The Majority Report with Sam Seder - 3525 - Mamdani Wins! Good Riddance Cuomo! The Skrmetti Ruling w/ David Weigel and Chase Strangio

Episode Date: June 25, 2025

Happy Wednesday from the soon to be Sharia Anarcho Communist Caliphate of New York City. ZOHRAN MAMDANI HAS WON THE NYC PRIMARY! BYE CUOMO! The show kicks off by spending some time appreciating Zohran's masterful campaign and its potential impact on the national scale. David Weigel from Semafor joins us to recount his coverage of the NYC primary and the differences in strategy between Cuomo and Mamdani. Check out David’s Newsletter. Chase Strangio, plaintiffs attorney in United States vs. Skrmetti joins us to discuss the courts tragic ruling and it’s immediate and potential impact on gender affirming care. Here’s a link to Chase’s most recent article on Trans Rights In the fun half Sam offers Chuck Schumer the chance to extend an olive branch to him. Then we check in how the “business community” feels about Zohran’s Victory, as well as the right wing pundits. All that and more, folks. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: DELETEME: Text MAJORITY to 64000 for 20% off your DeleteMe subscription BLUELAND: Get 15% off your first order by going to Blueland.com/majority SUNSET LAKE: Use the code LEFTISBEST to save 20% at SunsetLakeCBD.com  on all their farm fresh CBD products for people and pets. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech Check out Matt’s show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon’s show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza’s music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder – https://majorityreportradio.com/    

You are listening to a free version of The Majority Report. Support this show at join the Majority Report.com and get an extra hour of content daily. The Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Wednesday, June 25th, 2025. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five-time award-winning majority report. We are broadcasting live steps from the Indevalued. Lusorily ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, USA.

On the program today, Dave Weigel, national correspondent for semaphore, on the Mamdani earthquake in New York City. then Chase Strangio Co-director of the ACLU LBGTQ HIV Rights Project Implaintiff's attorney U.S. versus Scurmetti Also on the program if I had mentioned it earlier

Zoran Mamdani defeats Andrew Cuomo in the first round of New York City's Democratic mayoral primary. Meanwhile, U.S. Intel and U.S. bombing, U.S. Intel states that U.S. bombing of Iran didn't destroy its nuclear sites.

And meanwhile, Trump lashes out at U.S. Intel, calling them scum for revealing the bombing run was botched. Tom Tillis sees Republican Medicaid cutoff. as a suicide pact Big balls deflated resigns from Doge RFK's vaccine panel may be

still born Trump prepping to break the 1974 anti-recision law NATO members agree on more militarization in Europe

what could go wrong Congress told of email Bov's Bov's plan to ignore the courts and the subsequent DOJ cover-up Lastly, a federal judge blocks Trump's administration from eliminating

union bargaining for hundreds of thousands of federal workers. All this and more on today's majority report. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, this goes out to everybody who 50,000 volunteers volunteering for Zoran Mamdani, the 500,000 or so close that voted for Mamdani on the first ballot.

Brad Lander, AOC, I mean... Shout out to Cynthia Nixon and Zephyr Teachout, too, for their... Cynthia Nixon, Zephyr Teachout, Jamal Bowman. God did that, I believe that, too. Shut up God. I want to thank God. The folks over at the WFP, just a huge, huge victory. The DSA folks that have been putting in...

much work. I found an old tweet the first time Zoran was ever sort of the mentioned in my circles was a DSA member. Let me get the name here. Daniel S Cargo Pro underscore on Twitter asking Michael to plug a phone bank on TMBS for a bunch of DSA candidates, including Zoran Mamdani for Assemblyman. Just incredibly exciting. literally three times uh stopped uh on the way to work uh one just involved a high five the other a mother who walking her child uh in a um uh you know stroller and she was like just the idea of getting universal pre-care uh daycare uh is huge um

I mean, despite the fact that we're told that he won, despite his platform, he won despite his platform. I mean, this is, we will get into the negative reactions to him, but it is absolutely fascinating to watch the full spectrum of people who are terrified or upset or disillusioned by. mom dani's win and understand like his win was incredibly decisive i would have never hoped for such a victory nobody i mean i think we were uh fairly optimistic over the past couple of days uh but emma's magical thinking is is infectious but the optimism was like by the eighth round we think he has a chance

not that he would so decisively win remember 25 million dollars a former president former head of the congressional black caucus a former mayor billionaire mayor The Financial Times had $35 million

I would have no doubt that it was more than you know the supposed 25 The New York Times I mean the forces arrayed against Mamdani it's

I don't have the imagination to come up with more forces. Like I don't know what else it would be. You know. The Pope got involved? Yeah.

The former, I mean, the late Pope. It's, I mean, it's unclear. Like, honestly, like, I don't. George W. Bush, like, I'm trying to think of, like, some New York figure. I suppose Giuliani, but Giuliani probably did come out against Mounted. It's just that we don't, we don't really know.

uh ed caught i like i i i don't um the brooklyn democratic party endorsed quamo and that's where momdani had his biggest win it's just very very difficult to come up with a more stark a sense of how opposed he was, than how opposed he was. He won in three of the biggest boroughs, at least in terms of voting, but Brooklyn and Manhattan and Queens. And Queens was really the one that was, I think, most surprising for people. And a decent showing in Staten Island, too. decent showing in Staten Island

but the numbers in Staten Island of Bronx were much less in terms of voting there was about 200,000 more votes cast in this primary than in 2021. It felt like there was a lot more but even still that's over 20%

increase and the youth vote and the first time voters that is really in many respects the big story but you will hear

over and over again he had a good Instagram game he was good on social media they had 50,000 volunteers they knocked on significantly over a million doors in New York City

and that type of mobilization and we were talking about this and it's sort of like been the theme for the past six years in the wake of well maybe even you know eight years in the wake of sanders 2016 campaign and then as it was sort of um instrumentalized in aOC's 2018 campaign they've got the money we've got the people but i will also say matching funds public matching funds is also very important because you can have the people you could have

50,000 volunteers but you still need paid coordinators to coordinate them and that matching funds was huge but uh this is and you know you're going to hear um storylines like it was um despite his uh... platform and well if uh... andrew quomo hadn't been such a sex pest and and uh... if he hadn't uh... been so uh... hated and corrupt in that that i think that's probably true but had andrew quamo last name not been quomo he wouldn't have uh... he would have gotten any votes lander would have beat him And you don't see former governors run for mayor unless they're just like looking to try and run for president. I mean, so there's a reason why, and I think like, you know, again, Bradlander was instrumental in this in many respects.

uh the cross endorsement the the the notion of solidarity the understanding like i think lander realized you know uh a month or two out that there was just no hope for him to win uh but his policies and his disposition in his politics far more aligned with um monday's than with quamos and just uh you know i think has a genuine love of the city But Mamdani is the one who could defeat Cuomo, not Lander. Be Cuomo in Manhattan. Yeah. But so just an amazing night, incredibly exciting.

Here is, we will reference, I don't know if we're going to play Andrew Cuomo's loser speech. because, you know, they framed it so tightly that you can't tell like it was like he was in a closet. All the people that endorsed him to lose to Zoran didn't want to line up behind him. Yeah, I don't know where Bill Clinton was at the party.

Here is Zoran Mamdani Tuesday night. And it wasn't that late. It was probably about 11, 11.30 when he gave his his victory speech. Thank you, my friends.

Tonight, we made history. In the words, in the words of Nelson Mandela, it always seems important. possible until it is done. My friends, we have done it. I will be your Democratic nominee for the mayor of New York City. An hour ago, I spoke with Andrew Cuomo about the need to bring this city, about the need to bring this city together as he called me to concede the race. Donnie's like a class in that moment, without a doubt.

I mean, the amount of smears leveled towards Mom Dani. And the thing that's been really impressive about him, and I think really resonated with people, is he addressed all of these things head on. In an era when anti-Semitism has been so weaponized to deport people, to disappear people, to arrest people, to kick people out of college, to shut them down, to get them kicked off of Twitch, to, you know, allowing for the funding of a genocide. the bombing of multiple nations he addressed it head on it's very impressive now i appreciate mom donnie's class there he's the winner i also very much appreciate the eight this from bradlander Andrew Cuomo Andrew Cuomo is in the past

he is not the present or future of New York City I mean that's the left progressive synergy that we all need 100%. And again like you know lander was i think very instrumental i think you know i think their appearance on colbert

or late show whatever it's called um regardless of how that came about and that question was uh uh levied by uh uh uh colbert and i still sort of maybe it's just sort of wishful thinking and projection but I still sort of get the sense that that was not a spontaneous question from Colbert that that that was in some way pre-planned but regardless the idea of Landers the highest ranking Jewish official in New York City sitting next to Mamdani having endorsed him talking about the idea of a Jew and a Muslim campaigning together and bringing people together really created a permission structure for, I think, a lot of people who would otherwise be hesitant to vote from Ondani.

or sucked into the Cuomo sort of endorsement complex indeed we will talk more about that later although in just a moment we're going to be talking to Dave Weigel about this race and the implications first couple words from our sponsors I've been a user of delete me for eight nine ten years what delete me does is it makes it easy and quick and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Delete me, does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites.

There is a whole host of reasons why you want to do this, to maintain your privacy, to keep yourself in this type of political climate from being doxed, but also increasingly, scammers fissures are using this information in conjunction with other information they can buy to target you and scam you

and con you like I've read stories about them getting names and emails from data brokers that they go and buy because all these data brokers have your information and you can just go in there and buy it. And then sending like QR codes on fake packages.

QR codes like, you know, check this QR code for a $5 coupon or something like that. And then fishing scams. I want to thank Delete me for sponsoring today's episode. And I want to thank Delete me for protecting both my personal privacy and the privacy of my business. Obviously, with an online presence like I have, very important to me. you can take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for delete me now at a special discount for you get 20% off your delete me plan by texting majority to 64,000 it's the only way to get 20% off is to text the word majority to the number 64,000 that's majority to 640000 message and data rates may apply delete me will send you a monthly basis a digest of what you information it's removed and from where it's super easy you should check it out honestly also um people know that i've been uh working on trying to get rid of uh all the plastic crap in

my house also you live in new york city you don't have that much room uh in your apartment for a huge 40 gallon jug of uh of detergent or dishwashing liquid or any of that stuff Americans throw 25% more trash from Thanksgiving and New Year's. They have an estimated 5 billion plastic hand soap and cleaning bottles are thrown away each year. Most of those formulas are like 90% water. So why do we need to put it in a huge plastic jug and then lug it home from the supermarket? Blue Land is on a mission to eliminate single-use plastic by reinvents. preventing cleaning essentials to be better for you and the planet.

They've got the same powerful clean you're used to, but the idea is simple. They offer refillable cleaning products with a beautiful, cohesive design that looks great on your counter. Blue, yellow, pink bottles, you keep reusing so you know which is which. The blue is for the windows. The pink is for the bathroom. The yellow is for, you know, the all-around cleaner. they send you little tablets refill started about $2.25. I mean $2.25. You fill it up of water, you drop in a tablet, shake, and you've got your cleaning supplies. But I also use their dishwashing tablets. I use their laundry tablets, their hand soap. The stuff is great. It takes up far less space.

they send you little canisters in which to contain them blue land trusted in over a million homes like i say mine as well blue land has a special offer for our listeners right now get 15% off your first order by going to blueland dot com slash majority you don't want to miss this blueland dot com slash majority 15% off that's blueland dot com slash majority get 15% off we'll put all the information on uh the products for today in the podcast and youtube descriptions. Quick break, Dave Weigel from Semaphore. Thank you. We are back. Sam Cedar on the Majority Report, Emma Vigland out today, although she's on her honeymoon,

but guess what she's going to interrupt because she's very happy. Joining us, returning to the program, Dave Wigle, National Political Affairs Correspondent for Semaphore. Did I get that right? Yeah, that's right. I'm not a big title, guys. As long as people pronounce my name correctly, which is way harder, which you do. Okay. So Mr. Dave Weigel, ladies and gentlemen. So Dave, I mean, we were just talking just briefly beforehand about how it is much harder, at least for some of the press, to surprise the press in the wake of the distant wake of AOC's victory, that when you see like a Democratic primary and a progressive challenger, a lot of people, you know, get in there. to do interviews so these don't come out of the blue at the same time that's got to be true

for the person they're running against and um what makes this win by mondani so uh shocking is the size of it um tell us about about those expectations yeah when i was in the city i left before the election but i was there covered all the candidates uh quoma was the hardest to cover, which is part of the story. He didn't really do a lot of campaigning. People were optimistic, but the hope was that if you were on the modana campaign, you would end election night, maybe tied with Cuomo, maybe Cuomo's up one, maybe you're up one, and it can't really be settled until the rank choice count.

And I feel like I can't, I can't in live broadcast, explain rank choice again, but I feel like everyone gets it now. Actually, they're pretty good Momdani videos explaining it where he uses different sorts of foods. But anyway, that was the expectation was, okay, he has a pass to victory, but no one was saying Cuomo will concede on election night that he can't win the primary. And if you look at the polling, it wasn't all wrong in this, it was all wrong in the same way. There was one poll by public policy polling that was pretty good, but the rest had Cuomo locked in around 35, 6, 7%, and then it had Mamdani behind him with a, scattering of votes for these other candidates, a lot of whom said, rank me somewhere on your, on your Zoron ballot,

or rank Zoron somewhere on your ballot for me, right? If you're Brad Lander, this is the main character and that whole thing. I'm, you know, I'm co-endorsing Zoran. If you're voting for me, rank Zoran second. So their vote collapsed. Lander is the least of all, but Adrian had people who were polling at 8% suddenly got in three or four. All that vote went to Mamdani, and there was,

there was a lot happening here from neighborhood to neighborhood. Some of this was just, Cuomo was the least popular candidate in the race. He was the frontrunner, but he had the highest negatives. And Bamdani consolidating support when people said, yeah, I'm going to vote for him. And then also for one of the other, not Cuomo's. I'm not going to rank Cuomo on my ballot. One that made it very clear that Cuomo couldn't continue. Two, that created this surge for Mamdani, where he's now, he's ending up with more votes than anyone's won in Democratic primary as a winner since, I think, 1989, before he was born when David Dinkins was running against Ed Cobb.

And that is not what they, even the most optimistic mom-dani supporters, DSA, did not think that would happen. This is every, they were blowing out turnout. And there are all these neighborhoods and other real New Yorkers can in there and I can. But neighborhoods where they said, yeah, if we can draw even in this area, or maybe Cuoma's going to win that because that's a terrible place for progress as we never win there, just was winning or doing or drawing even in all kinds of places that they did not think they would compete in. Well, isn't that the story? I mean, like the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the. it seems to me, were off because they had

just no way of modeling what the turnout was going to be. Although, to be fair, it was PPP actually did get it pretty, pretty correct, at least to somewhat. But the

those down ballot, I don't know how else to say them, the ones who got the other candidates who got in the lower single digits seems to me that what happened there was that internally they may have hit their vote totals that they had anticipated. It's just that there was a 20 to 25 percent greater electorate than they had imagined would be. Yeah. And Cuomo got this wrong, too, because he expected, I compared

this in one of the pieces I report the election to Jedb Bush's campaign 10 years ago thought Donald Trump is great for us because this is going to be tough race. We're Jeb Bush. Not everyone loves the Bush family anymore, but obviously Trump is so unacceptable, though if we get one-on-one with Trump, we'll beat him. And a lot of people thought that. And that was wrong. Mamdani just had broader appeal than Cuomo's campaign thought it would. That's what I was getting into with the vote count. And the campaigning really did matter. And I was there not the peak of the Israel discourse, but right after, where Mamdani refused to say, for example, that he's fordivist of Israel as a Jewish state as opposed to a Democratic state.

you know, Bibi Netanyahu gets to be prime minister, but they're going to have to change some laws. Nothing he's going to do that. He defended saying if Netanyahu came to America, he would arrest him and give him to the international criminal court. He defended, not defended, I want to get it right, because a lot of people who don't like him are just calling him an anti-Semite, which is not true.

But Ma'bani was when asked to condemn globalize the Intifada, saying, well, intifada means resistance. I'm not going to completely. All these things, a lot of Cuomo people and a lot of Democrats, said, well, that's going to be disqualifying, right? And there just weren't disqualifying because him running as a progressive who is going to raise taxes on the rich to make transportation free, child care free, at least to try that stuff, that was very popular.

And that actually knitted together both progressives and a lot of, let's say, normal liberals, not the progressives aren't normal. You know what I mean? Just people who were like Elizabeth Warren, totebag people, Biden voters, who said, and Mamdani told me this, like they look at Trump and say, how come he. How come he gets to run and promise things he can't deliver and excite the working class? And we don't. Why don't we promise big things to get people excited? Even if you try it and you only get half of it, why not try?

And that he was the one candidate doing that for most of the race. Everyone else was coming up with something that you could get it vetted by Center for Responsible Federal Budget or it wouldn't worry people. You wouldn't get a quote in the third paragraph in New York Times story from Partnership for New York, saying this this wouldn't work him just going in saying no I'm progressive things should cost less we should attack the rich was so simple not simplistic but simple

that it built a bigger coalition and a lot of people who maybe even 20 years ago might have cared more about what his position on Israel was just they didn't that wasn't their issue I mean Mamdani won people who clearly disagree with him on that and just said yeah I'm not electing Secretary of State I'm electing a mayor

did you do you have any sources around the whole late show stephen colbert thing there's some controversy about that about that question um and i have my own uh little pet theory about it but um uh you know just having some predisposition to who you know uh stepan colbert is but what did you do you have any sense from the campaign uh i don't know if you've had any sources you've talked to anybody about that because that was handled very very well. And it seems to me that that was

the most opportune thing for Mamdani to be sitting next to Bradlander the highest ranking Jewish elected official in New York city. I mean, there's a permission structure there, right?

No, there is. And I was, I was hesitating how much of the entire history that should we get into this segment. But I say 20 years ago, because there was a time, especially during like the second Intifada, where not supporting Israel to the hill, for a lot of people, meant not supporting a country that could be destroyed.

And for a lot of people who only know Israel since then, Netanyahu being prime minister for all about a couple of years since 2009, you're looking at Israel dominating of the airspace and destroying Iran's military capacity. you are looking at colleges I should say this Trump administration getting colleges to deport people because they criticize Israel I'm not trying to get into every single voter

psychology but it's just a very different landscape and yes there are a lot of progressive Jewish people who say well I would love yes Israel should exist I am a Zionist although that word becomes harder for some people to say but as a Zionist they don't support 100% of this that's become a very comfortable position for a lot of progressive Jewish voters and a lot of people like Lander, and I saw that. I spent a little bit of time covering Lander as he campaigned, and that was the kind of vote, he was getting a lot of those

voters who were, they're not about the demand, the end of Israel, they just said, is there, maybe we can back up a little, maybe we can put some pressure on Netanyahu. It was more complicated than saying, you are not saying the right things about Israel, you're making Jewish people feel unsafe. It just didn't play out the way that people thought it might, making that attack, And the way Mamdani handled it, I mentioned this before, but the way that he dealt with the question of, should does Israel have a right to exist as Jewish state? He was so nimble in saying it, he believes that should be a democratic state that he doesn't believe in any state being a religious state. You can get into an argument this often happens. Well, what about Saudi Arabia? What about this country that has a state religion? But people hadn't seen a Democrat try that. They usually get away from the question because it's an uncomfortable question. His willingness to say, this is what I think. It's not what Nanyahu thinks. I disagree with him, but vote for me on some other issue. It was just very effective.

And I'm really not even trying to make an endorsement of what is the one true correct position on this. Just him as a communicator was able to say, yeah, there's going to be, like, any mayor, you're going to have some stuff that you hate me for, and it will not affect your life most of the time. Even I interviewed one of the kids for Comptroller who didn't win. Momdani supports BDS, which a lot of states have made illegal. And the cancer controller was saying, yeah, we're not going to defund cities investments in Israeli companies.

Like, he's not going to get all this done. It became more of a symbol of Mamdani was really fearless and could go into any interview and could defend himself. And I kept growing as a contrast with Cuomo, who was very prickly and did not do interviews, not many, didn't show up to most of the forums, showed up to two televised debates, and was trying to beat kind of beast out all the negativity

in his record. it, his lawsuits, et cetera, the Israel issue became, not for everybody, but it came for a lot of people, just evidence, oh, this guy can go into the Lions Day, he's not afraid of anything. Yeah. The way he changed that was really powerful for the campaign. Yeah, I agree. And let's just talk. I mean, the, I think we're going to get a sense in the next couple of days what Cuomo's

going to do. Because on one hand, this beating was significant enough. I think that just, you know, that. Um, it seriously, I think his calculation has to be, he's savvy enough to know, like, he may not, he, he very well could get crushed in a general election, um, particularly the, the chair of the Brooklyn, uh, Democratic Party has already come out and endorsed, um, Mom and Donnie, which is huge. I, I suspect we're going to see some other Democratic county chairs or borough chairs, uh, do this as well. Um, and it's going to put Democrats in the state. state in a very tough position. It's a big risk to take to back Cuomo now. But there's also going to be a huge amount of money that's going to want to try and convince him to run. But I actually think in this instance, Cuomo is not as ambitious. He doesn't want to go and be embarrassed

and losing that general election again. So it's going to be interesting. But let's just for a moment, what are the implications nationally because after eric adams won the mayorality uh in 22 um he was being touted as a national candidate we it defined the question of crime for democrats it uh defined the question of immigration in many respects for democrats um it was it became this blueprint obviously a lot of those same people are not going to you know are trying to make excuses about Mondani's a unique candidate this and that you know true you need to have very good candidate

that helps but what are the implications are going to be going forward and particularly also on the question of Israel like there's he was very brave about it but the point is the context is very different than it was 10 20 years ago Yeah. Democrats are going to give themselves some space on this, which maybe is a funny way to put it, but you saw it today, and I was tracking for the follow-up I was writing. What are Democrats saying? How soon does Chuck Schumer endorse? Because on paper, you've got a week before it's an official result before the rank choice vote confirms that he won. But they have praised the kind of campaign he's run, Democratic leaders. Democrats who are not in New York, not commenting very much unless they're excited by like Rashida-Talib. Democrats, in the suburbs who think that he will be

unpopular have come out and criticize him. Laura Gillen, who represents part of Long Island and flipped a Republican seat back last year, she said, you know, she can't support him, but True District doesn't have any New York City in it. It's Long Island. So how willing will Mamdani

be to let some Democrats say, yeah, this guy's terrible, I'm not, I'm not voting for him if they're not in the city? Pretty willing. In talking to him in the campaign, they were very aware that, one, there'd be Israel attacks at the end of the race, which they navigated, and two, that there'd be some Democrats who just do don't support him, and how much are they get, because one thing everybody

learned in this race, did it, did it matter that Bill Clinton endorsed Cuomo? Did it matter that Mike Bloomberg did? Do you need just every Democrat to criticize him? How many days of a week are you going to have a Democrats in disarray over mayoral candidate story? But he was, very aware, one thing Mom Dominion said to me was, people forget this, but Eric Adams said that I'm going to be the voice of the Democratic Party. He won his race in 2021 and already started saying, I'm the new voice. I'm the Biden of New York, et cetera, et cetera. And he's not doing that. Mom, Donnie's not saying, because I won this primary, I am the alpha predator of Democratic candidates and everyone needs to listen to me. He's saying, yeah, I'm doing some stuff that worked for New York.

I'm doing to defend it. If you try to drag me into something way off topic, I will bring it back to affordability. So he's not going to demand that. It's not like the Republican Party in Trump, where at this point you criticize Trump and you lose a primary, they're going to be a little more flexible with the Democrat. If you need to run away from me, it's frankly something Joe Biden used to do of say, you know, I'll campaign for you or against you,

whatever helps. And with Mamdani, they do, I've just not gotten the impression talking to the campaign. They're going to snipe at people who tweet that he sucks. If it's all right, if you want to win your race somewhere else and say, I suck,

go ahead. And Lander, do you have a sense of Landers? Because, you know, people are now saying, like, challenge Goldman, but my sense is he wants to work in New York City government.

But what is your reporting in your sense of this? Nothing confirmed, but Lander was out of the comptroller job because he ran and lost this race. So people kept mentioning him as potential deputy mayor for Mondani. There's one thing, and Bill de Blasio I talked to you today, but before the lecture too, one thing a lot of people in liberal politics in New York say is, hey, Mandani knew that people would say, what's this 33-year-old doing running for mayor? He spent a lot of time talking to people with municipal experience. He would or wouldn't vote for him. Let's have a meeting. Let's talk about what this job entails. How do you do this? How do you break this logjam? He knows Albany because

he worked there. Lander knows New York because he's won all his races there. So that's you heard more about Lander. And I think that will be part. So Lander hasn't said, Lander's endorsed him, obviously, and he's the Democratic nominee. But to what extent would it help Mom Dani to say, yeah, and as mayor, I'm going to have somebody next to me who understands exactly how to fight Trump.

Look at this record. He's beaten Trump on the $80 million. He tried to take him from the city. He knows how to run things efficiently. Because they dealt with, there was a New York Times story about his lack of experience. And yeah, he's 33. When he's done, if he wins two terms, he'll be younger than

at the end of that than I am now. So that, Luckily, I'm not a New York voter, and I can't hold that against him. But like, they were aware there'll be people who say, but can this guy run the city? Will he get run over by Trump? Will he get run over by the police unions, et cetera? Because that's more the problem governing is progressive. You can ask to bless about that, too. You have your agenda.

Do you get minimized in Albany? Do you have the police union literally turn their backs on you and stop working? How is he going to navigate that? I think Lander will be part of that strategy. But other people who are comfortable with Mom Donnie, will be part of that strategy, too. Just validators who say not, I'm famous, vote for him because I'm famous, who say, trust me, this guy is a phenom and he will do the job effectively.

They know that's a problem. And that honestly was more of a, that was more of a hurdle for them than the Israel issue. The Israel issue, they, not to get all back into it, but they navigated that. Once you said, are I ready for a 33-year-old mayor who's never run anything this big before, that's the next question that Lander helps solve and figure an answer to. Dave Wigel Political Affairs Corresponded nationally

For Semaphore Folks can sign up We'll put a link to your newsletter It is an invaluable resource Your reporting is always Top-notch, really appreciate you coming on No, thanks. It's fun to talk about this Race is there to surprise everybody

You're my favorite kind This one was really just wonderful we definitely need it around these parts uh appreciate you coming on and uh we'll talk to you soon all right folks we're going to take a quick break when we come back chase strangio co-director of the ACLU LGBTQ and hiv rights project and attorney in the us v skirmetti case we'll be right back after this Thank you. You know, and I'm going to be able to be, you know, and we're going to be.

We're going to be able to be. I don't know. We are back, Sam Cedar, on the Majority Report. Emma Vigland out today, although we will be hearing from her, I believe, later in the program. Returning to the program, Chase Strangiot, co-director of the ACLU-LGBQ HIV Rights Project in plaintiff's attorney in U.S. v. Scermetti, where the ACLU, and correct me if I'm wrong, joined with the United States. It was filed under the Biden administration in suing the Attorney General, really the state of Tennessee, over their ban on health care for trans children, or really, more broadly speaking, anyone with any type of gender dysphoria or a whole host of other issues, it seems to me. but characterize the case for us, Chase, and welcome to the program. Well, thank you so much for having me, and you're right that this was a case that the ACLU and Lambda Legal filed against Tennessee on behalf of three adolescents and their parents and a Tennessee doctor who provides this medical care to both transgender and non-transgender children. The United States under the Biden administration also joined the lawsuit, and we both argued that Tennessee's law violated the equal protection rights.

of transgender young people by allowing treatments if those treatments were inconsistent, sorry, if those treatments were consistent with an individual sex, but banning them when they're inconsistent with an individual sex. So we raised the argument that this was a law that discriminated based on sex and transgender status, as well as infringed the rights of parents to direct the medical care of their minor children. And we brought that case up through the courts at a time when adolescents in Tennessee were losing access to this medical care. Their parents who had spent years trying to understand their children, how to best treat them, had their judgment displaced by the government of Tennessee,

were scrambling to find medical care. And so in March of 2023, we filed a lawsuit against Tennessee, and that is ultimately what became the case of United States v. Scrimetti at the United States Supreme Court. Now, the fundamental question, well, there was a couple questions, and it feels to me like, from what I've read, that the Roberts Court, the 6-3 divide, which I think people have come to sort of anticipate, really skirted the fundamental questions here in some ways, right? I mean, the question, the fundamental question is whether this is a case of sex discrimination as defined by court precedent. And so under what statutory framework is that, does that become the question? And then let's delve into sort of the way the court sidestepped really an assessment of that that was, consistent with what prior court cases have been?

Yeah, so it was a question brought under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And that amendment says that the states shall not treat any person differently. It's definitely subject to differential treatment. And our argument was, look, this is a law that treats people differently based on their sex. and that the reality is that if you are someone who's assigned male at birth, you can get testosterone treatment in order to undergo a typical male puberty. If you're assigned female at birth, you cannot. Straightforward case of sex-based discrimination. That's, you know, 50 years of precedent

of this court have held that when governments discriminate based on sex, the government has to come forward with a sufficiently strong justification for that discrimination. That's what we know as heightened scrutiny. Correct. That is what we know as heightened scrutiny. And the reason for heightened scrutiny is because there is, generally speaking, quite a bit of deference that courts show to the legislature. However, if the legislature gets into the business of treating people differently

because of characteristics that have been the basis for discrimination in the past, we want the judiciary to come in with a more scrutinizing eye. And for 50 years, when there has been sex discrimination by state governments or by the federal government, the court has applied heightened scrutiny. And here, in essence, as Justice Sotomayor says in dissent, the majority had to distort both logic and precedent to reach the conclusion that this law, which on its face mentioned sex 18 times was not sex-based discrimination. I mean, this law specifically says that its purpose is to encourage minors to appreciate their sex. It says it is to prevent people from becoming disdainful of their sex. And so, like you say, you could have all of the treatment

that could be potentially prescribed as long as it is in furtherance of maintaining your gender with your sex and I guess it was United States v. Virginia that basically said all gender-based classifications weren't heightened scrutiny. But they sized. sidestepped even the question of scrutiny, didn't they?

Like, they could have, they could have limited their ruling to the question as to whether this deserves heightened scrutiny or not, which is just a different, a higher level of standard in which you need to have a state, compelling reason by the state. And so theoretically, they could have said, this deserves a higher level of scrutiny, send it back down to the courts if the lower courts find as a finding, I guess, of fact that there's a reason for the government to have a higher set of scrutiny. I mean, there's a more compelling reason by the government to do this, then that's the case. But they went further than they needed to, in other words.

Yeah, I mean, I think in one sense they did and in one sense they didn't. I agree that all they needed to do was answer this question of whether it was, heightened scrutiny or not, and that their precedents clearly, in our view, mandate the finding the determination that this was a sex-based classification warranting heightened scrutiny. And then send it back down. The lower courts are in the business of making those determinations, weighing the evidence with the asserted justifications. Instead, the court answered the question.

They just did it in a way that feels disingenuous and defies really any sort of gloss. They said it's not a sex-based classification and therefore heightened scrutiny doesn't apply. They did not say that for some other reason heightened scrutiny doesn't apply. They determined that this law, in their view, did not draw distinctions based on sex. And that to me is what's so nonsensical about the decision. I think it is more narrow than if they had said something along the lines of it is sex discrimination. but only in this context do we not apply heightened scrutiny. They left intact, United States v. Virginia,

they left intact the 50 years of precedent saying all sex classifications weren't heightened scrutiny. They did so, however, by looking at this law and offering a nonsensical reading of it. I see. And that would place like Amy Coney Barrett's dissent, or I should say concurrence, concurring opinion, where she actually would have said that this was, that this does not, specifically does not trigger heightened scrutiny. Yeah, so there's three justices that would have gone even further. And Justice Barrett and her concurrence, she agrees that it doesn't discriminate based on sex.

And she sort of goes out of her way to say, even if it did discriminate based on transgender status, I don't think discrimination against transgender people as such warrants this type of scrutiny by the courts that we apply to discrimination based on race, based on sex, based on national origin, based on what was called legitimacy. And so she's going out of her way to signal that she's prepared to green light all sorts of discrimination against transgender people. The majority's opinion makes clear that it is only addressing this very narrow context. Let's talk about the implications of this specifically for young people in Tennessee and perhaps in other states across the country, maybe specifically, you know, maybe not even perhaps across the country. And then for transgender folk who are over the age of 18, because it seems like this also opens up the door for bans against any type of health care for transgender people. Yeah, I mean, so I think what's so hard about this, what's been so hard about the last two years, is that people like our clients in this case, the Williams family, have had to uproot their lives.

They've now traveled to four different states to access health care for their teenage child. And the reason for that is because their government has come in and said that you cannot make this one and only one, one decision for your child with respect to medical care because we think we know better. And they did not regulate the medical care. They did not start by studying the medical care. They just, from one day to another, completely banned it. And that's the same thing that has happened in half the states in this country. And I think for parents, and I'm a parent, and I just want people to think about what it would feel like if your child was suffering and you didn't know what to do for many years, which is the case with all of these families,

they're calling experts, they're doing research on the internet, they're trying to figure out what to do, and they finally come up with a solution. They see their child start to come back. They start to thrive from this medical care, which has been prescribed for this purpose in the United States for over 20 years. And because of changing political realities,

because of a heightened scrutiny in the bad sense of this care, all of a sudden it's unavailable. in their home state. All of a sudden, everything that they started to solve in their lives is at risk. And that's what's happening here. And the reality is, is the very same states that are banning this care are the states that during the pandemic said, parents have a right to send their kids to school without a mask. Parents have a right to ensure that their children are not taught about racism in schools. Parents have a right to stop their kids from getting vaccinations. Now we have the same state saying, but you know what parents don't have a right to

to provide gender affirming medical care to their minor children? And it's devastating for these families and they're scared and their kids are scared and their kids are internalizing all of this rhetoric that's coming from all levels of government, including the federal government, quite aggressively right now. What are the implications of this ruling for trans care writ large. I mean, obviously, there are going to be states that are going to protect care for trans folk. In those states that have passed, and I think it's, we're 23, some form of restriction on gender affirming care for minors. legally, do the states have room now to do this for people who are over the age of 18?

Well, we're starting to see states do that even before this decision from the Supreme Court, and that's one of the reasons why we've been fighting so hard. You know, some of the states that ban this care, Oklahoma, Florida, started, South Carolina, started to ban public funding for this care for adults. So Medicare, Medicaid, state Medicaid, state-employee benefits, all of a sudden losing that for adults. I think we can anticipate the escalation of care for, escalation of bans to reach care for adults.

I don't think this decision necessarily greenlights that as a constitutional matter, but I do think it emboldens the actors who want to cut off health care for transgender people to do so. The court was clear that at least as to their holding, the law did not discriminate based on transgender status, that that was based on the fact that it was limited to minors. Now, I can't say for sure that the next case that comes up before them, that deals with adults, that they're going to rule differently. But there was at least some limiting language in there about the fact that it concerned care for minors. I also think that were the federal government to take this action depending on how they would try to do so, there would be other

arguments available, especially if we see President Trump seeking to do something via executive order that would violate the separation of powers in some way, whether the president might try to overstep into the role of Congress. There would be other legal avenues available to challenge that. So certainly this is not a decision that answers questions under distinct legal theories that might be implicated if the federal government were to act. And we know right now, Congress, in the budget bill, both the Senate and the House version have a ban that would be national and scope on Medicaid coverage for gender affirming medical care for people of all ages. An overwhelming majority of trans people rely on Medicaid because of discrimination in employment, in housing, in education, in health care. And so when you have a community that is disproportionately living in poverty because of discrimination,

and disproportionately therefore relying on Medicaid to have Congress come in and suggest that they're going to ban a form of medical care under the Medicaid program. That's going to have a serious impact on trans people. So we're obviously watching that as well. Is that provision? I want to get back to just the federal ban in a second. But is that provision in Medicaid, which is in the reconciliation bill? Do you know if that has been subject to the bird rule scrutiny?

In other words, on its face, it sounds to me like something that would trick, would run afoul, the bird rule, which says that not only does everything in a reconciliation bill have to impact the federal government's budget, but it has to be for the purpose of impacting the federal budget. and it sounds to me like it's very difficult to pick out one subset of medical care that Medicaid provides and say we're doing this for budgetary reasons it's absurd

yeah especially when it's you know thinking about hormones they're disproportionately provided to non-transgender people for other purposes it's it's being reviewed by the parliamentarian today so that so that question we will we will get

the answer to imminently. Today or tomorrow, but likely today. And so the prospects of there being a federal ban are probably low, at least in terms of legislation, because

of the need in the Senate to have 60 votes to move that question forward. From an executive order, less so, but your sense is that there's a lot more legal grounds in which to contest that if it be con if it is a specific executive order whether

it that in regards to medicaid or some broader ban yeah absolutely i think there are legal mechanisms to challenge executive uh agency action especially executive orders if they seek to ban medical care or even restrict medical care depending on how they seek to go about doing that um in the aftermath of And we currently have a lawsuit challenging one piece of one of President Trump's executive orders that sought to coerce hospitals and other medical providers to stop providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender people under the age of 19. And that case is ongoing and includes the argument that the president is exceeding his constitutional authority by threatening federal funding to state institutions and

in that manner. So that litigation will continue. Litigation against adult bans will continue. There are theories available. But of course, it is troubling when the Supreme Court acts in such a way that so obviously distorts the language of a statute, the purpose and precedent related to the reconstruction amendments. And this is a court we're about, you know, to continue litigation. over another quintessential piece of the 14th Amendment, which is the birthright citizenship provision. And so if this court is so willing to move away from these critical constitutional protections,

as they did in Dobbs, as they did here in Scrametti, as they are continuing to do, I think we have to ask ourselves, what else is coming? And are we going to see these attacks as interconnected, or are we going to continue to let these powers divide us? uh... that's a uh... a great point and i i i'm fairly confident these are going to keep coming uh... and that assault on those uh... post-reconstruction uh... amendments are going to

i think just continue to build on themselves trace change uh... uh... go-director the a c lgbcq and hiv rights project uh... one of the plaintiff's attorneys in the uh... of the scrimetti case thank you so much for your time today really appreciate it Good to see here. Thanks so much. All right, folks. We're going to take a break and head into the fun half of the program,

and we're going to have fun, because we're going to celebrate the Montgomery victory. The, I think the... We will win. We will win. We will win. I do want to incur, you know, I had some. kind words say about Chuck Schumer how responsive he has been to me we will get to that in the fun half we'll hear from a wide array of

people of course you know we're just probably months away I mean Mamdani is not the official mayor of New York and you know I don't know when that when if the no-go zone stuff applies after his inauguration or if it happens at election we need to we need to check on that um sharia will start uh soon i would imagine in new york um will be uh only halal uh for you know there's a lot of changes that are going to happen obviously in the city uh We've been alerted by various right-wingers to all the things that we can anticipate.

It's over, now they're going to be extra afraid of ever coming into a city that they'll never see through media. Exactly. Exactly. Some combination of Mad Max and I guess Saudi Arabia, like something, like that combination, New York City but halal and rice hopefully by this time

next year $8. So just a reminder you can support this program by becoming a member at join the majority report.com. When you do, you not only get the free of commercials, but you get the fun half. You can I.M. Us. Can we get a moment

of silence for Richie Torrey's campaign for governor. He promised. Yeah. What kind of bull is this? Also, just a reminder, just coffee. Dot co-op, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate, use the coupon code majority. Get 10% off. Matt, left reckoning.

Yeah, Eskandar Sadegi and Derek Davison on talking about Iran last night. And we went into the veto of Dan Patrick, Lieutenant Governor of Texas's THC ban. And Abbott doing that and driving Patrick sort of insane. It's very funny what's going down in Texas. I don't really understand how they allowed a lieutenant governor to amass so much power. I don't understand how the Texas government works. very strange it's very strange i hope we see a civil war there see you in the fun half three months from now six months from now nine months from now and i don't think it's

going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now and i don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now but i think around 18 months out, we're going to look back and go like, wow. What? What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on for a second.

The majority report. Emma, welcome to the program. Hey. Matt. What is up, everyone? Fun hack. No, Mekine. You did it.

Let's go Brandon. Let's go Brandon. Bradley, you want to say hello? Sorry to disappointment. Everyone, I'm just a random guy. It's all the boys today. Fundamentally false. No, I'm sorry.

Women's... Stop talking for a second. Let me finish. Where is this coming from, dude? But dude, you want to smoke this? Seven and eight? Yes. All right.

Me? You're safe? Yes. Is this meat? Is it me? It is you. It's me. I think it is you.

Who is you? No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind? We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism. I'm going to go to life. Libertarians. They're so stupid though.

Common sense says, of course. Gobbled e-gook. We fucking nailed him. So what's 79 plus 21? Challenge men. I'm positivity. clovery. I believe 96, I want to say. 857, 210,

35, 501, 1 half, 3-8s, 9-11 for instance. $3,400, $19, $6.5,4, $3 trillion sold. It's a zero-sum game. Actually, you're making a think less. But let me say this. Poop. You can call it satire, Sam goes to satire. On top of it all, my favorite part about you is just like every day, all day,

like everything you do. Without a doubt. Hey, buddy, we see you. All right, folks. Folks, folks. It's just the week being weeded out, obviously. Yeah, sundown guns out. I don't know.

But you should know. People just don't like to entertain ideas anymore. I have a question. Who cares? Our chat is enabled. I love it. I do love that. Got a jump.

You got to be quick. I get a jump. I'm losing it, bro. Two o'clock. We're already late, and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulaw? Outrage.

What is wrong with you? Love you. Love you. Bye-bye.