump administration, of course, is very interested in this issue of election integrity. You guys have been asking for voter data in states like Oregon and Maine, and they have refused to comply. Another one of these sacred cow issues where, for some reason, these left-wing states and these left-wing municipalities don't want proper oversight of the voter rolls. What's the DOJ doing about states like Oregon and Maine to close the state? Yeah, well, we are suing them because we're entitled to that data under several different federal statutes.

It's our job to ensure that the states are maintaining clean voter rolls. That's a federal law, federal laws, I should say. Nebraska, some liberal groups in Nebraska followed a lawsuit against us yesterday, you know, probably a Mark Elias effort of some kind. And so they're fighting back. Why would they fight back? Why would a state not want their roles to be clean? Why would a liberal organization or an organization not want the federal government to be able to do its job under federal law to assure the citizens that their vote is being counted once and only once and only with other American citizens? We think we know the answer, and it's unacceptable.

And I have a mandate from the president and the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to aggressively pursue our rights in these cases, and we are doing that. we are engaging in litigation, you will see more action on that front, and ultimately courts will decide whether we have any ability to police our voter rolls or not. Well, best of luck to you in the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, Armeet Dillon. Thank you so much for coming on the Signal Sitdown. Thanks for having me. Thank you so much for tuning into the Signal Sitdown. Before you go, be sure to hit like and subscribe on YouTube, Spotify, or wherever you may be joining

us. And please remember to give us a five-star review. We not only love your feedback, but it really is. does help the show. Remember, it's your government, and together we'll expose how it really works. See you next time.